{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_13200/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_13200","id":"gutenberg_13200","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13200","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - British","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church and state","Reformed Presbyterian Church (Scotland) -- History","Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland -- History","Reformed Presbytery of North America -- Doctrines","Reformed Presbytery of North America -- History"],"text":"ACT, DECLARATION,\n\nAND\n\nTESTIMONY,\n\nFOR THE\n\nWHOLE OF OUR COVENANTED REFORMATION, AS ATTAINED\nTO, AND ESTABLISHED IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND;\nPARTICULARLY BETWIXT THE YEARS 1638\nAND 1649, INCLUSIVE.\n\nAS, ALSO,\n\nAGAINST ALL THE STEPS OF DEFECTION FROM SAID REFORMATION, WHETHER IN\nFORMER OR LATER TIMES, SINCE THE OVERTHROW OF THAT\nGLORIOUS WORK, DOWN TO THIS PRESENT DAY:\n\nBY THE REFORMED PRESBYTERY.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPSALM IX, 4.--Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee: that it\nmay be displayed because of the truth.\n\nISAIAH VIII, 16.--Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my\ndisciples.\n\nJUDE, verse 3.--That ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was\nonce delivered to the saints.\n\nREVELATION III, 11.--Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou\nhast, that no man take thy crown.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTO WHICH IS NOW ADDED,\n\nA HISTORICAL AND DECLARATORY SUPPLEMENT.\n\n1850.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nThe Presbytery, soon after their erection, being convinced of the\nexpediency and necessity of emitting a judicial testimony, to discover\nto the world the principles upon which, as a judicatory of the Lord\nJesus Christ, they stood, in opposition to the different, so called,\njudicatories in the land; together with the agreeableness of these\nprinciples to the Word of God, the only rule of faith and practice, and\nto the covenanted constitution of the church of Scotland in her purest\nperiods; did therefore, after a proposal for said effect, agree in\nappointing one of their number to prepare a draft of this kind to be\nlaid before them, who, after sundry delays, to their grief of mind, at\nonce cut off their hopes of all assistance from him, in that or any\nother particular, by laying himself obnoxious to the censures of the\nchurch; which the presbytery, in duty both to him, to God, and to his\npeople, were obliged to put in execution against him, while he, in\ncontempt of that ordinance, and other means used for his conviction and\nrecovery, obstinately persists in his impenitency and defection. And\nalthough the presbytery, few in number, were thus diminished, yet, being\nstill resolved to prosecute their former design, they renewed their\nappointment upon another brother, who, in consequence of his\nundertaking, was allowed a cessation from his other public work, in\norder to expedite the proposed draft: and now, when nothing was expected\nthat should retard the finishing of such a necessary work, the\nlamentable fire of division, that had long been smothered, unhappily\nbroke forth into a violent flame, whereby the presbytery was rent\nasunder, and that brother, on whom the appointment was formerly laid,\nhappening to be of the separating party, a second stop was not only put\nto the publication of this testimony, but the presbytery, from the\nabsence of a brother removed to a distant part of the world, together\nwith the paucity of their number, were almost wholly discouraged from\nattempting again what they had been oftener than once disappointed in.\n\nBut notwithstanding of the above, with many other difficulties which we\nshall not at present take notice of, the presbytery, still considering,\nthat, even in their present circumstances, when their number is few and\ndespicable, their adversaries many, and such as are in repute in the\nworld, whereby the opposition made to them, and the conspiracy formed\nagainst the covenanted testimony of the church of Scotland maintained by\nthem, must needs be strong; there is yet a gracious door of opportunity\nleft open for them to attempt, in their judicative capacity, the\nprosecution and accomplishment of the necessary work formerly proposed;\nand which they could not but judge the Lord still called them unto,\nwhile after all the above-mentioned breaches made upon them, he still\ncontinued to give them a nail in his holy place, and a wall in Judah and\nJerusalem, _Ezra_ ix, 8, 9, they therefore again laid their appointments\nupon some others to prepare a draft of _An Act, Declaration, and\nTestimony_, &c., and which, under the favor of Divine Providence, has at\nlength been finished and laid before the presbytery. We only need to\nobserve further with reference to this, that the long delay of what is\nnow agreed upon did not proceed from any design in the presbytery, of\ndepriving either the people of their particular inspection, or the\ngeneration, of any benefit that might be obtained by a work of this\nnature, but partly from the fewness of their number, and great extent of\ntheir charge, and partly from the great distance of members' residence\nfrom each other, whereby they can seldom have access to meet all\ntogether, for expediting this or any other work of public concern they\nhave in hand.\n\nIt is, therefore, with an eye to the Wonderful Counselor (when Zion's\nfaithful counselors are so few) for light and direction in the\nmanagement of this great and important work, that the presbytery have\nresolved upon the publication hereof at this time, for the reasons which\nfollow:\n\n1. Because this duty of bearing witness for truth, and declaring against\nall error, and defection from it, and transmitting the same uncorrupted\nto posterity, is expressly enjoined on the church by the Spirit of God\nin the Scriptures of truth. _Psal._ lxxviii, 5: \"For he hath established\na testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded\nour fathers that they should make them known to their children.\"\n_Isaiah_ xliii, 10: \"Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord.\" _Matth._ x,\n32: \"Whosoever, therefore, shall confess me before men, him will I also\nconfess before my Father who is in heaven.\" _John_ xv. 27: \"Ye also\nshall bear witness.\" _Acts_ i, 8: \"And ye shall be witnesses unto me.\"\n\n2. Because, in agreeableness to the above scripture warrant, it has been\nthe constant practice of the church in all ages, when in such capacity,\njudicially to assert, and declare their approbation of the truths of the\neverlasting gospel, and attainments of the church, joined with the\ncondemnation of all contrary error, as appears from their harmonious\nconfessions: and particularly, this has been the honorable practice of\nthe once famous church of Scotland, witness her excellent confessions,\ncovenants, &c., whose posterity we are, and, therefore, in duty bound to\nhomologate, and approve her scriptural form and order, by a judicial\nasserting of her attainments, as saith the apostle, _Philip._ iii, 16:\n\"Nevertheless whereunto we have already attained, let us walk by the\nsame rule, let us mind the same thing.\" _Rev._ iii, 3: \"Remember,\ntherefore, how thou has received, and heard, and hold fast, and repent.\"\n\n3. That, notwithstanding many, both ministers and private Christians,\nhave been honored faithfully to publish their testimonies and\ndeclarations, and to seal them with their blood, in opposition to the\ngrowing defections in the land, being through the tyranny of the times\nprevented from acting in any other capacity: yet never, since the\nnational overthrow of the glorious structure of reformation, has any\nchurch judicatory; constituted purely on the footing of our covenanted\nestablishment, appeared in a judicial vindication of our Redeemer's\ninterest and injured rights.\n\n4. The unspeakable loss sustained by the present generation, through the\nwant of a full and faithful declaration of the covenanted principles of\nthe church of Scotland, which they in the loins of their ancestors were\nso solemnly engaged to maintain; whereby, as ignorance must be\nincreased, so prejudices are also gradually begotten in their winds\nagainst the truth in the purity thereof. And this, through the many\nmistaken notions at present prevailing among the different contending\nparties of professors in these nations, concerning the distinct\nordinances of divine institution, viz., the ministry and magistracy, or\necclesiastical and civil government; and, more especially, the\npresbytery reckon themselves, and all professing their allegiance unto\nChrist and his cause, obliged to maintain the testimony of our ancestors\nfor the divine institution and right constitution of civil government,\naccording to the law of God, as what they found to be, and still is,\nindispensably necessary for the outward defense and preservation of\nrighteousness and true religion; and because the very foundation and\nends of this ordinance have been doctrinally subverted, and the\ngeneration taught the most licentious principles concerning it, by a\nbody of professed witnesses among ourselves: and this they design to do,\nwithout (as they are slanderously reported of by some) laying aside\nthemselves, or withdrawing others, from the study of internal and\nhabitual or practical holiness.\n\n5. To wipe off the reproach of that odium cast upon the presbytery and\ncommunity belonging thereto, by some who invidiously call them a\nheadless mob, whose principles cannot be known, anti-government men, men\nof bloody principles, &c., than which nothing can be more unjust:\nseeing, as a body distinct from all others, they have still stood upon\nthe footing of the covenanted establishment, as has been frequently\ndeclared to the world, and as the constitution of the presbytery bears;\nso that they can no more be said ever to have wanted a proper testimony\nexhibiting their principles to the world, than the reformed church of\nScotland, whereof they are a part.\n\n6. The present broken and divided situation of the members of CHRIST'S\nmystical body, together with the abounding of error, seems necessarily\nto require it as a proper mean, under the divine blessing, for gathering\nagain the scattered flock of Christ, the chief shepherd, to the one\nsheepfold, and putting a stop to the current of prevailing apostasy and\ndefection.\n\nFor these reasons (with more that might be adduced) the presbytery find\nthemselves in duty bound, to God, the present and succeeding\ngenerations, to throw in their small mite of a testimony, against the\nmanifold avowed backslidings and defections of all degrees of men, both\nin the former and present times, from the precious truths of Christ, and\npurity of his ordinances; unto the maintenance whereof, not only they,\nbut all in these lands, are solemnly bound by covenant engagements.\n\nAnd, to conclude, let none mistake the presbytery's aim and intention,\nin the whole or any part of the following testimony, as if they minded\nnothing else but magistracy, &c., and that to have civil government, and\ngovernors established, according to the rule of God's word, was all the\nreligion they intended, without regarding or opposing any other of the\nprevailing evils and iniquities of the present time. So some are pleased\nto allege, as has been hinted above; but such might do well to consider,\nthat, as the sovereign and distinguishing goodness of God is clearly\nevidenced in giving his statutes and judgments unto his Israel, in all\nages, while he has not dealt so with the other nations of the world,\nwherein his will is manifestly revealed, determining his people's duty\nin all their regulations; so his glory is equally concerned, that they\nreceive, observe, keep pure and entire, all the ordinances he hath\nappointed in his word. The sinful prostitution of any of these, or\nbreaking over the boundaries which Jehovah hath set is an evident\ncontempt of his sovereign authority, and violation of the moral law. God\nrequires of his people an universal respect to all his ordinances and\ncommandments. Hence what is designed by them in this undertaking, is\nequally to testify their adherence unto, and approbation of the\ndoctrine, worship, discipline and government of the house of God; and to\nsignify their opposition to, and dissatisfaction with, all the\napostatizing, backsliding courses in principle and practice, from that\nreformation purity, both in church and state (which, as the attainment\nof the nations of Britain and Ireland, was by them accounted their chief\nornament and glory), that have taken place, especially in this kingdom,\nsince our woful decline commenced: whereby the witnesses for Scotland's\ncovenanted reformation, have been deprived of any legal benefit, as\nwell, since as before the late revolution; in which the reformation,\nneither in civil nor ecclesiastical constitutions, was adopted. The\nintent, therefore, of this work is of very great importance; no less\nbeing proposed, than the right stating of the testimony for the\ncovenanted interest of Christ in these lands, and judicial vindication\nof all the heads thereof, after such a long and universal apostasy\ntherefrom: a work that must needs be attended with great difficulties,\nand labor under manifold disadvantages, as in other respects, so\nparticularly from the consideration of the temper of this age, wherein\nnothing almost is pleasing, but what is adapted to the taste, not of the\nbest, but of the greatest: and naked truth without the varnish of\nflattery, and painting of carnal policy, is generally treated with\ncontempt, and exposed to ridicule. And therefore, to remove as much as\npossible the prejudice of a critical age, who are ready to reject every\nthing as new, which is in some respects singular, and not suited to\ntheir favorite sentiments; the presbytery have endeavored, in this work,\nto conform, as much as possible, to the faithful contendings of former\nhonest contenders for the truths and testimony of JESUS, and that, both\nas to matter and manner: and as the grounds of this testimony are not\nany needless scrupulosities, or strange novelties, but precious and\nweighty truths, of the greatest value and importance, and of nearest\naffinity unto the continued series and succession of the testimonies of\nthe church of Scotland, in former and more ancient periods; so it is the\npresbytery's ambition, that nothing, as to the subject matter of what is\nhere contained, be looked upon as theirs, but may be regarded as an\nancient plea, wherein is nothing but what has been maintained and\nconfirmed by authors of the greatest fame and reputation in the church;\nhas been asserted by the greatest confessors, and sealed by the best\nblood of the honored and faithful martyrs of Jesus: so that it may\nappear, the cause and truths here judicially stated and vindicated, are\nnot of yesterday's date, but the same old paths and good way, that we\nare commanded to ask for, and walk in, though paths that are not now\nmuch trodden, a way that is not much paved by the multitude of\nprofessors walking therein.\n\n\n\n\nACT, DECLARATION, AND TESTIMONY.\n\nPART I.\n\nContaining a brief historical narration of the several periods of the\nTestimony of the Church of Scotland, and of the faithful contendings of\nthe witnesses for Christ, particularly from the commencement of the\nReformation in these lands, down to the late Revolution; with the\nPresbytery's approbation thereof.\n\n\nPLOUGHLANDHEAD, JUNE 6, 1761.\n\nThe which day and place, the Reformed Presbytery being met, and taking\ninto their most serious consideration, the deplorable situation of the\ninterest of Christ and religion at present, in these sinning lands\nwherein so few are asking for the old path, saying, Where is the good\nway, that we may walk therein? but, on the contrary, an avowed apostasy\nand backsliding from the right ways of the Lord, is by the generality\ncarried on, with a secret undermining of reformation interests, by some,\nunder more specious pretenses; and, further, considering the general\ndeluge of error and heresy, that has overrun these lands, and the swarm\nof erroneous heretics that has overspread the same, making very impious\nattacks upon the most part of revealed religion, who, notwithstanding,\nhave found such shelter under the wings of a Laodicean church, and\nalmost boundless state toleration, that they walk on without fear in the\nforesaid broad way of sin and error. And, moreover, all kinds of sin and\nwickedness so universally abound and pass, without any suitable check,\nthat he who departs from iniquity maketh himself a prey; together with\nthe woful insensibility, and deep security of all, under our spiritual\nplagues and impending temporal strokes. And yet, while the land so\nevidently groans under its inhabitants, very few either acknowledge\nthemselves guilty, or turn from the evil of their ways, saying, What\nhave we done? Also, considering the horrid breach and contempt of sacred\nvows unto the Most High, the great effusion of the saints' blood, shed\nin our late persecution under prelacy (which is yet to be found in our\nskirts), and the faithful testimony they therewith sealed, remains\nburied under the gravestones, both of ecclesiastical and civil deeds of\nconstitution, unto this day. So that we may rather admire, that the Lord\nhath not made such inquisition for blood, as to make our land an\naceldama, than that we are yet under a dispensation of divine\nforbearance. All which is followed with a deep oblivion of most or all\nof the memorable instances of the Lord's goodness, mercy and power,\nmanifested unto his church, in these lands; the remembrance whereof\nought still to be retained, and the same acknowledged with thankfulness,\nby all the children of Zion, unto the latest ages.\n\nWherefore the presbytery, amidst their many difficulties, partly noticed\nin the introduction, as a court of the true Presbyterian Covenanted\nChurch of CHRIST in Scotland, constituted in the name of the LORD JESUS\nCHRIST, the alone KING and HEAD of his church, judicially to\ncommemorate: Likeas, they did, and hereby do acknowledge, with the\nutmost gratitude, the great goodness and tender mercy of our God unto\nour church and land; who, in consequence of that early new covenant\ngrant, made by JEHOVAH to his eternal SON, to give him the heathen for\nhis inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession,\ncaused the day spring from on high to visit us. Our glorious Redeemer,\nthat bright and morning Star, having, by his almighty power, shaken oft\nthe fetters of death, wherewith it was impossible that he could be held,\nand, as a victorious conqueror, leading captivity captive, ascended into\nthe highest heavens, and there sat down on the right hand of God, did\nvery soon discover his cordial acceptance of, and superlative delight\nin, possessing his Father's extensive grant, by stretching forth the\nlines of his large and great dominion unto the distant nations of the\nworld, involved in the thickest darkness of stupidity and idolatry; and,\nin a particular manner, did, as the glorious sun of righteousness,\ngraciously illuminate this remote and barbarous isle, causing the\nrefulgent beams of gospel light to dissipate the gross darkness that,\ncovered the people, which prevailed so far (according to very authentic\nhistorical accounts), that, about the beginning of the third century,\nthose of the highest dignity in the nation, voluntarily enlisted\nthemselves under the displayed banner of CHRIST, the captain of\nsalvation, and became nursing fathers and nursing mothers to his church,\nemploying their power to root out Pagan idolatry, and bring their\nsubjects under the peaceful scepter of the SON of GOD. This plant of\nChristianity having once taken root, did, under all the vicissitudes of\ndivine providence, grow up unto a spreading vine, which filled the land,\nand continued to flourish, without being pressed down with the\nintolerable burden of prelatical or popish superstition: the truths and\ninstitutions of the gospel being faithfully propagated and maintained in\ntheir native purity and simplicity by the Culdees some hundreds of years\nbefore ever that man of sin and son of perdition, by the door of\nprelacy, stepped into the temple of God in Scotland. Those early\nwitnesses for CHRIST, having no other ambition but that of advancing\npiety and the doctrines which were according to godliness, were\ntherefore called _Culdees_, that is, _Cultores Dei_, or worshipers of\nGod. The doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the house of\nGOD being thus established, continued for many years, taught and\nexorcised, according to divine institution. But, in process of time, the\nChurch of CHRIST in this land came to be assaulted with the corruptions\nof the see of Rome, by means of Palladius, the Pope's missionary to the\nBritons, who made the first attempt to bring our fathers' necks under\nthe anti-christian yoke, which gradually increasing by little and\nlittle, clouded the sunshine of prosperity the church then enjoyed, till\nabout the eleventh century, when the Romish fraternity fully established\nthemselves, by usurping a diocesan supremacy over the house of God;\nafter which a midnight darkness of popish error and idolatry overwhelmed\nthe nation, for near the space of five hundred years. Yet, even in this\nvery dark period, the LORD left not himself altogether without some to\nbear witness for him, whose steadfastness in defense of the truth, even\nunto death, vanquished the inhuman cruelty of their savage enemies. The\nhonor of the church's exalted Head being still engaged to maintain the\nright of conquest he had obtained over this remote isle, and raise up\nhis work out of the ruins, under which it had lain so long buried; he,\nabout the beginning of the 15th century, animated some valiant champions\n(Messrs. Hamilton, Wishart, and others) with a spirit of truth and\nheroic courage, to contend against the abominations of the Babylonish\nwhore, whose labors, by the blessing of Heaven, were rendered\nsuccessful, to open the eyes of some to see, and engage many others to\ninquire after, and espouse the truth as it is in JESUS. These, not\nregarding the fear of man, nor the cruelty of their enemies, but as good\nsoldiers of JESUS CHRIST, enduring hardness, chose, rather than desert\ntheir Master's cause, to offer their bodies to be devoured by the\ntormenting flames, no more merciless than their hellish persecutors;\nwhile in that fiery chariot, through the serial regions, their souls\nascended to the celestial country. And herein, also, did GOD frustrate\nthe expectation of that monster of iniquity, Cardinal Beaton (whose\nmemory let it for ever perish), and his wicked accomplices, and turned\ntheir counsel into foolishness, who, by the death of a few zealous\ncontenders for the faith, intended the total suppression of CHRIST'S\ntruth for ever; but GOD having purposed the contrary, made the effusion\nof their blood the occasion of rousing many from the deep sleep of gross\nignorance, by putting them to search into the truth of those doctrines,\nwhich these martyrs sealed with their blood; so that JESUS CHRIST, the\nonly true light in the orb of the gospel, began again to shine forth\nwithin this realm.\n\nUpon this begun revival of reformation, the glory of the LORD went\nremarkably before his people, and the GOD of Israel was their reward,\nuniting the hearts, and strengthening the hands, both of noble and\nignoble, to a vigorous and active espousing of his gospel, and concerns\nof his glory, in opposition to the tyranny of the lordly bishops,\npersecuting rage, and masked treachery of the two bloody Marys, the\nmother and daughter, who then successively governed, or rather\ntyrannized, in Scotland. Their number, as well as their zealous spirit,\nstill increasing, they, for the more effectual management of this noble\nenterprise, entered into covenants to advance that begun work of\nreformation, and to defend the same and one another in the maintenance\nthereof, against all opposition whatsoever. Several such covenants our\nearly reformers solemnly entered into at Edinburgh, Perth and Leith, in\nthe years 1557, '59, '60 and '62. In 1560, _the Confession of the Faith,\nand doctrine believed and professed by the Protestants within, the realm\nof Scotland_, was compiled and civilly ratified, or allowed of, in free\nand open parliament, afterward sworn to in the National Covenant _annis_\n1580, 1581 and 1590. At the same time, some other acts were passed, in\nfavor of reformation; one against the mass and abuse of the sacraments;\nanother, abolishing the Pope's jurisdiction and authority with this\nrealm, &c. In the above mentioned year 1560, the first book of policy\nand discipline, containing the form and order of presbyterial church\ngovernment, was composed, approven and subscribed by the ministry, and a\ngreat part of the nobility. Thus, by the wisdom and power of GOD, who\ntakes the wise in their own craftiness, by means, especially, of the\nindefatigable labors of the renowned Mr. KNOX (whose memory is still\nsavory in the churches), was this surprising work of reformation\nadvanced, until it obtained the authority of a law; whereby, was not\nonly the presbyterian protestant interest ratified, but anti-christian\nsupremacy and superstition abolished.\n\nThe church, gradually increasing in beauty and perfection, did, with\nmuch painfulness and faithful diligence, labor after a more full\nestablishment of the house of GOD, in all its privileges, until, by\nperfecting the second book of discipline, they completed the exact model\nof presbytery, which, though they had enjoyed national assemblies for a\nconsiderable time, yet was not brought to such an entire conformity to\nthe divine pattern, nor so generally acquiesced in until now, that it\nwas unanimously approven by the assembly 1590, and particularly enjoined\nto be subscribed by all who did bear office in the church; and, at last,\nthey prevailed to get it publicly voted and approven in parliament,\nJune, 1592; and also at the same time, obtained by act of parliament,\nthe ratification of all the privileges and liberties of the church, in\nher assemblies, synods, presbyteries, &c.\n\nAnd here we may observe, that while this church and nation contended for\nthe obtaining of a legal establishment of the ecclesiastical polity,\nthey were no less concerned to have that other distinct ordinance of\nGOD, civil magistracy, unalterably settled, in agreeableness to the rule\nof GOD'S word. This appears, not only by their earnest contendings\nagainst the abuse of that ordinance among them; but also, by the public\nacts of parliament, obliging prince and people to be of one perfect\nreligion, and wholly incapacitating all persons, for bearing any office,\nsupreme or subordinate, who refused, by their solemn oath, to approve\nof, and, to the utmost of their power, engage to defend the true\nreligion, as contained in the word of GOD, and confession of faith\nfounded thereon, then believed, and publicly professed within the realm,\nratified and generally sworn to in the National Covenant, during the\nwhole course of their lives, in all their civil administrations. See\n_Acts Parl. 1st_, James VI, 1567.\n\nThus the hand of GOD was remarkably seen, and his powerful arm evidently\nrevealed, in delivering this nation both from Pagan darkness and Popish\nidolatry, the memory whereof ought not to be lost, but thankfully\nacknowledged, to the honor of GOD'S great name, by all such as favor the\ndust of Zion, for her sake, and long to see her breaches, now wide as\nthe sea, repaired.\n\nBut to proceed: The church's grand foe envying her growing prosperity,\ndid soon disturb her peace, by insinuating himself upon those of\nsuperior dignity, who were intrusted with the administration of civil\naffairs, both supreme and subordinate, blowing up into a flame that\ninbred and rooted enmity, which they still retained, at the simplicity,\nstrictness and scriptural purity of the reformation in Scotland. The\nthen supreme civil ruler, king James VI, formed a scheme for ruining the\nchurch of Scotland, and stripping her of those comely and beautiful\nornaments of reformation purity, in doctrine, worship, discipline and\ngovernment, which she had now put on, by introducing episcopacy, and\nestablishing bishops. \"This he did for no other reason (says one), but\nbecause he believed them to be useful and pliable instruments for\nturning a limited monarchy into absolute dominion, and subjects into\nslaves; that which of all other things he affected most:\" and for this\npurpose (after several subtle and cunningly devised steps, previously\ntaken, with design to do by degrees what could not be done at once) he\nmakes an open attack upon the general assembly, robbing them of their\npower and liberty to meet, judge and determine, in all ecclesiastical\nconcerns (well knowing, that so long as assemblies might convene in\nfreedom, he would never get the estate of bishops established in\nScotland), and imprisoning and banishing many faithful ministers,\nmembers of the general assembly, who opposed him, testified and\nprotested against his wicked invasion, and sacrilegious robbery of the\nchurch's rights and privileges. And, having at last obtained the\nsupremacy and headship over the church, which was granted him by an\nimpious act of a pretended parliament, of his own stamp, called by him\nfor that purpose, proceeded with his design, until he had again\nestablished Prelacy, and razed Presbytery almost to the very\nfoundations, notwithstanding all the opposition made to it by the\nfaithful in the land, both ministers and people.\n\nThus, after several former attempts to this effect, was Episcopacy again\nestablished, and prelates lording over GOD'S heritage advanced, imposing\ntheir popish ceremonies, which in that pretended assembly convened at\nPerth, anno 1618, were enacted, and afterward ratified in a subsequent\nparliament in the year 1621. And as the father had thus violated his\nsolemn professions, declarations and engagements, to maintain the\ncovenanted interest; so likewise, upon the accession of the son to the\nthrone, there was no amendment nor redress had: but he followed the same\niniquitous course, walking in the way of his father, and in the sin\nwherewith he made Israel to sin. And further, obtruded upon the church a\nservice book, a book of popish and prelatical canons, which was followed\nwith a violent prosecution of the faithful contenders for the former\nlaudable constitutions of the church, carried on by that monstrous\nErastian high-commission court, patched up of statesmen and clergymen:\nand hereby was the church again brought under the yoke of anti-christian\nprelacy, and tyrannical supremacy; which lese-majesty to Zion's King was\nalso ratified with the sanction of civil authority. To this yoke,\noppressing CHRIST'S loyal subjects, many of his professed servants\nsubmitted their necks, and, Issachar-like, became servants to tribute\nfor a considerable time.\n\nBut when the LORD'S set time to favor Zion came, he made the long\ndespised dust thereof again to be more pleasant and precious than ever\nunto his servants and people, and the long night season and thick clouds\nof adversity under which his church labored, amid some day-sky, and\nsun-blinks of prosperity, she at times enjoyed, to issue in the dawning\nof a day of clearer light wherein the glorious SUN of Righteousness\nshone in his meridian splendor, with greater brightness both in this and\nthe neighboring nations, than at his first arising therein, in a gospel\ndispensation; whose benign influences caused the small grain of good\nseed, sown by the skill of the Great Husbandman, to grow up to a\nfruitful plant, the tender twig to spread itself into a noble vine, and\nthe little cloud, like a man's hand, to cover the whole hemisphere of\nthe visible church of Scotland, which long ago, as a church and nation,\nhad enlisted themselves under the LORD JESUS CHRIST, as their Royal\nPrince; whose peaceful and righteous scepter being now also extended to\nEngland and Ireland, they soon submitted themselves thereto, in a\nreligious association and union with Scotland in covenant engagements,\nfor reformation from prelacy, as well as Popery, which they had never\nhitherto yielded to.\n\nUpon this gracious return of divine favor, and discovery of Almighty\npower manifested against the mighty agents for prelatical superstition,\nboth in church and state, when, from the paucity of those who appeared\nin favor of truth, in the year 1637, small opposition unto its enemies\ncould be expected; yet their magnanimity in witness-bearing was so\nfollowed by manifestations of the divine countenance and favor, that\nboth their number and courage daily increased. The National Covenant was\nagain, after mature deliberation, anent both the lawfulness, expediency\nand seasonableness thereof, with great solemnity renewed in _March_,\n1638, with the general concurrence of the ministry, noblemen, gentlemen,\nand others, humbling themselves before the LORD for their former\ndefections and breach of covenant; though, at the same time, the court\nfaction, and many temporising ministers, continued in their opposition,\nbut which was indeed too weak to make resistance unto the cause of GOD,\nand force of truth carried home with suitable conviction upon the\nconscience.\n\nThe covenant being first renewed at Edinburgh, they provided next, that\nit should also be renewed through the kingdom; and for this purpose,\ncopies thereof were sent with all convenient speed to the several\npresbyteries, together with suitable exhortations, and instructions for\nrenewing of the same in every parish of their bounds; and by this means\nit came to pass, through the good hand of their GOD upon them, that in a\nlittle time almost every parish through Scotland did, with much\nsolemnity, cheerfulness and alacrity, renew the same, and publicly with\nuplifted hand avouch the LORD to be their GOD. And as this solemn action\nwas everywhere accompanied with remarkable evidences of divine power and\npresence in a plentiful effusion of a spirit of grace and supplication;\nso the joy of the LORD herein became their strength, and greatly\nincreased the faith and hopes of all the church's real friends, that as\nthe LORD had begun, so he would also make an end, and carry on his work\nto perfection, amid the terrible threatenings both of king and court;\nhis majesty being highly displeased that his authority was contemned,\nand no concurrence of his royal pleasure sought in the renovation of the\nCovenant: but their righteousness in this particular was brought forth\nas the light, when the legality of this and their other proceedings was\nafterward attested to the king by the ablest lawyers in the kingdom.\n\nThe zealous contenders for the church's liberties, by supplications,\nreasonings, and proposed articles, for enjoying what they much longed\nfor, at last obtained, before the foresaid year 1638 expired, a lawful\nand free General Assembly (constituted in the name of the LORD JESUS\nCHRIST, the alone King and Head of his church), consisting of able\nmembers, both ministers and elders, who would not suffer an infringement\nupon their regular manner of procedure, or right to act as unlimited\nmembers of a free court of CHRIST, notwithstanding the constant attacks\nmade upon their freedom by the king's commissioner, and protestations by\nhim taken against their regular procedure, which issued in his Erastian\ndeclaration of the king's prerogative, as supreme judge in all causes,\necclesiastical as well as civil, and renewing all his former\nprotestations in his royal master's name; further protesting in his own\nname, and in the name of the lords of the clergy, that no act passed by\nthem should imply his consent, or be accounted lawful, or of force to\nbind any of the subjects; and, then in his majesty's name dissolving the\nassembly, discharging their proceeding any further, and so went off. But\nthe assembly judging it better to obey GOD than man; and to incur the\ndispleasure of an earthly king, to be of far less consequence than to\noffend the Prince of the kings of the earth, entered a protestation\nagainst the lord commissioner's departure without any just cause, and in\nbehalf of the intrinsic power and liberty of the church; also assigning\nthe reasons why they could not dissolve the assembly until such time as\nthey had gone through that work depending upon them. This was given in\nto the clerk by Lord Rothes, and part of it read before his grace left\nthe house, and instruments taken thereupon. Then, after several moving\nand pathetic speeches delivered on that occasion, for the encouragement\nof the brethren to abide by their duty, by the moderator, Mr. Alexander\nHenderson, and others, ministers and elders, exhorting them to show\nthemselves as zealous for CHRIST their LORD and Master, in his\ninterests, as he had shewed himself zealous for his master; they\nunanimously agreed that they should continue and abide by their work\nuntil they had concluded all things needful, and that on all hazards.\nAnd so they proceeded to the examination of that complaint against the\nbishops, who, on account of their, tyranny, superstition, and teaching\nof Popish, Arminian, and Pelagian errors, were all laid under the\nsentence of deposition; and many of them, for their personal\nprofaneness, wickedness and debauchery proven against them, together\nwith their contumacy, were also excommunicated with the greater\nexcommunication, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might\nbe saved in the day of the LORD JESUS. They gave their approbation of\nthe National Covenant; and Prelacy, with the five articles of Perth,\nwere found and declared to be abjured by it, together with the civil\nplaces and power of kirkmen, their sitting on the bench as justices of\nthe peace, sitting in council, and voting in parliament. Subscription of\nthe Confession of faith, or covenant, was also enjoined, presbyterian\nchurch government justified and approven, and an act made for holding\nyearly General Assemblies; with many other acts and constitutions\ntending to the advancement of that begun reformation, and purging the\nchurch of CHRIST of those sinful innovations, crept into it, which may\nbe seen more at large in the printed acts of that assembly. The lawful\nand just freedom which the church now claimed and stood upon, so highly\nincensed the court, because their Erastian encroachments were not\nyielded to, that all warlike preparations were speedily made for having\nthem again reduced, by force of arms, to their former slavery. Yet, what\nevil seemed intended against the church by the king, with his popish and\nprelatical accomplices, was by her exalted King and Head happily\nprevented, and they obliged, at least, to feign subjection, and yield to\na pacification. In which it was concluded, that an assembly be holden at\nEdinburgh, _August 6th_, 1639, and the parliament the 20th of the same\nmonth, that same year, for healing the wide breaches, and redressing the\ngrievances both of church and state; that what was determined by the\nassembly, might be ratified by the parliament. In this assembly, the\ncovenant was ratified and subscribed by the commissioner, and an\ninjunction laid upon the body of the kingdom for subscribing the same,\nwith an explication, wherein the five articles of Perth, government of\nbishops, the civil places and power of kirkmen were expressly condemned.\nHereby the hopes of the Prelates again being in a great measure lost,\nand they receiving fresh assistance from the king (who seemed to have\nlittle conscience in making laws, and found small difficulty in breaking\nthem), recruited themselves the year following, and took the field, but\nwith no better success than formerly, which obliged them to yield to\nanother pacification, wherein both religious and civil liberties were\nratified; and in 1641, these were further confirmed by the oaths,\npromises, laws, and subscriptions of both king and parliament, whereat\nthe king was personally present, and gave the royal assent to all acts\nmade for the security of the same; while at the same time he was\nconcurring in the bloody tragedy acted upon the Protestants in the\nkingdom of Ireland.\n\nThe gracious countenance and abundant evidence of divine approbation\nwherewith the LORD vouchsafed to bless his contending, reforming and\ncovenanting church in Scotland, in a plentiful effusion of his Holy\nSpirit on the judicatories and worshiping assemblies of his people,\nproved a happy means to excite and provoke their neighbors in England\nand Ireland, to go and do likewise. For in the year 1643, when the\nbeginning of a bloody war between the king and parliament of England\nthreatened the nation with a series of calamity and trouble; the\nparliament having convocated an assembly of divines to sit at\nWestminster for consulting about a reformation of religion in that\nkingdom, sent commissioners, consisting of members of both houses and\nassembly, to treat with the assembly of the church of Scotland, and\nconvention of estates about these things. In the month of _August_, they\npresented their proposals to the convention of estates and assembly,\ndesiring, that because the popish prelatical faction is still pursuing\ntheir design of corrupting and altering the religion through the whole\nisland, the two nations might be strictly united for their mutual\ndefense against them and their adherents, and not to lay down arms until\nthose, their implacable enemies, were disarmed, &c. Commissioners were\ndeputed from the estates, and assembly, to convene with those from\nEngland, in order to consider their proposals. And, at the first\nconferences, it was agreed that the best and speediest means for\naccomplishing the union and assistance desired, was for both nations to\nenter into a mutual league and covenant for reformation and defense of\nreligion and liberty against its enemies. Which being drawn up, and\naffectionately embraced, was unanimously approved by the general\nassembly and sent up to England by the hands of the ministers and\nelders, sent commissioners from the church of Scotland to the synod at\nWestminster, where (being proposed by the parliament to the\nconsideration of the synod), after the interpolation of an explanatory\nnote in the second article, it was approven, and with public\nhumiliation, and all other religious and answerable solemnity, taken and\nsubscribed by them (the synod), and by both honorable houses of\nparliament and by their authority taken and subscribed by all ranks in\nEngland and Ireland that same year, ratified by act of the parliament of\nScotland, _anno_ 1644, and afterward renewed in Scotland, with an\nacknowledgment of sins, and engagement to duties by all ranks in the\nyear 1648, and by the parliament, 1649.\n\nThus, to the rejoicing of all true lovers of the prosperity and beauty\nof the church, who longed for CHRIST the salvation of Israel, his coming\nforth out of Zion, these three churches and nations combined and\nembarked together in the same honorable and glorious cause of\nreformation, and solemnly bound themselves by the oath of GOD, to\nmaintain and defend the same against all its enemies and opposers\nwhatever; thereby publicly professing their subjection to Christ, and\ntheir preferring of pure and undefiled religion, the advancement of the\ninterest, kingdom and glory of JESUS CHRIST, to their nearest and\ndearest interests in this world. And the Lord was with us while we were\nwith him, and steadfast in his covenant; but when we forsook him, and\nbroke his covenant, he also forsook us, and delivered his strength into\ncaptivity, and his glory into the enemies' hand.\n\nIn the next place, the assembly at Westminster, with the assistance of\ncommissioners from the general assembly of the church of Scotland,\nproceeded to conclude on what was needful for furthering and completing\nthis intended and covenanted uniformity in religion, that the Lord might\nbe one, and his name one in the three lands. And for this purpose, a\nconfession of faith was composed, and agreed upon by that venerable\nassembly, together with catechisms larger and shorter, propositions\nconcerning church government, ordination of ministers, and directory for\nworship; all which were received and approved by the General Assembly,\nand convention of estates in Scotland.\n\nThe Lord thus prospering his work in the hands of his servants employed\nin ecclesiastical affairs, gave no less countenance unto the parliament\nof England, with the assistance they received from Scotland, in\ndefeating all the wicked attempts of the popish, prelatical and\nmalignant party in England, overthrowing their tyranny, and reducing the\nsupporters thereof. A like victory was at length obtained over Montrose\nin Scotland, who commanded the royalist, or malignant party there, and\nhad for some time carried all before him. And so the King being worsted\nat all hands, and despairing of overtaking his designs, his army having\nbeen almost all cut to pieces, and himself obliged to fly, resigned\nhimself over to the Scots army at Newark, in the year 1646, and marched\nalong with them to Newcastle; and they, upon the frequent solicitations\nof the English parliament, and their engaging for the King's honorable\ntreatment, delivered him over to them. Afterward, he falling into the\nhands of Cromwell and the English army, a number in this nation violated\nthe oath of GOD, which they had lately come under, by engaging in an\nunlawful war with England, commonly called the Duke's engagement, in\norder to rescue the King from his captivity (notwithstanding that he\nstill persisted in his opposition to the just claims, both of the church\nand nation, and after all that was come upon him, could not be\nreconciled to the covenants and work of reformation); where they were in\n_July_ 1648, totally routed by Oliver Cromwell; and Duke Hamilton, their\ngeneral, being made prisoner, was incarcerated, and afterward beheaded.\nThis engagement was remonstrated against, and judicially condemned by\nthe General Assembly of the church of Scotland; and the sinfulness of it\nwas publicly acknowledged as a breach of the covenant-union between the\ntwo nations, by all ranks in Scotland that same year, at the renovation\nof the Solemn League and Covenant therein. At last the king being seized\nupon by Cromwell and his sectarian army, was, notwithstanding all the\nremonstrances both of church and state, removed by a violent death. Upon\nwhich the parliament of Scotland, on the _5th_ of _February_, 1649,\ncaused proclaim his son Charles II, king of Great Britain, France, and\nIreland (which title he had assumed himself at the Hague, as soon as the\nreport of his father's death came to his ears), promising their fidelity\nand defence of his person and authority, according to the National\nCovenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant. And at the same time\ndeclaring, that before he be admitted to the exercise of the royal\npower, he shall give security for the preservation and maintenance of\nthe true reformed religion, and unity of the kingdoms, now established,\nby laws both civil and ecclesiastical, according to the covenants: which\nsecurity for religion and liberty, at the first proposed treaty at the\nHague, he deferred to grant, and afterward postponed the signing of the\ntreaty at Breda, when everything was agreed upon, from the great hopes\nhe entertained of accomplishing his design, without acquiescing with\ntheir demand from Montrose's expedition, whom he had sent into Scotland\nwith an army, in order to prepare his way into that kingdom, by\ndevastation with fire and sword. But this intrigue not succeeding, he\nfound himself obliged to comply with all their proposals, and signed the\ntreaty. This treaty the king did in effect break, before he left Breda,\nby communicating after the episcopal manner, contrary to the express\nwarning and remonstrance of the commissioners from the church of\nScotland, who went to him, and showed him his sin in so doing, and how\ninconsistent it was with his own concessions in the present treaty; and\nan evidence that he had no intention to perform what he had agreed to,\nbut dissembled with GOD and man; and he, on the other hand, put them off\nwith sham excuses and professions; and so, from their too much credulity\nto his fraudulent professions and promises all along, they brought him\nover to Scotland, and before his landing in this kingdom, he takes the\ncovenant at Spey, on the _23rd_ of _June_, 1649, by his oath subjoined\nin allowance and approbation of the Covenants National, and Solemn\nLeague, obliging himself faithfully to prosecute the ends thereof in his\nstation and calling; and for himself and successors, he shall agree to\nall acts of parliament enjoining the same, and establishing presbyterial\nchurch government the directory for worship, confession of faith and\ncatechisms, in the kingdom of Scotland, as approven by the General\nAssemblies of this kirk, and parliament of this kingdom. And for their\nfurther satisfaction, according to the act of the West Kirk, Edinburgh,\n_August 13th_, 1650, approven the same day by the committee of estates,\nhe emitted a declaration at Dunfermline, by profession, fully and\nheartily acquiescing with all their demands, all which afterward served\nfor nothing but as a lasting monument of his horrid perjury, wicked\ndissimulation, and mockery of God and man. And even then, when this\ndeclaration was published, he had formed a design for bringing in the\nenemies of the covenant, and work of reformation, both into the army and\njudicatories, and for dividing the Presbyterians among themselves. And\nthis he effectually managed for both foresaid ends, by the public\nresolutions, on the _14th_ of _December_, that same year 1650. This\nwoful and prime step of defection, so contrary to the word, and\ninjurious to the work of God, was faithfully testified against by many,\nboth ministers, and whole presbyteries, who were sensible of the present\nsinfulness and evil of it, and foresaw the bitter and dismal\nconsequences that followed upon it.\n\nIn the meantime, notwithstanding this, and other shrewd evidences, the\nking gave of his double dealing and hypocrisy, he was crowned at Scoon,\non the first of _January_, 1651, and had the Covenants National and\nSolemn League again administered unto him, by the reverend Mr. Douglas,\nafter a sermon from 2 _Kings_ xi, 12, 17, which he, in a most solemn\nmanner renewed, before the three estates of parliament, the\ncommissioners of the General Assembly, and a numerous congregation, in\nthe words of his former oath at Spey; with the coronation oath, as\ncontained in the 8th _Act, Parl._ 1st, James VI, to all which he engaged\nbefore his coronation; and on these terms, and no other, were the oaths\nof fidelity to him, as the lawful supreme magistrate, taken, at his\nreceipt of the royal authority. And consequently, these covenant\nengagements became fundamental constitutions, both in church and state,\nand the door of access into office-bearing in either, and formal ground\nof the people's subjection. Then was the church's appearance \"Beautiful\nas Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem, and terrible as an army with banners.\"\n\nFrom what is noticed above, the presbytery cannot but declare their\nhearty approbation of the zeal, courage, and faithfulness of our honored\nancestors, in their valiant contendings for the valuable liberties and\nprivileges of the spiritual kingdom of the MESSIAH, until they got the\nsame established, and the nations brought under the most solemn, sacred,\nand inviolable engagements, to maintain every branch of this glorious\nreformation; a reformation, not only from the more gross errors, and\nidolatries of Popery, but from the more refined superstition of Prelacy,\nand all that Antichristian and Erastian supremacy, that in former times\nhad been exercised on the heritage of the LORD; a reformation of both\nthe divine ordinances of ministry and magistracy, from all the abuses\nand corruptions thereof, by the inventions of men, joined with the above\nmentioned establishment of them, in some measure of agreeableness unto\ntheir scriptural institution.\n\nLikeas, the presbytery did, and hereby do declare their approbation of,\nand adherence unto foresaid reformation, in all the different parts and\nbranches thereof, attained from 1638 to 1650 inclusive, and sworn to in\nthe National and Solemn League and Covenant, not exclusive of such parts\nof reformation as were attained unto prior to this, but as a further\nadvance on this foundation, and as being much more pure and agreeable to\nthe infallible standard of scripture, than any formerly arrived at in\nthese nations.\n\nThe daughter of Zion, thus going forth in the perfection of her beauty,\nwhen all ranks and degrees voluntarily subjected themselves unto the\nroyal scepter of the SON of GOD, was most comely in the eyes of her\nBeloved; But oh! how is the gold become dim, and the most fine gold\nchanged; the stones of the sanctuary are poured out on the top of every\nstreet, so that the house that was called of all people the house of\nprayer, is now become a den of thieves, being no less infamously\ndespicable for deformation, than formerly, for purity of reformation,\nhighly admired. This, at first, began with the public resolutions of the\ncommission of the General Assembly 1650, above noticed, for taking into\nplaces of power and trust, in judicatories and armies, such persons as\nwere known malignants, and in heart disaffected to the work, and people\nof GOD, putting it in their power to destroy and pull down the LORD'S\nwork at their pleasure; a practice manifestly inconsistent with their\ncovenant engagements, and the word of GOD, _Deut._ xxiii, 9, 2 _Chron._\nxix, 2. Those that were then called protestors (from their opposing and\nprotesting against these resolutions), continued steadfastly to witness\nagainst the same, as the first remarkable step, to make way for that\nbloody catastrophe, that afterward befell the church. The Lord, then, in\nhis righteous displeasure and controversy with the nation, for betraying\nof his cause and interest into the hands of his enemies, sold them into\nthe hand of that conquering usurper, Oliver Cromwell, who, having stript\nthem of their civil liberties, as the most effectual method to rob the\nchurch of her spiritual privileges, and nullify the forcible obligation\nof the sacred covenants (which, when preserved, serve as a strong\nbarrier against all such usurpations), framed a hellish and almost\nunbounded toleration in Scotland, of heretical and sectarian errors, for\ngratification of the abettors thereof, which was followed with a deluge\nof irreligion and impiety, drowning the nation in a still deeper\napostasy.\n\nIn this hour of temptation, the witnesses for CHRIST, endeavoring to\nkeep the word of his patience, testified against these evils, as\ncontrary to the word and oath of God, and destructive of the church's\nformer glory. And Charles II, who had lately, by all the confirmations\nof word, writ, and solemn oath, obliged himself for the maintenance and\ndefense of religion and liberty, having cast off the thing that was\ngood, the enemy did pursue him so, that he, instead of being able to\nstand as a head of defense to the nations, narrowly escaped with life\nfrom the enemies' hands, being obliged to abscond and fly before the\nsectaries into France; where, and in other parts, he remained an exile\nfor the space of ten years, and there discovered, he had no regard to\nthe principles he had lately professed and sworn to maintain: but\nbreaking his professed wedlock with CHRIST, is said, at that juncture,\nto have joined hands with the Romish whore, laying aside his cloak of\nprofessed godliness, and again taking up with the mystery of iniquity.\n\nDuring the ten years' usurpation of Cromwell, those who endeavored\nfaithfulness, had a fight of affliction to keep their ground; yet, after\nthis came to a period, they had a far more fierce encounter, and of\nlonger duration, to engage in, in the cruel and bloody tragedy acted\nupon them, for the space of 28 years.\n\nAs, by the public resolutions, and foresaid unbounded toleration, the\nbounds fixed by JEHOVAH, and homologated and sworn to, in our national\nattainments and constitution, were greatly altered, so the parliament of\nEngland prepared the tools, whereby the carved work of the sanctuary (as\nfar as human craft and cruelty could invent), was broken down, in\nrestoring Charles II, without any conditions required, or express\nlimitations set. And Sharp being sent from the church of Scotland, to\nstand up for her rights and privileges, fraudulently sold her into the\nhands of her enemies; upon which, many of the professed disciples of\nCHRIST, who followed him in the sunshine of prosperity and reformation,\nforsook him, and fled into the enemies' camp. Thus our decline began;\nbut, oh! to what a dreadful height Erastianism, tyranny, and bloodshed\narrived, before the Lord, in his providence, put a stop to it.\n\nAlthough the Presbytery cannot be supposed, in a consistency with their\npresent design, to reckon up all, yet they would endeavor to take notice\nof some of the most remarkable instances of backsliding, treachery and\noppression, bloodshed, &c, acted in those nations during the late\npersecuting period, together with the faithful contendings, and patient\nsufferings unto death of the saints and servants of CHRIST, in this hot\nfurnace of affliction into which they were cast. As, 1, The unhappy\nrestoration of Charles II, in manner before mentioned commencing. The\nfaithful declarations and testimonies given in favor of the covenanted\nreformation and uniformity, were all on a sudden given up with; the\nviper received into our bosom, and again advanced unto the regal\ndignity, who soon discovered himself to be of the serpentine seed, and\nby his wicked agency imped the dragon his master, by casting out of his\nmouth a flood of persecution after the church, that he might cause her\nto be destroyed therewith. To this effect the anti-christian yoke of\nabjured Prelacy, with all its tyrannical laws, and canonical train of\nobservances, service book, ceremonies, &c., was speedily wreathed about\nEngland's neck, and Scotland soon felt part of its weight. For, in the\nmonth of _August_, 1660, when some of her most zealous and faithful\nministers met upon this emergency, in order to send an address to the\nking, reminding him of his duty, and solemn obligations to perform the\nsame; the committee appointed by the parliament, _anno_ 1651, for\nexercise of government, until another parliament should meet, who then\nshowed themselves zealous for the reformation, yet now acted a\ncounter-part, by incarcerating the foresaid ministers, and emitting a\nproclamation, prohibiting all such meetings without the king's\nauthority, and all petitions and remonstrances, under pretense that they\nwere seditious. This was the first beginning of those sorrows and\ncalamities that ensued in the many sanguinary laws afterward made and\nexecuted upon the true friends of Zion.\n\n2. When the ministry, by means of the foresaid prohibitions, were much\ndispirited from their duty, dreading such usage as they had lately met\nwith, the parliament which met in Scotland in _December_, 1661, falls\nupon breaking down the carved work of the sanctuary effectually, and\nrobbing our church of that depositum committed unto her by her glorious\nHead. Thus did they wickedly combine and gather themselves together to\nplot against the Lord, and against his Anointed, that they might break\nhis bands, and cast his cords from them. For which intent, after\nbesmearing the consciences of most of the members with the guilt of that\nabominable and wicked oath of allegiance and supremacy, that they might\nbe secured to the court and king's interest, and ready to swallow down\nwhatever might be afterward proposed, they passed an act rescissory,\ndeclaring all the parliaments, and acts of parliament made in favor of\nreformation, from the year 1640 to 1651, null and void. The king's\nsupremacy over all persons, and in all causes, is asserted. All\nmeetings, assemblies, leagues, and covenants, without the king's\nauthority, are declared unlawful and unwarrantable. The renewing of the\nsolemn league and covenant, or any other covenants or public oaths,\nwithout the king's special warrant and approbation, is discharged.\nBesides these, another heinous act was framed by the same parliament,\nfor observing every 29th of _May_ as an anniversary thanksgiving, in\ncommemoration of the unhappy restoration of this ruiner of religion and\nreformation.\n\n3. In the second session of the pretended parliament, _anno_ 1662\ndiocesan Erastian Prelacy is established, and the king solemnly invested\nwith the church's headship, by act of parliament; wherein it is\nblasphemously declared, \"That the ordering and disposal of the external\ngovernment and policy of the church, doth properly belong unto his\nmajesty as an inherent right of the crown, by virtue of his royal\nprerogative and supremacy in all causes ecclesiastical.\" All such acts\nof parliament or council are rescinded, which might be interpreted (as\ntheir acts bear) to give any church power, jurisdiction, or government,\nto the office-bearers of the church, other than that which acknowledges\na dependence upon, and subordination to, the sovereign power of the king\nas supreme. And although the lordly prelates were hereby promoted to all\nthe privileges and dignities they possessed before the year 1638, yet\nmust they be all accountable to the king, in all their administrations,\nand in subordination to him, as universal bishop of all England,\nScotland, and Ireland. By which the fountain of church power and\nauthority is lodged in the king's person, and CHRIST is exauctorated and\ndethroned as King and Head in Zion. And further, by the second act of\nthat perfidious parliament, the covenanted reformation, and all that was\ndone in favor thereof, from 1638 to 1650, was declared treasonable, and\nrebellious. Alike treasonable it was reckoned for subjects, on pretense\nof reformation, or any other pretense whatsoever, to enter into any\nfederal association, or take up arms against the king. They also\ndeclared, that the National Covenant, as sworn in the year 1638, and the\nSolemn League and Covenant, were, and are in themselves unlawful oaths,\nand that they were imposed upon, and taken by the subjects of this\nkingdom, contrary to the fundamental laws and liberties thereof. And to\ncomplete all, they repealed all acts, ecclesiastical and civil,\napproving the covenants, particularly the acts of the venerable assembly\nat Glasgow 1638, declaring it an unlawful and seditious meeting. And\nthereafter, by a wicked act of the council of Glasgow, more than three\nhundred ministers were illegally thrust from their charges, for their\nnon-conformity, in discountenancing a diocesan meeting, or synod,\nappointed by the archbishop of Glasgow, and not observing the\nanniversary thanksgiving, _May_ 29th, enjoined by the parliament. The\nrest were violently ejected from the lawful exercise of their ministry\nin their several parishes, and were afterward commanded by act of\nparliament to remove themselves and their families twenty miles distant\nfrom their respective flocks, and not to reside within six miles of any\nof their (so called) Cathedrals, or three miles of a Burgh. By these\nmeans, many of those poor persecuted ministers, with their families,\nwere brought into great hardships and wants, being so far removed from\ntheir beloved and affectionate flocks, that they were deprived of that\nhelp from them, that doubtless they would cheerfully have ministered,\nfor relieving them in their necessities and straits. All this was done\nat the instigation of the prelates, who could not endure to have a godly\npresbyterian minister near them, and were resolved to make them as\nmiserable as possible.\n\nAs the observation of that anniversary holy day, _May_ 29th, was again\nenjoined by this parliament 1662, with certification, the non-observance\nof which was one main cause of the sufferings of the ministers above\nnoticed, we cannot pass over without mentioning that most abhorred and\nheaven-daring ignominy and contempt put upon our solemn and sacred\ncovenants, and upon GOD the great Party in them, at Linlithgow on that\nday, by a theatrical exposing, and presumptuous committing them to the\nflames, together with _The causes of GOD'S wrath, Lex Rex_, acts of\nparliament, acts of committees of estates, and acts of assemblies made,\nduring what they called the twenty-two years' rebellion, that is, from\n1638 to 1660, done by the authority of the pretended magistrates there;\none of which, and the minister Ramsay, were formerly zealous and active\ncovenanters, and consequently now publicly avowed and proclaimed their\nperjury in the face of the sun, and left an indelible stain upon their\nmemory.\n\nHitherto, although many, both ministers, gentlemen and others, had\nendured unexpressible hardships and severities, yet few or none suffered\nto the death, save that noble peer, the Marquis of _Argyle_, who was\ncondemned by the parliament 1661, and beheaded _May_ 27th; and the\nReverend Mr. _James Guthrie_, who suffered five days thereafter. These\ntwo were singled out--the one in the state, the other in the church--to\nfall a victim to the resentment and fury of the enemies of that\ncovenanted work of reformation, which they had both, in an eminent\nmanner, been honored of GOD to support and advance; and also as a\nspecimen of what was afterward to be the fate of all that should adhere\nto the same glorious cause, and stand up for God against these workers\nof iniquity. And, as the foundation of that anti-christian and wicked\nhierarchy in the church, and of arbitrary power and absolute tyranny in\nthe state, was laid in the blood of these two proto-martyrs for the\ncovenant and cause of GOD, so they now (_July_, 1663,) proceeded to\nbuild it up with the blood of another noble and worthy patriot, the\neminently religious and learned Lord _Warriston_. He having before, in\n1660, when _Argyle_ was apprehended, been ordered, together with several\nothers, to be secured and committed to prison, fled beyond sea, to\nescape the fury of his enemies, and even there did their crafty malice\nreach him; for, having sent out one of their blood-thirsty emissaries in\nquest of him, he was apprehended by him at Roan, in France, brought over\nto London, and sent thence to Edinburgh, where he was executed on a\nformer unjust sentence of forfeiture and death, passed upon him in his\nabsence. Thus they built up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with\niniquity. But all this was nothing to the cruelty that followed, and the\nrighteous blood afterward shed in that quarrel.\n\n4. Although the faithful servants of CHRIST gave too silent submission\nfor a time to these encroachments made upon their sacred functions, yet,\nas they received not their mission from men, so they resolved not to\nbecome the servants of men, but to hazard the loss of every thing that\nwas dear to them in this world, that they might show themselves faithful\nunto their Lord and Master, and valiant for his truth upon the earth, in\ngoing forth without the camp, bearing his reproach. When they could no\nlonger, with a safe conscience, enjoy their benefices and churches, and\nthe Lord so expressly called for their service, in feeding the starving\nsouls of his people, they betook themselves to the open fields, setting\ntheir faces to all the storms to which they were exposed by that high\ncommission court that was erected; wherein the bishops were chief\nagents, being made therein necessary members for putting the former,\nwith what subsequent wicked laws were made against the servants of\nCHRIST, in execution. And, by this time, that deceiving, cruel,\nperjured, apostate bishop, _Sharp_, had obtained the presidency in this\nand all other public courts in the kingdom. The proceedings of this\ncourt were very unjust, cruel and arbitrary, similar to its preposterous\nand illegal constitution. Persons were, without any accusation,\ninformation, witness or accuser, arraigned before them, to answer _super\ninquirendis_ to whatever interrogatories they were pleased to propose,\nwithout license to make any lawful defense, or, upon their offering so\nto do, were required to take the oath of supremacy, their refusal of\nwhich was accounted cause sufficient for proceeding against them. And\nalthough taking order with papists was first in their commission, yet\nlast, or rather not at all, in execution; while their infernal rage was\nprincipally set on Presbyterians, in fining, confining and imprisoning\nthem, for the non-conformity of ministers, and their disregarding their\npretended sentences of deposition, and the people's refusing to\ncountenance the authority and ministry of these prelatic wolves, who\ncame in to scatter and tear the flock of CHRIST, but endeavoring to\ncleave to their lawful pastors, have equal friends and foes with them,\nand hear CHRIST'S law of kindness from their mouth. The idol of jealousy\nwas thus set up in the house of GOD, and our LORD JESUS CHRIST\nsacreligiously robbed of his incommunicable supremacy and headship over\nhis church by the state; whereby the Pope's supremacy was well nigh\nclaimed, and Spanish inquisition cruelty almost acted, by this\nabominable court; and all at the instigation and for the gratification\nof these monsters of iniquity, the prelates, who still agitated the\ncourt to exercise more cruelty than even of themselves they were\ninclined to.\n\n5. Upon the decline of this rigorous court, new measures were again\nfallen upon for the oppression, suppression and extirpation, of the true\nreformed religion, and the professors of it. The council being very\ndiligent and careful to deprive the LORD'S people of every thing which\nmight contribute to their establishment and confirmation in the\nrighteousness and equity of the cause and covenant of God for which they\nsuffered, and which tended to expose their tyranny and treason against\nGOD, ordered the famous Mr. Brown's _Apologetical Relation_ to be burnt\nin the high street of Edinburgh, on February 14th, 1666, by the hand of\nthe common hangman; and all persons who had copies of said book were\nrequired to give them up, and such as concealed them to be fined 2000 \u00a3.\n_Scots_, if discovered. Such was their hellish enmity and spite against\nour covenanted reformation, and every thing written in defense thereof,\nand in vindication of those that suffered for their adherence to it.\nAbout the same time, _Sharp_, for the more effectual accomplishment of\nhis wicked designs (the high commission being now dissolved, and his\nguilty conscience, it seems, suggesting fears of an insurrection of the\noppressed, to relieve themselves from their cruel oppressors), obtains\nan order from the king for raising an additional number of forces, for\nthe security and establishment of himself and his associates in their\nthrones of iniquity, by destroying all the faithful in the land,\noppressing and wearing out the saints of the Most High, and burning up\nand dispersing all the synagogues of GOD in the nation. In consequence\nof this, about three thousand foot, and eight troops of dragoons were\ngot together, and the command of them given to _Dalziel_ of _Binns_, a\nwicked, fierce, cruel man. These were the instruments of that\nunprecedented barbarity, cruelty and oppression, committed in the West,\nafter the defeat of Colonel Wallace and his little army of covenanters,\nat Pentland Hills, _November_ 28th, 1666. The occasion and cause of\nwhich rising was, in short, this: Sir _James Turner_ had been sent the\nyear before into the south-west shires of Dumfries and Kirkcudbright, in\norder to suppress conventicles (so they called the assemblies of God's\npeople for public worship and other religious exercises), levy the fines\nappointed by the parliament, and oblige the people to conform and submit\nto the bishops and curates by force of arms. Turner, in pursuance of\nthese cruel orders, committed great severities, dreadfully oppressed,\nrobbed and spoiled the country. In the parish of Dalry, in Galloway,\nthree or four of his blackguard crew, seizing upon a poor countryman,\ncarried him to his own house, and were going to torture him in a cruel\nmanner, by setting him naked on a red-hot gridiron; which four of the\npersecuted party hearing of, they repaired to the house, disarmed the\nsoldiers (upon their refusing to be entreated in behalf of the poor\nman), and delivered their fellow sufferer. And lest the rest of the\nsoldiers quartered in the parish (to force people to keep their parish\nchurch), should fall upon them, being joined with seven or eight more of\ntheir friends, they attacked them early next morning, being about twelve\nin number, and disarmed them, killing one that made resistance.\nWhereupon, the country being alarmed, and being apprehensive, from sad\nexperience, of the revenge Sir James would take upon the whole country\nfor this affront, without distinction of age or sex, they determined to\nstand in their own defense. And, getting together a good number of horse\nand foot, they march to Dumfries, surprise Turner himself, take him\nprisoner, and disarm his soldiers, without any further violence. Being\nthus by Providence engaged, without any hope of retreat, and being\njoined by many more of their brethren in the same condition with\nthemselves, some ministers, and Colonel Wallace (afterward chosen\ngeneral), they come to Lanerk, where they renew the covenant, _November_\n26th, 1666, and thence to Pentland Hills, where, being attacked by\nDalziel and his blood-hounds, they were, notwithstanding their bravery\nin repulsing the enemy twice, at last totally routed, many killed and\ntaken prisoners, most of the prisoners treacherously executed\n(notwithstanding they were taken upon solemn promise to have their lives\nspared), of whom the Lord was graciously pleased, not only to accept of\na testimony, by sufferings, but also countenanced them, even to\nadmiration, in sealing the same with their blood. After this, there were\nsevere edicts issued out against all who had any hand in this appearance\nfor GOD'S cause and covenant (called by them rebellion, a horrible\nconspiracy, and what not); all the subjects were strictly charged not to\nharbor, reset, supply, or in any manner of way correspond with any that\nwere concerned in this engagement, but that they pursue and deliver them\nup to justice, or otherwise be esteemed and punished as favorers of it.\nThis appearance for religion and liberty became, for a time, the\nprincipal crime of which those were indicted who were prosecuted by this\nwicked council, and other merciless enemies, to whom they committed the\nmanagement of their affairs.\n\n6. Although the cruelty of the court had hitherto been very great, yet\nthey had not wholly effectuated their wicked design of exterminating and\ndestroying true religion, and the professors thereof, both ministers and\npeople; but, like Israel under Pharaoh's yoke, the more they oppressed\nthem, and suppressed their meetings, the more numerous and frequent they\ngrew, so that their enemies were obliged to alter their course a little\nfrom cruelty into craft. This appeared in the first indulgence, granted\n_anno_ 1669, with design to divide Presbyterians among themselves, that\nthey might the more easily destroy them. Hereby a pretended liberty was\ngiven to several ministers ejected by the act of Glasgow, 1662\n(especially public resolutioners, who had formerly served the court\ninterest in that matter), under certain restrictions, destructive of\ntheir ministerial freedom and faithfulness, to preach and exercise the\nother functions of the ministry in vacant churches. In this fraudulent\nsnare many were taken; and even such of them as did accept of the\nindulgence, but did not keep by the instructions given them by the\ncouncil, and observe the wicked anniversary, &c, were afterward\nprosecuted, fined, and some turned out. And those who refused compliance\ntherewith, and testified against it, as flowing from that blasphemous\nsupremacy and absolute power, which the king had assumed, were most\nseverely handled, and their assemblies for public worship interdicted\nunder the highest pains. A second indulgence was framed in the year\n1672, in which net they expected to inclose such as the first had not\ncaught. By this, liberty was granted to a number of non-conformed\nministers, named by the council, not yet indulged, to exercise their\nministry in such places as the council thought fit to ordain and appoint\nthem, conforming themselves to the rules given by the council to those\nthat were formerly indulged, besides other restrictions, wherewith this\nnew liberty was clogged. And, as one special design of the court, in\ngranting both the first and this second indulgence, was to put an\neffectual stop to the meetings of the LORD'S people, ludicrously called\nby them field conventicles, so they took occasion, on account of their\ncontempt of this their indulgence and liberty, to prosecute all such as\nkept, or attended on, these meetings, in a more merciless and furious\nmanner. This indulgence was accepted by many ministers; and part\nthereof, by others, represented as a grievance, and redress required.\nBut although nothing of this kind was obtained, yet it was fallen in\nwith and accepted by most of those who subscribed the remonstrance\nagainst it; and those few who rejected it, and continued faithfully to\ndischarge their official trust in the open fields, without coming under\nany of these sinful restrictions, became, more especially, the butt of\ntheir enemies' malice and tyranny, were more vigorously prosecuted, and\nsuch as were suspected or convicted of attending on their field\nmeetings, were fined in an exorbitant manner, and ministers imprisoned,\nwhen they could be apprehended. And because these field meetings, the\ngreat eye-sore of the prelates, still increased, they prevailed with the\ncouncil 1674, to take more special notice of the preachers at said\nmeetings, who appointed a committee for that effect, and ordered their\nchancelor to send out parties to apprehend certain of them, according to\ntheir direction. And the same year, a bond was imposed, binding and\nobliging tenants, that if they, their wives, or any of their children,\ncottars or servants, should keep or be present at any conventicles,\neither in houses or fields, that every tenant laboring land be fined for\neach house conventicle in 25\u00a3. _Scots_; each cottar in 12_\u00a3. Scots_;\neach servant man in a fourth part of his year's fee, and husbands the\nhalf of these fines for such of their wives and children as shall be at\nhouse conventicles; and the double of these respective fines for each of\nthe said persons who shall be at any field conventicles, &c. And upon\nrefusal of said bond, they were to be put to the horn, and their escheat\nor forfeiture given to their masters. They likewise, at the same time,\nissued forth another proclamation, for apprehending the holders of, and\nrepairers to, field meetings, by them designed rebels, and whoever\nshould seize such should have the fines, so unjustly imposed, for their\nreward; with a particular sum offered for apprehending any of the\nconventicle preachers, and this sum doubled for some that were more\neminent among them, and diligent in working the work of him that sent\nthem, against whom their malice was more especially turned. These\nrigorous measures they continued to prosecute; and in the year 1675,\nletters of intercommuning were given out against several ministers and\nprivate Christians, by name, both denouncing them rebels, and secluding\nthem from all society in the kingdom of Scotland; further requiring,\nthat no accommodation should be given, or communication any manner of\nway held with them, under the pain of being (according to them)\naccounted _socii criminis_, and pursued as guilty, with them, of the\nsame crimes. These inhuman and unprecedented methods reduced the\nsufferers to many wanderings and great hardships. It is impossible to\nrecite the miseries these faithful confessors underwent--wandering about\nin deserts, in mountains, in dens, and in caves of the earth, destitute,\nafflicted, tormented; besides the other severe impositions upon the\ncountry in general, the bonds imposed, and rage of the _Highland_ host\nthen raised, which, together with the soldiers, greatly spoiled and\nrobbed the west country especially, by which means, poor people were\nbrought to very low circumstances.\n\n7. Notwithstanding of all the tyranny and treachery hitherto exercised,\nthe word of GOD grew, and converts unto CHRIST, and the obedience of the\ngospel, were daily multiplied; ministers being forward and willing to\npreach, and the people willing to hear and receive the law from their\nmouth, on all hazards. And the LORD JESUS, following his word and\nordinances with his blessing, showed himself as mighty and powerful in\nthe open fields, whither they were driven, as ever he had done in their\nchurches, from whence they were driven, and which were now shut against\nthem, and filled with time-servers, and antichrist's vassals. But\nagainst CHRIST'S standard and banner thus displayed, the tyrant Charles\nII erected his opposite standard for the utter destruction of CHRIST'S\ntrue servants and subjects. And having declared their lawful meetings\nfor the worship of GOD, according to his word, execrable rendezvouses of\nrebellion; a convention of estates, _anno_ 1678, was called and met, by\nwhich a large cess was imposed to maintain an additional army, for the\nsuppression of the true religion and liberty, and securing tyranny and\narbitrary government. On account of the imposition of this cess, and the\nrigorous exaction of it, together with the cruelties and ravages of this\nnew army maintained by it (the soldiers having commission to dismiss and\ndisperse their meetings, disarm, imprison and kill preachers and people,\nin case of resistance; and a price being put upon the heads of several\nfaithful ministers if brought to the council dead or alive), both\nministers and people were laid under the necessity of carrying arms for\ntheir own defense when dispensing and attending upon gospel ordinances.\nAnd it was no wonder that, finding themselves thus appointed as sheep\nfor the slaughter, they looked upon this as their duty, and accordingly\nprovided themselves with arms for their necessary defense against the\nwicked violence of those who thirsted after their blood, and (which was\nto them much more dear and precious) the ruin and destruction of the\ncause, interest, and gospel of CHRIST in the land. Unto these severe and\nhellish measures fallen upon at this time, for the more effectual\nsuppression and extirpation of the gospel of CHRIST, and professors of\nit, the managers were principally instigated by that arch-apostate\n_Sharp_; though a bad preparative for his exit out of this world, which\nsoon came to pass, _anno_ 1679, in the dispensation of adorable\nprovidence and righteous judgment of God, executed upon such a notorious\ntraitor, who, having first betrayed the church, and all along deeply\nimbrued his hands in the blood of GOD'S saints and servants; had blood\ngiven him to drink because he was worthy.\n\n8. That the land might be more deeply soaked with blood, and made more\nheavily to groan under the inhabitants thereof, \"Who had transgressed\nthe laws, changed the ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant;\"\nthat the scene of cruel suffering might be more widely opened, and the\nbloody tragedy more effectually acted; the primate's death must now be\nadded to the other pretended crimes of the sufferers. Many were terribly\nharrassed on that account, who were no ways concerned in the action; and\nsome were cruelly tortured and butchered by them for the same cause,\nthough innocent thereof (for none of the actors did ever fall into their\nhands). These enemies were hereby rendered more rude, barbarous and\nhard-hearted to all the sufferers who afterward fell into their hands,\nand breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the whole body of\nthe persecuted Presbyterians through the nation. All this, however, did\nnot dispirit these zealous witnesses, or discourage them from attending\nto their work and duty; for we find them on the 29th of _May_, 1679,\npublishing their testimony at _Rutherglen_, against the wicked\nanniversary, on the same day appointed by the court for its celebration,\nand against all that had been done publicly by these enemies of CHRIST\nfor the overthrow of his work and interest in the lands. They likewise\ncommitted their acts rescissory, supremacy, act restoring abjured\nPrelacy, act of _Glasgow_, 1662, the presumptuous act for appointing\n_May_ 29th for an unholy anniversary, indulgences, &c., all to the\nflames, their just desert, in retaliation of the impious treatment given\nunto our solemn and sacred covenants, and other good and laudable acts\nand laws for reformation, by their sacrilegious enemies in sundry cities\nof these covenanted kingdoms. And so, after extinguishing the bonfires,\na part of the unholy solemnity of the enemies' anniversary day, and\nconcluding what they had done with prayer and praise, as they had begun\n(Mr. _Douglas_, one of their ministers being along with them), they\nwithdrew. This Christian valor was followed with the LORD'S appearance\nfor them, in a remarkable manner, on the following _Sabbath_ at\n_Drumclog_ near _Lowdonhill_, where being attacked by _Claverhouse_,\nwhen attending on public worship, they completely routed him and his\ntroops, rescued Mr. _John King_, and a number of other prisoners, whom\n_Claverhouse_ had seized that morning, from their hands. Afterward they\ndeclared the grounds and causes of their present defensive posture, in\nthat short manifesto, or declaration, published at _Glasgow, June 6th_,\n1679. But when their numbers multiplied, their divisions increased, and\nlawful means for honestly defending the cause were by the majority\nrefused. Mr. _Welsh_ and that Erastian party with him, being by this\ntime come up, did in their declaration at _Hamilton_, take in the\ntyrant's interest; against which, those who were honest and faithful to\nthe interest of Zion's king contended, and protested, that in conscience\nthey could not take in the interest of one into the state of the quarrel\nwho had manifestly stated himself in opposition to the interest of\nCHRIST; that it was inconsistent with the covenant, which could not bind\nthem to espouse the interest of its destroyers, and the destroyers of\nall that adhered to it; and also contrary to their testimony and\ndeclaration for the covenants and work of reformation at _Rutherglen,\nGlasgow, &c._, and against all defection from the same.\n\nThus, when the most part in a great measure forsook the LORD, he was\njustly provoked to forsake them, and their great divisions landing them\nin such confusion, they became an easy prey to the enemy, by whom they\nwere totally routed at _Bothwell, June. 22d_, 1679, where they felt the\ndismal fruits and consequences of joining at all with that Erastian\nfaction, after they had openly declared and discovered what they were.\nThis was so far from proving any defense to them, notwithstanding the\nnumbers of that party, that it proved their destruction. And those whose\nhearts were upright and honest in the cause of GOD, by their means, in\nholy sovereignty, were made to fall a sacrifice to their enemies' wrath.\nThe slain on that day were many, and the after-cruelty to prisoners\ngreat; they being carried into and kept for a long time in the\n_Gray-friars_ church yard of _Edinburgh_, exposed, defenseless, night\nand day, to tempests of all kinds. By this inhuman usage (with design to\nwear out the saints of the Most High), together with the insinuations\nand persuasions of some of the indulgence favorers, their faith failing\nthem in this hour of temptation, and fear prevailing, a number of these\nprisoners were persuaded to take the insnaring bond of peace, whereby\nthey were engaged to own their rising at _Bothwell_ to be rebellion, and\nto oblige themselves never to rise in arms against the king, and to live\npeaceably, &c., while others of them were tortured, not accepting\ndeliverance.\n\n9. Although this defeat and dispersion of the espousers of the truth and\ncause of CHRIST, in opposition both to its avowed enemies and secret\nbetrayers, brought the remnant that were left into very melancholy\ncircumstances, their enemies having in a great measure extinguished the\nlight of the gospel, by apprehending and shedding the blood of their\nfaithful pastors, who used to hold forth the word of life unto them, as\na light whereby they might discern between sin and duty; and others who\nhad formerly been helpful unto them, in strengthening their hands, and\nencouraging their hearts, in the way of their duty, were overtaken and\noverborne with fainting and discouragement; so that, in respect of\npublic guides, they wore at this time as sheep without a shepherd. Yet,\nin this disconsolate and scattered state and condition, CHRIST, the\nchief shepherd, had compassion on them, and raised up those two faithful\nministers and zealous contenders for the faith once delivered to the\nsaints, Messrs. _Richard Cameron_ and _Donald Cargill_, to come forth\nfor the help of the LORD against the mighty, and to jeopard their lives\nalong with his people in the high places of the field, in bearing\nfaithful testimony for his noble truths and cause, and against all the\nsins and defections of the time. The first of these, soon after he had\nshowed his activity and zeal in that banner displayed against the\nchurch's enemies, in the declaration published at _Sanquhar, June 22d_,\n1080, did honorably and bravely finish his course, among many others of\nZion's true friends, in the defeat they again sustained at _Airsmoss_,\nwhere, in imitation of his princely Master, he valiantly fought his way\nto the incorruptible crown. The latter afterward narrowly escaped his\nenemies' hands (by means of Mr. _Henry Hall_, of _Haughhead_, that\nhonest sufferer for truth, who, to save his minister's life, lost his\nown; on whom the _Queensferry_ paper, a draft of a covenant engagement\nunto certain duties, was found), and was, by the power and providence of\nGOD, preserved, until he accomplished that signal piece of generation\nwork in drawing forth the sword of excommunication against the tyrant\n_Charles_ II, and some others of the chief actors in that bloody\ntragedy. And that, because of their bloodshed, perjury, heaven-daring\nprofaneness, debauchery, inhuman and savage cruelty acted upon the\npeople of GOD. The which sentence stuck fast in the hearts of these\nenemies of Zion's king unto the day of their death, and, by some of\ntheir own acknowledgments, would through eternity. Shortly after this,\nthat faithful minister crowned his work with martyrdom, and entered into\nhis Master's joy.\n\nThis murdering period spared neither pastor nor people, age nor sex;\nwhile gross transgressors, and deluded enthusiasts, as _Gib_ and his\nfaction, were screened from condign punishment, though some of them had\narrived at that prodigious length in wickedness as to commit the Holy\nScriptures and Confession of Faith to the flames.\n\n10. So many of these once living and lively witnesses for CHRIST being,\nnow slain, and what was yet surviving of the scattered flock deprived of\ntheir painful shepherds, and not being able to drink of the sanctuary\nwaters, so muddied by their former pastors, who had defiled the same by\nsinful compliance with the time's defections, they resolved, under\ndivine direction, to gather themselves together into a general meeting,\nfor advising and informing one another anent their duty, in such\ncritical times of common danger, that so whatever concerned the whole,\nmight be done with due deliberation and common consent. The which\ngeneral meetings afterward afforded them both good comfort amidst their\ndiscouragements, and also good counsel amidst their perplexities and\ndoubts, and proved an excellent expedient for preserving the remnant\nfrom the destruction and contagion of the times, propagation of the\ntestimony, and keeping alive the public spirit of zeal and concern for\nthe cause and interest of CHRIST; and for these ends they have been kept\nup ever since.\n\nIn the meantime, that evil instrument, _James_, duke of _York_,\nreceiving commission from his perjured brother to preside in the whole\nadministration of _Scots'_ affairs, upon his arrival for this effect,\nheld a parliament, which began _July_ 28th, 1681; wherein, besides other\nof his wicked acts, that detestable, blasphemous, and self-contradictory\ntest was framed, which, in the first part thereof, contains the\nswearer's solemn declaration, by oath, of his sincere profession of the\ntrue Protestant religion, contained in the first confession of faith,\nratified by _Parl. 1st, James VI_, 1567 (which confession asserts, in\nthe strongest terms, CHRIST'S alone headship and supremacy as lawgiver\nand king in his church, without copartner or competitor), and that he\nshall adhere thereunto all the days of his life, and renounce all\ndoctrines, principles, or practices contrary thereto, and inconsistent\ntherewith; while, in manifest contradiction thereto, the blasphemous\nsupremacy, in the utmost extent thereof, is asserted--the Covenants\nNational and Solemn League, the chief barriers against Popery,\nErastianism, and arbitrary power, are renounced, and unlimited\nallegiance unto the occupant is enjoined and sworn to, and the\nprelatical government of the church confirmed.\n\nThis oath was at first administered to those in public trust only, and\nthereby all were turned out of their places who had any principles of\ncommon honesty remaining in them; but afterward it was imposed on all\npersons of all ranks. Against which sinful encroachments on religion and\nliberty, the witnessing persecuted remnant accounted themselves bound in\nduty to emit their testimony, which they published at _Lanerk, January_\n12th, 1682, adhering to, and confirming their former at _Sanquhar_, and\ngiving reasons at length for their disowning the unlawful authority of\n_Charles II_. Upon intelligence hereof, this declaration, with those at\n_Rutherglen_ and _Sanquhar_, were, by order of the council, with great\nsolemnity, burnt at the cross of _Edinburgh_, by the magistrates in\ntheir robes, together with the Solemn League and Covenant, which had\nbeen burnt formerly: but now they would give new demonstrations of their\nrage against it, in conjunction with these declarations, which they saw\nand acknowledged were evidently conformed to, and founded upon it. After\nthe publication of this testimony, the sufferings of that poor people\nthat owned it were sadder and sharper than ever before, by hunting,\npursuing, apprehending, imprisonment, banishment, death, and torture;\nthis increasing rage, oppression, cruelty, and bloodshed, being no more\nthan what they might look for, agreeable to the spirit and principles of\nthat popish incendiary, to whom such trust was committed.\n\n11. The poor wrestling remnant, besides their other grievous calamities\nand sufferings, being now obnoxious to much censure, in their\nappearances for truth reproached, and invidiously misrepresented, both\nat home and abroad, by those that were at ease in Zion, as having\nforsaken the right way, and run into wild, extravagant, and unhappy\ncourses; and, withal, being at this time destitute and deprived of their\npublic standard bearers; their series of witnesses (since the death of\nMessrs. _Cameron_ and _Cargill_) maintaining the testimony against the\npublic national defections being in all appearance interrupted, except\nby martyrdom and sufferings; they were obliged to exert themselves, both\nfor their vindication from those calumnies and slanders, wherewith they\nwere loaded by their enemies, to foreign Protestant churches especially,\nand for obtaining a supply of gospel ministers. Wherefore, sending some\nof their number abroad, to represent the righteousness of their cause to\nthe churches there, and crave their sympathy, in helping them to a\nsupply of gospel ministers; the LORD was graciously pleased to\ncountenance and bless their endeavors so, that they obtained access for\nthe instruction and ordination of young men for the ministry, at a\nuniversity in the _United Provinces_; and, in process of time, gave them\na great reviving in their bondage, by sending forth his faithful\nembassador, Mr. _James Renwick_, who, while he stood on Zion's\nwatch-tower, ceased not night and day to give faithful warning of the\ndanger approaching the city of GOD, evidently discovering his being\nclothed with his Master's commission, in bearing faithful testimony and\nwitness, both against the avowed enemies of truth and backsliders from\nit. And notwithstanding all the malicious rage of deadly foes, ranging\nand keenly pursuing him, through open or more secret places, the\nreproach of tongues and cruel mockings he endured, by the divine\nblessing, on his painful labors, amidst his many hardships, the number\nof Zion's friends were greatly increased, by the incoming and joining of\nmany to the fellowship of their settled societies, who resolutely chose\nrather to suffer affliction with the people of GOD than to enjoy the\npleasures of sin, which are but for a season. Upon this further attack\nupon Satan's interest, his emissaries issue forth fresh orders, and give\ncommission to soldiers, foot and dragoons, to hunt, search, and seek\nthem out of all their most secret dens, caves, and lurking places, where\nthey might hide themselves, in the most remote and wildest glens and\nrecesses in the mountains and deserts, allowing them to kill, slay,\ndestroy, and any way to make an end of them, wherever they might be\nfound; commanding the whole country, at their peril, to assist them, and\nraise the hue and cry after the poor wanderers, and not to reset,\nharbor, succor, or correspond with them any manner of way, under the\nhighest pains, but to do their utmost in informing against them. Thus,\nwithout regard to any of their unlawful forms of legal procedure, they\ndefiled and besmeared the high places of the field with innocent blood.\nThese unprecedented methods and measures obliged the sufferers, for\ntheir own preservation, stopping the deluge of blood, and to deter the\ninsolence of intelligencers and informers, to publish the apologetic\ndeclaration, which they affixed on several market crosses, and parish\nchurch doors, upon the 28th of _October_, 1684; wherein they declare\ntheir firm resolution of constant adherence to their covenanted\nengagements; and to the declaration disowning the authority of _Charles\nStuart_, warning all bloody Doegs and flattering Ziphites, to expect to\nbe dealt with as they deal with them; to be regarded as enemies to GOD,\nand the covenanted reformation, and according to their power, and the\ndegree of their offense, punished as such, &c. After this declaration,\nthese enemies were still more enraged, and their fury flamed more than\never formerly. They framed an oath, commonly called the oath of\nabjuration, renouncing and abjuring the same, and by a venomous bloody\nproclamation, enjoined this oath to be taken by all universally, from\nsixteen years and upward, women as well as men, under pain of death; and\nmany prisoners who having the oath tendered them, refused or declined\nit, were sentenced, and executed all in one day, according to the tenor\nof their proclamation. And, moreover, they, on this occasion, renewed\ntheir orders and commission to the soldiers, for pursuing and chasing\nafter the rebels (as they designed them) more vigorously and violently,\nand to shoot, or otherwise put them to death wherever they did light\nupon them. In the midst of this confusion of slaughter and bloodshed,\nGOD cut off by death, _February_ 6th, 1685, that vile person, the author\nand authorizer of all this mischief, _Charles II_, who, _Antiochus_\nlike, came in peaceably, and obtained the kingdom by flattery (_Dan._\nxi), reigned treacherously and bloodily, and like that wicked king,\n_Jehoram_ (2 _Chron._ xxi), died without being desired or lamented,\npoisoned, as was thought, by his unnatural popish brother. And,\nnotwithstanding of all his bastards, begotten in adultery and\nfornication, at home and abroad, he died without any to succeed him,\nsave him that was said to have murdered him. GOD pursued him with the\ncurse of _Hiel_ the _Bethelite_, for his rebuilding of that cursed\n_Jericho_, prelacy; and of that impious and wicked tyrant, _Coniah_\n(_Jer._ xxii), for his treachery and cruelty; \"Thus saith the LORD,\nWrite ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days,\nfor no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting any more upon the throne\nof _Israel_.\"\n\n12. Notwithstanding the abundant proof that the duke of _York_ had\ngiven, in many instances, and in both kingdoms, of his being a vassal of\nantichrist, and notwithstanding of his open and public profession of\npapistry, upon his brother's death, fairly warning all what they might\nexpect, yet were not those, who sat at the helm of affairs, deterred\nfrom committing the reins of government into his hands; but contrary to\nthe word of God, and fundamental laws of the lands, this professed and\nexcommunicate papist _James_, duke of _York_, was, _anno_ 1685,\nproclaimed king of these once covenanted, but now treacherous and\napostate lands, whereby they appointed themselves a captain to return\ninto their anti-christian bondage. To this grievous yoke our infamous,\nperjured, and apostate state and council in _Scotland_, heartily and\nvoluntarily subjected themselves and the nation, while others did it\nwith reluctancy, caressing and embracing with their dearest and best\naffections, this enemy to GOD, and CHRIST, and his church, swearing\nimplicit and unlimited obedience unto him, and asserting his absolute\npower and supremacy, indefeasible and hereditary right, without ever so\nmuch as requiring him to take the coronation oath, or give the least\nsecurity for, any thing civil or religious (a depth of degeneracy,\nparallel to that eminency in reformation purity, from which they were\nfallen!) but laid the reins on his own neck, that he might have full\nfreedom for the satisfying of his lusts, and fulfilling his wicked\ndesigns. This laid religion, liberty, and all, at the mercy of absolute\npower and popish tyranny; and still more and more cut off the people of\nGod from having any hopes of mercy from their bloody enemies; on the\ncontrary, the duke of _York_, in his letter to his first parliament,\nrecommends and requires them to leave no means unattempted, for the\nextirpation of the poor wandering sufferers, whom he brands with the\nodious names of murderers and assassins, wild and inhuman traitors, &c.\nAnd these his ready servants and bloody executioners, came nothing short\nof his orders in the execution of them; so that there were more murdered\nin cold blood in the open fields, without all shadow of law, trial or\nsentence, more banished and sold as slaves, condemned and executed, &c.,\nin the time of this usurper, than in all the time of the former tyrant.\n\nAs the honest sufferers, consistent with their testimony for truth, in\nopposition both to the secret and open subvertors of the cause and state\nof Zion's quarrel with her enemies, could not concur in _Argyle's_\ndeclaration (although there were many things in it materially good, and\ncommend-worthy), nor join in a military association with him, on account\n(among other things) of the too promiscuous admission of persons to\ntrust in that party, who were then, and afterward discovered themselves\nto be, enemies to the cause. Yet, against this usurpation of a bloody\npapist, advancing himself to the throne in such a manner, they published\nanother declaration at _Sanquhar, May_ 28, 1685; wherein, approving of,\nand adhering to all their former, and considering that _James_, duke of\n_York_, a professed and excommunicated papist, was proclaimed: they\nprotest against said proclamation, with reasons subjoined at length for\ntheir so doing--against all kinds of popery, general and particular\nheads, as abjured by the national covenant--against its entry again\ninto this land, and every thing that doth, or may directly or\nindirectly, make way for the same, &c. After this, Mr. _Renwick_ and his\nfollowers were exposed to the greater fury of their adversaries; more\ncruel edicts were given forth against them, approving and ratifying of\nformer acts, for raising the hue and cry, &c., whereby their calamities\nwere very much increased, besides the slanders of professed friends, on\naccount of their not associating and joining with them in their\ncompliances, although, to the conviction of all unbiassed minds, they\nfully vindicated themselves from all their injurious reflections.\n\nThe extirpation of the Presbyterian interest--nay, the suppression of\nthe Protestant religion in general, the reintroduction of popery, and\nplunging the nations in anti-christian darkness and tyranny, being the\nlong concerted design of this popish bigot now got into the throne; he\nresolves to lose no time, and leave no stone unturned, for the\nprosecution and accomplishment thereof. And having made tolerable\nprogress in the execution of this his favorite scheme (although not\nwithout opposition), in _England_, he turns himself to _Scotland_,\nexpecting an entire acquiescence in his pleasure there, having found the\nfirst parliament, which began, 23d _May_, 1685, so much according to his\nown heart, in their hearty and sincere offer of their lives and\nfortunes, to assist, defend, and maintain him in his rights,\nprerogatives, sacred, supreme, and absolute power and authority, &c.\n\nWherefore, the parliament being to meet again _April_ 29, 1686, in his\nletter to them, \"he heartily recommends to their care his innocent Roman\nCatholic subjects, to the end, that as they have given good experience\nof their true loyalty and peaceable behavior, they may have the\nprotection of his laws, without lying under obligations their religion\ncould not admit of; that all penal laws made against them might be\nrepealed, &c.\" But though many were for obliging their king in this\nparticular, yet it could not be carried without debates and strong\nobjections; so that, dissolving the parliament, what he could not obtain\nthere, with any show or face of law, he effectuates, by virtue of the\nprerogative royal and absolute power, in a letter to his privy council,\nand proclamation inclosed, bearing date _February_ 12, 1687, granting a\nroyal toleration to moderate Presbyterians, clogged with a number of\ngrievous Erastian conditions and restrictions, as usual. Secondly, to\nQuakers and other enthusiasts. Thirdly, to Papists, abrogating all penal\nstatutes made against them, and making them in all respects free. And so\ndevoted were the privy council to his interests, that without demur they\npublished the proclamation, and wrote back to the king, \"that his orders\nwere punctually obeyed, thanking him for this further proof of his\nfavors to all his subjects.\" Thus, this champion for Satan and\nantichrist proceeded with his wicked design, and so far succeeded; all\nkinds of papistry were publicly practiced, and many churches converted\nto mass chapels. For, before this, by the king's letter to his privy\ncouncil, of _August_ 21st, 1686, Papists were allowed the free exercise\nof their religion, the council required to support and maintain them\ntherein, and the royal chapel at _Holyrood-House_ ordered to be repaired\nfor popish service. By which means a door was opened for that swarm of\nJesuits and priests, ascending as locusts out of the bottomless pit,\nwhich quickly overspread the lands. But notwithstanding of all this\nindulgence and royal toleration granted to these three forementioned\nparties, yet there is no favor nor mercy for the honest and faithful\nsufferers, and honorable contenders for the interests and prerogatives\nroyal of JESUS CHRIST, against his sacrilegious and blasphemous\nusurpation of the same. But while he thinks fit to give ease (as himself\nsays) by this means, to tender consciences, he at the same time\nsignifies his highest indignation against those enemies of Christianity\n(he means Popery) as well as government, and human society, the\nfield-conventiclers, whom he recommends to the council to root out, with\nall the severity of the laws, and the most rigorous persecution of the\nforces, it being equally his, and his people's concern to get rid of\nthem. In consequence of this, all their artillery is directed against\nthe Rev. Mr. _James Renwick_ only, and that poor, afflicted, and\npersecuted people that adhered to him (all others being comprehended in\nthe pretended liberty granted), so that they were prosecuted with fire\nand sword, and according to the utmost severity of their wicked laws\nmade against them, and a reward of a hundred pounds _sterling_ offered\nby the bloody council to any that should bring in Mr. _Renwick_ to them,\neither dead or alive. But he having his generation work allotted and cut\nout for him by GOD, was preserved and kept from falling into their\nhands, until that he had finished the work his Master had given him to\ndo, notwithstanding all this hellish and anti-christian rage and fury\nwherewith they did pursue him. About the beginning of the year 1686, he,\nin conjunction with Mr. _Alexander Shields_, who had lately joined him,\nwrote the Informatory Vindication, by way of reply to various\naccusations in letters, informations and conferences, given forth\nagainst them and their people, wherein they vindicate, clear and justify\nthemselves from the heavy and false charges, slanders and reproaches,\ncast upon them by their enemies, as may be seen in said book. About this\ntime, also, Mr. _Shields_ set about writing his _Hind let loose_ (which\nwas published next year), or, A Historical Representation of the\nTestimonies of the Church of _Scotland_ for the interest of CHRIST, with\nthe true state thereof in all its periods; wherein he also solidly,\nsoundly, and judiciously vindicates the present testimony, in all the\nprinciples thereof, as stated, against the popish, prelatical, and\nmalignant enemies of that church, for the prerogatives of CHRIST,\nprivileges of the church and liberties of mankind, and sealed by the\nsufferings of a reproached remnant of Presbyterians there, witnessing\nagainst the corruptions of the time.\n\nWhilst these two loving and faithful fellow-laborers were thus\nindustriously exerting themselves for the propagation and vindication of\nthe persecuted gospel, and cause of CHRIST; that fiery Jesuit, popish\ntyrant, and enemy to GOD and man, the duke of _York_, and his popish\nparty, were equally industrious on the other hand, to promote their\ngrand design of utterly extinguishing the light of the gospel, and\nbringing in Antichrist, with all his poisonous and hellish vermin, and\nabominable idolatries; and that, with all the murdering violence,\ndiabolical subtilty and malignant rage that hell and _Rome_ could invent\nand exert. He had formerly published a proclamation (as is noticed\nabove), granting a lawless liberty to several sorts of persons therein\nspecified, called his first indulgence; but breathing nothing but\nthreatenings and slaughter against the people of GOD, who stood firm to\nhis cause. But withal, this proclamation, enjoined an oath in the room\nof all oaths formerly imposed, to be taken by all that minded to share\nin his royal favor; wherein they swore, not only absolute subjection and\npassive obedience, never to resist him, not only on any pretense, but\nfor any cause, let him do, or command to be done what he would; but\nalso, absolute, active obedience, without reserve: \"That they shall, to\nthe utmost of their power, assist, defend, and maintain him, his heirs\nand successors, in the exercise of their absolute power and authority,\nagainst all deadly.\" This was so palpably gross and odious, that it was\ndisdained and abhorred by all that had common sense. Wherefore, finding\nthat this proposal did not take, nor answer his design, in a letter to\nthe council, bearing date about a month after the former, he endeavors\nto mend the matter, and set it out in another dress, pretending that\nthey had mistaken his meaning in the former, and so lets them know, that\nit is his pleasure now, that if the Presbyterian preachers do scruple to\ntake the oath (contained in the proclamation), or any other oath\nwhatsoever, they, notwithstanding, have the benefit of his indulgence\n(without being obliged to take the oath), provided they observe the\nconditions on which it was granted. But this not having the desired\neffect neither, it is followed with the third indulgence or toleration,\nemitted by proclamation, dated 28th _June_, 1687, excellently well\ncalculated for obtaining his end; wherein, after a solemn declaration of\nhis intention to maintain his archbishops and bishops, he does, by his\nsovereign authority, prerogative royal, and absolute power, suspend,\nstop and disable, all penal and sanguinary laws, made against any for\nnon-conformity to the religion established by law--granting liberty to\nall the subjects to meet and serve GOD, after their own way, in private\nhouses or chapels, or places purposely hired or built for that use, with\nan injunction to take care that nothing be preached or taught, that\nmight any way tend to alienate the hearts of the people from him and his\ngovernment: but, notwithstanding the premises, strictly prohibiting all\nfield meetings, against all which all his laws and acts of parliament\nare left in full force and vigor; and all his judges, magistrates and\nofficers of forces, commanded to prosecute such as shall be guilty of\nsaid field conventicles, with the utmost rigor; and all this under\npretense, that now, after this his royal grace and favor, there is not\nthe least shadow of excuse left for these meetings. Wherefore, he is\nconfident, that none will, after these liberties and freedoms given to\nall, to serve God in their own way, further presume to meet in these\nassemblies, except such as make a pretense of religion, to cover their\ntreasonable designs against his royal person, and peace of his\ngovernment.\n\nThe most of the Presbyterian ministers in _Scotland_ took the benefit of\nthis wicked and boundless toleration, chiefly designed in favor of\nPapists. And a large number of them, being met at _Edinburgh_, agreed\nupon, and, in name of all the rest, sent an address of thanks to the\ntyrant for his toleration, stuffed with the most loathsome and\nblasphemous flatteries, to the dishonor of GOD, the reproach of his\ncause, and betraying of his church. For, in this address, dated _July_\n21st, 1687, designating themselves the loyal subjects of this true\nreligion and liberty destroyer, they offer him their most humble and\nhearty thanks for his favor bestowed, and bless the great GOD who put it\ninto his heart to grant them this liberty, which they term a great and\nsurprising favor, professing a fixed resolution still to maintain an\nentire loyalty, both in their doctrine and practice (consonant to their\nknown, principles, which, according to the holy Scriptures, are\ncontained in the _Confession of Faith_); and they humbly beseech, that\nany who promote disloyal principles and practices (as they disown them)\nmay not be looked upon as any of theirs, whatever name they may assume\nto themselves; and that, as their address comes from the plainness and\nsincerity of loyal and thankful hearts, so they were much engaged by his\nroyal favor, to continue their fervent prayer to the King of kings, for\ndivine illumination and conduct, and all other blessings, both spiritual\nand temporal, ever to attend his person and government. Thus these men\nmade themselves naked to their shame, and declared to the world, that\nthey did only presumptuously arrogate to themselves the name of\nPresbyterians; whereas, in reality, they were quite another kind of\ncreatures, acting diametrically opposite to Presbyterian principles, in\ncongratulating, extolling and justifying a tyrant, for assuming to\nhimself a blasphemous, absolute power, whereby he suspends and disables\nall penal laws against idolators, and gives a toleration for all errors.\n\nBut while these pretended Presbyterians, who all along loved peace\nbetter than truth, and preferred their own ease before the concerns of\ntheir Master's glory, were thus sheltering themselves under this refuge\nof lies; true Presbyterians, who kept by presbyterian principles, and\nacted a faithful part for CHRIST, refusing to bow down to the idol of\nsupremacy, which the tyrant had set up, or pay any regard to his\nblasphemous toleration, were pursued, persecuted, and slain, without\npity or compassion, all the engines of the court being leveled against\nthem for their destruction, because they would still reserve to\nthemselves the liberty wherewith CHRIST had made his people free, and\nnot exchange it for one from Antichrist, restricted with his reserves\nand limitations; so that (as Mr. _Shields_ tells us in his account of\nMr. _James Renwick's_ life), in less than five months after the\ntoleration, there were fifteen most desperate searches particularly for\nhim, both of foot and horse: and, that all encouragement might be given\nto any who would apprehend him, a proclamation was issued, dated\n_October_ 18th, \"Authorizing all officers, civil and military, to\napprehend and secure in firmance his person, with some others; and for\nencouragement, insuring the sum of _100\u00a3 sterling_ for taking him, or\nthem, dead or alive.\" In the midst of all these hazards, this unwearied\nand faithful laborer did notwithstanding continue at his work, in\npreaching, catechising, &c., and the Lord still preserved him from\nfalling into the enemy's hand, until he had finished that piece of\ngeneration work, in drawing up a full and faithful testimony against\n_York's_ toleration, and for the covenants and work of reformation, &c.,\nwhich he gave in to a meeting of Presbyterian ministers at _Edinburgh_,\non the 17th _January_, 1688; and going thence to _Fife_, whither he was\ncalled to preach, in his return, was apprehended at _Edinburgh_, and\ncalled to seal his above testimony, with all his other contendings\nagainst Popery, Prelacy, Erastianism, and all defection from the land's\nattainments in reformation, with his blood, which he did in the _Grass\nmarket_ of _Edinburgh_, 17th of _February_, 1688, with a remarkable and\nextraordinary measure of the Lord's gracious presence and spirit, not\nonly in this part of his sufferings, but all the time of his\nimprisonment. The Lord hereby bearing witness, both to the truth of that\ncause for which he suffered, and also testifying his gracious acceptance\nof his sufferings, and of the free-will-offering of his life, which he\nlaid down for his sake. And as neither the violence nor flattery of\nenemies could prevail with this faithful confessor and martyr himself,\nto quit with one hair or hoof of what belonged to Christ, so he\nrecommended to the poor scattered remnant which he left, as part of his\ndying counsel, to keep their ground, and not to quit nor forego one of\nthese despised truths, which he was assured the Lord, when he returned\nto bind up the breach of his people, and heal them of their wound, would\nmake glorious in the earth. Thus that worthy minister, and now glorified\nmartyr of Jesus, through a chain of sufferings, and train of enemies,\nfought his way unto an incorruptible and immortal crown of endless\nglory. He was the last that sealed the testimony for religion and\nliberty, and the covenanted work of reformation, against Popery,\nPrelacy, Erastianism, and tyranny, in a public manner, on the scaffold,\nwith his blood. After the death of this renowned martyr, he was\nsucceeded by the eminent Mr. _Alexander Shields_, who carried on, and\nmaintained, the testimony, as it was stated, in all the heads and\nclauses thereof, continuing to preach in the fields. On which account,\nhe, and the people who attended his ministry, were exposed for some time\nlonger to the fury and resentment of their enemies. But their power,\nwhich they had so long perverted and abused, quickly came to a period.\nFor in a few months, God, in his righteous judgment and adorable\nprovidence, overturned that throne of iniquity on which they depended,\nand expelled that inhuman, cruel monster, from his tyrannical and\nusurped power, upon the prince of Orange's coming over into _England_,\nin the beginning of _November_ that same year. But, although the Lord at\nthis juncture, and by this means, rescued and delivered our natural and\ncivil rights and privileges in a national way from under the oppression\nand bondage of anti-christian tyranny, arbitrary and absolute power, yet\nthe Revolution, at this time, brought no real deliverance to the church\nof God. But Christ's rights,[1] formerly acquired for him by his\nfaithful servants, lay still buried under the rubbish of that\nanti-christian building of Prelacy, erected on the ruins of his work in\nthis land; and the spiritual liberties and privileges of his house\nremained, and do still remain under the bondage of Erastianism,\nsupremacy, toleration, &c. For it is well known, that although this man,\nJehu-like, \"destroyed _Baal_ out of _Israel_, yet he departed not from\nthe sins of _Jeroboam_, wherewith he made _Israel_ to sin.\"\n\nAbout this time, the united societies (having no actual minister since\nMr. _Renwick's_ death, Mr. _Shields_ being only preacher) sent over some\ncommissioners from their general meeting to _Embden_, one of the United\nProvinces, to bring over Mr. _Thomas Linning_, a young man whom they had\nsent thither some years before in Mr. _Renwick's_ time, to the\nuniversity there, and for ordination. In consequence hereof, the said\nMr. _Linning_ came home, with testimonials of his ordination to the\nministry by the classes at _Embden_; and in conjunction with Mr.\n_Shields_ and Mr. _William Boyd_ (another of their ministers, who had\nalso come from Holland about this time), renewed the Covenants National\nand Solemn League, and dispensed the sacrament of the Lord's supper near\nLesmahago, in Clydesdale, and continued to preach to the people for\nabout four months, until the first General Assembly (so called) met at\nEdinburgh 1689-90. At which time, he, with his two brethren, in their\nown name, and the name of their people, presented a paper to that\nAssembly, bearing on what terms they and their people would join in\ncommunion with them; only craving that they might all join in humbling\nthemselves before the Lord, and acknowledge and bewail their fathers',\ntheir own, and the land's many and heinous iniquities, and breaches of\nCovenant, before they proceeded to any other business, and so have their\npublic sins and scandalous compliances washed away by repentance, and\ncalling upon the name of the Lord Jesus. That they would purge out from\namong them, all ignorant, insufficient, heterodox, and notoriously\nscandalous ministers, such as, by information, accusation, or otherways,\nwere guilty of the blood of the saints, &c. But these proposals were\nreckoned unseasonable and impracticable, tending rather to kindle\ncontention, than compose division, and so were thrown over their bar.\nThe generality of these men were so plunged and puddled in the ditch of\ndefection and apostasy, that they could not think of the drudgery of\ncleansing themselves in God's way, by a particular and public confession\nof, and humiliation for their own and the land's public sins, but chose\nrather to sit down filthy and polluted as they were, and presume, in the\nmidst of their abominations unrepented of, to approach God's holy\nthings, which, how provoking to heaven, let God in his word be judge,\n_Isa._ lii, 11; _Hag._ ii, 13, 14; 2 _Chr._ xxx, 3; _Ezek._ xliv, 10.\nNay, it is but too, too evident, that for this cause, God then laid them\nunder that awful sentence, _Rev._ xxii, 11: \"Him that is filthy, let him\nbe filthy still;\" or that, _Isa._ xxii, 14. For as their hearts were\nthen hardened against God's call by his word and providence to that\nimportant and most necessary duty; so, ever since, they, have been so\nmuch the more so, and have gone on from evil to worse.\n\nBut to return to our purpose: the two brethren, Messrs. _Linning_ and\n_Boyd_, upon the rejection of the above said paper of proposals,\nintending to unite with them at any rate, gave in another, importing\ntheir submission to the assembly; which paper, Mr. _Shields_ also,\nthrough their influences, insinuations, and persuasions, was drawn in to\nsubscribe and adhere to; which he had never done, had he not fallen by\nthe means of these false brethren, and which, it is said, he sadly\nrepented afterward. Thus, the poor people were again left destitute of\nministers, and public gospel ordinances, until the Rev. Mr. _John,\nMcMillan_ acceded to them, from the public judicatories of the\nrevolution church, in the year 1706. And their kind friend, Mr.\n_Linning_, to make amends for all his misdemeanors, and in return for\nthe charges the societies were at about his education, at home and\nabroad, did them that good office, to write, and load them with\ncalumnies and slanders, to the universities in the _Netherlands_,\nwhither they had recourse formerly in like cases; so that all access for\nhaving their loss retrieved from that quarter, was blocked up.\n\nWhat is thus briefly hinted above, may suffice to afford some cursory\nview of the rise and progress of religion and reformation in these\nlands, especially in _Scotland_; until, as a church and nation, our\nkingdom became the Lord's, by the strictest and most intimate federal\nalliance, and the name almost of every city, was, _the Lord is there_:\ntogether with the general state and condition of the church and land,\nfrom the fatal juncture of our woful decline, unto the end of the above\nmentioned bloody period; the faithfulness of some, in this time of trial\nand temptation: the defection and backsliding course of others; and the\ngreat and avowed wickedness of the rest, extended unto an exhorbitant\nhight of savage inhumanity, irreligion and impiety. Upon all which, the\npresbytery, in duty to God, the present and succeeding generations find\nthemselves obliged to testify:\n\n1, Their hearty approbation of the faithfulness of such ministers and\nothers, who opposed, and faithfully testified against the public\nresolutions of church and state, framed in the year 1651, for receiving\ninto places of power and trust, malignant enemies to the work of\nreformation, contrary to the word of God, _Exod._ xviii, 21; _Deut._ i,\n13; _2 Chron._ xix, 2; and to all acts of assembly and parliament in the\nreforming period; the assembly disclaiming the resolutions, as appears\nfrom their act, _June 17th_, 1646, session 14th, entitled, _Act for\ncensuring the compilers with the public enemies of this church and\nkingdom_: and their seasonable and necessary warning _June 27th_, 1640,\nsession 27th; where \"they judge it a great and scandalous provocation,\nand grievous defection from the public cause, to comply with, these\nmalignants, &c.\" As also, _Act 11th_, Triennial Parliament of, Charles\nI, entitled, _Act for purging the army of disaffected persons to the\nCovenant and work of Reformation_. And the faithful warnings, given by\ngeneral assemblies and parliament, even against the admission of Charles\nII to the regal dignity, when so evidently discovering his disingenuity,\nuntil once he should give more satisfying proof of hid sincerity; see\nact of the commission at the _West Kirk, August_ 13th, 1650, where the\ncommission of the general assembly, considering, that there may be just\nground of stumbling, from the king's majesty's refusing to emit the\ndeclaration offered him by the committee of estates, and the commission\nof the General Assembly, concerning his former carriage, and resolution\nfor the future, in reference to the cause of God, and enemies and\nfriends thereof; doth therefore declare \"That this kirk and kingdom do\nnot espouse any malignant party, quarrel, or interest, but that they\nfight merely upon their former grounds and principles, and in the\ndefense of the cause of GOD, and of the kingdom, as they have done these\ntwelve years past: and therefore as they disclaim all the sin and guilt\nof the king and of his house, so they will not own him nor his interest,\notherwise than with a subordination to GOD, and so far as he owns and\nprosecutes the cause of GOD, and disclaims his, and his father's\nopposition to the work of GOD and to the covenant,\" &c. The which\ndeclaration being seen and considered by the committee of estates, was\nthe same day approven by them. Thus, both church and state exerted\nthemselves in the discharge of their duty, in order to obtain a\nsettlement, according to the word of God, and the covenants, which were\nnow become the _magna charta_ of the privileges and liberties of the\nnations, both civil and religious; and therefore, were sworn to and\nsubscribed by Charles II, as was also the coronation oath, for the\nsecurity and preservation of the true religion, at his receipt of the\nroyal power.\n\n2. The presbytery testify and declare their approbation of the conduct\nof the faithful, before the restoration, who, adhering to the aforesaid\nfundamental constitutions of the nations, both refused subjection unto,\nand testified against, the usurpation of _Oliver Cromwell_ and his\naccomplices, his invading the land, his anti-christian toleration of all\nsectarian errors and heresies, threatening the ruin and destruction of\nthe true religion, as well as liberty. This was particularly testified\nagainst by the synod of _Fife_, and others in conjunction with them, as\nwicked and intolerable; as opposite unto, and condemned by, the\nScriptures of truth, _Job_ xxxiv, 17; _Deut._ xiii, 1-12; _Zech._ xiii,\n3; contrary to acts of assembly and parliament, made against malignants,\ntheir being received into places of power and trust, with whom these\nsectarians were compliers, such as _Act_ 16th, of _Assemb._ 1646,\n_Sess._ 13th; _Act_ 26th, _Sess._ 2d, parliament _Charles_ I, &c.\n\n3. The presbytery do hereby heartily approve and homologate the\ntestimony borne unto the truths and royal prerogatives of Christ, as\nKing of Zion, by the witnesses and martyrs for the same, from the\nrestoration, _anno_ 1660, to the late revolution, by protestations,\ndeclarations, confiscation of goods, bonds, imprisonment, banishment,\nall kinds of cruelty and suffering, even unto the death (as noticed\nabove), by the impious revolters from the righteous laws of God, and\noverturners of the just and equitable laws of men, both sacred and\ncivil; to the maintenance whereof, the greatest part of these\ntransgressors had bound themselves by the most sacred and inviolable\nobligations, which made their wickedness the more daring and aggravated,\nand the testimony of the saints against such as had made themselves so\nvile in the sight of God and all good men, the more justifiable. _Psalm_\ncxix, 139: \"My zeal hath consumed me, because mine enemies have\nforgotten thy words.\" And as the doers of the law have the promise of\njustification by the great Legislator, _Rom._ ii, 13, so they ought to\nhave the approbation of his people for doing his will.\n\nAnd as the Spirit discovers the church's duty not to consist only in\nbearing witness unto the truth, and justifying Christ's confessors and\nmartyrs, in their faithful adherence unto it, but also in testifying\nagainst sin, and condemning the wicked for their wickedness; for which,\nalso, we have the precedent of the reformed and covenanted church of\n_Scotland_, both before and during the defection and wickedness of the\nforementioned period. Likeas, the presbytery did, and hereby do declare\nand testify particularly:\n\n1. Against that prime and leading step of defection, the public\nresolutions, a scheme projected by that arch hypocrite and traitor to\nGod, Charles II, for the reintroduction of men of the same wicked and\nmalignant spirit with himself, into places of public trust in the\nnation--men, the most of whom had been formerly excommunicated by the\nchurch, and excluded from all office-bearing in the commonwealth, by the\nstates, in their act of classes, as being avowed and obstinate enemies\nto God and to their country. Which scheme, approven of and put in\nexecution, with the consent of a corrupt part of the ministry of the\nchurch, called afterward resolutioners, made way for that sad and bloody\ncatastrophe, which after befel the poor church of Christ in this land.\n\n2. They declare and testify against the usurpation of _Oliver Cromwell_,\nwith those who subjected themselves unto, and owned, his authority;\nagainst his treacherous invasion of this land, contrary to the public\noaths and vows, and covenant union of the nations; together with his\nsectarian principles, and wicked toleration, then obtruded upon them.\n\n3. They declare and testify against the restoration of _Charles_ II,\n1660, unto the government of these covenanted lands, after he had so\nplainly discovered his spirit and designs, in the matter of the public\nresolutions. On account of which treacherous and double dealing with God\nand man, he was, in the Lord's holy and adorable providence, justly\nsecluded from the government, and lived an exile for the space of ten\nyears; but, by means of his malignant public resolution friends, he was\nagain, by might, though not of right, restored, without so much as his\nadherence sought to those oaths, which he had formerly so solemnly\nsworn. Add to this the church's sinful silence, through the influence of\nthe backslidden resolution party therein, so that, at the convention of\nthe pretended parliament, _anno_ 1661, consisting mostly of persons of\nknown disaffection to the true religion, elected of purpose to serve the\nking's traitorous designs, there was not so much as a protestation for\ncivil or religious liberties and privileges offered thereunto; but the\nvile person (as be afterward fully declared himself) was peaceably,\nthough illegally, exalted.\n\n4. As the presbytery find themselves in duty bound to testify against\nthis most unhappy restoration of _Charles_ II, so, of necessary and just\nconsequence, they declare against the whole of his usurped and\ntyrannical administration--particularly against his blasphemous and\nheaven-daring ecclesiastical supremacy; against the act rescissory,\ndeclaring null and void the covenants, presbyterian church government,\nand all the laws made in favor of the true religion since the year 1638;\nthe wicked anniversary thanksgiving day, in memory of the restoration;\nthe re-establishment of diocesan and Erastian Prelacy; his publicly and\nignominiously burning of our solemn covenants, after pretending to\nnullify their obligation; with all his cruelty, tyranny, oppression and\nbloodshed, under color, and without form, of law, exercised upon the\nLord's people, during the whole of his reign.\n\n5. They again testify against the treachery of these covenanted lands,\nin their advancing (contrary to our solemn covenants and all law and\nreason) _James_, duke of _York_, a professed Papist, and avowed\nmalignant to the throne of these realms. As also, they testify against\nhis Christ-dethroning supremacy, and anti-christian indulgences and\ntoleration, flowing from that wicked fountain; his horrid and cruel\nmassacreing and murdering of the saints and servants of the Most High;\nwith all his other wickedness briefly specified in the foregoing\nnarrative.\n\nUpon the whole, the presbytery declare and testify against all the\naffronts done unto the Son of God, and open attacks made upon his crown\nand kingdom; all the different steps of apostasy from a work of\nreformation, and all the hellish rage and cruelty exercised against the\npeople of God during the foresaid period of persecution, carried on by\nthese two impious brothers.\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\nContaining the grounds of the Presbytery's testimony against the\nconstitutions both civil and ecclesiastical at the late Revolution, anno\n1689: as also, against the gross Erastianism and tyranny that has\nattended the administration both of church and state, since that\nmemorable period: with various instances thereof, &c.\n\n\nAfter the Lord, for the forementioned space of twenty-eight years, had,\nbecause of their manifold sins, sorely plagued this church and nation\nwith the grievous yoke of prelatical tyranny, bloodshed, oppression and\nfiery persecution, and thereby had covered the daughter of Zion with a\ncloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty\nof Israel, and had thrown down in his wrath the strong holds of the\ndaughter of Judah, yea, brought them down even to the ground; he was\npleased, in his holy sovereignty, to put a stop to that barbarous\ncruelty that was exercised upon his people, at the last national\nRevolution, by the instrumentality of the prince and princess of\n_Orange_; which is the more remarkable, in that those whom the Lord\nemployed as the rod of his anger, to strike off that monstrous tyrant\n_James_ duke of _York_ from the _British_ throne, were natural branches\nsprung up from the same stock: and this at a juncture when not only the\nchurch of Christ was in the greatest danger of being totally extirpated,\nbut the whole land in hazard of being again overwhelmed with popish\ndarkness and idolatry. But although a very fit opportunity was then\noffered the nations for reviving the long buried work of a covenanted\nreformation both in church and state, and re-establishing all the\nordinances of God in purity, according to their scriptural institution:\nyet, alas! how deeply is it to be lamented, that, instead thereof, the\nmultitude of his tender mercies being forgotten, there was a returning,\nbut not to the Most High; yea, a turning aside like a deceitful bow; so\nthat, in many respects, our national guilt is now increased above what\nit was in former times: wherefore, as the presbytery desire with the\nutmost gratitude to acknowledge the divine goodness, in giving a respite\nfrom the hot furnace of persecution; so they likewise find themselves,\nin duty to their princely Master and his people, obliged to testify and\ndeclare against foresaid revolution settlement, in a variety of\nparticulars, with the many defections and backslidings flowing\ntherefrom. Likeas they hereby do testify against the constitutions, both\ncivil and ecclesiastic, at the Revolution, _anno_ 1689, in those\nrespects, and for these reasons:\n\n1. Because that in the civil constitution, these nations once united\ntogether in a scriptural and covenanted uniformity, unmindful of their\nformer establishment upon a divine footing, wherein king and people were\nto be of one perfect religion, and the supreme magistrate obliged by\nsolemn oath to maintain and preserve the same inviolable, did call and\ninvite _William_ and _Mary_, prince and princess of _Orange_, unto the\npossession of the royal power in these lands, in a way contrary to the\nword of God, as _Deut._ xvii, 15: \"Thou shalt in any wise set him king\nover thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy\nbrethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger\nover thee, which is not thy brother.\" _2 Sam._ xxiii, 3: \"The God of\nIsrael said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men,\nmust be just, ruling in the fear of God.\"\n\nIn opposition to these clear precepts, the nations did choose the\nforesaid persons to sway the civil scepter over them, who were neither\nbrethren by birth, nor religious profession, being educated in a church\nwhere Erastianism prevails, as appears from their ascribing such an\nextensive power to the civil magistrate, as is inconsistent with the\nintrinsic power of the church. Accordingly, by these principles, said\nprince of _Orange_ did regulate his conduct, in the assumption of his\nregal authority, consenting to swear two distinct oaths, whereby he\nobliged himself to preserve and maintain the two distinct and contrary\nreligions (or modes of religions worship), Presbytery and Prelacy, and\nso betrayed both to God and man his politic, worldly views, and\nproclaimed himself destitute of that truth and religious fear, which is\nthe essential character of every person who may warrantably be invested\nwith supreme authority over the Israel of God. And as they wanted\nscriptural, so likewise covenant qualifications, namely, known\nintegrity, approven fidelity, constant affection, and zeal to the cause\nand true church of God; and therefore could not in a consistency with\nthe covenanted constitution, and fundamental laws of the crown, be set\nup as king and queen of these covenanted lands.\n\nAgain, as during the persecuting period the nations generally were\ninvolved in the guilt of perjury and deep apostasy, by the many sinful\ncontradictory tests, oaths and bonds then imposed; so, in a particular\nmanner, those who, by virtue of their birth and dignity, ought to have\nbeen the defenders of the nation's privileges, both sacred and civil, on\nthe contrary, as privy councilors to the two impious brothers in their\nrage against the Lord and his Anointed, and as members of their\niniquitous parliaments (where perverting equity and justice, they framed\nthe most heaven-daring and abominable mischiefs into a law, and then\nwith the utmost cruelty prosecuted the same), had many of them brought\nthemselves under the fearful guilt of these atrocious crimes of murder,\nperjury, tyranny and oppression, and thereby, according to the law both\nof God and man, not only forfeited their lives, had the same been duly\nexecuted; but also divested themselves of all just right and title to\nact the part of the nations' representatives, in choosing and installing\nany in the office of supreme civil governor, until at least they had\ngiven suitable evidence of their repentance. Yet such were the\nconstituent members of that committee of estates, and first parliament,\nemployed in the Revolution settlement, without so much as making any\nsuitable public acknowledgment of their wickedness in the active hand\nthe generality of them had in the former bloody persecution, as appears\nfrom a comparative view of the lists of the members of parliament, and\nparticularly the duke of _York's_ last parliament, with act second of\nthe acts and orders of the meeting of estates, _anno_ 1689. Yea, by\nviewing the lists of _James_ VII, his privy council, annexed by _Wodrow_\nto the second volume of his history, it is evident, that a great number\nof the nobility alone, members of that bloody council, were also members\nof foresaid convention of estates, the members of which convention\n(seven bishops excepted) were exactly the same with the members of the\nfirst parliament at the Revolution. For this, compare second act of the\nmeeting of estates, with act first, parliament first, of _William_ and\n_Mary_. By all which it is evident, that from princes who had thus\nremoved the bound, and discovered no just remorse for their sins, there\nwas little ground left to expect a happy establishment of religion, in\nrestoring the flock of Christ to the full possession of those valuable\nprivileges and liberties wherewith he had made them free.\n\nThe character of the constituent members being considered, the\nconstitution itself, and wherein it is inconsistent with our covenanted\nestablishment, and is therefore hereby testified against, comes next to\nbe considered. Although the declaration of the meeting of estates in\nthis kingdom, containing their claim of right, comprehended much more of\ntheir civil liberties, and formal rights of government, than was enjoyed\nunder the former monstrous tyranny, yet by no means sufficiently\nprovided for the legal establishment of our former happy reformed\nconstitution, which necessarily obliged the civil rulers to employ their\npower to maintain and defend, not only the doctrine, but also the\nPresbyterian worship, discipline and government, as the only and\nunalterable form instituted by Christ in his house. Whereas this craves\nthe abolition of prelacy, and the superiority of any office in the\nchurch above presbyters in _Scotland_, simply as it hath been a great\nand insupportable grievance and trouble to this nation, and contrary to\nthe inclinations of the generality of the people ever since the\nreformation from Popery, without regarding the divine right of\nPresbytery, and the contrariety of Prelacy to scripture revelation. In\nagreeableness to which demand, when the first parliament met in\n_Scotland_ immediately after the Revolution, which began the ____ day of\n_April_, 1689, in _Act_ 3d, _Sess._ 1st, entitled _Act abolishing\nPrelacy_, they abolished Prelacy for the foresaid reason, and further\ndeclare, that they will settle by law that church government in this\nkingdom, which is most agreeable to the inclinations of the people.\nAccordingly, in the second session of the same parliament, _Act_ 5th,\n_June_ 7th, 1690, the parliament establishing the Presbyterian church\ngovernment and discipline, as it had been ratified and established by\nthe 14th _Act, James_ VI, _Parl._ 12th, _anno_ 1592, reviving, renewing\nand confirming the foresaid act of parliament, in the whole heads\nthereof, except that part of it relating to patronages, afterward to be\nconsidered of. Likewise, in the above mentioned act at the Revolution,\nthe thirty-three chapters of the _Westminster_ Confession of Faith\n(exclusive of the catechisms, directory for worship, and form of church\ngovernment formerly publicly authorized, and Covenants National and\nSolemn League) were ratified and established by the parliament. And the\nsaid Confession being read in their presence, was voted and approven by\nthem, as the public and avowed Confession of this church, without taking\nany notice of its scriptural authority. And further, in the same session\nof parliament, by the royal power allenarly, the first meeting of the\ngeneral assembly of this church, as above established, was appointed to\nbe held at _Edinburgh_, the third _Thursday_ of _October_ following, the\nsame year, 1690. And by the same civil authority and foresaid act, many\nof the churches in _Scotland_ were declared vacant.\n\n2. The presbytery testify against the ecclesiastical constitution at the\nRevolution; particularly, in regard, 1st--That the members composing the\nsame were no less, if not much more exceptionable, than those of whom\nthe state consisted; the whole of them one way or other being justly\nchargeable with unfaithfulness to CHRIST, and his covenanted cause, by\nsinful and scandalous compliance with the public defections of the\nformer times, or actively countenancing the malignant apostasy of the\nlands, which will appear evident, by considering, that the Revolution\nChurch consisted of such office-bearers, as had, in contradiction to\ntheir most solemn covenant engagements, fallen in with, and approven of\nthe public resolutions. And these public resolutioners, who had betrayed\nthe LORD'S cause, which they had in the most solemn manner sworn to\nmaintain, were, without any public acknowledgement demanded or offered,\nor adequate censure inflicted (even, after that the LORD had remarkably\ntestified his displeasure against that leading step of defection, by\nsuffering these vipers, which we thus took into our bosom, to sting us\nalmost to death) for this their scandalous defection and perjury,\nadmitted and sustained members of the Revolution Church. Again, the\nRevolution assembly consisted of such ministers as had shamefully\nchanged their holding of CHRIST, and sinfully submitted, in the exercise\nof their ministry, to an exotic head, _Charles_ II, who had, by virtue\nof his blasphemous supremacy, and absolute power, taken the power of the\nkeys from Christ's ministers, and afterward returning only one of them\n(viz.: the key of doctrine) to such as accepted his anti-christian,\nchurch-destroying, and Christ-dethroning indulgences, attended with such\nsinful limitations and restrictions, as were utterly inconsistent with\nministerial freedom and faithfulness, declaring the acceptors to be\nmen-pleasers, and so not the servants of Christ (of which above). Of\nthis stamp were the most of them, who, without any public acknowledgment\nof that horrid affront they had put upon the church's true Head, dared\nto constitute and act as the supreme judicatory of the church of Christ,\n_anno_ 1690. Again, the foresaid assembly was almost wholly formed of\nsuch as had petitioned for, accepted of, and pretended to return a\nGod-mocking letter of thanks for that blasphemous unbounded toleration,\nwhich that popish tyrant, the duke of _York_ (as is noticed formerly),\ngranted, with a special view to reintroduce abjured popery; and\ntherefore while it extended its protection to every heresy, did exclude\nthe pure preaching of the gospel in the fields; which toleration\n(according to _Wodrow_) was joyfully embraced by all the Presbyterian\nministers in Scotland, the honored Mr. Renwick only excepted, who\nfaithfully protested against the same.\n\nBut further, the Revolution assembly did partly consist of such members\nas, contrary to our solemn covenants, had their consciences dreadfully\npolluted, by consenting unto, subscribing, and swearing some one or\nother of the sinful wicked oaths, tests and bonds, tyrannically imposed\nin the persecuting period, or by persuading others to take them, and\ndeclining to give warning of the danger of them, or by approving the\nwarrantableness of giving security to the bloody council, not to\nexercise their ministry, but according to their pleasure. Moreover, they\nwere all, generally, manifestly guilty of the sin of carrying on and\nmaintaining schism and defection from the covenanted church of CHRIST in\n_Scotland_. As also (which from the history of these times is evident),\nthe ruling elders in that assembly, being generally noblemen, gentlemen,\nand burgesses, were mostly such as had an active hand in the tyranny and\npersecution that preceded, and in one respect or other, were stained\nwith the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Thus, that assembly was packed\nup, chiefly, of such blacked compilers, as, one way or other, were\ndeeply involved in the apostasy, bloodshed and cruelty of the preceding\nperiod, yet had not broke off their iniquities, by a public confession\nof these crying sins, before that meeting; nor can it be found, that any\nadequate censure was inflicted on any of them for the same. Therefore,\nthe presbytery testify against the Revolution church, as consisting\nmostly of such scandalous schismatical members, as could not, in a\nconsistency with the scriptural rule, and laudable acts of this reformed\nchurch, have been admitted to church privileges, far less to bear office\nin the house of God; until, at least, they had been duly purged from\ntheir aggravated scandals, and given evident signs of a real repentance,\naccording to the Word of God, 2 _Chron._ xxx, 3: \"For they could not\nkeep the passover at that time, because the priests had not sanctified\nthemselves sufficiently.\" And _Ezek._ xliv, 10: \"And the Levites that\nare gone away far from me, when Israel went astray, which went astray\naway from me after their idols, they shall even bear their iniquity;\" v.\n13: \"And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest\nunto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy\nplace; but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations which\nthey have committed.\"\n\nNext, the presbytery declare and testify against the Revolution church,\nbecause plainly Erastian, and utterly inconsistent with the covenanted\nconstitution of the reformed church of _Scotland, anno_ 1648: the truth\nof which charge will appear obvious, from considering the act of\nparliament, on which the civil power settled the constitution of the\nRevolution church, viz., _Act_ 114, _James_ VI, _Parl._ 12th; where,\n_inter alia_, it is expressly declared, \"That it shall be lawful to the\nkirk ministers, every year at least, and oftener, _pro re nata_, as\noccasion and necessity sall require, to hald and keepe general\nassemblies, providing that the king's majesty, or his commissioner with\nthem, to be appointed be his highness to be present at ilk general\nassembly, before the dissolving thereof, nominate and appoynt time and\nplace, quhen and quhair the next general assemblie sall be halden: and\nin case neither his majesty nor his said commissioner beis present for\nthe time, in that town, quhair the said general assemblie beis halden,\nthen, and in that case, it shall be lesum for the said general assembly\nbe themselves, to nominate and appoint time and place, quhair the next\ngeneral assembly of the kirk sall be keeped and halden, as they have\nbeen in use to do these times by-past.\" Here, in this act, a manifest\ninvasion and traitorous attack is made upon the headship and supremacy\nof Christ, as a Son in, and over his own house. He who is God's\nannotated King in Zion, and sits on the throne of his holiness, is\nhereby robbed of his crown rights; the intrinsic power, the spiritual\nliberty and freedom, granted by Christ to his church, is encroached\nupon. It is a received opinion among all true Presbyterians, that the\nchurch hath an intrinsic power to meet in the courts of Christ's house,\nfrom the lowest to the highest, by virtue of the power committed to her\nby the Lord Jesus Christ, without dependence on the civil power. This is\nagreeable to scripture, _Matth._ xvi, 19, and xviii, 18, 19, where the\napostles receive the keys immediately from the hands of Christ their\nLord and Master. And as one principal part of that trust Christ has\ncommitted to his church, this has been the constant plea of the\nreforming and reformed Presbyterian church of _Scotland_. Let us hear\nwhat that renowned and faithful minister, and venerable confessor for\nChrist, the Rev. Mr. John Welsh, says to this particular, in his letter\nto the Countess of _Wigton_ from _Blackness_, 1606, when a prisoner for\nthis same truth. Having asserted the independence of the church, the\nspiritual kingdom of Christ, upon any earthly monarch, and her freedom\nto meet and judge of all her affairs; he adds, \"These two points, 1st,\nthat Christ is Head of his church; 2d, that she is free in her\ngovernment from all other jurisdictions, except Christ's. These two\npoints, I say, are the special causes of our imprisonment, being now\nconvicted as traitors for maintaining thereof. We have been ever waiting\nwith joyfulness to give the last testimony of our blood in confirmation\nthereof, if it should please our God to be so favorable as to honor us\nwith that dignity. Yea, I do affirm, that these two points above\nwritten, and all other things that do belong to Christ's crown, scepter\nand kingdom, are not subject, nor cannot be, to any other authority, but\nto his own altogether: so that I would be glad to be offered up as a\nsacrifice for so glorious a truth.\" So far he. But now this assembly of\n_treacherous_ men, by settling themselves upon such a constitution have\nopenly given up this scriptural truth and Presbyterian principle handed\ndown to us, sealed with the sufferings and dearest blood of the faithful\nConfessors and Martyrs of Christ, and have consented that it is unlawful\nfor the office-bearers in the Lord's house to exert their proper power\nin calling and appointing general assemblies, however loudly the\nnecessity of the church may call for them, unless the king authorize\ntheir diet of meeting, which he may, or may not do, according to his\npleasure.\n\nAgain, it is evident, that the revolution church is constituted in the\nsame Erastian manner with the late Prelacy in _Scotland_. For proof of\nwhich, observe, that as Prelacy was never ecclesiastically asserted to\nbe of divine authority, neither has Presbytery, by any explicit and\nformal act of Assembly, at or since the revolution. As the prelates'\nhigh ecclesiastical court was called, adjourned and dissolved, in the\nking's name, so likewise are the assemblies of the Revolution Church. As\nthe Episcopalians owned the king, in the exercise of his Erastian\nsupremacy over them, so the Revolution Church, instead of opposing, did\ntake up her standing under the covert of that anti-christian supremacy,\nand has never since declined the exercise thereof. And, as the civil\npower prescribed limits unto, and at pleasure altered, the prelatic\nchurch, so this church has accepted of a formula, prescribed by the\ncivil power, requiring that all the ordinances within the same be\nperformed by the ministers thereof, as they were then allowed them, or\nshould thereafter be declared by their authority, as _Act_ 23d, _Sess._\n4th, _Parl._ 1st, 1693, expressly bears. By what is said above, it may\nappear, that this church is Erastian in her constitution. But it is\nfurther to be observed, that the present constitution is no less\ninconsistent with the scriptural and covenanted constitution of the\nchurch of _Scotland_, in regard that the retrograde constitution, to\nwhich the church fled back, and on which she was settled at the\nrevolution, was but an infant state of the church, lately after her\nfirst reformation from Popery, far inferior to her advanced state\nbetwixt 1638 and 1649 inclusive. It was before the church had shaken off\nthe intolerable yokes of Erastian supremacy and patronages; before she\nhad ecclesiastically asserted, and practically maintained, her spiritual\nand scriptural claim of right, namely, the divine right of presbytery,\nand intrinsic power of the church, the two special gems of Christ's\ncrown, as King on his holy hill of Zion; before the explanation of the\nnational covenant, as condemning episcopacy, the five articles of\n_Perth_, the civil power of churchmen; before the Solemn League and\nCovenant was entered into; before the _Westminster_ Confession of Faith,\nthe Catechisms, larger and shorter, the Directory for worship, Form of\nPresbyterian church government and ordination of ministers, were\ncomposed; and before the acts of church and state, for purging\njudicatories, ecclesiastical and civil, and armies from persons\ndisaffected to the cause and work of God, were made; and all these\nvaluable pieces of reformation ratified with the full and ample sanction\nof the supreme civil authority, by the king's majesty and honorable\nestates of parliament, as parts of the covenanted uniformity in\nreligion, betwixt the churches of Christ in _Scotland, England_ and\n_Ireland_. And therefore, this revolution constitution amounts to a\nshameful disregarding--yea, disclaiming and burying--much (if not all)\nof the reformation attained to in that memorable period, and is a\nvirtual homologation and allowance of the iniquitous laws at the\nrestoration, _anno_ 1661, condemning our glorious reformation and sacred\ncovenants as rebellion; and is such an aggravated step of defection and\napostasy, as too clearly discovers this church to be fixed upon a\ndifferent footing, and to be called by another name, than the genuine\noffspring of the true covenanted church of Christ in _Scotland_.\n\nBesides what has been already noticed, respecting the sinfulness both of\nthe members constituent, and the constitutions at the revolution, it is\nto be further observed, as just matter of lamentation, that, at this\nperiod, when such a noble opportunity was offered, no suitable endeavors\nwere made for reviving the covenanted cause and interest of our\nREDEEMER; no care taken that the city of the Lord should be built upon\nher own heap, and the palace remain after the manner thereof; but, on\nthe contrary, a religion was then established, not only exceedingly far\nshort of, but in many particulars very inconsistent with, and\ndestructive of, that blessed uniformity in religion, once the glory of\nthese now degenerate isles. The presbytery, therefore, in the next\nplace, do testify against the settlement of religion made at the\nrevolution, and that in these particulars following:\n\n1. Instead of abolishing Prelacy in _England_ and _Ireland_, as it had\nbeen abjured in the Solemn League and Covenant, and stands condemned by\nthe word of God, and fundamental laws of the nations, conform to the\ndivine law, it was then, with all its popish ceremonies, anew secured,\nconfirmed and established, in both these kingdoms, as the true religion,\naccording to the word of God, to be publicly professed by all the\npeople; and the supreme civil magistrate solemnly sworn, at his\ninauguration, both that he himself shall be of the Episcopal communion,\nand that he shall maintain inviolably the settlement of the church of\n_England_, in the kingdoms of _England_ and _Ireland_, and territories\nthereunto belonging. Thus the revolution has ratified the impious\noverthrow, and ignominious burial, of the covenanted reformation in\nthese two kingdoms, that was made in the persecuting period, and has\nfixed a legal bar in the way of their reformation, in agreeableness to\nthe sacred oath the three nations brought themselves under to God\nAlmighty.\n\n2. As to the settlement of religion in _Scotland_, the presbytery\ntestify against it: because it was a settlement, which, instead of\nhomologating and reviving the covenanted reformation between 1638 and\n1650, in profession and principle, left the same buried under the\ninfamous act rescissory, which did, at one blow, rescind and annul the\nwhole of the reformation, and authority establishing the same, by making\na retrograde motion, as far back as 1592, without ever coming one step\nforward since that time, and herein acted most contrary to the practice\nof our honored reformers, who always used to begin where former\nreformations stopped, and after having removed what obstructed the work\nof reformation, went forward in building and beautifying the house of\nthe Lord.\n\nThat this backward settlement at the revolution, was a glaring\nrelinquishment of many of our valuable and happy attainments, in the\nsecond and most advanced reformation (as said is), and consequently, an\nopen apostasy and revolt from the covenanted constitution of the church\nof _Scotland_, is sufficiently evident, from the foresaid act of\nsettlement 1690; where (after having allowed of the _Westminster_\nconfession) they further add, \"That they do establish, ratify and\nconfirm, the Presbyterian church government and discipline, ratified and\nestablished by the 114th _Act, James_ VI, _Parl._ 12th, _anno_ 1592.\" So\nthat this settlement includes nothing more of the covenanted uniformity\nin these lands, than only the thirty-three articles of the Confession of\nFaith, wanting the scripture proofs. Again, that the Revolution\nsettlement of religion did not abolish the act rescissory, nor ratify\nand revive any act, between 1638 and 1650, authorizing and establishing\nthe work of reformation, is clear from the same act: wherein, after\nabolishing some acts anent the late prelacy in _Scotland_, they declare:\n\"that these acts are abolished, so far allenarly, as the said acts, and\nothers, generally and particularly above mentioned, are contrary or\nprejudicial to, inconsistent with, or derogatory from, the Protestant\nreligion, or Presbyterian church government, now established.\" Where\nobserve, that this general clause is restricted to acts and laws, in so\nfar only, as they were contrary to the religion settled in this act; and\ntherefore, as this act includes no part of the covenanted reformation\nbetween 1638 and 1649, so this rescissory clause abolishes laws, not as\nagainst foresaid reformation, but only in so far as they strike against\nthe revolution settlement, which the act rescissory could not do. Again,\nin another clause of the same act, it is added: \"Therefore, their\nmajesties do hereby revive and ratify, and perpetually confirm, all\nlaws, statutes and acts of parliament, made against Popery and Papists.\"\nThe only reason that can be given for the revival of laws, not against\nPrelacy, but Popery, when abolishing Prelacy, is, that the parliament,\nexcluding the covenanted reformation from this settlement of religion,\nresolved to let the whole of it lie buried under the act rescissory. For\nas, in reality, there were no laws made expressly against Prelacy before\n1592, but against Popery and Papists; so, had they said, laws against\nprelacy and prelates, they thereby would have revived some of the laws\nmade by the reforming parliaments, between 1640 and 1650; wherein\nbishops and all other prelates, the civil places and power of kirkmen,\n&c., are expressly condemned. Again, in the foresaid act, they confirm\nall the article of the 114th _Act_, 1592, except the part of it anent\npatronages, which is to be afterward considered. Now, had the revolution\nparliament regarded the reforming laws to have been revived, and so the\nact rescissory to be rescinded, by their _Act_ 5th, 1690, they would not\nhave left this particular to be again considered of, seeing patronages\nwere entirely abolished by an act of parliament 1649; but, having the\nball at their foot, they now acted as would best suit with their\npolitical and worldly views. Once more observe, that when the revolution\nparliament ratified the act 1592, they take no notice of its having been\ndone before, by a preceding parliament in 1649. All which plainly says,\nthat the reforming laws and authority of the parliaments by which they\nwere made, are not regarded as now in force. To conclude this\nparticular, if the settlement of religion, made in 1690, had revived and\nratified the authority of our reforming parliaments, and laws made by\nthem; then, as these obliged the king to swear the covenants before his\ncoronation, and all ranks to swear them, and obliged to root out\nmalignancy, sectarianism, &c., and to promote uniformity in doctrine,\nworship, discipline and government, in the three nations, so the\nrevolution settlement would have obliged all to the practice of the same\nduties, and that, before ever king, or any under him, could have been\nadmitted to any trust; while all that would not comply therewith, would\nhave been held as enemies, not only to religion, but to their king and\ncountry also, as was the case when reformation flourished. But, as the\nvery reverse of this was authorized and practised at the revolution, it\nconvincingly discovers, that the settlement of religion, made in 1690,\nleft the whole of the reformation attained to, ratified and established\nby solemn oaths and civil laws between 1640 and 1649, buried under that\nscandalous and wicked act rescissory, framed by that tyrant, _Charles_\nII, after his restoration. Nor is there to be found, in all the acts,\npetitions, supplications and addresses, made by the assemblies at or\nsince the revolution, any thing importing a desire to have that\nblasphemous act rescinded, which stands in full force, to the perpetual\ninfamy and disgrace of the revolution settlement of religion, so much\ngloried in, by the greatest part, as happily established.\n\n2. The presbytery testify against the Revolution settlement of religion,\nnot only as including avowed apostasy from the covenanted constitution\nof the reformed church of _Scotland_, and a traitorous giving up of the\ninterests and rights of Christ, our Lord and REDEEMER, in these, and\nespecially in this land; but also, as it is an Erastian settlement,\nwhich will appear, by considering 1_st_. The scriptural method then\ntaken, in establishing religion: instead of setting the church foremost\nin the work of the Lord, and the state coming after, and ratifying by\ntheir civil sanction what the church had done; the Revolution parliament\ninverted this beautiful order, both in abolishing Prelacy, settling\nPresbytery, and ratifying the Confession of Faith, as the standard of\ndoctrine to this church; 2_d_, In abolishing Prelacy, as it was not at\nthe desire of the church, but of the estates of _Scotland_, so the\nparliament did it in an Erastian manner, without consulting the church,\nor regarding that it had been abolished by the church, _anno_ 1638, and\nby the state, 1640, in confirmation of what the church had done. Thus,\n_Act_ 3d, 1689, 'tis said, \"The king and queen's majesties with the\nestates of parliament, do hereby abolish Prelacy.\" Again, when\nestablishing presbytery, _Act_ 5th, 1690, they act in the same Erastian\nmanner, whereby the order of the house of God was inverted in the matter\nof government; in regard that the settlement of the government of the\nchurch in the first instance, properly belongs to an ecclesiastical\njudicatory, met and constituted in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ;\nand it is afterward the duty of the state to give the sanction of their\nauthority to the same. This Erastianism further appears in the\nparliament's conduct with respect unto the Confession of Faith: see\n_Act_ 5th, _Sess._ 2d, _Parl._ 1st, wherein thus they express\nthemselves: \"Likeas they, by these presents, ratify and establish the\nConfession of Faith, now read in their presence, and voted and approven\nby them, as the public and avowed confession of this church.\" Hence it\nis obvious, that the parliament, by sustaining themselves proper judges\nof doctrine, encroached upon the intrinsic power of the church: they\nread, voted, and approved the Confession of Faith, without ever\nreferring to, or regarding the act of the general assembly 1647, or any\nother act of reforming assemblies, whereby that confession was formerly\nmade ours, or even so much as calling an assembly to vote and approve\nthat confession of new. That the above conduct of the state, without\nregarding the church in her assemblies, either past or future, is gross\nErastianism, and what does not belong, at first instance, to the civil\nmagistrate, but to the church representative, to whom the Lord has\ncommitted the management of the affairs of his spiritual kingdom, may\nappear from these few sacred texts, besides many others, namely, _Numb._\ni, 50, 51: \"But thou shalt appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of\ntestimony, and over all the vessels thereof, and over all the things\nthat belong to it: they shall bear the tabernacle and all the vessels\nthereof, and they shall minister unto it, and shall encamp round about\nthe tabernacle; and when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites\nshall take it down, and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the\nLevites shall set it up, and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put\nto death.\" See also chapters iii, and iv, throughout; also _Deut._\nxxxiii, 8, 10; 1 _Chron._ xv, 2; 2 _Chron._ xix, 11; _Ezra_ x, 4. So\n_David_, when he had felt the anger of the Lord, for not observing his\ncommandments in this particular, says, 1 _Chron._ xv, 12, 13, to the\n_Levites_, \"Sanctify yourselves that ye may bring up the ark of the Lord\nGod of Israel. For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God\nmade a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.\"\nLikewise Hezekiah, a reforming king, did not himself, at first instance,\nset about reforming and purging the house of God; but having called\ntogether the priests and Levites, says to them, 2 _Chron._ xxix, 5:\n\"Sanctify yourselves and sanctify the house of the Lord God of your\nfathers, and carry forth the filthiness out of the holy place;\" compared\nwith _ver._ 11; _Mal._ ii, 7; _Matth._ xvi, 19. \"I will give unto thee\nthe keys of the kingdom of heaven.\" And xxviii, 18, 19, 20: \"All power\nis given unto me, go ye therefore and teach all nations, teaching them\nto observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.\" From all which\nit may safely be inferred, that as the Lord Jesus Christ, the King and\nLawgiver of his church, has committed all the power of church matters,\nwhether respecting the doctrine or government thereof, to church\nofficers, as the first, proper receptacles thereof; so, for civil\nrulers, at first instance, by their own authority, to make alterations\nin the government of the church, and to settle and emit a standard of\ndoctrine to the church, is a manifest usurpation of ecclesiastical\nauthority, and tyrannical encroachment upon the ministerial office. It\nneeds only to be added, that this Revolution conduct stands condemned by\nthe Confession of Faith itself, in express terms (as well as in the holy\nscriptures), _chap._ xxiii, _sect._ 3, \"The civil magistrate may not\nassume to himself the administration of the word or the keys.\" And also,\nby the beautiful practice of our reformers, betwixt 1638 and 1649, who\nobserved the scriptural order, the church always going foremost, in all\nthe several pieces of reformation attained to, and then the state coming\nafter, by exerting their authority, in ratification and defense of the\nchurch's acts and deeds, in behalf of reformation.\n\n3. The Erastianism of this settlement of religion, appears plain from\nthe act of parliament 1592, noticed above, upon which the Revolution\nparliament did found it, as in _Act_ 5th, _Sess._ 2, 1690, by which the\nforementioned act 1592, is ratified, revived, renewed and confirmed, in\nall the heads thereof, patronage excepted. Now, in regard that act 1592\ncontains an invasion upon the headship of Christ, and intrinsic power of\nthe church, and ascribes an Erastian power to the civil magistrate over\nthe church, making it unlawful for the church to convocate her superior\njudicatories, but in dependence upon the king for his licence and\nauthority; and in regard the Revolution parliament did revive and renew\nthis clause in foresaid act 1592, as well as other heads thereof, it\nmust needs follow, that this settlement of religion cannot be freed of\nthe charge of Erastianism. Nor is it very strange that statesmen, who\nhad been educated in the principles of Erastianism, should be fond of\nreviving an act that robbed Christ of his crown rights, and the church\nof her spiritual liberty; but most surprising, that professed\nPresbyterian ministers should so greedily embrace and approve of\nErastianism, as a valuable and glorious deliverance to the church of\nChrist! In agreeableness to this Erastian article of the above act the\nparliament, in their act 1690, indicted and appointed the first general\nassembly, as a specimen of their Erastian power over their newly\nconstituted church; and it has ever since been the practice of the\nsovereign, to call, dissolve and adjourn her assemblies at his pleasure,\nand sometimes to an indefinite time. It is further observable, that the\nking's commission to his representative in assembly, runs in a style\nthat evidently discovers, that he looks upon the assembly's power and\nright of constitution as subordinate to him. Thus it begins, \"_Seeing by\nour decree that an assembly is to meet_,\" &c. Yet notwithstanding of\nthis, the assembly 1690 (nor any after them, so far as was ever known to\nthe world) did not by any one formal act and statue expressly condemn\nErastianism, and explicitly assert the alone headship of Christ, and the\nintrinsic, independent power of the church, in opposition to these\nencroachments made thereupon, and therefore may be justly construed\nconsenters thereto. To conclude this particular, of the Erastianism of\nthe present settlement of religion, it may be observed that although the\nRevolution parliament, from political views, did by _Act_ 1st, _Sess._\n2d, rescind the first act of the second parliament of Charles II.\nentitled _Act asserting his majesty's supremacy over all persons and in\nall causes ecclesiastical_; yet, from what is above hinted, it may be\ninferred, that the Revolution state has still preserved the very soul\nand substance of that blasphemous supremacy (though possibly they may\nhave transferred it from the person of the king, abstractly considered,\nand lodged it in the hand of the king and parliament conjunctly, as the\nmore proper subject thereof): for, in the words of Mr. John Burnet, in\nhis testimony against the indulgence, quoted by Mr. Brown in his history\nof the indulgence, \"To settle, enact and emit constitutions, acts and\norders, concerning matters, meetings and persons ecclesiastical,\naccording to royal pleasure (and parliamentary is much the same), is the\nvery substance and definition of his majesty's supremacy, as it is\nexplained by his estates of parliament.\" But the Revolution act of\nparliament settling religion, is just to settle, enact and emit such\nconstitutions, acts and orders concerning matters, meetings and persons\necclesiastical, according to parliamentary, instead of mere royal\npleasure: and therefore the act authorizing the Revolution settlement of\nreligion, is the very substance and definition of a royal parliamentary\nsupremacy. The truth of this will further appear by the sequel.\n\n4. The presbytery testify against the Revolution constitution and\nsettlement of religion, as it is not a religious, but a mere civil and\npolitical one; \"not built upon the foundation of the apostles and\nprophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;\" but upon\nthe fluctuating inclinations of the people, as the formal foundation\nthereof. For proof of which, consider the acts of parliament relative to\nthe abolition of Prelacy, and the establishment of presbytery. In\nconsequence of an article of the claim of right made by the estates of\nScotland, the _Act_ 3d, _Sess._ 1st, _Parl._ 1689, declares, \"That\nwhereas the estates of this kingdom, in their claim of right, declared\nthat Prelacy, and the superiority of any office in the church above\npresbyters, is and hath been a great and insupportable grievance to this\nnation, and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the people\never since the reformation, they having been reformed from Popery by\npresbyters, and therefore to be abolished: our sovereign lord and lady,\nwith advice and consent of the estates of parliament, do hereby abolish\nPrelacy, and all superiority of any office in the church in this kingdom\nabove presbyters; and do declare, that they, with advice aforesaid, will\nsettle by law that church government in this kingdom, which is most\nagreeable to the inclinations of the people.\" Agreeable to this, one of\nking William's instructions to the parliament 1690, is, \"You are to pass\nan act establishing that church government which is most agreeable to\nthe inclinations of the people.\" Accordingly we have the _Act_ 5th,\n_Sess._ 2d, 1690, settling Presbyterian church-government in the same\nform, and on the same footing. And so much king William, who, doubtless,\nwas perfectly acquainted with the true intent and meaning of that act,\ndeclares in his letter to the assembly indicted by him that same year.\nFrom all which (without noticing the Erastian form of these acts, &c.)\nit may be observed, that there is somewhat done that is materially good;\nbut then there is nothing importing the contrariety of Prelacy to the\nscriptures of truth, nor the divine right of Presbyterian church\ngovernment, so that the whole of this settlement is purely political,\ndone for the pleasure of the good subjects of Scotland: for, 1st, the\nonly reason why Prelacy is complained of and abolished, is, because it\nwas grievous and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the\npeople. It is not so much as declared contrary to law, though well known\nthat it was condemned by many of the reforming laws; far less is it\ndeclared contrary to the word of God, and reformation principles founded\nthereupon. Neither is it said to be a grievance to the nations, though\nit is manifest, by the nations entering into a solemn covenant to\nextirpate it, that it was an insupportable burden to all the three. And\nthe great reason assigned for the people's dissatisfaction to Prelacy,\nis _antiquity_, \"they having been reformed from Popery by presbyters,\"\nas if our reformers had only contended for a church government merely\nhuman; whereas they strenuously maintained the divine right of\npresbytery, and condemned Prelacy as contrary to the word of God. This\nreason would be equally strong against presbytery, on supposition that\nprelates had got the start of presbyters in the reformation from Popery.\nAgain, 2d, upon the same, and no better ground, was Presbytery\nestablished, namely, because it was more agreeable to the inclinations\nof the people, and as it was of a more ancient standing in Scotland than\nPrelacy. Further, that the divine right of presbytery is not\nacknowledged in this settlement, appears from the express words of the\nact itself, wherein it is designated, \"the only government of Christ's\nchurch in the nation;\" not the only government of Christ's church laid\ndown in the word of God, received and sworn to by all the three nations,\nratified by both civil and ecclesiastical authority. A clear evidence,\nthat church government was regarded as ambulatory only, and what might\nbe altered at pleasure. Hence, while the king was settling presbytery in\nScotland, he was also maintaining, as bound by oath, Prelacy in England,\n&c. And so Presbytery, for peace's sake, as most agreeable to the\ninclinations of the people, was settled in Scotland as the government of\nChrist's church there. Thus, there is a settlement of religion, and yet\nnot one line of scripture authority, or reformation principles legible\ntherein: and, as one said (though a strenuous defender of the\nsettlement), \"The glory of that church is at a low pass, which hangs\nupon the nail of legal securities by kings and parliaments, instead of\nthe nail which God has fastened in a sure place;\" which, alas! is the\ncase with the church of Scotland at this day. It is true, that the\nparliament call their settlement, \"Agreeable to God's word;\" but it is\nas true, that, from their conduct toward both (abolishing Prelacy, and\nestablishing Presbytery, from these political motives above mentioned),\nit is abundantly plain, that they believed neither of them to be\nformally and specifically agreeable to, and founded upon the word of\nGod; but that they regarded all forms of church government as\nindifferent, and thought themselves at liberty to pick and choose such a\nparticular form as best suited the humors and inclinations of the\npeople, and their own worldly advantage. Accordingly, we find the\nparliament 1689, appointing a committee to receive all the forms of\ngovernment that should be brought before them, to examine them for this\npurpose, and then report their opinions of them to the house.\n\nThat the parliament at this time, or the king and parliament conjunctly,\nacted from the above latitudinarian principle, is further evident, from\ntheir establishing and consenting to the establishment of these two\ndifferent and opposite forms of church government, Presbytery in\n_Scotland_, and Prelacy in _England_ and _Ireland_, and both of them\nconsidered as agreeable to the word of God, and the only government of\nChrist's church in the several kingdoms, where they were espoused;\nwhich, as it is self-contradictory and absurd, so it is impossible they\ncould ever have done this, if they had believed the divine right of\neither of them. And finally, by this conduct of theirs, the state\ndeclared their approbation thereof, and resolution to copy after the\n16th _Act, Sess._ 2d _Parl._ 1st of _Charles_ II (yet in force), which\nascribes an Erastian power to the king, of settling church government as\nhe shall think proper. By all which it appears quite inconsistent with\nthe Revolution settlement, to consider church power in any other light,\nthan as subordinate to the power of the state. And yet with this\npolitical and Erastian settlement of religion, the Revolution Church\nhave declared themselves satisfied; they have not condemned Episcopacy,\nas contrary to the word of God, nor positively asserted the divine right\nof Presbytery, and disclaimed the claim of right and act of settlement,\nas their right of constitution; but, on the contrary, approved of both,\nas appears from the commission's act, 1709, and their address to the\nparliament, 1711, both homologated by the succeeding assemblies. Whereby\nthey declare, that they have dropped a most material part of the\ntestimony of the reformed church of _Scotland_, and are not faithful to\nthe Lord Jesus Christ, in maintaining the rights of his crown and\nkingdom. From the whole, it may too justly be concluded concerning the\nRevolution settlement of religion, what the prophet _Hosea_ declares of\nthe calf of _Samaria, Hos._ viii, 6: \"For from Israel was it also, the\nworkman made it, therefore it is not God; the calf of _Samaria_ shall be\nbroken in pieces.\" It is not a divine institution founded upon the word\nof God, and regulated by his revealed law; but a human invention, owing\nits original in both kingdoms to the inclinations of the people, and\ngoverned by laws opposite to the laws of Christ in the word.\n\nHence we have the idolatrous institutions of Prelacy, established in the\none nation, and Erastianism, under the specious pretext of Presbytery,\nin the other; and both under an exotic head of ecclesiastical\ngovernment.\n\nFrom what is said above, respecting the Revolution constitutions, and\nsettlement of religion in the nations, it will appear, that the same are\nopposite to the word of God, and covenanted constitutions of both church\nand state, and to the reforming laws, between 1638 and 1650, ratifying\nand securing the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the\nchurch, and all divine ordinances, sacred and civil, according to\nscripture revelation; and therefore cannot be acknowledged as lawful, by\nany that make the law of God their rule, and desire to go out by the\nfootsteps of the flock of Christ.\n\nThe Presbytery proceed now to consider the administration since the late\nRevolution, as standing in immediate connection with the forementioned\nconstitutions and settlement: only, in the entry, it may be observed,\nthat as the mal-administrations, civil and ecclesiastical, are increased\nto almost an innumerable multitude, so that it would be next to an\nimpossibility to reckon them all; the Presbytery propose only to observe\nso many of the most remarkable instances, as shall be sufficient to\njustify a condemnation of the present course of the nations, although\nthe constitutions could not, be excepted against as sinful. And,\n\n1. The Presbytery declare and testify against the gross Erastianism that\nhas attended the administrations of both church and state, since the\nRevolution. As the constitutions of both (above noticed) were Erastian\nand anti-scriptural, so their conduct ever since has been agreeable\nthereto, tending evidently to discover that, while the state is robbing\nout Redeemer of his crown, and his church of her liberties, this church,\ninstead of testifying against, gives consent to these impieties.\n\nParticularly, 1, as at the forementioned period, so ever since, the king\nhas continued, by his own authority, to call, dissolve, and adjourn the\nnational assemblies of this church. The first Revolution Assembly was\nheld, by virtue of an Erastian indictment, and by the same power\ndissolved. The nest was, by royal authority, appointed to be at\n_Edinburgh_ 1691, but by the same power, adjourned to 1692, and then\ndissolved, without passing any act; and though again indicted to meet\n1693, yet was not allowed to sit until _March_ 1694, near a year after\nthe parliament had made an humble address to the sovereign for granting\nthat privilege. But it would be endless to attempt an enumeration of all\nthe instances of the exercise of Erastianism in this particular, which\nis annually renewed. How often, alas! have the assemblies been\nprorogued, raised, and dissolved, by magistratical authority, and\nsometimes without nomination of another diet? How frequently also, have\nthey been restricted in their proceedings, and prelimited as to members,\nand matters to be treated of, and discussed therein; depriving some\nmembers of their liberty to sit and act as members, though regularly\nchosen, merely, because such had not taken the oaths appointed by law?\nAll which exercise of Erastian supremacy natively results from the\nparliamentary settlement 1690. And when no adequate testimony was ever\ngiven by the church against such Erastian usurpations, but they are\nstill crouched under and complied with, it may justly be constructed a\ntame subjection and woful consent to this supremacy. That this is no\nforced inference from the continued practice of this church, appears\nfrom this (besides other evidences that might be adduced), viz., That as\nthe Revolution parliament, when ratifying the Confession of Faith,\nentirely left out the act of Assembly 1647, approving and partly\nexplaining the same (wherein these remarkable words are, \"It is further\ndeclared, that the Assembly understands some parts of the second article\nof the 31st chapter, only of kirks not settled or constituted in point\nof government\") as being inconsistent with the Erastian impositions of\nthe magistrate. So this church, when they cause intrants into the\nministry subscribe the Confession, do not oblige them to subscribe it\nwith this explanatory act (which does by no means admit of a privative\npower in the magistrate, destructive of the church's intrinsic power),\nbut they only do it as the parliament ratified it.\n\n2. Another instance of Erastianism practiced by both church and state,\nis, that when the king and parliament did bind down episcopal curates\nupon congregations, forbidding church judicatories the exercise of\ndiscipline upon the impenitent, and enjoining the Assembly to admit\nsuch, without any evidence of grief or sorrow for their former apostasy,\nupon their swearing the oath of allegiance, and subscribing a _formula_,\nhomologating the Revolution settlement, substituted in the room of the\ncovenants; the church approved of this settlement, and protection\ngranted by the civil powers to such curates all their lifetime in their\nchurches and benefices, who yet were not brought under any obligation to\nsubject themselves to the government and discipline of the church. The\ntruth of this is manifest, from sundry of king _William's_ letters to\nthe Assemblies, together with after acts of parliament, relative\nthereto. In his letter, dated _February_ 13th, 1690, to the commission\nof the Assembly, he says, \"Whereas there has been humble application\nmade to us by several ministers, for themselves and others, who lately\nserved under episcopacy; we have thought good to signify our pleasure to\nyou, that you make no distinction of men, otherwise well qualified for\nthe ministry, though they have formerly conformed to the law,\nintroducing Episcopacy, and that ye give them no disturbance or vexation\nfor that cause, or for that head: and it is our pleasure, that, until we\ngive our further directions, you proceed to no more process, or any\nother business.\" In another letter, dated _June_ 15th, 1691, he says,\n\"We are well pleased with what you write, to unite with such of the\nclergy, who have served under Episcopacy; and that you are sufficiently\ninstructed by the General Assembly to receive them; from all which, we\ndo expect a speedy and happy success, that there shall be so great a\nprogress made in this union betwixt you, before our return to _Britain_,\nthat we shall then find no cause to continue that stop, which at present\nwe see necessary; and that neither you, nor any commission or church\nmeeting, do meddle in any process or business, that may concern the\npurging out of the episcopal ministers.\" And in a letter to the\nepiscopal clergy, he says, \"We doubt not of your applying to, and\nconcurring with, your brethren the Presbyterian ministers, in the terms\nwhich we have been of pains to adjust for you; the _formula_ will be\ncommunicated to you by our commissioners,\" &c. See also the 27th _Act,\nParl._ 1695, where it is declared, \"That all such as shall duly come in\nand qualify themselves, shall have and enjoy his majesty's protection,\nas to their respective kirks and benefices, they always containing\nthemselves within the limits of their pastoral charge, within their said\nparishes, without offering to exercise any part of government, unless\nthey be first duly assumed by a competent church judicatory; providing,\nnevertheless, that as the said ministers are left free to apply, or not,\nto the foresaid church judicatories,\" &c. To which agree, _Act_ 2d,\n_Parl._ 1700; _Act_ 3d, _Parl._ 1702; _Act_ 2d, _Parl._ 1703, &c. Behold\nhere the civil magistrate, exercising the supremacy in matters\necclesiastical, in that he both establishes the old _Scots_ curates in\ntheir respective parishes, upon their former footing, limits them in the\nexorcise of their function, discharging them from exercising any part of\necclesiastical polity, but upon their uniting with the Presbyterians, on\nthe terms he had adjusted for them. And further, by his authority stops\nthe exercise of church discipline against these curates (though the most\nof them were notoriously scandalous); nay, even discharges the Assembly\nfrom proceeding to any other business, until they received other\ndirections from the throne. Which palpable instance of Erastianism in\nthe state, was not only peaceably submitted to, but heartily acquiesced\nin by the church: for as they had declared they would censure no\nprelatical incumbent for his principles anent church government, however\nmuch disaffected to a covenanted reformation, and had given frequent\ndiscoveries of their readiness to receive into communion the episcopal\ncurates, according to the terms prescribed by the parliament (as appears\nfrom the Assembly records); so the Assembly 1694, _Act_ 11th, having\nframed a sham _formula_, for receiving in the curates, containing no\nsuch thing as any renunciation of abjured prelacy, the abominable test,\nand other sinful oaths these creatures had taken, but only an\nacknowledgment of the Revolution settlement of religion, as established\nby law, by the foresaid act, appointed their commission to receive all\nthe episcopal clergy who applied, and being qualified according to law,\nwould also subscribe their _formula_, and that without requiring the\nleast show of repentance for their scandalous public sins, and their\ndeep guilt of the effusion of the blood of God's faithful saints and\nwitnesses during the tyranny of the two brothers. These instructions to\nthe commission and other judicatories (as appears by their acts), were\nsuccessively renewed by the Assembly upward of twenty times, from 1694\nto 1716, and were indeed attended with good success, as is evident from\ntheir address to the queen, recorded _Act_ 10th, 1712; where they\ndeclare, as an instance of their moderation, \"That since the Revolution,\nthere had been taken in, and continued, hundreds of the episcopal\ncurates upon the easiest terms,\" viz., such as were by the royal\nprerogative adjusted to them. Which practice, as it declares this church\nhomologators of Erastianism, so is directly opposite to Presbyterian\nprinciples, the discipline and practice of our reformed church of\n_Scotland_, and to the laws of Christ, the supreme lawgiver, _Ezek._\nxliv, 10-15; _2 Cor._ vi, 17, 18, &c.\n\n3. A _third_ instance of the Erastianism practiced since the revolution,\nis, that the king and parliament have taken upon them to prescribe and\nlay down, by magistratical authority, conditions and qualifications,\n_sine qua non_, of ministers and preachers. For proof of which, see\n_Act_ 6th, _Sess._ 4th, _Parl._ 1st, 1693, where it is enacted, \"That\nthe said oath of allegiance be sworn the same with the foresaid\nassurance, be subscribed by all preachers and ministers of the gospel\nwhatever--certifying such of the foresaid persons as are, or shall be,\nin any public office, and shall own and exercise the same without taking\nthe said oath and assurance in manner foresaid,--ministers provided to\nkirks shall be deprived of their benefices or stipends, and preachers\nshall be punished with banishment, or otherwise, as the council shall\nthink fit.\" Also, _Act_ 23d, 1693, it is ordained, \"That no person be\nadmitted or continued to be a minister, or preach within this church,\nunless that he have first taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance,\nand subscribed the oath of assurance in manner appointed. And further\nstatute and ordain, that uniformity of worship be observed by all the\nsaid ministers and preachers, as the same are at present performed and\nallowed therein, or shall hereafter be declared by the authority of the\nsame: and that no minister or preacher be continued and admitted\nhereafter, unless that he subscribe to observe, and do actually observe,\nthe foresaid uniformity.\" The Erastianism in these acts seems screwed up\nyet a little higher, by _Act_ 7th, _Sess._ 5th, _Parl._ 1st, 1695;\nwhere, after appointing a new day to such ministers as had not formerly\nobeyed, it is ordained: \"With certification that such of the said\nministers as shall not come in between and said day, are hereby, and by\nthe force of this present act, _ipso facto_, deprived of their\nrespective kirks and stipends, and the same declared vacant, without any\nfurther sentence.\" The Erastianism in these acts is so manifest at first\nsight, that it is needless to illustrate the same; only it may be\nremarked, that, by these acts, the civil magistrate prescribes new\nministerial qualifications, viz., the oaths of allegiance and assurance;\nand these imposed instead of an oath of allegiance to Zion's King, viz.,\nthe oaths of the covenants. As also, that ministers are hereby\nrestricted from advancing reformation, being bound down to observe that\nuniformity at present allowed, or that shall hereafter be declared by\nauthority of parliament. And further, Erastianism is here advanced to\nthe degree of wresting the keys of government out of the hands of the\nchurch altogether--taking to themselves the power of deposing all such\nministers as shall not submit to their anti-christian impositions, and\nof declaring and ascertaining, by their own authority, what mode of\nworship or government shall take place in the church hereafter. This\nErastian appointment of ministerial qualifications, &c., is evidently\ninjurious, both to the headship of Christ in his church, and to the\nchurch's intrinsic power. It pertains to the royal prerogative of\nChrist, to appoint all the qualifications of his officers, which he has\ndone in the Word. And it pertains to the church representative, by\napplying the laws of Christ in his Word, to declare who are qualified\nfor the ministry, and who are not. But here the civil power, without any\nregard to church judicatories, by a magisterial authority, judges and\ndetermines, the qualifications that gospel ministers must have,\notherwise they cannot be acknowledged ministers of this church. At the\nsame time, it must be regretted, that the church, instead of faithfully\ndiscovering the sinfulness of foresaid conduct, and testifying against\nit, as an anti-christian usurpation, have declared their approbation\nthereof, by taking the above named illimited oaths, according to the\nparliament's order; and also by the assembly's enjoining their\ncommission to act conform to the parliament's directions respecting\nministerial qualifications, in their admission of those that had\nformerly conformed to Episcopacy, and refusing to admit any into their\ncommunion without having these new ministerial qualifications.\n\n4. A fourth piece of Erastianism exercised since the commencement of the\nrevolution settlement, against which the presbytery testify, is, the\ncivil magistrate, by himself and his own authority, without consulting\nthe church, or any but his parliament, privy council, and diocesan\nbishops, his appointing diets and causes of public fasting and\nthanksgiving. A number of instances might here be condescended on. So an\nact of the states, _anno_ 1689, for public thanksgiving. An act of\nparliament 1693, appointing a monthly fast, declares, \"That their\nmajesties, with advice and consent of the said estates of parliament, do\nhereby command and appoint, that a day of solemn fasting and humiliation\nbe religiously and strictly observed, by all persons within this\nkingdom, both in church and meeting-houses, upon the third _Thursday_ of\nthe month of _May_, and, the third _Thursday_ of every month thereafter,\nuntil intimation of forbearance be made by the lords of their majesties'\nprivy council; and ordains all ministers to read these presents a\n_Sunday_ before each of these fast days, nominated, by authority; and\nordains all disobeyers to be fined in a sum not exceeding 100\u00a3., and\nevery minister who shall not obey, to be processed before the lords of\ntheir majesties' privy council; and requiring sheriffs to make report of\nthe ministers who shall fail of their duty herein, to the privy\ncouncil.\" But it is to no purpose to multiply instances of this kind,\nseeing it has been the common practice of every sovereign since the\nrevolution, to appoint and authorize national diets of fasting, with\ncivil pains annexed. And as the state has made these encroachments upon\nthe royalties of Christ, so this church, instead of bearing faithful\ntestimony against the same, have finally submitted thereto. In\nagreeableness to the royal appointment, they observed the monthly fast\nfor the success of the war against _Lewis_ XIV (of which above), and in\nfavor of the Pope, which king _William_ was bound to prosecute by virtue\nof a covenant made with the allies at the _Hague, February_, 1691, to be\nseen in the declaration of war then made against _France_, wherein it is\nexpressly said, \"That no peace is to be made with _Lewis_ XIV, till he\nhas made reparation to the Holy See for whatsoever he has acted against\nit, and till he make void all these infamous proceedings (viz., of the\nparliament of _Paris_) against the holy father, _Innocent_ XI.\" Behold\nhere the acknowledgment of the Pope's supremacy, and his power and\ndignity, both as a secular and ecclesiastical prince; and in the\nobservation of these fasts, the church did mediately (_tell it not in\nGath_--) pray for success to the _man of sin_--a practice utterly\nrepugnant to Protestant, much more to Presbyterian, principles, and\nwhich will be a lasting stain upon both church and state. As this church\ndid then submit, so since she has made a resignation and surrender of\nthat part of the church's intrinsic right to the civil power, see _Act_\n7th, _Assem._ 1710: \"All ministers and members are appointed religiously\nto observe all fasts and thanksgivings whatever, appointed by the church\nor supreme magistrate; and the respective judicatories are appointed to\ntake particular notice of the due observation of this, and _Act_ 4th,\n1722, _Act_ 5th, 1725.\" From which acts it is manifest, that the\nRevolution Church has not only declared the power and right of\nauthoritative indicting public fasts and thanksgivings for ordinary,\neven in a constituted settled national church, to belong, at least\nequally, to the civil magistrate, as to the church; but, by their\nconstant practice, have undeniably given up the power of the same to the\ncivil power altogether--it being fact, that she never, by her own power,\nappoints a national diet of fasting, but still applies to the king for\nthe nomination thereof. And further, as a confirmation of this\nsurrender, it appears from their public records, that when some members\nhave protested against the observation of such diets, the assembly would\nneither receive nor record such protest. Now, the sinfulness of this\nErastian practice still persisted in, is evident from the Scriptures of\ntruth, where the glorious king of Zion assigns the power of appointing\nfasts, not to the civil magistrate, but to the spiritual office-bearers\nin his house. _Jer._ xiii, 18: \"Say unto the king and queen, Humble\nyourselves.\" Here it is the office of the prophets of the Lord, to\nenjoin humiliation work upon those that are in civil authority, contrary\nto the present practice, when kings and queens, usurping the sacred\noffice, by their authority, say to ministers, \"Humble yourselves.\" See\nalso, _Joel_ i, 13, 14, and ii, 15, 16, compared with _Numb._ x, 8-10.\nHere whatever pertains to these solemnities, is entrusted to, and\nrequired of, the ministers of the Lord, without the intervention of\ncivil authority. The same is imported in _Matth._ xvi, 19, and xviii,\n18; _John_ xx, 23--it being manifestly contained in the power of the\nkeys committed, by the church's head, to ecclesiastical officers.\nMoreover, this Erastianism, flowing from a spiritual supremacy exercised\nover the church, is peculiarly aggravated by these particulars:\n\n1. That commonly these fasts have been appointed on account of wars, in\nwhich the nations were engaged, in conjunction with gross anti-christian\nidolaters, who have been most active in their endeavors to root out\nProtestantism. Now, it cannot but be most provoking to the Majesty of\nHeaven for professed Presbyterians to observe fasts, the professed\ndesign of which, includes success to the interest of the avowed enemies\nof our glorious REDEEMER. Again, the above practice is aggravated, from\nthis consideration, that these diets of fasting, with civil pains\nannexed to them, are sent by public proclamation, directed to their\nsheriffs and other subordinate civil officers, who are authorized to\ndispatch them to the ministers, and inspect their observation thereof.\nAnd while professed ministers of Christ tamely comply with all this, it\namounts to no less, than a base subjection of the worship of God, in the\nsolemnity of fasting in a national way, to the arbitrament of the civil\npowers, when whatever time and causes they appoint, must be observed.\n\nFrom all which, in the words of the ministers of _Perth_ and _Fife_, in\ntheir testimony to the truth, &c., 1758, the presbytery testify against\nthe above Erastian conduct, as being, in its own nature, introductory to\ngreater encroachments, and putting into the hands of the civil powers,\nthe modeling of the worship of God, and things most properly\necclesiastical.\n\n5. Another piece of Erastianism, respecting the present administration,\nwhich the Presbytery testify against, is the king and parliament their\narbitrarily imposing several of their acts and statutes upon ministers\nand preachers, under ecclesiastical pains and censures; while this\nRevolution Church, by their silent submission and compliance therewith,\nhave, at least, interpretatively given their consent thereto. Thus, as\nthe oaths of allegiance and assurance were enjoined upon all in\necclesiastical office, under the pain of church censure (of which\nabove), so likewise, _Act_ 6th, 1706, ordains, \"That no professors and\nprincipals, bearing office in any university, be capable, or be admitted\nto continue in the exercise of their said functions, but such as shall\nown the civil government, in manner prescribed, or to be prescribed by\nacts of parliament.\" In consequence of which, there is an _Act_ 1707, an\nact in the first year of king _George_ I, and another in the fifth year\nof his reign; by all which statutes, ecclesiastical persons are enjoined\nto take the oath of abjuration, with the other oaths, under pain of\nhaving ecclesiastical censures inflicted upon them. And they ordain,\n\"That no person be admitted to trials, or licensed to preach, until they\nhave taken the public oaths, on pain of being disabled.\" The foresaid\nact, in the fifth year of _George_ I, ordains, \"all ministers and\npreachers to pray in express words for his majesty and the royal family,\nas in former acts.\" The king and parliament at their own hand prescribe\na set form of prayer for the Church of _Scotland_, and that under\nErastian penalties, upon the disobeyers. Again, by an act of 1737,\nframed for the more effectual bringing to justice the murderers of\nCaptain _Porteous_, it is enacted, \"That this act shall be read in every\nparish church throughout _Scotland_, on the first Lord's day of every\nmonth, for one whole year, from the first day of _August_, 1737, by the\nminister of the parish, in the morning, immediately before the sermon;\nand, in case such ministers shall neglect to read this act, as is here\ndirected, he shall, for the first offense, be declared incapable of\nsitting or voting in any church judicatory; and for the second offense,\nbe declared incapable of taking, holding or enjoying any ecclesiastical\nbenefice in that part of _Great Britain_ called _Scotland_.\" The\nErastianism of this act is very plain, the penalties thereof are\necclesiastical, and infer a kind of deposition; seeing the disobeyers\nare hereby disabled from exercising and enjoying what is essential to\ntheir office. Moreover, the wickedness of this act appears, in that it\nwas appointed to be read on the Sabbath day, and in time of divine\nservice; whereby ministers being constituted the magistrates' heralds to\nproclaim this act, were obliged to profane the Lord's day, and corrupt\nhis worship, by immixing human inventions therewith, which was directly\na framing mischief into a law. Yet, with all these impositions above\nnoticed, this church has generally complied; and thereby declared that\nthey are more studious of pleasing and obeying men, than God, seeing\ntheir practice therein infers no less, than a taking instructions in the\nministerial function, and matters of divine worship, from another head\nthan Christ.\n\n6. The last piece of Erastian administration in church and state, the\npresbytery take notice of, and testify against, is that of patronages.\nWhen the parliament 1690, had changed the form of patronages, by taking\nthe power of presentations from patrons, and lodging it in the hands of\nsuch heritors and elders as were qualified by law, excluding the people\nfrom a vote in calling their ministers, this Erastian act, spoiling the\npeople of their just privilege, was immediately embraced by the church,\nas is evident from their overtures for church discipline, 1696, where\nthey declare that only heritors and elders have a proper right to vote\nin the nomination of a minister. Also their overtures, 1705 and 1719, do\nlodge the sole power of nomination of ministers in the hands of the\nmajority of heritors, by giving them a negative over the eldership and\ncongregation. But, as if this had not been a sufficient usurpation of\nthe people's right, purchased to them by the blood of Christ, by an act\nof parliament, 1712, the above act, 1690, is repealed, and patrons fully\nrestored to all their former anti-christian powers over the heritage of\nthe Lord; which yoke still continues to oppress the people of God. While\nagain, this church, as if more careful to please the court, and court\nparasites, than Christ and his people, have not only peaceably fallen in\nwith this change, daily practicing it in planting vacant congregations,\nbut, as fond of this child of _Rome_, have further established and\nconfirmed the power of patrons, by the sanction of their authority, as\nappears from several acts of assembly, thereby declaring their\nresolutions to have this epidemic evil continued, though it should\nterminate in the utter ruin of the church. Patronage was always by the\nChurch of _Scotland_ since the reformation, accounted an intolerable\nyoke; and therefore she never ceased contending against it until it was\nat last utterly abolished by acts both of reforming assemblies and\nparliaments; and that as one of the inventions of the whore of _Rome_.\n\nAs this anti-christian practice was unknown to the church in her\nprimitive and purest times, until gradually introduced with other popish\ncorruptions, so it has not the least vestige of any warrant in the word\nof truth: nay, is directly opposite thereto, and to the apostolical\npractice: Acts i, 15-24; chap. vi, 2-7: as also, xiv, 23, and xvi, 9,\nwith other passages therein;--a book, intended to give us the\napostolical practice and pattern, in the settlement of the Christian\nchurch: and 2 Cor. iii, 19, &c. Wherefore the presbytery testify against\nthis Erastian usurpation, as most sinful in itself, most injurious to\nthe church of Christ, and inconsistent with the great ends of the\nministry; and against this church, for not only submitting unto, but\neven promoting this wickedness; which is evident, from her deposing some\nof her members, for no other reason but because they could not approve\nof this pernicious scheme. Witness Mr. _Gallespie_, minister at Carnock,\nwho was deposed May, 1752: and against all violent intruders, who, not\nentering by the door, can be regarded only as thieves and robbers; John\nx, 1.\n\nThese are a few of the many instances of the Erastian usurpations of the\nheadship of Christ, as a Son, in and over his own house, and of the\nchurch's intrinsic power assumed by the state, and consented to by this\nchurch since the Revolution.[2] And without condescending upon any more,\nthe presbytery concludes this part, with observing upon the whole, that\nwhen Henry VIII of England did cast off the authority of the see of\nRome, and refused to give that subjection to the pope formerly paid by\nhim and his predecessors; he did, at the same time, assume to himself\nall that power in his dominions, which the pope formerly claimed; and\nsoon afterward procured to have himself acknowledged and declared, by\nact of parliament, to be head of the church--head over all persons, and\nin all causes, civil and ecclesiastical. And which anti-christian\nsupremacy has, ever since, continued an essential part of the English\nconstitution, and inherent right of the crown; so that all the crowned\nheads there, have ever since been as little popes over that realm: and\nthat all such still appropriate unto themselves that blasphemous\nanti-christian title of the head of the church, and supreme judge in all\ncauses, is undeniably evident from the known laws and canons of England:\nand further appears from a declaration made by King George I, June 13th,\n1715, where he styles himself _Defender of the faith, and supreme\nGovernor of the church in his dominions_; declaring, that before the\nclergy can order or settle any differences about the external policy of\nthe church, they must first obtain leave under his broad seal so to do.\nWhich title or authority for man, or angel, to assume, is a downright\ndethroning and exauctorating of Christ, the only and alone Head and\nSupreme Governor of his church. From this spiritual anti-christian\nsupremacy, granted by English laws to the king of England, confirmed and\nestablished, by virtue of the incorporating union, in British kings, by\nacts of British parliament, do flow all the forementioned acts imposed\nupon the Revolution Church of Scotland. And as these acts and laws\ndeclare, that the British monarch confines not his spiritual supremacy\nto the church of England, but it extends it also over the church of\nScotland: so this Revolution Church, having never either judicially or\npractically lifted up the standard of a public, free and faithful\ntestimony, against these sinful usurpations, flowing from the fountain\nof said supremacy, and clothed with the authority of an anti-christian\nparliament, where abjured bishops sit constituent members, but, on the\ncontrary, has submitted to every one of them; therefore, this church may\njustly be constructed, as approvers and maintainers of Erastian\nsupremacy. And hereby, indeed, the revolt of these degenerate lands from\ntheir sworn subjection and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ, as\nsupreme in his own house, is completed, when they have these many years\nsubstituted another in his place, and framed supremacy into a standing\nlaw, to be the rule, according to which their kings must lord it over\nthe house and heritage of the Living God. Again:\n\nThe presbytery testify against the manifold, and almost uninterrupted\nopposition to the ancient glorious uniformity in religion between the\nnations, that has appeared in the administrations of both church and\nstate, since the last Revolution. The revolution constitution and\nsettlement of religion, as has been already observed, laid our solemn\ncovenants and work of reformation, sworn to therein, in a grave, and\nmany stones have since been brought and cast upon them: many ways and\nmeasures have both church and state taken to make sure the revolution\nsepulcher of a covenanted work of reformation, and prevent, if possible,\nits future resurrection: against all which, the presbytery judge\nthemselves bound to lift up their testimony. Particularly,\n\n1. The presbytery testify against the incorporating union of this nation\nwith _England_; and as being an union founded upon an open violation of\nall the articles of the Solemn League and Covenant, still binding upon\nthe nations; and consequently, destructive of that uniformity in\nreligion, once happily attained to by them: which will at first view\nappear, by comparing the articles of the union with those of the Solemn\nLeague. All associations and confederacies with the enemies of true\nreligion and godliness, are expressly condemned in scripture, and\nrepresented as dangerous to the true _Israel_ of God: _Isa._ viii, 12;\n_Jer._ ii, 28; _Psal._ cvi, 35; _Hos._ v, 13, and vii, 8, 11; 2 _Cor._\nvi, 14, 15. And if simple confederacies with malignants and enemies to\nthe cause of Christ are condemned, much more is an incorporation with\nthem, which is an embodying of two into one, and, therefore, a straiter\nconjunction. And taking the definition of malignants, given by the\ndeclaration of both kingdoms joined in arms, _anno_ 1643, to be just,\nwhich says, \"such as would not take the covenant, were declared to be\npublic enemies to their religion and country, and that they are to be\ncensured and punished, as professed adversaries and malignants;\" it\ncannot be refused, but that the prelatical party in _England_, now\njoined with, are such. Further, by this incorporating union, this nation\nis obliged to support the idolatrous Church of _England_; agreeable\nwhereto, the _Scottish_ parliament, in their act of security, relative\nto the treaty of union, declares, \"that the parliament of _England_ may\nprovide for the security of the Church of _England_, as they think\nexpedient.\" Accordingly, the _English_ parliament, before entering upon\nthe treaty of union with _Scotland_, framed an act for securing the\nChurch of _England's_ hierarchy and worship, as by law established.\nWhich act, they declare, \"Shall be inserted, in express terms, in any\nact of parliament which shall be made for settling and ratifying any\ntreaty of union, and shall be declared to be an essential fundamental\npart thereof.\" Hence, the act of the _English_ parliament for the union\nof the two kingdoms, contains the above act for securing the Church of\n_England_. Which act being sent down to _Scotland_, stands recorded\namong the acts of the last _Scottish_ parliament. Moreover, the last\narticle of said union contains, that all laws and statutes in either\nkingdom, so far as they are contrary to, or inconsistent with the terms\nof these articles, or any of them, shall, from and after the union,\ncease and become void; which, as in the act of exemplification, was\ndeclared to be, by the parliaments of both kingdoms. Thus, this nation,\nby engrossing the _English_ act, establishing Prelacy, and all the\nsuperstitious ceremonies, in the act of the union parliament, and by\nannulling all acts contrary to the united settlement, have sealed, as\nfar as men can do, the gravestones formerly laid upon the covenanted\nuniformity of the nations. To all which the revolution church, by\nconsenting, and practically approving this unhallowed union, have said\nAmen; though, at first, some of the members opposed and preached against\nit, yet afterward changed, and (if some historians may be credited) by\nthe influence of gold, were swayed to an approbation. This church's\nconsent to the union is evident, from their accepting of the act of\nsecurity, enacted by the _Scots_ parliament, as the legal establishment\nand security of the Church of _Scotland_; and from the assembly 1715,\nutterly rejecting a proposal to make a representation to the king, that\nthe incorporating union was a grievance to the Church of _Scotland_;\nthough it ought still to be regarded as such, by all the lovers of\nreformation principles, because it is a disclaiming of our sworn duty,\nto endeavor the reformation of _England_ and _Ireland_. It is a\nconsenting to the legal and unalterable establishment of abjured Prelacy\nin them, obliges the sovereigns of _Great Britain_ to swear to the\npreservation of the prelatical constitution, and idolatrous ceremonies\nof the episcopal church, and join in communion therewith; and,\ntherefore, for ever secludes all true Presbyterians from the supreme\nrule. This union establishes the civil, lordly power of bishops,\nobliging the Church of _Scotland_ to acknowledge them as their lawful\nmagistrates and ministers, to pray for a blessing upon them in the\nexercise of their civil power, and is therefore a solemn ratification of\nanti-christian Erastianism. It has formally rescinded, and for ever made\nvoid any act or acts, in favor of a covenanted uniformity in religion,\nthat might be supposed to be in force before this union: and therefore,\nwhile it stands, it is impossible there can be a revival of that blessed\nwork, which was once the glory of the nations of _Scotland, England_ and\n_Ireland_.\n\n2. The presbytery testify against the sinful practice of imposing oaths\nupon the subjects, contradictory to presbyterian principles in general,\nand the oath of the covenants in particular, as the allegiance, and\nparticularly the abjuration; all which oaths, imposed by a _British_\nparliament, exclude our covenanted uniformity, and homologate the united\nconstitution. But, to prevent mistakes, let it be here observed, that\nthe presbytery do not testify against any of these oaths, out of the\nremotest regard to the spurious pretended right of a popish pretender to\nthe throne and crown of these kingdoms; for they judge and declare,\nthat, by the word of God, and fundamental laws of the nations, he can\nhave no right, title or claim, to be king of these covenanted\nkingdoms--seeing, by our covenants and laws, establishing the covenanted\nreformation, which are well founded on the divine law, all Papists, as\nwell as Prelatists, are forever excluded from the throne of these, and\nespecially of this land. So that it is utterly inconsistent with the\nprinciples maintained by this presbytery, constituted upon the footing\nof the covenanted church of _Scotland_, and the oath of God they, with\nthe nations, are under, ever to acknowledge and own the popish\npretender, or any of that cursed race, as their king; but they testify\nagainst these oaths, because they bind to the acknowledgment of the\nlawfulness of a prelatic Erastian constitution of civil government, and\nhomologate the incorporating union, in one article whereof, it is\ndeclared, that these words, \"This realm, and the crown of this realm,\n&c,\" mentioned in the oaths, shall be understood of the crown and realm\nof _Great Britain_, &c.; and that in that sense the said oaths shall be\ntaken and subscribed, and particularly the oath of abjuration, which\nwhosoever takes, swears to maintain Erastian supremacy, Prelacy, and\n_English_ popish ceremonies; and so, at least, by native and necessary\nconsequence, the swearing thereof is an abjuring of our sacred\ncovenants. But that which puts it beyond all dispute, that the oath of\nabjuration, in the literal sense thereof, obliges to maintain the\nprelatic constitution of _England_, both in church and state, as by law\nestablished, and secured by the union act, is the express words of that\nact of parliament, by which this oath was imposed, and to which it\nexpressly refers, viz., the act of further limitation, where it is said:\n\"On which said acts (viz., of limitation, and further limitation), the\npreservation of your majesty's royal person and government, and the\nmaintaining of the church of _England_, as by law established, do, under\nGod, entirely depend. To the intent therefore, that these acts may be\nforever inviolably preserved, it is hereby enacted, that magistrates and\nministers shall take the following oath,\" namely, of abjuration. The\nabove act, then, declaring that said oath was directly intended for the\nsupport and establishment of the prelatic church of _England_, it\nfollows, that this oath is a solemn abjuration of the covenanted\nreformation, as it is also expressly repugnant to Presbyterian\nprinciples. But though the above oath is so manifestly sinful, yet the\nministers of this church did neither faithfully warn others of the sin\nand danger thereof, nor faithfully oppose it when imposed on themselves;\nbut, agreeing that every one should act therein as he thought proper,\nthey who refused it may be reputed _socii criminis_ with the generality,\nwho, contrary to their professed principles, did take and subscribe the\nsame, and that (as says the oath) heartily and willingly; whereby they\nnot only engaged to maintain a prelatic government, Prelacy, with all\nits popish ceremonies, but to maintain _only_ a prelatic government, and\nto oppose all others, even though Presbyterian, in their accession to\nthe throne; and this by virtue of the sinful limitations and conditions,\nwherewith the oath is clogged. And hereby, these nominal Presbyterians\ndiscover that they are not possessed of a zeal for the advancement of\nthe true Presbyterian cause and principles, proportionable to that which\nthe _English_ discover for their will worship and superstition.\n\n3. The presbytery testify against a sinful and almost boundless\ntoleration, granted _anno_ 1712, a woful fruit of the union; by which\ntoleration act, not only those of the Episcopal communion in _Scotland_\nhave the protection of authority, but a wide door is cast open, and\nample pass given to all sects and heretics (popish recusants and\nantitrinitarians some way excepted, who yet are numerous in the nation),\nto make whatever attacks they please upon the kingdom and interest of\nour glorious Redeemer, in order to the advancement of their own and the\ndevil's, and all with impunity. The foresaid act warrants the Episcopal\nclergy publicly to administer all ordinances, and perform their worship\nafter their own manner, with all the popish canons and ceremonies\nthereof, and obliges all magistrates to protect and assist them, while\nit destroys the hedge of church discipline against the scandalous and\nprofane, and is, therefore, a settling and establishing of Prelacy in\n_Scotland_, giving it a security, little, if anything, inferior to that\nwhich the established church has. Again, by a clause in the toleration\nbill, the security given by former laws to Presbyterian church\ngovernment and discipline, is undermined and taken away, at least\nrendered ineffectual, and made the subject of ridicule to the openly\nprofane, by the civil magistrate's withdrawing his concurrence, in as\nmuch as it declares the civil pain of excommunication to be taken away,\nand that none are to be compelled to appear before church judicatories.\nThere is nothing in religion of an indifferent nature; \"For whosoever\n[saith Christ] shall break one of the least of these commandments, and\nshall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.\" It\nmust, then, be the most daring wickedness, and an affronting of the\nMajesty of Heaven in the highest manner, for an earthly monarch to\npretend to enact a toleration of religions, and thereby give a liberty\nwhere the divine law has laid a restraint; it implies an exalting of\nhimself, not only to an equality with, but to a state of superiority\nabove, the God of glory. Whatever principles are of divine authority\nrequire no toleration from man; it is wickedness to pretend to do it,\nseeing whatever comes under the necessity of a toleration, properly so\ncalled, falls, at the same time, under the notion of a crime. And no\nless wicked is it for a magistrate to protect, by a promiscuous\ntoleration, all heretics, heresies and errors; yea, it is a manifest\nbreach of trust, and plain perverting the end of his office, seeing he\nis appointed to be _custos et vindex utriusque tabulae_, intrusted with\nthe concerns of God's glory, as well as the interests of men. Experience\nhas, in every age, taught, that a toleration of all religions is the\ncut-throat and ruin of all true religion. It is the most effectual\nmethod that ever the policy of hell hatched, to banish all true\ngodliness out of the world. But however manifold the evils be that\ntoleration is big with, this church, instead of opposing, seems to have\ncomplied therewith, and to be of toleration principles; which is\nevident, not only from their receiving into communion the _Scots_\ncurates, of which above; but from their joining in communion with Mr.\n_Whitefield (an English_ curate and member of that church, and\nring-leader of the Methodists there), when he is in _Scotland_. Again,\nit is known, that when the _Scots_ gentlemen are sent to attend the\n_British_ parliament, or at any time in _England_, they do, many of\nthem, join in communion with the prelatic church--nay, are guilty of\ntaking the sacramental test (that is, taking the sacrament after their\nsuperstitious manner, to qualify them for any public post); yet this\nchurch receives them into the closest communion, without requiring any\nsatisfaction for these evils; whereby they act contrary to Christ's\nexample, in purging and keeping his house pure, and contrary to the\nScripture; _Rev._ ii, 14, 15, 20.\n\n4. In like manner, the presbytery testify against the tyranny that has\nfrequently appeared in the administration since the revolution, both in\nchurch and state. The civil powers have discovered not a little of\ntyrannical and arbitrary power, in imposing their laws, statutes and\ninjunctions, upon the church, as in the instances of the particulars\nformerly noticed. But further, it has appeared in their fining and\nimprisoning persons, because (though endeavoring to live peaceably, as\nfar as possible, with all men) they could not, in conscience, and in a\ndue regard to the covenanted cause, own the lawfulness of their\nauthority, by swearing fidelity to the present constitution. Again, in\ntheir dispensing with, and counteracting, the law of God in a variety of\ninstances. Thus, while, without any divine warrant, the crime of theft\nis capitally punished, yet the grossest adulterers, who are capitally\npunishable by the divine law, pass with impunity. And frequently\nreprieves, and sometimes pardons (as in the case of _Porteous_), have\nbeen granted to murderers, expressly contrary to the law of God, which\ndeclares that \"Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be\nshed.\" Another astonishing and full evidence of the above charge, is in\nthe act repealing the penal statutes against witches, &c., 1735, where\nit is enacted, \"That no prosecution, suit or proceeding, shall be\ncarried on against any person or persons, for witchcraft, sorcery,\nenchantment or conjuration,\" &c. This act, in plain terms, flatly\ncontradicts and opposes the law of God, in the very letter thereof. See\n_Levit._ xx, 6, 27; _Deut._ xviii, 10-12; _Exod._ xxii, 18. Not only has\nthe state, in these and other instances (as the imposing almost\nintolerable taxations upon the impoverished subjects, for supporting the\ngrandeur of useless and wicked pensioners, and for carrying on wars,\noften not only sinful in respect of their rise and causes, but in their\nnature and tendency unprofitable to the nations), been guilty of this\nevil, but also the Revolution Church has exercised a most tyrannical\ngovernment. As many of the constituent members of the Revolution Church\nhad shown a persecuting, tyrannizing spirit, against the faithful\ncontenders for the truth, in the matter of the public resolutions, so\nthe same spirit has still continued since the revolution, and frequently\nexerted itself in a most arbitrary manner, against all who have made any\nappearance for a covenanted work of reformation. Accordingly, soon after\nthe revolution, this church raised some processes against Mr. _John\nHepburn_, minister at _Orr_, under pretense of some irregularities, but\nin reality, for his making some appearance against their abounding\ndefection, and for a covenanted work of reformation, and continued their\nprosecution to suspension and deposition; and further, applied to the\ncivil magistrate, to apprehend said Mr. _Hepburn_, who accordingly was\nimprisoned in _Edinburgh_, and then, because of his preaching to the\npeople out of a window, was carried to _Stirling_ castle, and kept close\nprisoner there for a considerable time, as a book, entitled _Humble\nPleadings_, fully discovers. They likewise exercised their tyranny\nagainst Messrs. _Gilchrist_ in _Dunscore_, and _Taylor_ in _Wamphray_,\nwhom they prosecuted, not only to deposition, but even excommunication,\nfor no reason but their bearing testimony against that ensnaring oath of\nabjuration, and a number of other defections. Again, this church, still\nfond of suppressing the good old cause and owners thereof, framed and\nprosecuted a libel, most unjustly (some even of themselves being\njudges), against Mr. _John McMillan_, minister in _Balmaghie_, for\npresenting, in a regular manner, a paper of real and acknowledged\ngrievances; and, because he would not resile from it, but continued to\nplead for a redress, was at last deposed. As also Mr. _John McNeil_,\npreacher, for the same reason, had his license taken from him; and, by\nthe authority of the assembly, both of them were prosecuted and\ncensured, not for scandal, insufficiency or negligence, error in\ndoctrine, &c., but only on account of their pleading for the covenanted\nreformation of the Church of _Scotland_, and maintaining a necessary\ntestimony against the prevailing corruptions and defections of former\nand present times, as appears from their paper of grievances and joint\ndeclinature, printed 1708. Nay, such was their mad zeal against\nreformation principles, that, by the _Act_ 15th of _Assem._ 1715, the\ncommission was not only empowered to censure all the forementioned\npersons, but also enjoined to apply to the civil magistrate for\nsuppressing and punishing them; and accordingly sundry of them were\nproclaimed rebels over public market crosses, only for their continued\nadherence to reformation. And besides other instances, their magisterial\nand lordly power exercised over the flock of Christ, in the violent\nintrusion of ministers into vacant churches over the belly of the\npeople, and then excommunicating from sealing ordinances such as cannot\nin conscience submit to the ministry of these intruders, is a most\nglaring one; while at the same time, severe censures are inflicted upon\nsuch ministers as have the honesty to oppose these anti-christian\nmeasures. Loud complaints have likewise been made against their\narbitrary and tyrannical conduct, with reference to Mr. _Ebenezer\nErskine_, and others with him, designated by the name of the _Associate\nPresbytery_, because of their remonstrating against, and endeavoring to\nrectify, some of the forementioned evils in the church; the justness of\nwhich grievances and complaints may be instructed from their own\nwritings on that head.\n\nIt must not be here omitted to remark, that as this church is justly\ncharged with tyranny in government, so she is equally guilty of\npartiality in discipline. Though all that discover any measure of\nfaithfulness in the concerns of Christ's glory, are sure to meet with\nmost severe treatment, yet the loose, profane and erroneous, have seldom\nany church censures put in execution against them. This church never\nmade any suitable inquiry into the sinful compliances, and sad\ndefections of her members and office-bearers, during the persecuting\nperiod: and that unfaithfulness in the exercise of church discipline is\nstill copied after. How few, guilty of the most gross scandals, are\ncensured, such as notorious drunkenness, blasphemy, cursing, swearing,\nsabbath-breaking, uncleanness, especially among the rich, who are\ncapable to give pecuniary mulcts to free them from church censure?\n(Thus, in conformity to the prelatical and anti-christian example,\nsetting to sale the censures of the church, and dispensing with the laws\nof Christ for money.) Nay, not only are such overlooked, but many guilty\nof these gross sins, together with oppression, neglecters of family\nworship, and the grossly ignorant, are without any public\nacknowledgement of these sins, admitted to the highest and most solemn\nordinances, viz., both sacraments. And this may be thought the less\nstrange, when persons chargeable with most of these sins, are admitted,\nand continued to be office-bearers in the house of God. Persons, and\neven teachers maintaining most dreadful blasphemous errors connived at,\npatronized, or but slightly censured, and still kept in communion,\nwithout any open renunciation of these heresies. Play-houses, the\nseminaries of vice and impiety, erected in the principal cities of the\nnation, and stage players, commonly among the most abandoned of mankind,\nescape with impunity. Yea, this pagan entertainment of the stage is\ncountenanced by the members and office-bearers of this church, and that\nto such a degree, that one of the ministers thereof has commenced author\nof a most profane play, called _The Tragedy of Douglas_, wherein\nimmorality is promoted, and what is sacred exposed to ridicule. Oh! how\nastonishing! that a minister in the once famous church of Scotland\nshould be guilty of such abominations, and yet not immediately sentenced\nto bear the highest of all church censure!\n\n5. The Presbytery testify against this established church, for\nunfaithfulness of doctrine; which will appear by a few instances:\nalthough before the Revolution, the Lord Jesus was openly, as far as\nhuman laws could do, divested of his headship and sovereignty in and\nover his church; although the divine right of presbytery had been\npublicly and nationally exploded, derided and denied, yet this church\nhas never by any formal act, declared that our Lord Jesus Christ is sole\nking, the alone supreme head of his church--nor in the same manner\ndeclared that the presbyterian form of church government is of divine\nright, and condemned all other forms as contrary to the word. Such a\ntestimony was the more necessary, when the civil powers have arrogated\nChrist's power to themselves, and continue to exercise it over his\nchurch; and the want of it is an evidence of the church's unsoundness in\nthe doctrine of government, and of Christ's kingly office. This church's\nerror in doctrine further appears from their condemnation of a book\nentitled _The marrow of modern divinity_, as containing gross antinomian\nerrors; whereby they condemned many great gospel truths as errors,\nparticularly, that believers are altogether set free from the law, as a\ncovenant of works, both from its commanding and condemning power,\ntogether with others; whereby they have made way for, and encouraged\nthat legal, moral way of harranguing, exclusive of Christ and his most\nperfect righteousness (which is so common and frequent in all parts of\nthe land), and opened a door for introducing _Baxterian_ principles,\nwhich, in consequence hereof, have since very much prevailed. Another\nevidence of this church's unsoundness and unfaithfulness in doctrine, is\ntheir excessive, sinful lenity toward the most gross heretics.\nNotwithstanding _Arminian_ and _Pelagian_ heresies, and _Arian_\nblasphemies, have been publicly taught; and although true godliness, and\nthe effectual working of the Spirit on the souls of men have been\npublicly exposed as enthusiasm, and many other damnable heresies vented,\nyet this church has never lifted up the faithful standard of a judicial\ntestimony, in condemnation of these heresies, and in vindication of the\nprecious truths of Christ thereby impugned. And when the ministers and\nmembers of this church have been processed before her assemblies, and\nconvicted of maintaining many gross errors, no adequate censure has been\ninflicted. This particularly appears in the case of Mr. Simpson,\nprofessor of divinity in the college of Glasgow, when processed before\nthe judicatories of this church, in the years 1715 and 1716, for several\ngross errors; such as, \"That regard to our own happiness, in the\nenjoyment of God, ought to be our chief motive in serving him, and that\nour glorifying of God is subordinate to it: that Adam was not our\nfederal head;\" and other _Arminian, Socinian_ and _Pelagian_ heresies,\nall to be found in his answers to Mr. Webster's libel given in against\nhim, and clearly proven: yet was he dismissed with a very gentle\nadmonition. Which sinful lenity encouraged him, not only to persist in\nthe same errors, but also to the venting of _Arian_ heresies among his\nstudents.\n\nAccordingly, he was again arraigned before the assembly's bar in the\nyears 1727-28-29, when it was found clearly proven that he had denied\nthe necessary existence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the numerical\nOneness of the Three Persons of the Trinity in substance and essence,\nwith other damnable tenets. Yet when these articles, whereby he had\nattempted to depose the Son of God from his supreme deity, were proven,\nand when (as one of the members of this church, in his protest against\nthe assembly's sentence, said) the Son of God was, as it were, appearing\nat the bar of that assembly, craving justice against one who had\nderogated from his essential glory, and blasphemed his name, at which\nevery knee should bow. Yet such was the corruption and unfaithfulness of\nthis church, that the blasphemer was dismissed without any adequate\ncensure passed upon him, and still continued in the character of a\nminister and member of this church.\n\nAgain, when Mr. Campbell, professor of church history at St. Andrews,\nwas processed before the judicatories of this church, for maintaining a\nscheme of dangerous and most pernicious principles, which he published\nto the world, having a manifest tendency to subvert revealed religion,\nand expose the exercise of serious godliness, under the notion of\nenthusiasm; to advance self-love, as the leading, principle and motive\nin all human actions whatever, and to destroy the self-sufficiency of\nGod, making him a debtor to his creatures: yet though these, with a\nnumber of God-dishonoring, creature-exalting, and soul-ruining errors,\nwere notorious from his books, and were defended by him; the heretic,\ninstead of being duly censured, was countenanced and carressed: whereby\nthis church has given a most deep wound to some of the most important\ntruths of the Christian religion, and becomes chargeable with the guilt\nof all the errors maintained by that erroneous professor.\n\nA third instance of this church's unfaithfulness, appears in the case of\nMr. Glas, and others, who openly vented, by preaching and printing,\nindependent schemes of church government, with some new improvements;\nattacked our Confession of faith and Covenants, unhinging all order and\ngovernment in the church, pulled up the hedge of discipline, to\nintroduce all errors in doctrine, and corruption in worship; and, at\nlast, openly renounced presbytery, name and thing (denying that there is\nany warrant for national churches under the New Testament), and\nasserted, that our martyrs, who suffered for adhering to the covenanted\nreformation, were so far in a delusion, with many other sectarian\ntenets: for which, the church at first suspended, and then deposed some\nof them. But afterward, as if this church repented of doing so much in\nfavor of presbytery, they were reponed, to the great danger of the\nchurch: for having discovered no remorse for their errors, they\nimmediately employed all their parts to shake presbytery, by setting up\nindependent churches and ordaining several mechanics to be their\nministers; and nothing done by the church for putting a stop to these\nerrors, and for reviving and vindicating the precious truths they had\nimpugned.\n\nLikewise, when Mr. Wishart was staged for error vented by him in some of\nhis sermons, with respect to the influence of arguments taken from the\nawe of future rewards and punishments, and other erroneous notions; he\nwas dismissed without any renunciation of his heterodox principles, and\nassoilzied by the judicatories of this church: and, as easy absolutions\nencourage error, so no sooner was he assoilzied, but he had the\nassurance to recommend erroneous books, such as Doctor Whitchcot's\nsermons, to his students. It is indeed no small evidence of the\nunsoundness of this church, when the heads of colleges are suffered,\n_impune_, to recommend such books for students and probationers to form\nupon.\n\nAgain, when professor Leechman was quarreled with for his deistical\nsermon on prayer, by the presbytery of _Glasgow_, and afterward carried\nbefore the assembly; yet although in all his sermons, he presents God as\nthe object of prayer, merely as our Creator, without any relation to\nChrist, as Mediator; but recommends to his hearers, as the only\nacceptable disposition of mind, an assured confidence in the goodness\nand mercy of their Creator: not only has that Christless sermon been\nvery much extolled, but the author dismissed from the assembly's bar in\nsuch a manner, as if thereby he had merited their applause. From all\nwhich it sufficiently appears, that this church is unsound and\nunfaithful, in point of doctrine; especially, if it is considered, that\nshe has been frequently addressed by representations, declaring the\nnecessity of an assertory net, affirming and ascertaining the precious\ntruths injured and impuned, and that publicly, by the above mentioned\nerrors; and that a solemn warning should be emitted, discovering the\nevil and danger of them: yet that necessary duty has still been\ncontemned and disregarded.\n\nThe great truths of God, have, for many years, lain wounded and bleeding\nin our streets, trampled upon by their open and daring enemies; while\nthis church has entirely forgotten and slighted the divine command, to\ncontend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. And though\nthe _Westminster_ Confession of Faith continues to be subscribed by\nintrants into the ministry (the covenants owned by the Reformed Church\nof _Scotland_, as a part of her confession, being abstracted from the\nconfession of this present church), yet how little of that system and\norder of doctrine is now taught? the generality having just as much of\nChrist, and the doctrines of his cross, in most of their discourses, as\nis to be found in the writings of _Plato, Epictetus_ and _Seneca_, and\nthe rest of the Pagan moralists. So that this church appears orthodox,\nin little (or no) other sense than the church of _England_ is so, viz.,\nby subscribing the thirty-nine articles, which are _Calvinistical_ in\nthe doctrinal parts; while yet the _Arminian_ system of doctrine is\ngenerally received and taught by her clergy. Add to what is above, that\nthis church maintains no suitable testimony against sins of all sorts,\nin persons of all stations; neither emits faithful warnings anent the\nsnares and dangers of the nation, nor full and free declarations of\npresent duty, as church judicatories, like faithful watchmen did in\nformer times. But such faithfulness in God's matters is not now, alas!\nto be expected; seeing this church has made a formal concert, or mutual\npaction, binding up one another from preaching against, and applying\ntheir doctrines to the sins, corruptions and scandals of the times: see\n_Acts of Assem._ 16th, 17th, _anno_ 1712; _Act_ 6th, 1713; _Act_ 8th,\n1714; _Act_ 6th, 1715. The Presbytery cannot also here omit observing,\nand that with deep regret, that although the most damnable principles,\nwhich have a direct tendency to deny the being of God, and so to\npropagate opinionative atheism, to subvert all religion, to extol the\npower of corrupt nature, and exalt Popery, as the best form of religion,\nto deny the subjection of the world to the providence of God, to destroy\nall distinction between virtue and vice, and consequently affirm, that\nthere is no moral evil in the world, and to ridicule Christianity, as\ndestitute of divine authority, have been lately vented by _David Hume_,\nEsq.; and another designated by the name of _Sopho_: yet this church has\npassed no suitable censure upon the authors of these impious and\nblasphemous principles, though they justly deserve the very highest: nor\nhave they done anything to testify their dislike, or put an effectual\nstop to the spreading of these abominable tenets. The presbytery\ntherefore, as they declare their abhorrence of these, and the other\nerrors formerly mentioned, so testify against the church's notorious\nunfaithfulness, in suffering these wretches to pass with impunity; and\nas being, on all these accounts noticed, unsound and corrupt, in the\nmatter of doctrine, &c. It may also be here remarked, as an undoubted\nevidence of the corruptness of the state, that, although there are civil\nlaws presently in being, which declare the maintaining of\nantitrinitarian, atheistical principles, to be not only criminal, but\ncapital; yet the civil powers in the nation have not so much regard to\nGod, and the Son of God, as to punish treason openly acted against them.\n\n6. The presbytery testify against both church and state, for their\nsinful associations with malignants: as declared enemies to the\ncovenanted interest have engrossed the civil power wholly to their\nhands, since the public resolutions, that a door was opened for their\nadmission; so such is the nature of the laws presently extant and in\nforce, that one cannot be admitted to any office, civil or military, but\nby swearing away all friendship to a covenanted reformation. And,\nmoreover, all along since the late Revolution, the nations have been the\nmost earnest pursuing after friendship with the grossest idolators; and,\nin express contradiction to the word of God, have confederated in the\nclosest alliance with God's declared enemies abroad; nay, have exhausted\ntheir strength and substance, in maintaining the quarrel of such as have\nbeen remarkable for their hatred at, and persecution of the protestant\ninterest. The Revolution Church has also said a confederacy with such as\nhave, on all occasions, shewed a rooted enmity and hatred at reformation\nprinciples: which appears from their admitting such (noticed above) to\nbe office-bearers in the church: from their observing fasts, and praying\nfor success to the allied armies, though almost wholly composed of such,\nand many of them oftentimes gross Popish idolaters: from their going in\nwith, and approving of the sinful incorporating union with _England_:\nfrom their acknowledging the civil power of church men as lawful: from\ntheir joining in religious communion with Mr. _Whitefield_; and in many\nother instances. Not to insist further in enumerating particulars, the\nPresbytery finally testify against church and state, for their\nnegligence to suppress impiety, vice, and superstitious observance of\nholy days, &c. The civil powers herein acting directly contrary to the\nnature and perverting the very ends of the magistrate's office, which is\nto be _custos et vindex utriusque tabulae_; the minister of God, a\nrevenger, to execute wrath on him that doeth evil. Transgressors of the\nfirst table of the law may now sin openly with impunity; and, while the\nreligious observation of the sabbath is not regarded, the superstitious\nobservation of holy-days, even in _Scotland_, is so much authorized,\nthat on some of them the most considerable courts of justice are\ndischarged to sit. Stage-plays, masquerades, balls, assemblies, and\npromiscuous dancings, the very nurseries of impiety and wickedness, are\nnot only tolerated, but even countenanced by law. And as these, with\nother evils, are permitted by the civil powers; so this church seems to\nhave lost all zeal against sin. No suitable endeavors are used to\nprevent the growth of atheism, idolatry and superstition: and though\nPrelacy, as well as Popery, is growing apace in the lands, and organs\npublicly used in that superstitious worship; yet no testimony is given\nagainst them, but new modes introduced into the worship of God, for\ncarnal ends, as a gradual advance toward that superstition. Yea, so\nunconcerned about suppressing vice and extravagant vanity, &c, that not\nonly are the forementioned nurseries of sin frequented by ministers'\nchildren, but ministers themselves have countenanced them by their\npresence, to the great scandal of their office, and manifest\nencouragement of these seminaries of immorality. And notwithstanding\nthat by the late proclamation, the penal laws against vice and profanity\nseem to be revived (which is in itself so far good), yet this cannot\nsupersede or remove the ground of the Presbytery's testimony against\nchurch and state complexly, on the above account, or even against the\nthing itself, in the manner that it is gone about. For besides that,\nnotwithstanding of all former endeavors of this kind, since the\noverthrow of our scriptural and covenanted reformation, immorality and\nwickedness have still increased and overflowed all these banks; partly,\nbecause, after all their pretenses, the laws were not vigorously put in\nexecution (and as good, no law nor penalty, as no execution), and\npartly, because these law-makers, being also themselves the\nlaw-breakers, have entrusted the execution to such as are generally\nringleaders in a variety of gross immoralities; it is not likely, that\never God will countenance and bless such attempts, whereby (contrary to\nscripture and all good order) the ecclesiastical power is subjected to\nthe civil, and ministers made the bare inspectors of men's manners, and\ninformers to inferior judges, without having it in their power to oblige\nsuch transgressors (if obstinate) to compear before church judicatories,\nand conform and submit to the laws of Christ's house. Nay, so far will\nGod be from approving such Erastian methods of reformation, that he will\ncertainly visit for this, among all our other iniquities, and in his own\ndue time make a breach upon us, because we sought him not in the due\norder. Wherefore, and for all these grounds, the Presbytery testify\nagainst both church and state, as in their constitutions Erastian and\nanti-scriptural, including the substitution and acknowledgement of\nanother head and governor over the church than Christ, as may be\nsufficiently evident from proofs above adduced. And particularly,\nbecause the British united constitution is such as involves the whole\nland, and all ranks therein, in the dreadful guilt of idolatry,\ncommunicating with idolators, apostasy, perjury, &c.[3] They declare\nthey can have no communion therewith; but that it is such an association\nas that God's call to his people, concerning it, is, \"Come out from\namong them. Be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will\nreceive you, saith the Lord.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSUPPLEMENT TO PART SECOND.\n\nFor as much as a good number of people in the north of _Ireland_ have\nacceded, and submitted themselves to the Presbytery, and one of their\nnumber is fixed among them as their proper pastor; the Presbytery\nintended to have subjoined something by way of appendix to the above\nTestimony, with relation to the state of religion in that kingdom,\nespecially with regard to the settlement of the presbyterian religion\nthere. But as diocesan Episcopacy is the religion there established by\nlaw, against which the Presbytery has declared and testified (as above)\nas an anti-scriptural, anti-covenanted and merely a human and political\nsettlement (whether considered abstractly or complexly with that in the\nkingdom of _Scotland_), there needs nothing be further said anent it.\nAnd as those called Presbyterians in _Ireland_, are equally enemies to\nthe true covenanted Presbyterian cause with those of the Revolution\nChurch of _Scotland_; so the above testimony equally strikes against\nthem with the other. There seems, however, to be this considerable\ndifference betwixt the Presbyterians in _Scotland_ and _Ireland, viz._,\nThat although the settlements the same as to the matter of it, yet so it\nis not as to the form or manner of it, the Presbyterians in _Ireland_\nneither having, nor claiming any other security or foundation for their\ndifferent mode of religious worship than the royal indulgence, or\ntoleration Act. And therefore, as the Presbytery did and do testify\nagainst toleration, and toleration principles, disclaiming such an\nanti-scriptural shelter; they therein, of consequence, bear witness and\ntestimony against all such as do in these lands (where God has given his\npeople a claim of another kind) professedly dwell under such a shadow.\nBut besides, the Presbytery view them (complexly considered) as unworthy\nof their regard or notice in these papers, as to engaging in any\nparticular or explicit testimony against them, in as much as they have\ndenuded themselves of almost any pretense to the Presbyterian name, by\nnot only disclaiming and opposing the true Presbyterian cause, but\nhaving also fallen from the belief and profession of the most important\nand fundamental truths of Christianity; thereby plainly discovering\nthemselves to be creatures of quite another species and spirit, than the\nministers of Jesus Christ, and friends to the blessed spiritual\nBridegroom; deserving rather to be termed a synagogue of _Libertines_, a\nclub of _Socinians, Arians, Pelagians_ &c., banded together against\nChrist, and the doctrines of his cross than a synod of the ministers of\nthe gospel. Therefore, as the presbytery testify and remonstrate against\nthem, their toleration, or indulgence footing, on which they professedly\nstand, together with their poisonous jumble and medley of errors,\ncommonly called _Newlight_, adopted, and with the greatest warmth and\ndiligence, spread and propagated by most of them, and connived at and\ntolerated by the rest and all their books or prints written by them, or\nothers of the like spirit with them in defense of these dangerous and\ndamnable tenets so they do hereby judicially warn and exhort all the\npeople under their inspection there, to beware of such men, and such\nbooks, however they may varnish over the doctrines they bring, with fine\nwords fair speeches and pretenses, in order to deceive the hearts of the\nsimple; and this, as they would not incur the displeasure of a holy and\njealous God, and have their souls defiled and destroyed by these\nerror's. On the contrary to endeavor to have their minds and\nunderstandings enlightened with the knowledge of the truths of Christ,\nand mysteries of his gospel, and their hearts warmed with the love of\nthem; so that being through grace established in the belief of the\ntruth, they may not \"be as children tossed to and fro, and carried about\nwith every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning\ncraftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;\" _Eph._ iv, 14, 15.\n\"But speaking the truth in love may grow up in all things unto him,\nwhich is the Head even Christ;\" and striving to refrain and keep\nthemselves from every wicked, offensive and backsliding course, and to\nlive soberly, righteously and godly, blameless and harmless as the sons\nof God, without rebuke, adorning the gospel of Christ with a\nconversation becoming the same; so shall they thereby glorify God, and\ntransmit a faithful testimony for the despised truths of Christ to\nposterity, that so there may be a seed to do service unto him in these\nlands, and make his name to be remembered through all generations.\n\n\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\nThe principles of some parties, who have made the most specious\nappearances for the Reformation, considered.--Particular grounds of\ntestimony against that body of ministers and people known by the name of\nthe Secession, wherein their partiality and unfaithfulness in their\nprofession of the covenanted testimony of the Church of Scotland is\ndiscovered in various instances,--their loose and immoral doctrine about\ncivil society and government--their corruption in worship, sinful terms\nof communion, &c., &c.\n\n\nThe Presbytery having in the preceding pages exhibited their testimony\nagainst both church and state, as now established in these isles of the\nsea, and therein discovered the reasons, why they are obliged to\ndisapprove of both, proceed, next, to take notice of some of the parties\nthat have made the most specious appearances for reformation in this\nland since the Revolution, of which that party commonly known by the\nname of the _Secession_, are not the least remarkable. It is vast pity,\nand it is with grief and lamentation, that the Presbytery find\nthemselves, in point of duty, obliged to lift up a testimony against the\nforementioned party; considering, that they have made a professed\nappearance under a judicial banner displayed for truth, and a covenanted\nwork of reformation, and have, in reality, showed much zeal in opposing\na variety of errors in doctrine, corruption in discipline and\ngovernment, most prevalent in the national Church of _Scotland_; have\ncontributed to vindicate some of the most important truths and doctrines\nof the Christian faith, that have been openly impugned in this day of\nblasphemy, and may have been instrumental in turning many to\nrighteousness, and reviving the exercise of practical godliness among\nnot a few. But as _Paul_ withstood _Peter_ to the face, and testified\nagainst his dissimulation, though both of them apostles of our common\nLord and Savior; so it still remains duty to testify against the most\ngodly, and such as may have been very useful to the church in many\nrespects, in so far as they have not showed themselves _earnest\ncontenders for the faith once delivered to the saints_, but have dealt\ntreacherously with God in the concerns of his glory. It is therefore\nwith just regret they proceed to observe, that they are obliged, to\ntestify against this party designated, first, by the title of _The\nAssociate Presbytery_ (and then that of _The Associate Synod_)--and that\nparticularly, for their error in doctrine, treachery in covenant,\npartiality and tyranny in discipline and government. It may at first\nseem strange, to see a charge of error advanced against those who made\nthe countenancing of error in the judicatories of the established\nchurch, one principal ground of their secession therefrom. But by taking\na narrower view of the principles and doctrines which they have roundly\nand plainly asserted, and endeavored to justify in their printed\npamphlets anent civil government, the reception and belief of which they\nzealously inculcate upon their followers, it will appear, that their\nscheme is so far from tending to promote the declarative glory of God,\nand the real good of human and religious society, or the church of God,\nwhich are the very ends of the divine ordinance of magistracy, that it\nis not only unscriptural, but anti-scriptural, contrary to the common\nsentiments of mankind, and introductive of anarchy and confusion in\nevery nation, should it be thoroughly adopted, and therefore ought to be\ntestified against. The sum of their principles anent civil magistracy,\nmay be collected from these few passages, to be found in a print\nentitled, _Answers by the Associate Presbytery to reasons of dissent,\n&c.--Page_ 70. \"This divine law, not only endows men in their present\nstate with a natural inclination to civil society and government, but it\npresents unto them an indispensable necessity of erecting the same into\nsome form, as a moral duty, the obligation and benefit whereof no\nwickedness in them can lose or forfeit.--_Page_ 74. Whatever magistrates\nany civil state acknowledged, were to be subjected to throughout the\nsame.--_Page_ 50. Such a measure of these qualifications (viz.,\nscriptural) and duties cannot be required for the being of the lawful\nmagistrate's office, either as essential to it, or a condition of it\n_sine qua non_: I. It cannot be required as essential thereunto; for\nthen it would be the same thing with magistracy, which is grossly\nabsurd, and big with absurdities. In the _next_ place, it cannot be a\ncondition of it _sine qua non_, or, without which one is not really a\nmagistrate, however far sustained as such by civil society; for then no\nperson could be a magistrate, unless he were so faultlessly. The due\nmeasure and performance of scriptural qualifications and duties belong\nnot to the being and validity of the magistrate's office, but to the\nwell-being and usefulness thereof.--_P._ 87. The precepts, already\nexplained, are a rule of duty toward any who are, and while they are\nacknowledged as magistrates by the civil society. Nothing needs be added\nfor the clearing of this, but the overthrow of a distinction that has\nbeen made of those that are acknowledged as magistrates by the civil\nsociety, into such as are so by the preceptive will of God, and such as\nare so by his providential will only; which distinction is altogether\ngroundless and absurd: All providential magistrates are also preceptive,\nand that equally in the above respect (viz., as to the origin of their\noffice) the office and authority of them all, in itself considered, does\nequally arise from, and agree unto the preceptive will of God.--_P._\n88. The precepts already explained (_Prov._ xxiv, 21; _Eccl._ x, 4;\n_Luke_ xx, 25; _Rom._ xiii, 1-8; _Tit._ iii, 1; _1 Pet._ ii, 13-18), are\na rule of duty equally toward any who are, and while they are\nacknowledged as magistrates by the civil society; they are, and continue\nto be a rule of duty in this matter, particularly, to all the Lord's\npeople, in all periods, places, and cases.\" These few passages,\ncontaining the substance of Seceders' principles on the head of civil\ngovernment, may be reduced to the following particulars: 1. They\nmaintain the people to be the ultimate fountain of magistracy, and that\nas they have a right to choose whomsoever they please to the exercise of\ncivil government over them; so their inclinations, whether good or bad,\nconstitute a lawful magistrate, without regard had to the divine law. 2.\nThat the law of God in the scriptures of truth, has no concern with the\ninstitution of civil government, but only adds its precept in forcing\nobedience upon the conscience of every individual, under the pain of\neternal damnation, to whomsoever the body politic shall invest with the\ncivil dignity; and that, without any regard to the qualifications of\nperson or office. 3. Whomsoever the _primores regni_, or representatives\nof a nation, do set up, are lawful magistrates, and that not only\naccording to the providential, but according to the preceptive will of\nGod also, in regard that God, the supreme governor, has prescribed no\nqualifications in his word, as essential to the being of a lawful\nmagistrate, nor told what sort of men they must be, that are invested\nwith that office over his professing people, though it is confessed\nthere are many that are necessary to the well-being and usefulness of\nthat office: and therefore, 4. That no act, or even habitual series of\nthe greatest wickedness and mal-administration can forfeit the person's\nright to the people's subjection, for conscience sake, considered as\nindividuals, while the majority of a nation continue to recognize and\nown his authority. The absurdity of this scheme of principles may\nobviously appear at first view to every unbiassed mind that is blessed\nwith any competent measure of common sense and discretion, and tolerable\nknowledge of divine revelation. That magistracy is a divine ordinance,\nflowing originally from Jehovah, the supreme and universal Sovereign of\nHeaven and earth, as the ultimate fountain thereof, cannot be denied.\nNeither is it to be doubted, but that the Lord has lodged a power and\nright in the people, of choosing and setting up those persons that shall\nexercise civil government over them, and to whom they will submit\nthemselves. But then, while God has lodged this power in the people, of\nconveying the right of civil authority to their magistrates, he has at\nthe same time given them positive and unalterable laws, according to\nwhich they are to proceed, in setting up their magistrates; and, by the\nsovereign authority of the Great Lawgiver, are they expressly bound to\nact in agreeableness to these rules, without any variation, and that,\nunder the pain of rebellion against him, who is King of kings, and Lord\nof lords. The Presbytery, therefore, testify against this scheme of\nSeceding principles, calculated, in order to inculcate a stupid\nsubjection and obedience to every possessor of regal dignity, at the\nexpense of trampling upon all the laws of God, respecting the\ninstitution, constitution, and administration of the divine ordinance of\nmagistracy. Particularly, this opinion is,\n\n1. Contrary to the very nature of magistracy, as described in the\nscriptures of truth, where we are taught, that all authority to be\nacknowledged of men, must be of God, and ordained of God. The divine\nordination of magistracy is the alone formal reason of subjection\nthereto, and that which makes it a damnable sin to resist. So the\napostle teacheth, _Rom._ xiii, 1, &c.: \"There is no power but of God;\nthe powers that be, are ordained of God.\" Not only is it the current\nsentiment of orthodox divines upon the place, but the text and context\nmake it undeniably evident, that by _power_ here, is understood, not a\nnatural, but a moral power, consisting not only in an ability, but in a\nright to command. Which power is said to be ordained of God, as\nimporting, not merely the proceeding of the thing from God\nprovidentially, but such a being from God, as carries in it his\ninstituting or appointing thereof, by the warrant of his word, law, or\nprecept. So that that power which is to be owned as of God, includes\nthese two particulars, without which, no authority can be acknowledged\nas God's ordinance, viz., institution and constitution, so as to possess\nhim, who is God's minister, with a moral power. In the divine\ninstitution of magistracy is contained, not only the appointment of it,\nbut the defining the office in its qualifications and form, in a moral\nsense, prescribing what shall be the end, and what the measure of its\nauthority, and how the supreme power shall rule and be obeyed. Again,\nthe constitution of the power, or the determination of the form, and\ninvestiture of the particular person with the government, is of God:\nhence our Savior, _John_ x, 35, in his application of these words in the\n_Psalms_, \"I said, ye are gods,\" to magistrates, shows how they were\ngods, \"because unto them the word of God came;\" that is, by his word and\nwarrant he authorized them; his constitution is passed upon them, who\nare advanced by men, according to his law in his word. When therefore a\nnation acts according to divine rule, in the molding of government, and\nadvancing of persons to the exercise of it; there the government and\ngovernors may be said to be ordained of God. But that government that is\nnot consonant to the divine institution, and those governors, that are\nnot advanced to the place of supreme rule, in a Christian land, by the\npeople, regulating themselves by the divine law, cannot be said to be\nthe powers ordained of God. It is not merely the conveying the imperial\ndignity by men unto any particular person, that constitutes the power to\nbe of God; but because, and in so far as this is done by virtue of a\nwarrant from God and in agreeableness to his law that the action has the\nauthority of God upon it.\n\nHence, if in this matter there is a substantial difference from, or\ncontrariety to the divine rule, then there is nothing but a\ncontradiction to God's ordinance: this must needs be granted, unless it\nis maintained that God has wholly left the determination of this\nordinance to men, absolutely and unlimitedly, giving them an unbounded\nliberty to act therein, according to their own pleasure, which is most\nabsurd. From the whole, it follows, that more is requisite than the\ninclinations of any people, to constitute a lawful magistrate, such as\ncan be acknowledged God's ordinance. That power which in its institution\nand constitution is of God, by his law, can alone challenge subjection,\nnot only for wrath, but for conscience sake.\n\n2. The Presbytery testify against this scheme of principles, as being\nanti-scriptural, and what, in its tendency, is destructive to the\nauthority of the sacred oracles. _Seceders_ maintain, that the people,\nwithout regard to scriptural qualifications, have an essential right to\nchoose whom they please to the exercise of civil government, and that\nwhomsoever they choose are lawful magistrates; and thus make the great\nordinance of magistracy dependent on the uncertain and corrupt will of\nman. But that this annarchical system is not of divine authority, but\nowes its origin to their own invention, appears from the following texts\nof holy writ, besides others, _Exod._ xviii. 21: \"Moreover, thou shalt\nprovide out of all the people, able men, such as fear God, men of truth,\nhating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers.\" This\ncounsel of Jethro, was God's counsel and command to Moses, in the choice\nof magistrates, supreme and subordinate; and discovers, that people are\nnot left to their own will in this matter. It is God's direction, that\nthe person advanced to rule, must be _a man in whom is the spirit;\nNumb._ xxvii, 18; which _Deut._ xxxiv, 9, interprets to be _the spirit\nof wisdom_, (i.e.) the spirit of government, fitting and capacitating a\nman to discharge the duties of the magistratical office, to the glory of\nGod and the good of his people; without this, he ought not to be chosen.\n_Deut._ i, 13: \"Take ye wise men and understanding, and known among your\ntribes, and I will make them rulers over you.\" Here is a precept,\ndirecting the people in their choice: they must not be children nor\nfools; if so, they are plagues and punishments, instead of scriptural\nmagistrates, who are always a blessing. And they must be men of known\nintegrity and affection to the real welfare of _Israel_, not such as are\nknown to be haters of, and disaffected to the _Israel_ of God. Again,\nthe express law of the king, is, that he must be one of the Lord's\nchosing; _Deut._ xvii. 14, 15: \"When thou art come unto the land which\nthe Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell\ntherein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the\nnations about me: thou shalt in anywise set him king over thee, whom the\nLord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set\nking over thee, thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, who is not thy\nbrother.\" Here, though Christians have a right to set a king over them,\nyet, it is evident, they are not left at liberty to choose whom they\nplease, but are, in the most express and positive terms, limited and\ncircumscribed in their choice to him, whom the Lord their God shall\nchoose: and this divine choice must certainly be understood (in a large\nsense) of a person of such a character, temper of mind, and\nqualifications, as God pointed out to them in his law, particularly in\nthe text before cited (for whatever God's word approves of and chooses,\nthat God himself chooses). And in the text before, as the person is\nfurther described, both negatively and positively, he must be a brother;\nwhich relation is not to be confined to that of kindred or nation, but\nespecially respects religion. He must not be a stranger and enemy to the\ntrue religion, but a brother, in respect of a cordial embracing, and\nsincere profession (so far as men can judge) of the same cause of\nreligion, and so one, of whom it may be expected that he will employ his\npower and interest to advance the kingdom of Jesus Christ. This precept\nrespects the office, and points at the very deed of constitution, and in\nthe most positive manner, restricts not only the people of the _Jews_,\nbut every nation blessed with the light of divine revelation, in their\nsetting up of civil rulers, pointing forth on whom they may, and on whom\nthey may not confer this honorable office. The same truth is confirmed\nby 2 _Sam._ xxiii, 2, 3, 4: \"The spirit of the Lord spake by me--the God\nof _Israel_ said,--he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the\nfear of God.\"--So _Job_ xxxiv, 17, 18: \"Shall even he that hateth right\ngovern?--Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye\nare ungodly?\" In which words, while _Elihu_ is charging _Job_ with\nblasphemy, in accusing God of injustice, declaring that if he made God a\nhater of right and impeached him of injustice, he did, in effect,\nblasphemously deny his government, universal dominion and sovereignty in\nthe world. It is not only supposed, but strongly asserted and affirmed,\nthat he that hateth right should not govern. Again, 1 _Cor._ vi, 1, 4,\n5: \"If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set\nthem to judge--Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not\none that is able to judge between his brethren?\" All these texts, which\nare plain, positive, moral precepts, whereby God hath set boundaries\nabout his own ordinance; that it be not corrupted by men, as they\ndemonstrate what magistrates ought to be, and prove that they cannot be\nof God's ordaining who have not these qualifications: so they evince,\nthat scriptural qualifications are nothing less necessary and essential\nto the being of a lawful scriptural magistrate, than the consent of the\npeople; and consequently, do sufficiently overturn this anti-scriptural\nscheme. _Seceders_ indeed grant, that God hath declared his will,\nconcerning the choice of magistrates in the above, and such like\nprecepts; but, from their granting these scriptural qualifications to be\nonly advantageous to those that have them, and necessary to the\nwell-being and usefulness of lawful magistrates, and at the same time\ndenying them to be necessary to the being thereof; it necessarily\nfollows, as the consequence of their sentiments, that they allow civil\nsociety a negative over the supreme Lawgiver in this matter; and in so\ndoing, exalt the will and inclination of the creature above the will of\nthe Creator, which is the very definition of sin. Say they in the\nfore-quoted pamphlet, page 80th, \"It is manifest, that the due measure\nand performance of scriptural qualifications and duties, belong not to\nthe being and validity of the magistrate's office, but to the well-being\nand usefulness thereof.\" How easy is it here to turn their own artillery\nagainst themselves, and split their argument with a wedge of its own\ntimber? For if, as is granted, scriptural qualifications are essential\nto the usefulness of the magistrate's office, they must also be\nnecessary to the being thereof, otherwise it is in itself quite useless.\nAnd if in itself useless, with respect to the great ends thereof,\nwithout the due measure of scriptural qualifications, it cannot then be\nthe ordinance of God, in regard it must not be supposed, that a God of\ninfinite wisdom and goodness, who does nothing in vain, has instituted\nan ordinance for the good of his people, in subserviency to his glory,\nwhich yet, in itself (as to its being and essence), is useless, and of\nno profit nor advantage to them. And as for their comparison of the\nmagistrate's office to other common and ordinary places and relations\namong men, the parallel will not hold, no not for illustration, far less\nfor a proof of their doctrine. Nor is there any comparison, unless they\ncan prove, that God in his word has as plainly and positively required\nmen to be so and so qualified, before it is lawful for them to enter\ninto, or for others to put them in such places and relations, as he has\ndone, with regard to magistracy. This is indeed the scope and end of\ntheir whole scheme, to derogate from, degrade and lessen the dignity of\nthis great ordinance of magistracy, allowing it no more than what is\ncommon to men in general, in other inferior states and ordinary business\nof life, alleging, \"That these qualifications (which they grant God has\nprescribed in his word) are only advantageous to them that have them;\"\nand that at the hazard of evidently opposing and contradicting the\nintention of the Spirit of God, in the above texts of scripture, which\nimply a specialty, and particular appropriation to kings and rulers in\ntheir office.\n\nAgain, this principle either, as above said, denies magistracy to be\nGod's ordinance instituted in his word; or then says, that he hath\ninstituted ordinances in his revealed will, without prescribing any\nqualifications as essential to their being, but entirely left the\nconstitution of them to the will of man. But how absurd is this, and\nderogatory to the glory of God, in all his perfections, who is a God of\norder, once to imagine, that he hath set any of his ordinances, either\nas to matter or manner, upon the precarious footing of the pure will of\nwicked and ungodly men? The smallest acquaintance with divine revelation\nwill readily convince, that he hath not. It may as well, and with the\nsame parity of reason, be refused, that there are any qualifications\nrequisite, as essential to the being and validity of the office of the\nministry, but only necessary to its well-being and usefulness; and\ntherefore, is as lawful (in its exercise) in the want of these\nqualifications, as the ordinance of magistracy is accounted to be. But\nhow contrary is this to scripture, _Tit._ i, 7, 8; 1 _Tim._ iii, 2, 3,\n4, 5, 6, 7, &c. Now, comparing these with the above-cited texts,\nrespecting the qualifications of magistrates, it appears, that the\nqualifications of the magistrate are required in the same express and as\nstrong terms (if not also somewhat more clearly,) as the qualifications\nof the minister; and seeing a holy God hath made no difference, as to\nthe essentiality of the qualifications pertaining to these distinct\nordinances, it is too much presumption for any creature to attempt doing\nit. Both magistrate and minister are, in their different and distinct\nspheres, clothed with an equal authority from the law of God,--have\nsubjection and obedience equally, under the same pains, required to them\nrespectively, (as _Deut_. xvii. 9 to 13; 2 _Chron_. xix, 5 to 11; _Heb_.\nxiii, 17, &c.)--and the qualifications of both, as above, stated and\ndetermined with equal peremptoriness, making them no less essential to\nthe being and validity of the one than the other. And this being the\ncase, it is not easy to understand how _Seceders_ will reconcile their\nprinciples anent civil government, with their principle and practice, in\nseparating from an established church or ministry, whose constitution\nthey acknowledge to be good; and who being presbyterially ordained, are\nalso still countenanced by the body of the people. Sure, had they dealt\nfairly, honestly and impartially in the matters of God, they would have\nacted in this case agreeably to their declared principle, page 79th of\ntheir pamphlet, viz.: \"The passages holding forth these qualifications\nand duties of magistrates, do not by the remotest hint imply, that, if\nin any wise they be deficient in, or make defection from the same, their\nauthority and commands, even in matters lawful, must not be subjected\nunto and obeyed,\" &c. Certainly, according to this, all the\ndeficiencies, defections, and mal-administrations in the church, could\nnever have been a warrantable ground (which yet they make the only\nground) of their separation from her. \"But on the contrary,\" they should\nstill have continued in communion with her, and subjection to her in\nmatters lawful, in a way of testifying \"against the same, and essaying\ntheir reformation, by all means that were habile for them.\" _Seceders_\nmust either grant, that such was their duty, and so of themselves\ncondemn their separation as unwarrantable; or else deny, that the\nqualifications of the magistrate and minister are required in the same\nexpress terms in scripture; that both are clothed with an equal (though\ndistinct) authority; and that subjection and obedience are under the\nsame pains enjoined to both, and consequently say, that it is less\ndangerous to cast off, contemn and disregard the authority of a church,\nthan that of the state; while yet (according to their scheme) civil\nauthority is entirely resolved into, and depends purely upon the\nchangeable will of civil society. But, it is presumed, they will allow,\nthat ecclesiastical authority is derived, and flows from, and depends\nentirely upon the Lord Jesus Christ alone, the glorious Judge, Lawgiver,\nand King of his church; so that (according to them) this being of a far\nmore noble extract and original, it must be of far more dangerous\nconsequence, to contemn and cast off it, than the other.\n\nAgain, as this doctrine gives unto men a negative over the Holy One of\nIsrael, it also opens a wide door for introducing and enforcing the\ncause of deism, already too prevalent: for, if all who are set up by\ncivil society, however wicked, and void of the qualifications God has\nrequired, while they are acknowledged and submitted to by their\nconstituents, must be equally regarded as God's ordinance, with those\nwho have those qualifications; then it will follow, that the corrupt\nwill of wicked men legitimates the magistrate's office and authority,\nnot only without, but in contradiction to the preceptive will of God;\nand what is this (_absit blasphemia_), but to exalt man above God, in\ngiving unto the universal Sovereign and Supreme Lawgiver, only a\nconsultative power in the constitution of magistracy, while it ascribes\nunto man an absolute and definitive power, whereby they have power to\nreceive or reject the law of God (at least respecting magistracy) at\npleasure, and their deed of constitution be equally valid, when\nopposite, as when agreeable unto, and founded upon his righteous law.\nAnd sure, by the same reason, that man may take a liberty to dispense\nwith the authority of God, in one point of his commanding will; he may\nalso in another, until at last every part of it is rejected. It is but a\ncontempt of the same authority, and he that offends in one point, is\nguilty of all. Such are the absurdities that this their scheme leads to,\nthough it is hoped the authors do not intend so. It may here be only\nnecessary further to observe, that among the other desperate shifts\n_Seceders_ are driven to in defense of their favorite notion, they say,\nthat scriptural qualifications cannot be essential to God's ordinance of\nmagistracy, or necessarily required as a condition of it _sine qua non_;\nfor then it would be the same thing with magistracy; nor can these\nqualifications be the condition (_sine qua non_, or), without which one\ncould not be a magistrate; for then it would be necessary, that every\none were possessed of them faultlessly, before he could be owned as a\nlawful magistrate; either of which they allege would be grossly absurd.\nBut this plausible and fair-set argument of theirs, if it prove any\nthing, will prove more than it is supposed they themselves will grant,\nand consequently proves nothing at all. For the same gross absurdity\nmay, with equal reason, be inferred from a maintaining, that a due\nmeasure and performance of scripture qualifications and duties are\nessential to any other of God's ordinances, and so that these are the\nordinance itself. For instance, they might as well reason (as some have\njustly observed already), that scriptural qualifications are not\nessential to a lawful gospel minister, for then it would be the same\nthing with the ministry, itself; nor can it be a condition, without\nwhich one is not really a minister, unless he were so faultlessly. And\nthus they have at once stripped, not only all of the race of _Adam_,\nthat ever exercised that office, but themselves also, of any real\nmission, as ministers, unless they have assumed the Pope's\ninfallibility, and are advanced to the _Moravian_ perfection. So,\nalthough the scripture declares it essential to the true church, that\nshe hold the head, yet by their childish reasoning, this would infer a\nconclusion big with absurdities, even that this qualification of a true\nchurch, is the church itself. And, in like manner, it can no longer be\nadmitted, that faith in Christ, and holiness, are essential to the being\nof a true Christian; for that would be to make faith the same thing with\na Christian, and would infer, that as in heaven only holiness is in\nperfection, so there alone Christians are to be found. Upon the whole,\nas the Lord has given an indispensable law, respecting the constitution\nof kings, showing what conditions and qualifications are required of\nthem; it undeniably follows, as an established truth, that Christianized\nnations must invest none with that office, but in a way agreeable to\nthat law, and those alone according to scripture, are magistrates of\nGod's institution, who are in some measure possessed of these\nqualifications. It is therefore an anti-scriptural tenet, that nothing\nis requisite to constitute a lawful magistrate, but the inclinations and\nchoice of the civil society.\n\n3. The Presbytery testify against this system of principles, because it\nhas a direct tendency to destroy the just and necessary distinction that\nought to be maintained between the perceptive and providential will of\nGod, and necessarily jumbles and confounds these together, in such a\nmanner, as a man is left at an utter uncertainty to know when he is\naccepted and approven of God in his conduct, and when not. That this is\nthe scope of their principles, is confessed, p. 87, of their book of\nprinciples: \"Nothing needs be added [say they] for the clearing of this,\nbut the overthrow of a distinction that has been made of those who are\nacknowledged as magistrates by civil society, into such as are so by the\npreceptive will of God, and such are so by his providential will only;\nwhich distinction is altogether groundless and absurd. It will not be\nrefused, that all such preceptive magistrates are also providential.\nBut, moreover, all such providential magistrates are also preceptive.\nThe office and authority of them all, in itself considered, does equally\narise from, and agrees to the preceptive will of God.\" A doctrine most\nshocking in itself! How strange! that Christians, from any\nconsideration, will obstinately maintain a favorite opinion, which is\nconfessedly built upon, and cannot be established but at the expense of\nblending and confounding the preceptive and providential will of God,\nwhile the distinction thereof is clearly and inviolably established in\nthe word of God! Although divine providence, which is an unsearchable\ndepth, does many times, and, in many cases, serve as a commentary to\nopen up the hidden mysteries of scripture revelation; yet, where the law\nof God in the scriptures of truth is silent, there providence regulates\nnot, is neither institutive, nor declarative of God's will to be done by\nus; and where the said divine law does ordain or deliver a rule to us in\nany case, there providence gives no relaxation, allowance or countermand\nto the contrary. (See _Gee_ on magistracy, in his excellent discourse on\nprovidence.) That an overthrow of this necessary distinction, for the\nsake of the above dangerous scheme, cannot be admitted of, in a\nconsistency with a due regard to the authority of revealed religion, and\nthat therefore the right and lawfulness of magistracy is not founded\nupon the providential will of God, though they are countenanced and\nsupported by the majority of a nation, will partly appear from the\nfollowing considerations:\n\n1. If there is no distinction to be made between the preceptive and\nprovidential will of God, then is providence equally in all respects the\nrule of duty, as much as the precept is, and so man should be left at an\nutter uncertainty, what is duty, in regard of the opposition that is\nmany times between providential dispensations and the precept. Nay, then\nit is impossible that man can be guilty of sin, in transgressing the\ndivine will, because God infallibly brings to pass, by his holy and\nover-ruling providence, whatever he has decreed by his eternal purpose.\n_Rom._ ix, 17. And thus the Jews, in murdering the Son of God, should be\nacquitted from the charge of guilt, and could not be said to transgress\nthe divine will.\n\n2. If no distinction is to be made between the preceptive and\nprovidential will of God, but providence is declarative of the precept,\nthen is providence a complete rule without the written word. And this at\nonce supersedes the necessity of divine revelation, and derogates from\nthe sufficiency and perfection of the scriptures of truth. The written\nword is affirmed to be _perfect_: _Psal._ xix, 7. Sinners are reproved\nfor doing that which the word gave no command for, _Jer._ vii, 31, and\nxix, 5; and challenged for following the promising appearances: _Isa._\nxxx. 1, 2, 3, 11. It is therefore daring presumption to set up\nprovidence for a rule in opposition to the written law of God. Hence it\nmust be concluded, either that the preceptive will of God in the\nscriptures is imperfect, or the laws therein repealable by providence;\nor then that providence cannot be the rule of human actions.\n\n3. If the distinction between the preceptive and providential will of\nGod is to be overthrown, then providence must be expressive of God's\napprobative ordination, equally as his revealed will is. For, without\nthis (viz. the divine approbation), there can be no lawful title to what\nis possessed. But this is what providence of itself cannot do; it cannot\nwithout the precept discover either God's allowance or disallowance. If\nthen this distinction is denied, and the providential will of God\nasserted to be declarative of his preceptive, and so of his approbative\nwill; it remains to be manifested, where and how it has been appointed\nof God for such an end, an end that is by the Spirit of God denied unto\nit: _Eccl._ ix, 1, 2, 4. If this distinction is to be overthrown, then\neither the providential will of God, without any regard to the precept,\nin every case, and in every sort of tenure, gives a just and lawful\nright and title; or God has declared in his word that it shall be so in\nthe matter of civil government only, viz. that whosoever gains the\nascendancy in the inclinations of the people, by whatever sinful methods\nthis is obtained, it matters not, and so is by the hand of providence\nraised up above all his rivals to the regal dignity, he is the lawful\nmagistrate, God's ordinance according to his precept. The first cannot\nbe said; it were impious to suppose it; for that would justify all\nrobberies and violences, and legitimate every fraud; not the latter, for\nwhere is it to be found in all the book of divine revelation, that God\nhath made such a law touching magistracy? But how big with absurdities,\nto say, that a holy God has given to man a plain and positive law to be\nhis governing rule in every particular that concerns him, this of\nmagistracy only excepted. In this great ordinance he hath wholly left\nhim to be guided, or rather misled and bewildered by his own corrupt\ninclinations: but the contrary of this has been in part discovered, and\nmay further. 5. If, in order to establish their anti-government scheme,\nthe foresaid distinction is to be destroyed, and all such as are\nprovidential powers, and acknowledged by man, are also preceptive, and\ntherefore to be submitted to for conscience sake, then are the kingdoms\nof men necessarily obliged to own and submit unto the dominion of the\ndevil. The devil not only claims to himself the possession of the power\nof all the kingdoms of this world, but it is certain that of the most of\nthem he still retains an actual predominancy, hence styled the god of\nthis world. Now, it cannot be refused, but that the power he exercises\nis providential (or a power of permission); and it is most certain, that\nit is with the consent and good will of all the children of men, while\nin a natural state. But are men therefore obliged to acknowledge his\nauthority, or submit to that providential power he maintains over them?\nIf every providential power is also preceptive, the answer must be given\nin the affirmative. The like may be said of the Pope of _Rome_, the\ndevil's captain-general, to display his hellish banner against the King\nof kings, and Lord of lords, with respect to those nations where he is\nacknowledged in his diabolical pretensions. It can be to no purpose for\n_Seceders_ to allege that the Pope claims a power unlawful in itself,\nand therefore cannot be owned, in regard the person whom they make a\npretended acknowledgment of, as their lawful sovereign, is by the act of\nhis constitution invested with a similar power, a power both civil and\necclesiastical, and declared to be head of the church, as well as the\nstate. Nothing, therefore, remains for them, but either to acknowledge\nthis clear distinction between the providential and preceptive will of\nGod, or then profess the lawfulness of both the above mentioned powers.\n6. If the foresaid distinction is too big with absurdities to be\nreceived, and if the authority of all providential magistrates does\nequally arise from, and agree unto the precept, then it would be no sin\nto resist the powers ordained of God, provided that providence proves\nauspicious and favorable to the rebel, and advances him to the throne,\nwith the good will of his fellow rebellious subjects, by expelling the\nlawful sovereign; at least such resistance could not be determined to be\nsinful, until once the event declared, whether providence would\ncountenance the treasonable attempt or not. Thus what the apostle\ndeclares a damnable sin, _Rom._ xiii, 2, must be justified and made the\nfoundation of subsequent duty, if patronized by a multitude. This they\nevidently maintain, as appears from their declaration of principles,\npage 82, where, pretending to obviate some difficulties anent their\nprinciples, arising from the people of God's disowning anti-scriptural\nmagistrates: \"The whole nature of any simple revolt [say they] lies in\nbreaking off immediately from the civil body, by withdrawing from, or\nwithdrawing part of their territories; and then it necessarily follows\nat the same time, that these revolters break off from the head of the\ncivil body, without ever denying his authority over the members who\nstill cleave unto the same.\" This, in connection with their grand\nfoundation principle, and the scope of their discourse at the above\ncitation, discovers that they grant, that if the whole civil society\nshould reject the authority they had set up (however agreeable it should\nhave been to the preceptive will of God, and should again set up\nanother, though never so opposite thereto), their doing so would be\nlawful; but it is not lawful for a few to disown any authority (however\nwicked and anti-scriptural), unless they can at the same time withdraw\nfrom, or withdraw part of his territories. Nothing can be more absurd\nthan to say, that a people are bound by the laws of God to give\nsubjection for conscience sake, and yet at the same time are at liberty\nto cast off and reject the same authority at pleasure. If the magistrate\nbe lawful, it is utterly unlawful to reject him; an attempt to divest\nhim of his office, power and authority, though carried on by the\n_primores regni_, is rebellion against God. It is most ridiculous to\nallege, that a people considered as a body politic, are not under the\nsame obligation to their rightful sovereign, as when they are considered\nas individuals, but may lawfully reject him, and set up another, if they\nplease; so that he who one day is God's minister, next day hath no title\nto that office, but if he claim it, must be treated as a traitor,\nwhereby all security that can possibly be given to the most lawful\nmagistrate, is at once destroyed. Thus, if the Chevalier had succeeded\nin his late attempt, had gained the favor of the _primores regni_, and\nthereby mounted the _British_ throne; _Seceders_ must then, of\nnecessity, either have quit their present principles, or then have\nsubjected to his yoke for conscience sake, under the pain of eternal\ndamnation. His being a professed Papist, and enslaved vassal of _Rome_,\ncould not have warranted them to leave their place of subjection to him\nwhile owned by the civil society, and so they must have treated the\npresent powers as usurpers and enemies to government, though they now\nflatter them with the pretensions of an ill-grounded loyalty. Again, how\nabsurd and self contradictory to grant, that a minor part may not only\nrevolt, but also withdraw part of a prince's territories; and yet that\nthe same party may not, when residing in the nation, refuse to\nacknowledge the lawfulness of an anti-scriptural power. This is to say,\nthat people are no longer obliged to submit to authority, than they are\nin capacity to withdraw from, or withdraw part of their prince's\nterritories from him, and so to justify their rebellion, by that which\ncan only be a terrible aggravation of their sin. These, with a number of\nother absurdities, natively flow from a denial of the distinction\nbetween the providential and preceptive will of God, making the title of\nthe lawful magistrate depend solely upon the will of the people. Nothing\nis more evident than this, that if the inclinations of the people,\nexclusive of all other qualifications, constitute a lawful magistrate,\nthen (though he rules ever so agreeable to God's preceptive will), so\nsoon as this body (though in a most unjust and tyrannical manner) casts\nhim off, he that moment for ever loses all title and claim to the\noffice, and can no longer be regarded as a lawful magistrate. A\nprinciple that in its nature and tendency is introductive of all anarchy\nand confusion, and with the greatest propriety deserves the encomium of\nthe _anti-government scheme_.\n\n7. This anarchical system of principles, which destroys the above just\nand necessary distinction, is directly in opposition to the laudable and\nalmost universal practice of all nations, in ordaining and enacting\ncertain fundamental laws, constitutions and provisos, whereby the throne\nis fenced, the way to it limited, and the property thereof predisposed.\nThe Scripture sufficiently discovers those restrictions and rules, which\nGod himself has prescribed and laid down, for directing and determining\nof his people's procedure about the erection of magistrates. And profane\nhistory abounds in discovering certain fundamental laws and conditions\nto take place, almost in every nation, without conforming to which, none\ncan be admitted to that dignity over them. But to what purpose are any\nsuch laws and constitutions, if this vague principle is once admitted,\nwhich cancels and disannuls all such provisos and acts? Why should\n_Moses_ have been so solicitous about his successor in the government of\n_Israel, Numb._ xxvii, 15-17, if God had ordained the inclinations of\nthe people alone should determine? Or to what purpose did _Israel_,\nafter the death of _Joshua_, ask of God, who should be their leader, if\ntheir own inclinations alone were sufficient to determine it? If God has\ndeclared, that the corrupt will of the people is the alone basis of\ncivil power, then, not only are all state constitutions and fundamental\nlaws useless, because, on every vacancy of the throne, they not only\nmust all give place to the superior obligation, the incontrollable law,\nof the uncertain inclinations of the body politic, but they are in their\nnature unlawful; their proper use in every nation being to prevent all\ninvasion upon the government by unqualified persons, and to illegitimate\nit, if at any time done. So that, if the consent of civil society is the\nonly essential condition of government which God has authorized, not\nonly are all scriptural conditions and qualifications useless and\nunlawful, but also all human securities, either from intruders or for\nlawful governors, are unlawful, in regard the very design of them all is\nto oppose this grand foundation principle, the jure-divinity of which\n_Seceders_ have found out, and do confidently maintain. And thus, by the\nseceding scheme, is condemned, not only the practice of almost all other\nnations, determining by law, some indispensable qualifications that\ntheir rulers must have; but particularly the practice of these once\nreformed lands, when reformation had the sanction, not only of\necclesiastic, but also of civil, authority, is hereby condemned.\nScripture and covenant qualifications were then made essential to the\nbeing of a lawful magistrate, by the fundamental laws and constitutions\nof the nations; so that however the inclinations of the people might run\n(as it soon appeared they were turned in opposition to these), yet, by\nthese laws, and in a consistency with that constitution, none could be\nadmitted to the place or places of civil authority, but such as\nprofessed, and outwardly practiced, according to reformation principles.\nSee _Act_ 15th, _Sess._ 2d, _Parl._ 1649. And how happy we had been, if\nwe had constantly acted in conformity to these agreeable laws,\nexperience, both former and latter, will bear witness. How much better\nhad it been for us to have walked in God's statutes, and executed his\njudgments, than by our abhorrence of them, and apostasy from them, to\nprovoke him to give us statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby\nwe cannot live (_Ezek._ xx, 25), or have any comfortable enjoyment and\npossession of the blessings and privileges of his everlasting gospel, as\nit is with us at this day. And yet, this is what _Seceders_ would have\nus caressing, embracing and (with them) blessing God for, under the\nnotion of a present good; and so bless God for permitting his enemies\n(in anger against an ungrateful and guilty people) to overturn his work\nand interest, and establish themselves upon the ruins thereof; to bless\nhim for making our own iniquities to correct us, and our backslidings to\nreprove us, until we know what an evil and bitter thing it is to depart\nfrom the LORD GOD of our fathers; to bless him (for what is matter of\nlamentation) that the adversaries of _Zion_ are the chief, and her\nenemies prosper, _Lam._ i, 5: and all this abstractly, under the notion,\nof good, which comes very near the borders of blasphemy.\n\nBut, moreover, the civil settlement at the revolution is also condemned\nby this principle of theirs; not because of its opposition to a\ncovenanted reformation, but in regard it includes some essential\nqualifications required in the supreme civil ruler. The nations are, by\nthat deed of constitution, bound up in their election of a magistrate;\nand all Papists, such as marry with Papists, or do not publicly profess\nthe Protestant religion, are declared incapable of the throne. So that\nwe see the present law makes some other qualifications, besides the\nconsent of the body politic, essential to the constitution of a lawful\nsovereign in _Britain_. From all which it is plain, that this principle\nof _Seceders_ is neither a reformation nor a revolution principle; let\nthen the impartial world judge whence it came.\n\n_Seceders_, in consequence of their contradictory and self-inconsistent\nsystem of principles, declare they cannot swear allegiance to a lawful\ngovernment. They maintain the present to be lawful, yet (in Dec. of\ntheir principles, _page_ 55th) they say, \"The question is not whether it\nbe lawful for us to swear the present allegiance to the civil\ngovernment, which the Presbytery acknowledge they cannot do, seeing\nthere are no oaths to the government in being, but what exclude the oath\nof our covenants, and homologate the united constitution.\" But seeing\nthey acknowledge that every constitution of government, that comprehends\nthe will and consent of civil society, were it as wicked and diabolical\nas can be imagined, is lawful--yea, as lawful as any that is most\nconsonant to the preceptive will of God, having all the essentials of\nhis ordinance; and seeing, because of the will and consent of the\npeople, they own the present to be lawful, it is most surprising why\nthey cannot swear allegiance to it; their reasons cannot, in a\nconsistency with their principle, be sustained as valid. That the\npresent oaths of allegiance and the oath of the covenants are\ninconsistent, is readily granted; but seeing the oaths of allegiance\nbind to nothing more than what they confess they are bound to for\nconscience sake, namely, to own the lawfulness of the government, and to\nmaintain it according to the constitution thereof (which is a duty owed\nby subjects to every lawful sovereign); and seeing that whatever is in\nthe oaths of allegiance contrary to the covenants, does not flow from\nthem, abstractly considered, but from the constitution to which they\nbind (which constitution is sanctified by the people's acknowledgement\nof it). If, therefore, the covenants forbid a duty, to which they are\nbound for conscience sake, their authority in that ought not to be\nregarded.\n\nBut certainly _Seceders_, who have found it duty to alter and model the\ncovenants, according to the circumstances of the times they live in,\nmight have found it easy work to reconcile the oath of the covenants\nwith allegiance to a lawful government. The other part of their reason\nis no less ridiculous and self-contradictory, viz., \"They cannot swear\nallegiance to the present government, because it homologates the united\nconstitution.\" But is not this constitution according to the will, and\nby consent of, the body politic? and is it not ordained by the\nprovidential will of God? therefore, according to them, has all the\nessentials of a lawful constitution, which claims their protection,\nunder pain of damnation. How great the paradox! they cannot swear\nallegiance, because they would bind them to acknowledge and defend a\nlawful constitution. Is not active obedience, is not professed\nsubjection for conscience sake, an homologation of the constitution?\nCertainly they are, and that not in word only, but in deed and in truth.\nAnd what is the allegiance, but a promise to persevere in what they do\ndaily, and what they hold as their indispensable duty to do? To grant\nthe one, then, and refuse the other, is, in effect, to homologate or\nacknowledge the constitution, and not to acknowledge it, at the same\ntime, which is a glaring absurdity.\n\nBut here, they would have people attend to their chimerical distinction\nbetween the king's civil and ecclesiastical authority. They have made a\nsuccessless attempt (in order to establish their antigovernment scheme)\nfor the overthrow of a distinction, which Heaven has irreversibly fixed,\nbetween the preceptive and providential will of God; and, for the same\npurpose, they will impose this distinction on the generation--a mere\nshift and artifice, which has no foundation nor subsistence any where\nelse, but in their imagination, and serves for no purpose but to cheat\ntheir own and others' consciences, and betray the cause of God. It is\nplain, that as a power, both civil and ecclesiastical, belongs to the\nessence and constitution of an English diocesan bishop, so the same is\ndeclared to belong now to the essence and constitution of an English\nking, who is the head and chief prelate among them all; and it is their\nmanner to call themselves his bishops (not Christ's), as having their\npower, both ecclesiastical and civil, immediately from him, as the\nfountain of all power within his dominions So that there is no room for\nthis distinction of _Seceders_ here, unless they are such expert\nlogicians, as to distinguish a thing from that which is essential to it,\nand so from itself; but this is a destruction, not a distinction.\n_Seceders_ indeed presume and depend very much upon their abilities of\nthis kind; for they can distinguish between the magistrate's office and\nits essential qualifications, which God has inseparably joined together\nin his word. They can distinctly pray for the head, author, authorizer\nand prime supporter, of abjured Prelacy and Prelates, that God would\nbless him in his government, and yet not pray for the Prelates\nthemselves. They can pray very fervently and distinctly for the British\nand Irish parliaments, and yet not at all pray for the bishops,\nnecessary and essential members there. And what is all this but to pray\nfor a nonentity, a mere creature of their own mind? They have neither\nking nor parliament in their abstracted and imaginary sense, but do\nclearly distinguish themselves out of both. We might refer them to that\nfamous and faithful embassador, and renowned martyr for the cause and\ntestimony of Jesus, Mr. _Donald Cargill_, in his last speech and\ntestimony, and let him determine the controversy (in this particular)\nbetween us. They will not be so bold as to say, that this honorable\nwitness died with a lie in his right hand. His words are these: \"As to\nthe cause of my suffering, the main is, not acknowledging the present\nauthority as it is now established. This is the magistracy I have\nrejected, that was invested with Christ's power; and seeing that power\ntaken from Christ, which is his glory, and made the essential of the\ncrown, I thought it was as if I had seen one wearing my husband's\nclothes, after he had killed him. And seeing it is made the essential of\nthe crown, there is no distinction we can make, that can free the\nconscience of the acknowledger from being a partaker of this\nsacrilegious robbing of God. And it is but to cheat our conscience, to\nacknowledge the civil power, for it is not the civil power only, that is\nmade the essential of the crown. And seeing they are so express, we must\nbe plain; for otherwise, it is to deny our testimony, and consent to his\nrobbery.\" From these words it is evident, _first_, that Mr. Cargill was\nno _Seceder_, or of their mind, in this particular; and _second_, that,\nat the time, there were some who did cheat and impose upon their own\nconsciences, by distinguishing (where there was no room for distinction)\nbetween the king's civil and ecclesiastical authority--which distinction\nwas condemned and testified against by all who were truly faithful to\nChrist and their own consciences, and tender of his honor and glory, by\ntheir unanimous rejection of that anti-christian and unlawful power; and\nthat when they had much more reason and temptation to fly to such a\nsubterfuge for their safety, than _Seceders_ now have. And, _third_,\nfrom these words it is also clear, that Mr. _Cargill_ and that poor,\ndistressed and persecuted people that adhered to him, rejected and\ndisclaimed the then authority, not so much because of their tyranny and\nmal-administrations, as on account of the unlawfulness and wickedness of\nthe constitution itself (which was the prime original and spring of all\nthe wickedness in the administration), namely, because the king\narrogantly and sacrilegiously assumed to himself that power, which was\nthe sole and glorious prerogative of Jesus Christ. And as to the\ndifference that _Seceders_ make between that and the present time (since\nthe revolution), it is certain, that whatever greater degree of absolute\nsupremacy was then assumed by _Charles_ II, it does not vary the kind of\nthat claimed, or rather conferred on and exercised, by the supreme\npowers, since the revolution (for _majus et minus non variant speciem_),\nnor acquit them of the guilt of robbing the Son of God, Jesus Christ, of\nhis incommunicable prerogative and supremacy in and over his church, as\nthe only king and head thereof. Nor will the difference of times, while\nthe constitution remains the same, while God remains the same, and truth\nand duty remain the same, nor yet any distinction that can be made, free\nthe conscience of the acknowledger, more now than then, from being a\npartaker (art and part) with the civil power, in this sacrilegious\nrobbery. _Psal._ l, 18: \"When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst\nwith him,\" &c.\n\nBut passing this: seeing the above mentioned reasons, which _Seceders_\nallege why they cannot swear allegiance to the present government, which\nthey assert is lawful and scriptural, cannot be sustained, some others\nmust be sought for them: and they may be either, because they judge\nallegiance itself unlawful; or rather, because then they would be bound\nby oath to continue faithful to this government in all changes that can\nhappen. Whereas now, they are free, and equally ready, in a full\nconsistency with their principles, to profess their subjection to\nanother, were it even a popish pretender. For according, to them, an\ninfidel or papist may have a just and lawful authority over us,\nnotwithstanding all, both the reformation and revolution laws, to the\ncontrary. If, therefore, the legislature would, in the oaths of\nallegiance, insert this limitation, viz. so long as the body politic is\npleased to acknowledge the supreme magistrate, they would find it easier\nto come over their other pretended and inconsistent difficulties. For\nthe truth is, they cannot, in a consistency with their anti-government\nscheme, and with safe consciences, swear to any government, but with\nsuch limitation, in regard they cannot be sure, but he that is now owned\nby civil society may be rejected, and another set up, who must be\nacknowledged. So they would be brought into an inextricable dilemma;\neither they must own them both to be God's ordinance, which is absurd;\nor then be perjured, by rejecting him to whom they had sworn; or then\nincur damnation, by refusing obedience to him, who is set up by the body\npolitic. Such is the labyrinth of confusion and contradiction this\nanarchical system leads into; a system that cancels all constitutions by\nGod and men anent civil government.\n\n8. This anti-government Seceding principle, destructive of said\ndistinction between the providential and preceptive will of God, is both\ncontrary to, and confuted by many approven scriptural examples; in which\nthe Spirit of God testifies, that the actual possession of the throne,\nunder the favor of providence, and by the consent of a majority of a\nnation, may be in one, while the moral power and right of government is\nin another. The word of God acknowledges _David_ the rightful sovereign\nover all _Israel_, for the space of forty years (1 Kings, ii, 11; 1\nChron. xxix, 26, 27); seven of these he is said to have reigned in\n_Hebron_, and thirty-three in _Jerusalem_. During the first seven years\nof his reign at _Hebron_, there is a positive confinement of his actual\nrule to the tribe of _Judah_ only; 2 Sam. v, 5. And at the same time,\n_Ishbosheth_ is said to be made king over all _Israel_, and to have\nreigned two years. In agreeableness to Seceding principles, there is no\nreconciling these different texts. According to their scheme _David_ can\nwith no propriety be said to have reigned forty years over all _Israel_,\nseeing seven of the years were elapsed before he was actually\nacknowledged by all _Israel_, before providence put him in the actual\npossession of all that extensive power. There is another known example,\napplicable to the present purpose, in the instance of _David_, during\nthe rebellion of his unnatural son _Absalom_. According to the sacred\nstory, 2 Sam. chap, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, it appears, that he was\nwholly ejected, both out of the hearts and territories of _Israel_, and\nnot only the throne, but the will and consent of the people given up to\n_Absalom_. But was _David_ therefore divested of his right and title?\nThough it is most contrary to scripture to suppose it; yet, according to\n_Seceders_, seeing _Absalom_ was king, by possession of the throne, and\nhad not only the power providentially put into his hand, but had it also\nby the consent of the people; it necessarily follows that _Absalom_,\nbeing a providential magistrate, his office and authority did equally\narise from, and agree to the preceptive will of God, and subjection and\nobedience, for conscience sake, was equally due to him, as to _David_,\nby the _Israelitish_ tribes. And so it was a damnable sin in _David_ to\nfight against him, as it could be no less than a resisting the ordinance\nof God. The same may be said with respect to that other revolt, by the\ninstigation, and under the conduct of _Sheba_; 2 Sam. chap. xx. But\nalthough, according to _Seceders_, he must also have been their lawful\nmagistrate, the Spirit of God discovers the reverse, still acknowledging\nthe right of government in all these changes to be in _David_. Another\nexample is in the case of _Solomon_, who was ordained or designed by God\nexpressly for the kingdom of _Israel_. _Adonijah_ had obtained the\nascendancy, both in respect of actual possession, and the inclinations\nand consent of the majority of the nation; the consent was general; 1\nKings, i, 5, 7, 9, 11, 18, 25, and ii, 15. He had all to plead for\nhimself, which _Seceders_ make essential to the constitution of a lawful\nking. He had got to the throne by providence, and had full admission and\npossession, by the inclinations of the people. If then there is no\ndistinction to be made of those who are acknowledged by civil society,\ninto such as are so by the preceptive will of God, and such as are so by\nhis providential will only--then _Solomon_ had no right nor title to the\ncrown; and the enterprise of _David_ and _Nathan_, &c., of setting him\non the throne, was utterly unlawful. Both they and _Solomon_ ought to\nhave acquiesced in the duty of subjection to _Adonijah_, as being the\nordinance of God. But this would have been opposite to the express\ndirection of the Lord, appointing the kingdom to _Solomon_, \"It was his\nfrom the Lord,\" as _Adonijah_ himself confessed. To the same purpose\nmight be adduced, the instance of _Joash_, the son of _Akaziah_, who was\nking _de jure_, even when _Athaliah_ had not only the countenance of\nprovidence, but the consent of the people, in the possession of the\nkingdom; 2 Chron. xxii, 10, 12. Again, the practice of nations, in\nowning those for their lawful sovereigns, who, by providence, were put\nfrom the actual exercise of their rule and authority, contributes to\nconfute this absurd notion. Thus, the people of _Israel_, who had risen\nup for _Absalom_, do even, when _David_ was out of the land, own him for\ntheir king. So, during the _Babylonish_ captivity, there are several\npersons noted as princes of _Judah_, whom the people owned, as having\nthe right of government over them. With a variety of other instances,\nall discovering, in opposition to their anarchical system, that it is\nnot by the dispensations of providence, that the right and title of the\nlawful magistrate is to be determined. Moreover, as the Associate\nPresbytery have so barefacedly belied the scriptures of truth, as to\nassert that there cannot be so much as an instance found in all the\nhistory of the Old Testament, of any civil members refusing, either by\nword or deed, an acknowledgment of, or subjection unto the authority of\nany magistrate actually in office, by the will of the civil body:\nbesides what have been already adduced, take these few following\nexamples of many. After that _Saul_, by his disobedience to the\ncommandment of the Lord, had forfeited his title to the kingdom, he was\nno more honored as king, by _Samuel_, the prophet; but, on the contrary,\nhe openly testified to his face, that the Lord had rejected him from\nbeing king; 1 Sam. xv, 26-35. Though he mourned over him as one\nrejected, yet he no more acknowledged him as clothed with the authority\nas a lawful king; nay, the Lord having rejected him, reproves his\nprophet for mourning for him, 1 Sam. xvi, 1. From which, and the command\nhe received to anoint _David_ in his stead, and that even while the\ncivil society did acknowledge, and was subject unto _Saul_, it appears,\nthat the throne of _Israel_ was then regarded, both by the Lord and his\nprophet, as vacant, until _David_ was annointed; from which time, in the\neye of the divine law, he was the rightful king, and ought, in\nconsequence of the public intimation made by the prophet of _Saul's_\nrejection, to have been acknowledged as the Lord's Anointed by the whole\nkingdom of _Israel_. In agreeableness whereto, the scripture informs,\nthat not only _David_ in expectation of the Lord's promise, resisted\n_Saul_ as an unjust usurper, but many among the tribes of _Israel_, whom\nthe Spirit of God honorably mentions, rejected the government of _Saul_,\nand joined themselves to him that was really anointed of the Lord; 1\nChron. xii, 1-23. Now, if the Lord did command, under pain of damnation,\nto give loyal obedience to all in the place of supreme authority,\nhowever wicked, while acknowledged by the body politic, he would not\nreject such, nor command to set up others in their room, nor approve of\nthose who disowned and resisted them. But all this is done in this\ninstance, which of itself, is sufficient to overthrow their scheme.\nAnother instance is in 2 Chron. xi, 13, 16, where the authority of\n_Jeroboam_ is rejected and cast off, even when acknowledged and\nsubmitted to by the nation of _Israel_, by the priests and _Levites_,\nand after them, by all such as did set their hearts to seek the Lord God\nof _Israel_, through all the ten tribes; and this, because of his\nabominable wickedness. Whereby it appears a commendable duty to refuse\nthe lawfulness of the authority of wicked occupants, though acknowledged\nby the majority of a nation. A similar example there is in the reign of\n_Baasha_, who could not by all his vigilance prevent many from casting\noff his government; 2 Chron. xv, 9. Again, there is an express example\nof _Elisha's_ disowning the king of _Israel_, even when the civil\nsociety owned him; 2 Kings, iii, 14, 15. He did not regulate his conduct\nby providence, and the will of the people, but, in opposition to both,\nrefused him that honor that is due to all that are really kings. To\nthese may be added that notable example of _Libnah_, a city of the\npriests, who could not but have knowledge by the law of their God what\nwas their duty; 2 Chron. xxi, 10. Here is an instance of a people's\ncasting off allegiance to a king, properly because of his apostasy and\nintolerable wickedness, whereby they bore testimony against him, and\ndiscovered what was the duty of the whole nation, on account of his\napostasy from the Lord. Their so doing was a most positive, actual and\nexpress condemnation, both of _Jehoram_ for his wickedness, and of the\npeople for concurring, joining with him, and strengthening his hands in\nit (even as _Noah_ by his faith and obedience is said to have condemned\nthe antediluvian world; Heb. ix, 7.) And this their conduct and\ntestimony the Spirit of God justifies, and records to their honor. These\nfew of many that might be adduced, declare the impudence, as well as\nfallacy and imposture of _Seceders_ in this matter, and also justify the\nprinciples which they maliciously nick-name the anti-government scheme;\nand that for no other reason, but because it establishes the ordinance\nof magistracy among a people favored by God with divine revelation, upon\nhis preceptive will, in opposition to their anarchical notions of\nsetting it wholly upon the tottering basis of the corrupt will of man.\nAnd, to conclude this particular, how ridiculously absurd is it in them\nto insinuate, that, in the examples above, or others to be found in\nsacred history, those persons did, notwithstanding their own practice in\nrejecting the authority of wicked rulers, still view it as the duty of\nthe rest of the nation, to acknowledge them? This is pure jargon and\nnonsense, contrary both to reason and religion. By what law could the\nopposite practices of those that disowned, and those that still\ncontinued to own the authority of unlawful rulers, be justified? It\ncould not by the divine law, which never condemns that as sin in one,\nwhich it approves as duty in others in the same circumstances. Seeing\ntherefore these, in the instances above, are justified, the practice of\nthose who continued to acknowledge the lawfulness of these wicked\nrulers, must be regarded as condemned, both by the divine law, and also\nby the practices of the above persons, which do all jointly concur in\nwitnessing, that they viewed it the duty of all the rest of the nation,\nto have done as they did. And from the whole, it appears a commendable\nduty for the Lord's people to disown the right and lawfulness of rulers\nset up in contradiction to the divine law.\n\n9. The iniquity of attempting to destroy the necessary distinction\nbetween the providential and preceptive will of God in the matter of\nmagistracy, appears from God's express disallowance of some whom\nprovidence had actually exalted to the supreme command over a people;\n_Ezek._ xxi, 27: \"I will overturn, &c.\" Although this may have an\nultimate respect to Christ, yet it has also a reference to the rightful\ngovernors of _Judah_, when disposessed of their right by the\nprovidential will of God. And here the Lord threatens the execution of\nhis judgments upon the unjust possessor. See also _Amos_ vi, 13; _Hab._\nii, 5, 6; _Nah._ iii, 4, 5; and _Matth._ xxvi, 52. By all which it\nappears, that the supreme lawgiver states a real difference between\nthose who are only exalted by the providential will of GOD, and not\nauthorized by his preceptive will; and therefore it is impossible that\nthe office and authority of them both can equally arise from, and agree\nto the precept. Again, in _Hos._ viii, 4, \"They have set up kings, but\nnot by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not,\" is this\ndistinction showed, as with the brightness of a sun-beam, so that he\nthat runs may read it. The LORD by his prophet here charges this people\nwith horrid apostasy, in changing both the ordinances of the magistracy\nand the ministry, particularly, although the LORD commanded, if they\nwould set up kings, they should set up none but whom he chose; _Deut._\nxvii, 15. Yet they had no regard to his law. This charge seems to have\nrespect to the civil constitution among the ten tribes after their\nrevolt from the house of David; not simply charging their revolt on\nthem, but that after their secession, they did not consult GOD, nor act\naccording to his precept, in their setting up of kings. As nothing can\nhappen in the world, but by the course of providence; and as all things\nare known unto GOD, in respect of his omniscience, the text cannot\nrespect either of these. The true import of the charge then is, they\nhave set up kings, but not according to the law and preceptive will of\nGOD; and therefore he neither did nor would approve either them or their\nkings. Hence the prophet charges this as one cause of their national\ndestruction. Here then it is undeniably evident that GOD himself\nestablishes that distinction pleaded for; and it is therefore most\nwicked to assert, as _Seceders_ do, that it is altogether groundless and\nabsurd. Again, this text discovers, that all kings that are set up and\nacknowledged by civil society, are not agreeable to the preceptive will\nof GOD, or, as such, approven by him, as they have falsely asserted: for\nhere the LORD declares, that _Israel_ had set up kings that were not\nagreeable to his precept: and the charge respects their authority, the\nvery deed of constitution. To say then, that all providential\nmagistrates are also preceptive, is directly to give the GOD of truth\nthe lie. Moreover, this plainly intimates, that all such providential\nmagistrates as are not set up in agreeableness to the precept; are\ndisallowed and condemned by GOD, and therefore GOD commands to put away\nthe carcasses of such kings, as, because of the blind consent of civil\nsociety, were little better than adored by the people, _Ezek_. xliii, 9,\n\"that he might dwell in the midst of them forever;\" and therefore he\ndeclares it the sin, and so the cause of the people's ruin, as in the\nabove text: and also in _Hos._ v, 11, \"_Ephraim_ is oppressed;\" because\nhe willingly walked after the commandment, deliberately and implicitly\nfollowed every wicked ruler set up by civil society. It is but a\nperverting and abusing the above text, to plead that it is only a\ncondemnation of _Israel_, for not consulting the LORD in making choice\nof their kings, but no condemnation of them for setting them up, and\nacknowledging them, in contradiction to the LORD'S choice, as plainly\nlaid before them in his preceptive will. And it is very contradictory,\nto acknowledge it a sin, not to consult God, and yet to assert that it\nis a matter of indifference as to the validity of their office, whether\nhis counsel be followed or not, which it must be, if, as their principle\nbears, the being of the magistrate's office and authority is equally\ngood and valid, when contrary, as when agreeable to the commanding will\nof God. But if, as is granted, it be a sin not to consult God in the\nchoice of magistrates, it must needs be a great aggravation thereof,\nafter consulting him, to reject and contemn his counsel, and openly\ncontradict his positive command, by constituting kings in opposition to\nhis declared will, which is evidently the sin charged upon _Israel_, and\nthe reason why he disclaims all such; and therefore, according to that\nknown and approven rule, that wherever any sin is forbidden and\ncondemned in scripture, there the contrary duty is commanded and\ncommended; it follows, that the setting up of rulers, in opposition to\nthe express command of God, being here condemned, the contrary duty is\ncommended, namely, a disowning of all such rulers; for, if it be a sin\nto set up rulers, and not by God, it must also be a sin to acknowledge\nthem when so set up, in regard it is a continuing in, and approving of\nthe sin of that wicked erection; although such an acknowledgment may\nindeed be agreeable to their principle, which gives to the creature a\nprerogative above the Creator. From the whole it may already appear,\nwhat reason the Presbytery have for testifying against _Seceders_, for\nmaintaining such a corrupt doctrine; a doctrine, which they very justly\nacknowledge (p. 87) cannot be established, but by the overthrow of this\ndistinction between the providential and preceptive will of God; a\ndistinction, that as they shall never be able to overturn by all their\nimpotent and impious attacks: so it will to all ages stand as a strong\nbulwark, inviolably defending the truth here contended for by the\nPresbytery.\n\n4. The Presbytery testify against this anti-government principle of the\n_Secession_, as being contradictory to, and inconsistent with the\nreformation principles, and covenanted obligations, whereby these\nnations, in agreeableness to the law of God, bound themselves to\nmaintain all the ordinances of God in their purity, according to their\noriginal institution in the scriptures of truth. The Seceding scheme (as\nhas been noticed formerly) is, that whomsoever the bulk of the nation,\nor body politic, set up, and providence proves auspicious and favorable\nto, is the lawful magistrate, to be owned and submitted to for\nconscience sake. The inconsistency of which tenet with reformation\nprinciples, may appear from viewing and comparing therewith the\ncoronation oath, _James VI, Parl._ 1, _cap._ 8, where it is ordained as\na condition _sine qua non_, that all kings, princes, and magistrates,\nshall at their installment solemnly swear to maintain the true religion\nof Jesus Christ, and oppose all false religions. So also _James VI,\nParl. 1, cap._ 9th, which ordains, that no person may be a judge or\nmember of any court that professes not the true religion. Also _Charles\nI_, _Parl._ 2, _sess_ 2d, _Act._ 14, it is ordained, that before the\nking be admitted to the exercise of his royal power, he shall give\nsatisfaction to the kingdom anent the security of religion: and so the\nsame parliament, _Act_ 15th, 1649, express themselves (referring to the\ncoronation oath above mentioned): \"The estates of parliament judging it\nnecessary, that the prince and people be of one perfect religion,\nappoint, that all kings and princes, who shall reign or bear rule within\nthis realm, shall at the receipt of their princely authority, solemnly\nswear to observe in their own persons, and to preserve the religion, as\nit is presently established and professed. And they ordain, that before\nthe king's majesty who now is, or any of his successors, shall be\nadmitted to the exercise of his royal power, he shall, by and attour the\nforesaid oath, declare by his solemn oath, under his hand and seal, his\nallowance of the National Covenant, and of the Solemn League and\nCovenant, and obligation to prosecute the ends thereof in his station\nand calling; and that he shall consent, and agree to acts of parliament,\nenjoining the Solemn League and Covenant, and fully establishing\nPresbyterian government, the Directory for worship, Confession of Faith,\nand Catechisms approved by the General Assembly of this kirk, and\nparliament of this kingdom--and that he shall observe these in his own\npractice and family,--and shall never make opposition to any of these,\nor endeavor any change thereof. Likeas, the estates of parliament\ndischarge all the lieges and subjects of this kingdom to procure or\nreceive from his majesty any commissions or gifts whatsoever, until his\nmajesty shall give satisfaction, as said is, under the pain of being\ncensured in their persons and estates, as the parliament shall judge\nfitting. And if any such commissions or gifts be procured or received by\nany of the subjects before such satisfaction, the parliament declares\nand ordains all such and all that shall follow thereupon, to be void and\nnull.\" And the same session, _Act_ 26th, it is in short ordained, that\nnone shall bear any place of public trust in the nation, but such as\nhave the qualifications God requires in his word. Thus, in the prefatory\npart of the act, they say, \"The estates of parliament taking into\nconsideration, that the Lord our God requires that such as bear charge\namong his people, should be able men, fearing God, hating covetousness,\nand dealing truly: and that many of the evils of sin and punishment,\nunder which the land groans, have come to pass, because hitherto they\nhave not been sufficiently provided and cared for,\" &c. (And afterward\nin the statutory part), \"Do therefore ordain, that all such as shall be\nemployed in any place of power and trust in this kingdom, shall not only\nbe able men, but men of known affection unto, and of approved fidelity\nand integrity in the cause of God, and of a blameless Christian\nconversation,\" &c. To the same purpose, _Act_ 11th, _Parl._ 2d, _Sess._\n3d, entitled _act for purging the army_. See also the coronation oath,\nof _Scotland_, as subscribed by _Charles II_, at _Scoon_, 1650. All\nwhich, and many other fundamental laws of the like nature, made in time\nof reformation, show the principles of our reformers to have been quite\ndifferent from those of _Seceders_ anent civil government: and that to\nconstitute lawful magistrates, they must of necessity have scriptural\nand covenant qualifications, besides the consent of the people. With\nwhat face then can they pretend to have adopted a testimony for\nreformation principles, and to be of the same principles with our late\nreformers? The vanity of this pretense will further appear, by comparing\ntheir principles with the Solemn League and Covenant, with every article\nof which they are inconsistent. They profess the moral obligation of the\ncovenants, and yet at the same time maintain the lawfulness of every\nprovidential government, whether popish or prelatic, if set up by the\nbody politic. But how opposite this to the _first_ article, obliging\nconstantly to endeavor the preservation of the reformed religion? Can it\nbe consistent therewith, to commit the government of the nations to a\nsworn enemy to the reformation? or, with that sincerity which becomes\nthe professors of Christ, to plead the lawfulness of an authority raised\nupon the overthrow of the reformed religion? No less opposite is it to\nthe _second_ article, which obliges, and that without respect of\npersons, to endeavor the extirpation of popery, prelacy--to maintain and\nplead for the lawfulness of that which establishes or supports prelacy\nor popery in the nations. This appears rather like a sincere endeavor in\nthem to promote whatever is contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of\ntrue godliness; and that, because an apostate people approves thereof,\ncontrary to _Exod._ xxiii, 2: \"Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do\nevil.\" Again, the _third_ article binds to preserve the rights of\nparliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms, and the king's authority\nin the preservation and defense of the true religion. But how\ninconsistent is it therewith, to own and defend an authority that in its\nconstitution and habitual series of administration, is destructive of\nall these precious and valuable interests? It is full of contradiction,\nand a mocking both of God and the world, to pretend to own and defend\nthe destroyers of the true religion, in the defense of religion, as\n_Seceders_ do in their mock acknowledgment of such as are sworn to\nmaintain Prelacy, in opposition to the reformed religion. The\ncontradictoriness of this principle of theirs to the _fourth_ article,\nneeds no illustration. Again, the owning of an authority, which is\nreared up and stands upon the footing of the destruction of the\ncovenanted union, and uniformity of the nations in religion can never be\nconsistent with the _fifth_, article, which binds, to an endeavoring,\nthat these kingdoms may remain conjoined in that firm covenanted union\nto all posterity. In like manner, as the _sixth_ article obliges to a\ndefending of all that enter into that League and Covenant, and never to\nsuffer ourselves to be divided, and make defection to the contrary part;\nit must be a manifest contradiction thereto, not only to defend such as\nare enemies to that covenant, but even in their opposition thereto. And\nit is a making defection to the contrary part, and from that cause and\ncovenant with a witness, to plead the lawfulness of the national\nconstitution, which is established upon the ruins of a covenanted work\nof reformation, as _Seceders_ do; whose principle and practice, in\nopposition to what is professed in the conclusion of the covenant, as\nwell as what was the very design of entering into it, is, instead of a\ngoing before others, in the example of a real reformation, a corrupting\nof the nations more and more, and going before them in the example of a\nreal apostasy and defection from the reformation, so solemnly sworn to\nbe maintained in this covenant; and a teaching of them to appoint\nthemselves a captain, to return to their anti-christian bondage.\n\nUpon the whole, as the Presbytery ought to testify against this new\nscheme of principles, respecting the ordinance of magistracy; they\ntherefore, upon all the grounds formerly laid down, did, and hereby do\ndeclare, testify against, and condemn the same, as what is, indeed, a\nnew and dangerous principle, truly anti-government, introductory of\nanarchy and confusion, of apostasy and defection from the covenanted\nwork of reformation, the principles by which it was carried on and\nmaintained, and acts and laws, by which it was fenced and established;\nand what is flatly opposite to, and condemned by the word of divine\nrevelation, in many express and positive precepts, and approven\nexamples, agreeable thereto, as well as by our solemn national\ncovenants, founded upon, and agreeable to the said word of divine\nrevelation. And finally, let this be further observed, that as it was a\nbeautiful branch of our glorious reformation, that the civil government\nof this nation was modeled agreeable to the word of God; and that the\nright of regal government was constituted, bounded and fixed by an\nunalterable law, consonant to the word of God, and sworn to be\ninviolably preserved both by king and people: so the _Associate\nBrethren_, by their doctrine on this head, which is inconsistent with\nour uncontroverted establishment, and fundamental laws, excluding from\nthe throne all papists and prelatists, have counteracted a most\nimportant point of the covenanted reformation, and opened a wide door to\n_Jacobitism_. For, if every one is bound to acknowledge implicitly any\ngovernment, in fact, that prevails: then, if a party in these nations\nshould rise up, and set a _popish_ pretender on the throne, according to\ntheir doctrine, all should be obliged to subject to him; and it would be\nsinful to impugn the lawfulness of his authority, although that, by\nbeing popish, he is destitute of the essential qualifications required\nof a king, not only by the word of God, but by the national constitution\nand laws, in order to make him a lawful sovereign to these nations.\n\n2. The Presbytery testify against the Associate Presbytery, now called\nSynod, for their wronging, perverting and misapplying the blessed\nscriptures of truth in many texts, in order to support their erroneous\ntenet: namely, that the word of God requires no qualifications as\nessential to the being of a lawful Christian magistrate: but that\nwhosoever are set up, and while they continue to be acknowledged by\ncivil society, are lawful magistrates, though destitute of scripture\nqualifications, and acting in a manifest opposition to the revealed will\nand law of God.\n\nThe texts of scripture used by them, do prove this general proposition,\nviz., That it is the duty of the people of God to obey and submit to\nlawful rulers in their lawful commands: and that it is utterly unlawful\nand sinful to oppose such lawful authority. But none of these texts\nquoted by them, prove, that it is the duty of the people of God, blessed\nwith the knowledge of his revealed will, to submit to, and obey, for\nconscience sake, an authority that is sinful, and opposite to the\nrevealed will of God, both in its constitution and general course of\nadministration. Nor do they prove, that a prelatical, Erastian or popish\ngovernment, is a lawful government, either expressly, or by right of\nnecessary consequence, over a people, who either do, collectively\nconsidered as a church and nation, or are bound to profess all the parts\nof the true religion, and to maintain all the divine ordinances in their\npurity: nor do they prove, that any can be lawful rulers over these\nChristian and covenanted nations, who want the essential qualifications\nrequired by the word of God, the covenants, and fundamental laws of the\nkingdoms: or that it is sinful in the people of God, to say so much, in\ntestifying against the joint and national apostasy from God and the\npurity of religion. Particularly,\n\nThe first text they adduce is, _Prov._ xxvi, 21: \"My son, fear, thou the\nLord and the king, and meddle not with them that are given to change.\"\nIt is granted, that this scripture enjoins all those duties that, in a\nconsistency with the fear of the Lord, a people owe to their rightful\nkings. But nothing can be more absurd, than to extend the command to all\nthat bear the name of kings, who are acknowledged by a nation as kings,\nand while they do so own them, though their constitution should be most\nanti-christian, and they justly chargeable with unparalleled evils not\nonly in their private character, but in their public conduct: be they\nidolaters, adulterers, blasphemers, sabbath-breakers, murderers,\ninvaders, and avowed usurpers of the throne, crown and scepter, and\nincommunicable prerogatives of Christ, the glorious King of Zion,\nsetting themselves in the temple of God, and exalting themselves above\nall that is called God, by dispensing with his laws, and, in place\nthereof, substituting their own wicked laws, whereby they establish\niniquity, and enjoin, under severe penalties, the profanation of the\nname, day and ordinances of the Lord. This command must certainly be\nunderstood in a consistency with the duty and character of one that is\nresolved to be an inhabitant of the Lord's holy hill, _Psal._ xv, \"In\nwhose eyes a vile person is contemned.\" It must be consistent with the\nfear of the Lord, which can stand very well with a fearing and honoring\nall who are really kings; but a flat contradiction thereto, to fear\nevery vile person, because it is the will of civil society to set him up\nin the character of king. Till therefore Seceders prove, either that\nkings are under no obligation to obey the law of God themselves, and so\nnot liable to its sanction and penalty, in case of disobedience; or\nthen, that the favor and approbation of civil society can justify a\ndispensing with the law of God, they will never be able to prove from\nthis, nor any other text, that such as are guilty of any crime declared\ncapital in the word of truth have a right and title to that fear, honor\nand obedience, that is due to lawful kings, even though they are\nacknowledged by civil society. And so this text makes nothing for, but\nagainst their darling tenet; and their explication thereof is evidently\na wresting of scripture, making it speak in their favor, contrary to the\nscope and meaning of the Holy Spirit therein. And their inviduous\ninsinuation, that all who differ from their opinion, do likewise depart\nfrom the fear of the Lord, is but a further evidence of their abuse of\nscripture, while it is at the same time utterly false. See Mr. Knox's\nhistory, p. 422, 1st _Book of Discipline, cap._ 10, 11.\n\nA _second_ text abused, for supporting their forementioned principle, is\n_Eccles._ x, 4: \"If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave\nnot thy place, for yielding pacifieth great offenses.\" As formerly, so\nhere they assert, that this text refers to any rulers presently\nacknowledged by the civil society, and that the rising of the ruler's\nspirit must be understood as groundless, and so sinful, and necessarily\ncomprehends any wrath or wrong that a subject may meet with unjustly at\nthe ruler's hand, upon personal or religious accounts. That yet,\nnotwithstanding, the subject (in the use of lawful endeavors for his own\nvindication) must continue in subjection and obedience to the ruler, in\nlawful commands, while the civil state continues to acknowledge him; and\nthis, as the only habile mean of convincing the ruler of his error, and\npreventing further evils.\n\nBut, as the reason which they there allege, does not necessarily\nconclude and prove this rising of spirit in the ruler to be sinful; so\nthe whole of their application and gloss built upon it, is invalidated;\nand, moreover, is a condemnation of the principles and practice of our\nreformers, and sufferers for the cause and truths of Christ, in the late\ntimes, when they left their place of subjection, and took up arms in\ndefense of their religion, liberties and lives.\n\nTheir explication is also self inconsistent; for, if this rising of\nspirit necessarily comprehends any wrath or wrong, on personal or\nreligious accounts, then there must be a yielding, or keeping the place\nof subjection, not only in lawful commands, but in all matters, whether\nlawful or not; otherwise, this yielding cannot be supposed to answer the\nend designed. For though a subject should yield in all other\nparticulars, yet, unless he also yield in that particular, on which the\nrising of the ruler's spirit is grounded, his yielding cannot pacify the\nruler's wrath. So all the subjection, they contend, the sufferers gave,\nparticularly in the beginning of the late persecution, to the then\nrulers, did not, nor could, pacify their wrath, because they would not\ngive up with their conscience and all religion, which was the very\nfoundation of the rising of his spirit against them; though, according\nto their explication of the text, this was what they should have done,\nand so have pacified the ruler's wrath. It is but a mere shift to tell\nthe world, that it is only in lawful matters they are to yield; the\nyielding must surely correspond to the rising of the spirit spoken of.\nBut with such deceitful shifts are they forced to cover over a doctrine,\nwhich, if presented in its native dress, would not meet with such ready\nreception. But in opposition to their strained interpretation of the\ntext, the ruler must be understood a lawful ruler, who is the minister\nof God for good--one who has not only moral abilities for government,\nbut also a right to govern. And as a subject may be keeping his place of\nsubjection to a righteous ruler, and yet be guilty, in his private or\npublic character, of what gives just offense, and occasions the ruler's\nspirit justly, and so not sinfully, to rise against him--thus, one may\nbe guilty of many criminal mismanagements in the discharge of his public\ntrust, guilty of profaning the name of God or his day, or of riot,\nexcessive drinking, &c, without having any thought of casting off the\nauthority of his ruler--so, when a person has hereby provoked the spirit\nof his ruler, this divine precept teaches the party offending not to\naggravate his offense, by attempting (though able) to make good his\npart, or rebel against his sovereign, but to yield, acknowledge his\nguilt and trespass, and submit to such punishments as the lawful ruler\nshall justly inflict, according to the degree and quality of the\noffense; whereby only, the ruler will be satisfied. Agreeable to this,\nis that parallel text, _Eccles._ viii, 2, 3: \"I counsel thee to keep the\nking's commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God: Be not hasty\nto go out of his sight; stand not in an evil thing.\" On the whole, it\nmust be a great abuse of Scripture, to wrest a divine precept, which\ndirects subjects to submit to such punishments as their lawful ruler\nshall justly lay them under for their offenses, to the support of this\nanti-scriptural notion, viz., that every wicked person, whom the\nmajority of a nation advances to the supreme rule, is the minister of\nGod, to whom obedience is due, under pain of eternal damnation, as is\ndone with this text.\n\nA _third_ scripture, perverted to support the above principle, is _Luke_\nxx, 25: \"Render therefore to _Caesar_ the things which be _Caesar's_,\nand unto God the things which be God's.\" From this, _Seceders_ imagine\nstrongly to fortify their cause. But, from a just view of the text, it\nwill appear, that the answer given by Christ contains no acknowledgment\nof _Caesar's_ title to tribute, or of his authority as lawful. It is\nbeyond doubt, that the question was captious, and that the design of the\nScribes and Pharisees, in proposing it to Christ, was to have him\nensnared in his words. This they thought themselves sure of, whether he\nshould answer positively or negatively. For if positively, and so\nrecognize and acknowledge _Caesar's_ title, then they would have\noccasion to accuse him to the people, as an enemy to the laws, liberty\nand honor, of the _Jewish_ nation. This is evident from ver. 26: \"And\nthey could not take hold of his words before the people.\" And then, if\nhe should deny that it was lawful, they would have an opportunity or\npretense of delating and delivering him to the _Roman_ governor, as an\nenemy to _Caesar_. They seem, however, to have been confident, that he\nwho taught the way of God in truth, without regard to any, would never\ninculcate it as a duty for them to give tribute to _Caesar_, subjection\nto whom, as their lawful governor, for conscience sake, was so contrary\nto the divine law given to the _Jews_, respecting their magistrates; and\nif so, they would not miss of sufficient accusation against him. But\nhere infinite wisdom shone forth, in giving such an answer as declared\ntheir wisdom to be but folly, and at once disappointed all their\nmalicious hopes; an answer which left _Caesar's_ claim unresolved, as to\nany positive determination whether it belonged to him or not. The\nquestion is in direct terms. Our Lord does not directly answer to the\nquestion, in the terms proposed by the wicked spies. He neither\nexpressly says it is lawful or unlawful to pay it, but gave his answer\nin such terms as they could not from it form an accusation against him,\neither to the people or to the governor. He, in general, teaches to give\n_Caesar_ all things that, by the law of God, were due to him; at the\nsame time enjoining them that, under pretense of giving to men their\ndemands, they rob not God of what was his due, namely, a conscientious\nregard to all the laws he had given them, and universal obedience to all\nhis commands, without regard to persons of any station. And it is\ncertain, that _Caesar_ was a proud, aspiring, idolatrous and bloody\nusurper (like the king of _Babylon_, Hab. ii, 5, for which causes the\nLord denounces fearful wrath and judgments against him, Hab. ii, 7-14),\nhaving no other right to the most part of his dominions, than the Lord's\nprovidential disposal, which sometimes makes \"the tabernacles of robbers\nprosper; into whose hand God bringeth abundantly;\" Job xii, 6. \"And for\ntheir sins gives _Jacob_ to the spoil, and _Israel_ to the robbers;\"\nIsa. xiii, 24. \"And giveth power to the beast, to continue forty and two\nmonths, and to have power over all nations;\" Rev. xiii, 5, 7. So that,\nby looking into the divine law, which determines every one's due,\naccording to their just character, and of which they could not be\nignorant, they might see that he had a just title to all that was due to\nan usurper, idolater and murderer. That the _Jewish_ coin did bear\n_Caesar's_ image, could be no evidence of his being their lawful\nsovereign, seeing it is most common for the greatest usurpers and\ntyrants to stamp their image upon the coin of the nations they tyrannize\nover. And though it be granted that the _Jews_ had, by this time,\nconsented to _Caesar's_ usurpation, yet that could not legitimate his\ntitle, nor warrant their subjection to him for conscience sake, seeing\nthey could not consent to his authority, but in express contradiction to\nthe many plain and positive scripture precepts, given by God unto them,\nas has been seen above. It is, therefore, violence done to the text (as\nalso opposite to the sentiments of some eminent divines on the place),\nto say that it contains a command to pay tribute to _Caesar_; and it\nwould appear from Luke xxiii, 2, that the _Jews_ themselves did not\nunderstand it so. It may be further observed, that this is not the only\ninstance where our Lord, in infinite wisdom, declined to give direct\nanswers to the ensnaring questions of his malicious enemies. See John\nviii, 3-12; Matth. xxi, 23-28; John xviii, 19-21, where are questions of\na similar nature, proposed with the same hellish intention, and all\nanswered by him in like manner. In each of which, _Seceders_ might, on\nas good ground as in the answer to the question anent tribute, say that\nChrist did shift and dissemble the truth. But the least insinuation of\nsuch a charge cannot be made from any of these answers, without the\ngreatest blasphemy.\n\nA _fourth_ text used by them for maintaining their erroneous scheme, is\nRom. xiii, 1-8. Without animadverting upon every part of their\nexplication of this place of holy writ, it is sufficient to observe: 1.\nThat the power here spoken of by the apostle, is not a _physical_, but a\n_moral_ power; a power that is lawful and warranted, in regard of\nmatter, person, title or investiture. A legitimacy in each of these must\ngo to the making of a moral power; and an illegitimacy in any of these\nis an illegitimacy in the very being and constitution, and so a nullity\nto the power as moral, a making it of no authority. As the text speaks\nonly of this moral power, so it excludes every unlawful power (see Mr.\n_Gee_ on magistracy, on this text). 2. That the _being_ of God, or the\nordination God here spoke of, is not a being of God _providentially_\nonly, but such a _being of_ God as contains in it his institution and\nappointment, by the warrant of his law and precept; so that the\nmagistrates to whom the apostle enjoins obedience, are such as are set\nup according to the preceptive ordination and will of God, as is evinced\nnot only by the author referred to above, and other divines, but what\nsufficiently appears from the context, where the subjection enjoined,\nand resistance forbidden, with their respective reasons, are what can\nonly be spoken with respect to powers ordained by the preceptive will of\nGod. Again, by considering the office and duty of the powers, and the\nend of their ordination, as described, ver. 3, 4, which by no means\nagree to any but those moral powers ordained by the preceptive will of\nGod, it appears a manifest abuse of this text, to apply it to every one\nadvanced by providence to the place of supreme rule, not only without\nany regard, but in direct opposition to the preceptive will of God. It\nis most absurd and self-contradictory in professed testimony bearers for\na covenanted reformation, to apply this text in a way of pleading the\nlawfulness of an Erastian, anti-christian constitution, that is\ndestitute of all those qualifications already mentioned (and always\nincluded in the scriptural definition of a lawful magistrate), as\nnecessary to constitute a moral power, viz., in regard of matter,\nperson, title or investiture, &c. But of the power which they so\nzealously plead for, the matter is unlawful, being Erastian, partly\ncivil, partly ecclesiastical, by the united constitution. The person\ninvested with this supreme power, is one who is declared incapable, by\nthe fundamental laws and covenanted constitution of the nations; the\nmanner of investiture, and terms on which the crown is held, sinful--the\nconstitution being in an immediate opposition to the unalterable\nconstitution of the kingdom of the _Messias_, and founded on the\ndestruction of the covenanted reformation. And it may be added, that it\nis unlawful, as to the exercise and application of it, which has been\nall along in opposition to all _true_ religion, and a grievous\noppression of the church, the kingdom of Christ, in the liberties\nthereof. And it must be so; for the tree must be made good, before the\nfruit can be such. By all which it appears, there is a nullity in the\npower as moral, being so very opposite to the revealed will of God. And\nfrom what is said, it is obvious that this scripture gives no\ncountenance to their corrupt scheme, but furnishes with strong arguments\nagainst it.\n\nA _fifth_ scripture adduced is, Titus iii, 1: \"Put them in mind to be\nsubject to principalities and powers,\" &c. As _Seceders_ apply this text\nto the same purpose, and explain it in the same manner, as they have\ndone those others above mentioned, so what is already said is sufficient\nto discover the deceit of their use and explication thereof. The powers\nand magistrates the apostle requires subjection to, are only such as are\nso in a moral sense; none but such are accounted powers and magistrates\nin the sense of the text. The apostle must mean the same powers here he\ndescribes in Rom. xiii, 1-3, &c., otherwise he contradicts himself,\nwhich must not be admitted; and the powers he there speaks of, are moral\npowers, i.e., such as have not only proper abilities for government and\nrule, but also a right of constitution, impowering them to use their\nabilities for that purpose. How can one be expected or said to be the\n_minister_ of God _for good_, or a _terror to evil doers, and a praise\nto them that do well_, if he is so disposed and inclined, as to love\nthat which is evil, and hate that which is good, and so actually is a\npraise to evil doers, and a terror to such as do well? To suppose any\nsuch thing, is to overthrow the universally established connection\nbetween cause and effect, the means and the end. And so much (namely,\nthat the powers there spoken of are moral powers), _Seceders_ are forced\nto grant in their explication of Rom. xiii. Say they, \"The text speaks\nonly of powers in a moral sense.\" And this concession at once destroys\ntheir scheme, and confirms what the Presbytery plead for, namely, that\nnone are lawful powers but such as are so according to the preceptive\nwill of God in his word; which certainly, in the judgment of all _who\nwould deal reverently with the oracles of God_, is, in this case, a rule\nfar preferable \"to the remainders of natural light, in the moral\ndictates of right reason,\" from which _Seceders_ fetch the institution\nof this divine ordinance of magistracy, and on which they settle it, as\non (what they call) \"the natural and eternal law of God;\" preferring\nthat to the plain, perfect and complete, revelation of God's will in his\nword.\n\nThe _last_ text used by them, is, 1 Pet. ii, 13 to 17, the import of\nwhich, they say, is, that all who have a constitution by consent of the\ncivil society, are to be subjected to for the Lord's sake, as having an\ninstitution from him: and that, however seldom they were inclined or\nemployed in the discharge of the duties proper to their office. It may\nsuffice to observe, that while the apostle is here speaking, as in the\nabove texts, of moral powers, as above described, it is evident, that by\n_every ordinance of man_, can only be meant the different kinds and\nforms of civil government, and governors set up by men, to each of which\nthe apostle exhorts to a submission, providing, that in the setting up\nof these, they acted agreeably to the general laws and rules appointed\nby God in his word, both respecting the constitution of government, and\nthe qualifications of governors. Then, as they bear the stamp of divine\nauthority, they were to be submitted to for the Lord's sake. But what\nmanifest abuse of scripture is it, to allege with them that the inspired\napostle exhorts to submit to every monster of iniquity, if only set up\nby the civil society, though perhaps guilty of a number of crimes that\nby the law of God, and laws of men founded thereon, are punishable by a\nsevere death? Sure, such can never have a title to that obedience which\nis due to the ordinance of God, who have not so much as a title to live\nupon the earth. Moreover, let it be considered, that in the above cited\ntexts, the spirit of God enjoins either that obedience and subjection\nthat is due to lawful magistrates, or that subjection only which is for\na time, by an extraordinary and special command, such as Jer. xxix, 7,\ngiven to conquerors and usurpers, having no right but what is\nprovidential. If the first, then they cannot intend any but those moral\npowers who are said to be of God, in respect of his approbative and\npreceptive will. If the last, then these texts are not the rule of\nobedience to lawful rulers, who are set up qualified, and govern\naccording to the law of God. But that these texts can only be understood\nof the first, is evident from this, that in them not only is the office,\nduty and end of the civil magistrate as particularly described, as the\nobedience and subjection commanded; but the one is made the foundation,\nground, and reason of, and inseparably connected with the other. And\ntherefore it was, that the renowned witnesses for Christ and his\ninterest, contended so much for reformation in the civil magistracy and\nmagistrate, in an agreeableness to the original institution of that\nordinance, and endured so great opposition on that account.\n\nTo conclude this: as it is evident these texts give no countenance to\nthe corrupt scheme of _Seceders_, but always suppose the power, to which\nsubjection and obedience for conscience sake is enjoined to be lawful,\nin regard of matter, person, title, &c. So the Presbytery cannot but\ntestify against them for perverting and wresting the scriptures of\ntruth, to a favoring of their anarchical and anti-scriptural tenet, and\nfor their so stiffly and tenaciously pleading for avowed apostasy and\ndefection (which is the whole scope and amount of their declared scheme\nof politics), viz., that it is lawful for posterity to turn back to\nwhere their forefathers were, giving up with many precious truths, and\nfurther attainments in reformation, valuable and necessary, acquired at\nthe expense of much zeal, faithfulness and treasure, and handed down to\nus, sealed by the spirit of God upon the souls of his people, as his\nwork and cause; and on public scaffolds and high places of the field,\nwith the dearest blood of multitudes of Christ's faithful witnesses, who\nloved not their lives unto the death. And this, in express contradiction\nto the land's solemn covenant engagements to the Lord, for maintaining\nand holding fast that whereunto we had attained. For notwithstanding all\nthe regard and deference _Seceders_ profess to the covenants and\nreformation principles, they are, all the while, directly pleading in\ndefense of the same cause, advancing the same arguments to support it,\nand likewise giving the same corrupt and perverted explication of the\nabove texts of scripture, that the merciless and bloody murderers and\npersecuters did, in the late tyrannous times, in their stated opposition\nto the cause and interest of glorious Christ, together with the indulged\nwho took part with them, in opposing the kingdom and subjects of Zions\nexalted King. And as [pity it is] _Seceders_ have pleaded the cause of\nmalignants, and, rubbing the rust from their antiquated arguments, have\npresented them with a new lustre; so the Presbytery, in opposition\nthereto, are satisfied to plead the same cause, with the same arguments\nand to understand these scriptures in the same sense as was done by the\nwitnesses for reformation, whom the Lord honored to seal his truths with\ntheir blood, as is sufficiently confirmed from the Cloud of Witnesses;\nwhere their concurring testimonies are harmoniously stated, upon their\ndisowning the authority of the then anti-christian and Erastian\ngovernment, even when acknowledged by the bulk and body of the nation,\nboth civil and ecclesiastical. Whence also it is evident, that the\npersecution was not the cause of their casting off that authority; but\nthat authority's assuming and usurping the royal prerogatives of Christ,\nthe church's Head, was the cause of their disowning it; and then their\nrefusing to acknowledge foresaid authority, was the cause of all their\npersecution.\n\n3. The Presbytery testify against foresaid Associates, on account of\ntheir corruption in worship; particularly, in the duty of prayer, both\nas practiced by their ministers, and by them enjoined upon their people.\n\nWherein, in an inconsistency with a faithful testimony against the\ndeclared enemies of the church's head and king, they affect to express a\nsuperlative loyalty unto the prelatic possessors of power, not much\ndiffering from the forms imposed upon, and observed by the Erastian\nchurch. The Presbytery acknowledge it duty to pray for all men, in the\nvarious stations of life, as sinners lost, of the ruined family of Adam,\nstanding absolutely in need of a Savior, that they may be saved and come\nto the knowledge of the truth; as is enjoined, _Tim._ ii, 1, 2. Which\nyet must not be understood in an unlimited sense, but with submission to\nthe will of God, if they belong to the election of grace. Nay, they\nacknowledge it indispensable duty, as to pray, that the church may\nobtain such kings and queens, as shall he nursing fathers and mothers,\naccording to the Lord's gracious promise; so, when such are granted to\nthem, it is their duty to make prayers and supplications, in a\nparticular manner, for them. But it is no less than an abuse of\nscripture, and flat contradiction to many promises and threatenings, to\nextend foresaid command to every person without distinction whom\nprovidence advances to the supreme rule over the people of God, in a way\nof acknowledging their authority as lawful, and of praying for success\nand prosperity to them (as Seceders do), to pray for success unto, and\nthe continuance of wicked rulers, that are enemies to the Lord, and\nusurpers of his crown, and such whom the Lord in anger against a people\nfor their sins, may send as a special punishment upon them, and from\nwhom he has promised deliverance unto his people, as a peculiar\nblessing, is no less than the slighting of the promises, and deriding of\nthreatenings, and in reality, is a taking part with God's enemies,\nagainst him and his cause. As it is impossible, sincerely to pray for\nthe coming of Christ's kingdom, and advancement thereof, without also,\nas a necessary mean conducive thereto, to pray for the downfall and\ndestruction of all his enemies, as such, whatever be their place and\nstation (which is not at all inconsistent with praying for their\nsalvation, as lost sinners); seeing Jesus Christ no less effectually\ndestroys his enemies, when he makes them to bow in a way of willing\nsubjection to the scepter of his law and grace, than when he breaks them\nin pieces with his iron rod of wrath; so, how self-contradictory is it\nin _Seceders_, to pray for the coming of Christ's mediatory kingdom;\nand, at the same time to pray for the success and preservation of one,\nin his kingly character, who themselves acknowledge, has, in that\ncharacter, made grievous encroachments upon the royal prerogatives of\nthe Lord Jesus Christ, is an usurper of his crown, and therefore, in\nthat view, must be considered as an enemy to his kingdom?\n\nThat the above is no false charge against _Seceders_, is witnessed by a\nvariety of their causes of fasting, concluding with such prayers, which\nthey have emitted, as well as by their daily practice: and particularly,\n_Antiburgher Seceders_, have given a late recent proof of this; in what\nthey call, A solemn warning by the _Associate Synod_, &c. Which\nunfaithful warning concludes with a self-contradictory form of prayer,\nenjoined upon all under the inspection of said _Synod_. Among other\nthings, they \"exhort all--the people under their inspection, to pour out\nearnest and incessant supplications before the Lord, in a dependence\nupon the merit and intercession of our great High-priest, that he\nmay--bring about a revival of our covenanted reformation,--removing all\nthe mountains which stand in the way; that he may abundantly bless our\nsovereign king _George_, and the apparent heir of the crown,--blasting\nall the plots or efforts of whatever enemies, open or secret,--against\nthe Protestant succession to the throne of these kingdoms in the family\nof _Hanover_; that he may be gracious to the high courts of parliament,\nin this and the neighboring island,--leading them to proper measures for\nthe honor of Christ; that he may hasten the enlargement of the\nMediator's kingdom,\" &c.\n\nOn all which, let it suffice to observe, 1. That as in no part of this\nprayer they make any exceptions against, so they must be understood\ntherein, approving of the constitution of the king, the establishment,\nand limitation of the throne of these kingdoms in the _Hanoverian_\nfamily, as presently by law established: and also, approving of the\n_British_ and _Irish_, parliaments, in their constitution as by law\nestablished, though both of them grossly Erastian, and necessarily\nconnected with maintaining _English_ popish ceremonies, the whole\n_English_ hierarchy, and civil places and power of churchmen; in\nopposition to the word of God, reforming laws, and covenanted\nconstitutions of the nations. Hence, 2. This pattern of prayer must be\nunderstood as containing earnest supplications to the Lord, that he may\ncontinue and preserve an Erastian constitution, that he may perpetuate\nthe limited succession to the throne in the family of _Hanover_; and\nthat, in opposition to all attempts whatever, toward any change, however\nmuch it might contribute to the glory of God, good of the church, and\nrevival of a covenanted reformation; and also, seems to include a desire\nthat, God may preserve and maintain a parliament in the nations, one of\nthe houses whereof, viz., the House of Peers, is composed partly of\n_spiritual lords_, as essential members thereof,--an anti-christian\ndesignation, a title and office, not to be found in the book of divine\nrevelation. So, 3. This prayer seems to suppose a consistency between\nthe preservation of all these, and the revival of a covenanted\nreformation in these lands; and also that they, particularly a\nparliament, thus anti-christian in its constitution, are proper\ninstruments for promoting the honor and declarative glory of Christ;\nalthough the prelates, constituent members therein, are a generation of\nmen that were never yet known to have a vote for Christ's kingdom and\ninterest. And therefore, 4. This prayer consists of flat contradiction.\n(1.) In regard the revival of a covenanted reformation, and the\nflourishing of Christ's mediatory kingdom, nationally, must be attended\nwith the overthrow of all constitutions, civil and ecclesiastical, that\nhinder and oppose the same; _Hag._ ii, 6, 7, and with the down bringing\nof all the enemies thereof, from the height of their excellency. (2.) It\nis a contradiction for them to pray, that the Lord would remove all the\nmountains that stand in the way of the revival of our reformation; and\nyet, at the same time, pray for the preservation and continuance of the\nconstitution, under which (as they themselves acknowledge, _Defense of\ntheir Princ., page_ 51): \"There is a mighty bar thrust into the way of\nour covenanted reformation, both in church and state; yea, a gravestone\nis laid, and established upon the same.\" (3.) It is a sinful and glaring\ncontradiction for _Seceders_ to rank an approbation of the _English_\nhierarchy among our public national sins and steps of defection (as they\ndo, page 53 of their pamphlet); and yet themselves persist and continue\nin the same sin and guilt, homologating and approving the anti-christian\nconstitution of the _British_ and _Irish_ parliaments, by praying (like\ntheir forefathers, in their fulsome address to _James_ the Papist) for\ndivine illumination and conduct to the Prelates in their civil places\nand power, as necessary members there, as they do in this prayer of\ntheirs. Can such be supposed to be either truly sensible of sin, or\nhumbled for it, who, notwithstanding all their confessions, still\ncontinue in the love and practice of it? But with such mock\nacknowledgements (of which a variety of other instances might be given)\nhave they hitherto imposed on the generation. And so, 5. It is a prayer,\nthat in several parts thereof, has no scripture warrant, no foundation\nin the promises of God. Particularly, on what scriptural warrant, what\npromise, can _Seceders_ build their prayers for, or expectation of the\nLord's answering them, by blessing an Erastian government to themselves\nor others, which being, in its constitution, contrary to the word of\nGod,--is such, that under it (as they grant, _ibid_, page 46), a people\ncannot truly prosper in their civil concerns, nor be enriched with the\nblessings of the gospel? From what scriptural promise are they warranted\nto pray, that God may perpetuate the succession to the throne in any one\nfamily, and especially, when that succession is circumscribed and\nlimited, in a way opposite to the laws of God, and mediatory kingdom of\nChrist? and therefore, a prayer that cannot be made in faith, and so\ncannot be acceptable to God in its complex form. No person can have\nfaith in the merit and intercession of Christ, for obtaining anything in\nprayer, but what Christ has priorly merited, and does actually intercede\nfor. But it would savor too much of blasphemy, to apply some of the\nparticulars already noticed in this form of prayer, to the merit and\nintercession of our _great High-priest_. Sure it cannot be thought, that\nhe makes intercession for the prosperity and success of his enemies, in\ntheir stated opposition to his kingdom and interest in this world;\nneither can it be consistent with fidelity to Christ, as a King, for his\nprofessed subjects to pray for it. What a fearful trifling with God in\nthe duty of prayer, is it to pray that the Lord may bring down Popery\nand Prelacy; and next breath to pray that the Lord may continue,\nprosper, and preserve the Erastian head, and great bulwark of Prelacy?\n\n4. Again, the Presbytery testify against the Associate party for their\ntreachery in covenant. This is a sin that is in scripture, and even by\nthe common voice of mankind, declared very heinous; but which, by what\nis already discovered anent said party, appears too, too justly\nchargeable upon them. It is notorious, and what themselves boast much\nof, that they professedly maintain the moral and perpetual obligation of\nthe covenants, both the National Covenant of _Scotland_, and the Solemn\nLeague and Covenant of _Scotland, England_, and _Ireland_, entered into\nfor reformation and defense of religion, and bringing the churches of\nGod in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in\nreligion, according to the word of God. They also do in the most public\nmanner profess, that they are the only true faithful witnesses for a\ncovenanted reformation. But the consistency of such a profession with\nmaintaining principles that are diametrically opposite to these\ncovenants, and the cause of truth, sworn to in them (as has been made\nevident they do) is altogether unintelligible. Is it possible\nstrenuously to maintain the lawfulness of a prelatical government\nabjured in the covenants, and yet at the same time sincerely and\nhonestly, according to the profession made by the church, _Psal._ xliv,\n17, 18, to contend for the moral obligation of the covenants, and the\nwork of reformation sworn to in them? But further, the necessity of\nlifting up a testimony against _Seceders_ for their treachery and\nunfaithfulness in the matter of the covenants, will appear by\nconsidering that they, after making a very solemn profession of renewing\nthe National Covenant of _Scotland_, and the Solemn League and Covenant\nof the three lands, in place of practicing accordingly, have, in\nreality, made a new and very different bond or covenant, both in form\nand substance, which they have not only sworn themselves, but also\nimposed upon many honest people: and this as a renewing, nay, as the\nonly right way of renewing said covenants according to the\ncircumstances, of the times. That this bond entered into by _Seceders_\n(however good it may be, considered in an abstract sense) is not a\nrenovation of the national covenants, as they assert it to be, but a\ntreacherous and deceitful burying of these covenants, as to their sum\nand substance, is abundantly evident from their industrious keeping out,\nand omitting the most part of them out of their new and artificial bond.\nParticularly, although they pretend to a renovation both of the National\nand Solemn League and Covenant, yet they have almost entirely left out,\nand passed over the National Covenant of _Scotland_; and satisfying\nthemselves with simply testifying against Popery, have omitted all the\nparticular errors, and branches thereof expressly contained in the\nNational Covenant. As to the Solemn League, of which they pretend their\nbond is also a renovation, there is very little of it to be found\ntherein, as appears from a comparison of the one with the other. Thus\nthey have left out that remarkable and necessary clause in the first\nArticle, viz., \"Against our common enemies:\" and in place of endeavoring\nto bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest\nconjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of\nChurch Government, Directory for Worship and Catechizing, as in said\narticle, there is an unintelligible clause or jumble of words brought\nin, viz., to promote and advance our covenanted conjunction and\nuniformity in religion, just as if that conjunction and uniformity had a\npresent existence (in its native and original state and form) in the\nthree lands; when, on the contrary, Presbytery is established in\n_Scotland_, yet not on the footing of the word of God and the covenants,\nand Episcopacy is established in _England_ and _Ireland_, in\ncontradiction to the word of God and the covenants. 2. They have kept\nout that necessary clause in the 2d article, viz., \"Without respect of\npersons, endeavor the extirpation,\" &c, and instead thereof say,\n\"Testify against Popery and Prelacy;\" where appears not only a\ndifference in expression, but a substantial difference. 3. They have\naltogether omitted and kept out the 3d and 4th articles. 4. They have\nkept out that material and necessary clause in the 5th article, viz.,\n\"That justice may be done on the willful opposers thereof,\" in manner\nexpressed in the preceding article. 5. They have left out all the 6th\narticle, excepting these words: \"We shall not give ourselves up to a\ndetestable neutrality and indifference in the cause of God.\" And 6. They\nhave wholly omitted that material paragraph of the conclusion of the\nSolemn League. It is therefore evident, that the model of the covenants\nagreed to by _Seceders_, is different in substance, as well as form,\nfrom our ancient covenants; so that, under pretense of renovation, they\nhave made a new bond.\n\nBut, again, that their pretended renovation is a real burying of the\ncovenanted reformation, appears from their overlooking, casting by, and\nkeeping out the National Covenant, as it was renewed in the year 1638,\nand the Solemn League and Covenant, as renewed in the year 1648, and\ngoing back to the years 1580 and 1581, as the pattern they propose to\nfollow in carrying on of their covenanted testimony. And what can be the\nreason of this? Can it be, because Prelacy, and the civil places and\npower of churchmen, were, by the explication and application of the\ncovenant, _anno_ 1638, expressly and explicitly condemned, while they\nwere formerly only implicitly, and by way of consequence? So they have\nat least, by this step back, both tacitly condemned our reformers, of\ngiving themselves needless trouble in their explanation of the covenant,\nas condemning and abjuring Episcopacy; and also, do overlook, despise,\nand disgracefully bury the many advanced steps of reformation attained\nto in these covenanted lands between 1638 and 1649 (particularly the\nchurch of _Scotland's_ testimony against Prelacy) in which time\nreformation arrived to a greater height of purity than ever was attained\nin any foregoing period of this church and nation. However, whatever\ntheir reasons were for so doing, that they have so done is clear, from\ntheir act _Edinburgh, February_ 3d, 1743, where they conclude with a\n_nota bene_, lest it should not otherwise have been observed that they\ndo so, and thereby declare their sin as _Sodom_, as if the publishing of\nit would make an atonement for it. \"N.B. Only the National Covenant, as\nit was entered into, _annis_ 1580, 1581 (without the bond wherein it was\nrenewed _anno_ 1638) and the Solemn League and Covenant (without the\nsolemn acknowledgment of sins, and engagement to duties, _anno_ 1648),\nare hereby prefixed unto the following act, agreeably unto the design of\nsaid act\": and for this they pretend the example of our reformers,\n_anno_ 1638, who renewed the National Covenant by a new bond, in place\nof that new bond wherewith it was renewed and sworn, 1590, which they\nomitted--wherein their deceit and unfaithfulness is very obvious from\nthe following observations: 1. Hereby they have cast a most injurious\ncalumny and reproach upon our honored reformers, and in their pretending\nto imitate their practice, in renovation of the covenants, are guilty of\na most dreadful and deceitful imposition on the generation; for though\nour reformers did renew the covenants with a new bond, and perhaps very\nseldom swear them without some additions, yet they never went back from\nany part of reformation, espoused, and sworn to in the renovations that\nwere before them, under a pretense, that such points of reformation\nformerly attained, were unsuitable, or not adapted to their\ncircumstances, as _Seceders_ have done. On the contrary, our reformers,\nin all the different renovations of the covenants, not only included all\nthat was formerly attained to, binding themselves in strict adherence to\nall the articles priorly in the oath and covenant of God (at the same\ntime solemnly acknowledging all former breaches thereof; and obliging\nthemselves, in the strength of grace to the performance of the contrary,\nand consequential duties), but also, still went forward in explaining\nand more explicitly applying the covenants against the sins of the day,\nand more expressly binding themselves to the opposite duties, as is\nclear from the bond wherewith our reformers renewed the covenants 1638,\nand the solemn acknowledgment of sins, and engagement to duties, 1648;\nboth which the _Seceders_ have barefacedly cast by and exploded in their\nalleged renovation of the covenants; whereby, as it is manifest that our\nreformers always went forward to further degrees of reformation, so it\nis no less manifest, that foresaid party acting contrary to them, have\ngone backward. But 2d. They have not only rejected the renovations of\nthe covenants by our ancestors 1638 and 1640; but even when they\npretended to follow the renovation of the covenant, 1580 and 1581, they\nhave kept out and perverted almost the whole of the national covenants,\nas was already observed; particularly in their new bond, they have cast\naway the civil part of the covenants altogether. For what reason they do\nso, is indeed hard to say. True, they allege it would be a blending of\ncivil and religious matters together; and that it is not proper (or\ncompetent for them, as a church judicatory) to meddle in these matters\nthat are of a civil nature. But seeing infinite wisdom has not judged it\na (sinful) blending of civil and religious concerns together, to deliver\nthe duties both civil and religious in one and the same moral law unto\nmankind; it is difficult to conceive, how the people of God their\nbinding themselves in a covenant of duties to the conscientious\nperformance of all the duties God required of them in his word, whether\ncivil or religious, according to their respective or immediate objects,\ncan be reputed a blending of them together; or that this has the\nremotest tendency to destroy that distinction which God in his revealed\nwill has stated between what is immediately civil in its nature, and\nwhat is properly religious. This, therefore, is a mere groundless\npretense and evasion; and if it has any force at all, as a reason, it\nstrikes against the reformers who compiled these covenants. They are the\nproper objects at whom through the sides of others it thrusts; for they,\nat the framing of sundry of their covenants, and afterward at the\nrenovation of their covenant, did it both without the ecclesiastical\nauthority, and also without, and contrary unto, yea, at the hazard of\nsuffering the greatest severities from the civil authority on that\naccount. And yet the ecclesiastical judicatories of the church of\n_Scotland_ afterward found it competent for them, as such, to approve of\nthese covenants, both as to the matter and form of them, without\nbranding and exploding them as a blending of matters civil and religious\ntogether, as _Seceders_ have done. Again, as the covenants require no\nother than a lawful magistrate; and seeing _Seceders_ acknowledge the\npresent as lawful, and that it is their duty to be subject to, and\nsupport them as such, it is impossible to conceive any reason, why they\nhave not honored the present rulers with a place in their new and\nartificial bond: unless perhaps this, that they were aware that would\nhave been so glaring a contradiction to these covenants they were\npretending to renew, as would doubtless have startled and driven away\nfrom them a good many honest people, whom they have allured and led\naside by their good words and fair-set speeches; and yet it is pretty\nobvious they have included the present rulers in their bond, and taken\nthem in an oblique and clandestine way, by swearing to the relative\nduties contained in the fifth commandment, seeing they acknowledge them\nas their civil parents. Again, as their bond is supposed to reduplicate\nupon the national covenants, and so to bind to every article in them, by\nnative consequence, they swear to a prelatical government: for seeing\nthey have made no exception in their bond, it must be applied to no\nother, but the government, which presently exists; and this, in flat\ncontradiction to the covenants, by which such a government is abjured.\nSo that their new bond is no less opposite to the national covenants,\nand is much mere deceitful, than if they had plainly and explicitly\nsworn allegiance to the present government therein; only the generality\nof their implicit followers do not so readily observe it. Upon the\nwhole, how strange is it, that they should have the assurance to father\ntheir deceitful apostasy, and wretched burying of the covenants upon our\nreformers, so injuriously to their character, and at the hazard of\nimposing a heinous and base cheat upon the world, while, notwithstanding\nall their vain pretensions, it is undeniably evident to those who will\nimpartially, and without prejudice, examine the method and order whereby\nour ancestors renewed our covenants, that in this they have been so far\nfrom following their example, that they have directly contradicted the\nsame, and, in reality, buried much of the covenants and work of\nreformation sworn to in them. For though a people may very lawfully, by\na new bond, enlarge and add to their former obligations that they\nbrought themselves under; yet they can never, without involving\nthemselves in the guilt of perjury, relax or cancel former obligations\nby any future bond. Accordingly, our worthy ancestors, by all the new\nbonds they annexed to former obligations, were so far from attempting to\nloose themselves from any covenanted duty that either they or their\nfathers were priorly bound unto, that they thereby still brought\nthemselves under straighter bonds to perform all their former and new\nobligations of duty to God. But, as has been discovered, _Seceders_, by\ntheir artificial bond, have cast out the very substance and spirit of\nthe covenants, by their rumping and hewing them at pleasure, to reduce\nthem to the sinful circumstances of the time: and this, in opposition to\ntheir own public profession, that these covenants are moral in their\nnature and obligation upon these nations to the latest posterity. How\nsurprising it is then, that after such a profession, they dare cast out\nof their bond the greatest parts of the covenants! This is not only to\nbreak these obligations, but it is to make a public declaration, that\ndifferent times and circumstances do free men from their obligation to\nkeep their most solemn vows to the Most High. To this, as very\napplicable, may be subjoined the words of Mr. _Case_, in a sermon\nrelative to the covenants: \"Others have taken it (viz., the covenant)\nwith their own evasions, limitations and reservations: such a Jesuitical\nspirit has got in among us, by which means it comes to pass, that by\nthat time that men have pared off and left out, and put what\ninterpretation they frame to themselves, there is little left worth the\nname of a covenant.\" And, indeed, so many are the self-inconsistencies\nand gross contradictions attending this new bond, that it would have\nbeen much more for the honor both of the covenants, and of _Seceders_\nthemselves, rather never to have attempted such a work, than to have\ndone it in a way of tearing to pieces our solemn national vows.\nWherefore the Presbytery cannot but, in testifying against them for\ntheir unfaithfulness, obtest all the lovers of truth, to beware of\njoining in this course of treachery, and apostasy from God and his\ncovenanted cause.\n\n5. The presbytery testify against foresaid party, for their\nunfaithfulness and partiality in point of testimony-bearing to a\ncovenanted, work of reformation; while yet they not only profess to be\nwitnesses, but the only true and faithful contenders for the said work\nand cause. The justness of this charge manifestly appears from the scope\nof their Act and Testimony, which seems to be principally leveled\nagainst the corruptions of the present church judicatories, and not\nequally against the corruptions of both church and state, in\nagreeableness to the faithful testimonies of the Lord's people in former\ntimes, and in a consistency with the reformation that was jointly\ncarried on in both church and state, and solemnly sworn and engaged to\nin the covenants. They appear never to have fully adopted the testimony\nof the Church of _Scotland_ in her purest times, when the profession of\nthe true religion was by law made a necessary qualification of every one\nthat should be admitted to places of civil trust and power in the\nnation. Nor are the faithful testimonies of the valiant sufferers and\ncontenders, even unto death, for the precious truths of God in the late\npersecuting period, as stated against both church and state, fully\nstated, and judicially approven by them; much less have they fully\nadopted the testimony, as stated against the revolution constitution,\nboth civil and ecclesiastical, which they did not in their testimony\ncondemn as sinful; but, on the contrary, acknowledged the civil\nconstitution lawful, notwithstanding of their complaining of some\ndefects and omissions therein. Of which error in the foundation, it may\nbe said, in respect of all the mal-administrations since, it was _fons\net origo mali_. And seeing, in and by the revolution constitution, the\nnation was involved in the guilt of apostasy and treachery, in\nsubverting and overturning the good and laudable laws for true religion\nand right liberty, a faint declaring against some omissions cannot be\naccounted sufficient; especially when what is thus partly complained of,\nis at the same time complexly extolled, as a great and glorious\ndeliverance to the church and nation. Their testimony further appears to\nbe partial and unfaithful, considering that their secession was not from\nthe constitution of the Revolution Church, but in a partial and limited\nway, from a prevailing corrupt party in the judicatories of the church:\nupon which footing it was, that some of greatest note among them made\ntheir accession after their first secession, expressly declaring so\nmuch; whereby they have injured the true state of the testimony which\nthe Lord honored his covenanted Church of _Scotland_ to bear; which is\nstated against all lukewarm and _Laodicean_ professors, as well as open\nenemies, and against all Erastian usurpation, and sectarian invasion on\nthe cause of Christ. Moreover, their unfaithfulness in point of\ntestimony, convincingly appears from their bitter contentions, and\nalmost endless disputes among themselves, after their breach, upon the\nreligious clause of some burgess oaths, anent the true state of their\nown testimony, whether lifted up against the revolution constitution of\nthe church, and settlement of religion, or not. Had necessary and real\nfaithfulness been studied, in stating their testimony clearly and\nplainly, against all the defection, and apostasy of the day from a\ncovenanted reformation, there had been no occasion for such a dispute\namong them. And now, when the one party have more openly avowed their\nunfaithfulness, in receding from almost everything that had the least\nappearance of faithfulness to the cause and covenant of God, in their\nformer testimony, and professedly adopted the revolution settlement, as\ntheirs, acknowledging the constitutions, both civil and ecclesiastical,\nas lawful, in an open contradiction to any testimony for reformation\nwork: the other party, _to wit, Antiburghers_, have now indeed\nprofessedly cast off the revolution constitution of the church (at the\nsame time continuing to make their partial Act and Testimony the basis\nof their distinguished profession); but yet, in an inconsistency\ntherewith, and in contradiction to the covenanted testimony of the\nchurch of _Scotland_, continue to adopt the constitution of the State,\nas being, however defective, yet agreeable to the precept and so lawful.\nHence, they are still most partial in their testimony, of which they\nhave given a fresh and notable proof, in forementioned warning published\nby them: wherein though there are a variety of evils condescended upon,\nas just grounds of the Lord's controversy with the nations, yet there is\nnot that faithfulness used therein, in a particular charging home of the\nseveral sins mentioned, upon every one in their different ranks, as, in\nagreeableness to the word of God, is requisite to work a conviction in\nevery one, that they may turn from their sins, and as might correspond\nto the title given that performance. Thus, passing other instances that\nmight also have been observed, they justly remark, _page_ 31st, \"The\nglorious sovereignty of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the alone King and\nHead of his church, is sadly encroached upon and opposed by the royal\nsupremacy, in causes ecclesiastical. The king is acknowledged as supreme\nhead, or governor on earth, of the churches of _England_ and _Ireland_.\nThe civil sovereign is thus declared to be the head or fountain of\nchurch power, from whence all authority and ministrations in these\nchurches do spring, is vested with all powers of government and\ndiscipline, and constituted the sole judge of controversies within the\nsame.\" \"The established Church of _Scotland_ have also, by some\nparticular managements, subjected and subordinated their ecclesiastical\nmeetings to the civil power.\" But while they acknowledge this to be the\nsin of the church, and an high provocation against the Lord; yet, as to\nthe particular sin of the civil power, in assuming and usurping this\nErastian supremacy unto itself, they are quite silent. They have not the\nfaithfulness to say, in their warning, to the robber of Christ, in this\nmatter, as once the prophet of the Lord said to the king of _Israel_, in\nanother case, _Thou art the man_. On the contrary (which cannot but have\na tendency to ward off any conviction of his sin that this warning,\nshould it come into his hands, might be expected to work), they are\nguilty of the basest flattery, used by court parasites, stiling him,\n\"the best of kings, of the mildest administration,\" as in _page_ 13th;\nand acknowledge it, as a particular effect of the Lord's goodness, that\nwe are privileged with such an one. But is he indeed deserving of such a\ncharacter? better than which could not be given to the most faithful\nruler, devoting all his power, as in duty bound, to the support and\nadvancement of the kingdom and interest of Jesus Christ, that over\nreigned. Does he really merit such an encomium, who sacrilegiously\nusurps and wears the crown, that alone can flourish on the head of\n_Zion's_ king? And is this such a blessing to the church, that an enemy\nto her Lord and Head rules over her? Oh! may not the Lord say? \"I\nhearkened and heard, but they spake not aright.\"\n\n6. The Presbytery testify against said Seceding party, because of the\nsinfulness of their terms of ministerial and Christian communion, as\nbeing partly destructive of that liberty wherewith Christ has made his\npeople free. By which they have both imposed upon themselves, and shut\nthe door of access unto the privileges of the church, upon all such, as,\nin a consistency with their adherence to truth and duty, cannot accept\nof their unwarrantable restrictions. Of this, they gave early\ndiscoveries, as appears from the known instance of that notable,\nbackslider, Mr. _Andrew Clarkson_, whom they obliged, before license, to\nmake a public and solemn renunciation of his former principles and\nprofession, respecting the covenanted reformation.[4] As also, their\nrejecting all accessions from his _Laodicean_ brethren, wherein was\ncontained an explicit adherence to the same, until they did drop their\nformer testimony. This blind zeal in _Seceders_, against a testimony for\ntruth in its purity, did gradually increase, until it hurried them on to\na more particular and formal stating of their terms of communion,\nwhereby were totally excluded all the free and faithful of the land from\ntheir communion, who could not approve of, nor swear the bond, whereby\nthey pretended to renew the covenants: as in their act at _Edinburgh_,\n1744; wherein they did resolve and determine, \"That the renovation of\nthe National Covenant of _Scotland_, and the Solemn League and Covenant\nof the three nations, in the manner now agreed upon, and proposed by the\nPresbytery, shall be the terms of ministerial communion with this\nPresbytery, and likewise of Christian communion, in admission of people\nto sealing ordinances; secluding therefrom all opposers, contemners, and\nslighters of the said renovation of our solemn covenants.\" By this act,\n_Seceders_ have obliged their adherents to consent to their infamous\nburial of our national covenants with the Lord, and reformation therein\nsworn to, particularly as they were renewed, both 1638 and 1648. And\nthat they might further evince their resolution to bear down the\nforesaid work, they afterward proceeded to subjoin unto their _formula_\nof questions to be put to candidates before license, and to probationers\nbefore ordination, the following questions, viz., \"Are you satisfied\nwith, and do you propose to adhere unto, and maintain the principles\nabout the present civil government, which are declared and maintained in\nthe _Associate Presbytery's_ answers to Mr. _Nairn_, with their defense\nthereunto subjoined?\" Whereby, in opposition to the professed endeavors\nfor the revival of a covenanted reformation in the lands, they expressly\nbind down all their intrants into the office of the ministry, to an\nexplicit acknowledgement of their anti-government scheme of principles\nanent the ordinance of magistracy; and thereby to an acknowledging of\nthe lawfulness of a government, which themselves confess has not only\ndeparted from, and neglected their duty of espousing and supporting the\ncovenanted principles of this church, but also opposed, contradicted and\noverthrown the glorious reformation once established in these nations. A\ngovernment, under which, as they profess, the nations cannot be enriched\nby the blessings of the gospel; and that, because it does not, in all\nthe appurtenances of its constitution and administration, run in\nagreeableness to the word of God. By all which it appears that although\nthey refuse formally to swear any oaths of allegiance to the powers in\nbeing; yet they do materially, and with great solemnity, engage\nthemselves to be true and faithful to a government, under which, and\nwhile it stands, they are certain, if their concessions hold true, that\nthey shall never see the nations flourish, either in their temporal or\nspiritual interests. It is only needful further to observe, that\n_Seceders_ in the terms of their communion, by debarring from the table\nof the Lord, all who impugn the lawfulness of a prelatic, Erastian\ngovernment (as is notourly known they do), make subjection and loyalty\nto such an authority, a necessary, and, to them, commendatory\nqualification of worthy receivers of the Lord's supper, although none of\nthose qualifications--required by God in his word. While (as has been\nalready observed) they, with the most violent passion, refuse to admit\nthe professing and practicing the true religion, a necessary\nqualification of lawful civil rulers over a people possessed of and\nprofessing the true religion, which is in effect to deny the necessity\nof religion altogether as to civil rulers, than which nothing can be\nmore absurd.\n\n_Lastly_, not to multiply more particulars, the Presbytery testify\nagainst the scandalous abuse, and sinful prostitution of church\ndiscipline, and tyranny in government, whereby the forementioned party\nhave remarkably signalized themselves; and which, in a most precipitant\nand arbitrary manner, they have pretended to execute against such as\nhave discovered the smallest degree of faithfulness, in endeavoring to\nmaintain the principles of our reformation, in agreeableness to the true\nstate of the covenanted testimony of the Church of _Scotland_; which has\nnot only appeared in the case of _David Leslie_, and some others, on\naccount of a paper of grievances given in to said Associates; against\nwhom they proceeded to the sentence of excommunication, without using\nthose formalities and means of conviction required and warranted by the\nchurch's Head, even in the case of just offenses done by any of the\nprofessed members of his mystical body; or so much as allowing that\ncommon justice to the sentenced party, that might be expected from any\njudicatory, bearing the name of Presbyterian. (Though the Presbytery are\nnot hereby to be understood as approving every expression contained in\nforesaid paper.) But particularly, they have given notable proof of\ntheir fixed resolution, to bear down all just appearances in favor of\n_Zion's_ King and cause, in the case of Mr. _Nairn_, once of their\nnumber, because of his espousing the principles of this Presbytery,\nespecially, respecting God's ordinance of magistracy, against whom they\nproceeded to the highest censures of the church, upon the footing of a\npretended libel; in which libel, they did not so much as pretend any\nimmorality in practice, or yet error in principle, as the ground of\ntheir arbitrary procedure, further than his espousing the received\nprinciples of this church in her best times, and what stood in necessary\nconnection with such a profession: although, in adorable providence, he\nhas since been left to fall into the practice of such immorality, as has\njustly rendered him the object of church censure by this Presbytery. As\nalso in the case of Messrs. _Alexander Marshall_, and _John\nCuthbertson_, with some others, elders and private Christians, against\nwhom they proceeded in a most unaccountable, anti-scriptural, and\nunprecedented manner, and upon no better foundation, than that noticed\nin the case above, pretended to depose and cast such out of the\ncommunion of their church, as never had subjected to their authority,\nnor formerly stood in any established connection with them.\n\nAnd further, besides these instances condescended upon, they habitually\naggravate their abuse of the ordinances of Christ's house, in pretending\nto debar and excommunicate from the holy sacrament of the supper, many\nof the friends and followers of the Lamb, only because they cannot\nconscientiously, and in a consistency with their fidelity to their Head\nand Savior, acknowledge the authority of the usurpers of his crown as\nlawful. From all which, and every other instance of their continued\nprostitution of the discipline instituted by Christ in his church, and\nof that authority, which he, as a Son over his own house, has given unto\nfaithful gospel ministers, to the contempt and scorn of an ungodly\ngeneration; the Presbytery cannot but testify against them, as guilty of\nexercising a tyrannical power over the heritage of the Lord; and to whom\nmay too justly be applied, the word of the Lord, spoken by his prophet,\n_Isa._ lxvi, 5: \"Your brethren that bated you, that cast you out for my\nname's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to\nyour joy, and they shall be ashamed.\" Wherefore, and for all the\nforesaid grounds, the Presbytery find and declare, that the pretended\n_Associate Presbytery_, now called _Synod_, whether before or since, in\ntheir separate capacity, claiming a parity of power, neither were, nor\nare lawful and rightly constituted courts of the Lord Jesus Christ,\naccording to his word, and to the testimony of the true Presbyterian\nCovenanted Church of Christ in _Scotland_: and therefore ought not, nay\ncannot, in a consistency with bearing a faithful testimony for the\ncovenanted truths, and cause of our glorious Redeemer, be countenanced\nor submitted to in their authority by his people.\n\nAgain, the Presbytery find themselves in duty obliged to testify against\nthese brethren who some time ago have broken off from their communion,\nfor their unwarrantable separation, and continued opposition to the\ntruth and testimony, in the hands of this Presbytery, even to the extent\nof presuming, in a judicial capacity, to threaten church censure against\nthe Presbytery, without alleging so much as any other reason for this\nstrange procedure, than their refusing to approve as truth, a point of\ndoctrine, that stands condemned by the standards of the Reformed Church\nof _Scotland_, founded on the authority of divine revelation. But, as\nthe Presbytery have formerly published a vindication of the truth\nmaintained by them, and of their conduct, respecting the subject matter\nof difference with their _quondam_ brethren, they refer to said\nvindication, for a more particular discovery of the error of their\nprinciple, and extravagance of their conduct in this matter. And\nparticularly, they testify against the more avowed apostasy of some of\nthese brethren, who are not ashamed to declare their backslidings in the\nstreets, and publish them upon the house tops; as especially appears\nfrom a sermon entitled, _Bigotry Disclaimed_--together with the\nvindication of said sermon; wherein is vented such a loose and\nlatitudinarian scheme of principles, on the point of church communion,\nas had a native tendency to destroy the scriptural boundaries thereof,\nadopted by this church in her most advanced purity; and which is also\ninconsistent with the ordination vows, whereby the author was solemnly\nengaged. This, with other differences, best known to themselves,\noccasioned a rupture in that pretended Presbytery, which for some years\nsubsisted: but this breach being some considerable time ago again\ncemented, they constituted themselves in their former capacity, upon\nterms (as appears from a printed account of their agreement and\nconstitution, which they have never yet disclaimed as unjust) not very\nhonorable nor consistent with their former principles and professed zeal\nfor maintaining the same. Which agreement was made up, without any\nevidence of the above author's retracting his lax principles, contained\nin the foresaid sermon. Whatever was the cause, whether from the\ninfluence of others (as was said by the publisher of their agreement),\nor from a consciousness of dropping part of formerly received\nprinciples, is not certain; but one of these brethren, for a time, gave\nup with further practical communion with the other, namely, Mr. _Hugh\nInnes_, late of the _Calton, Glasgow_; while yet it was observed, that\nboth used a freedom, not formerly common to them, anent the present\nauthority, in their public immediate addresses to the object of worship;\nwhich, together with their apparent resiling from part of their former\ntestimony occasioned stumbling to some of their people, and terminated\nin the separation of others. Foresaid latitudinarianism and falling\naway, is also sadly verified, in the conduct of another principal member\nof their pretended Presbytery, who has professedly deserted all\ntestimony bearing for the reformation principles of the Covenanted\nChurch of _Scotland_.[5]\n\nAt last, after their declared interviews for that purpose, these\nbrethren have patched up a mank agreement, which they have published, in\na paper entitled _Abstract of the covenanted principles of the Church of\nScotland, &c._, with a prefixed advertisement in some copies, asserting\nthe removal of their differences, which arose from a sermon on _Psal._\ncxxii, 3, published at _Glasgow_,--by a disapprobation of what is\nimplied in some expressions hereof, viz., \"That all the members of\nChrist's mystical body may, and ought to unite in visible church\ncommunion.\"\n\nHere is, indeed, a smooth closing of the wound that should have been\nmore thoroughly searched, that, by probing into the practical\napplication of said sermon, the corrupt matter of communion with the\nRevolution Church, in the gospel and sealing ordinance thereof, might\nhave been found out; but not one word of this in all that abstract,\nwhich contains their grounds of union, and terms of communion. Nothing\nof the above author's recanting his former latitudinarian practices of\nhearing, and thereby practically encouraging, that vagrant Episcopalian,\n_Whitefield_; his communicating, which natively implies union, with the\nRevolution Church, in one of the seals of the covenant; nor his public\npraying for an Erastian government, in a way, and for a reason, that\nmust needs be understood as an homologation of their authority. On which\naccounts, the Presbytery testify against said union, as being\ninconsistent with faithfulness in the cause of Christ; and against said\nabstract, as, however containing a variety of particulars very just and\ngood, yet bearing no positive adherence to, nor particular mention of,\nfaithful wrestlings and testimonies of the martyrs and witnesses for\n_Scotland's_ covenanted cause. As also, they testify against the\nnotorious disingenuity of their probationer, who, after a professed\ndissatisfaction on sundry occasions, with the declining steps of said\nbrethren, particularly with the declaimer against bigotry, has\noverlooked more weighty matters, and embraced a probability of enjoying\nthe long grasped for privilege of ordination, though it should be\nobserved at a greater expense than that of disappointing the expectation\nof a few dissatisfied persons, who depended upon his honesty, after they\nhad broken up communion with those he continues still to profess his\nsubjection unto.\n\nAnd further, the Presbytery testify against the adherents of foresaid\nbrethren, in strengthening their hands in their course of separation\nfrom the Presbytery, rejecting both their judicial and ministerial\nauthority, and the ordinances of the gospel dispensed by them. And more\nespecially, the Presbytery condemn the conduct of such of them as,\nprofessedly dissatisfied with the above said left-hand extremes, and\nother defections of foresaid brethren, have therefore broken off from\ntheir communion; yet, instead of returning to their duty in a way of\nsubjecting themselves to the courts of Christ, and ordinances instituted\nby him in his church, have turned back again to their own right-hand\nextremes of error, which once they professedly gave up, but now persist\nin, an obstinate impugning the validity of their ministerial authority\nand protestative mission, undervalue the pure ordinances of the gospel\ndispensed by them, and live as if there were no church of Christ in the\nland, where they might receive the seals of the covenant, either to\nthemselves or their children; and therefore, in the righteous judgment\nof God, have been left to adopt such a dangerous and erroneous system of\nprinciples, as is a disgrace to the profession of the covenanted\ncause.[6]\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\nThe following supplement, having been a competent length of time before\nthe church in _overture_, was adopted in Logan county, Ohio, May, 1850.\nAnd, although without the formality of a judicial sanction, we trust it\nwill not be found destitute of divine authority. The design of it is to\nshow the application of the principles of our Testimony to society, as\norganized in the United States. For although conventional regulations,\ncivil and ecclesiastical, in this land, are very different from the\ncondition of society in Great Britain, where our Testimony was first\nemitted, yet the corruptions of human nature, embodied in the\ncombinations of society, are not less visible in this than in other\nlands, nor less hostile to the supreme authority of the Lord and his\nAnointed. \"The beast and the false prophet\" continue to be the objects\nof popular devotion: Rev. xix, 20.\n\n_Cincinnati_, Nov. 12th, 1850.\n\n\n\n\nSUPPLEMENT TO PART III,\n\nContaining an application of the principles of our Covenanted Testimony\nto the existing condition of society in these United States.\n\n\nThe controversy which arose between the Associate and Reformed churches,\non the doctrine of civil magistracy, was the occasion of greater\ndivergency between them, on collateral subjects. From false principles,\nconsistent reasoning must produce erroneous conclusions. Assuming that\nthe Son of God, as Mediator, has nothing to do with the concerns of\nGod's moral government beyond the precincts of the visible church, it\nwould follow, that church members, as citizens of the \"kingdoms of this\nworld,\" neither owe him allegiance nor are bound to thank him for\n\"common benefits.\" The assumption is, however, obviously erroneous,\nbecause, as Mediator, he is \"head over all things to the church,\" Eph.\ni, 22, consequently, all people, nations and languages, are bound to\nobey and serve him, in this office capacity, and to thank him for his\nmercies.\n\nWhile this controversy was keenly managed by the respective parties in\nthe British isles, the Lord Christ interposed between the disputants, as\nit were, to decide the chief point in debate. By the rise of the British\ncolonies west of the Atlantic, against the parent country, and their\nsuccessful struggle to gain a national independence, a clear commentary\nwas furnished on the long-contested principle, that, in some cases, it\nis lawful to resist existing civil powers. Seceders, forgetting, for the\ntime, their favorite theory, joined their fellow colonists in casting\noff the yoke of British rule. Those who vehemently opposed Reformed\nPresbyterians, for disowning the British government, joined cheerfully\nin its overthrow. How fickle and inconsistent is man! During\nthe revolutionary struggle might be witnessed the singular\nspectacle--humbling to the pride of human reason, revolting to the\nsensibilities of the exercised Christian--brethren of the same\ncommunion, on opposite sides of the Atlantic, pleading with the God of\njustice to give success to the respective armies! East of the ocean the\npetition would be, \"Lord, prosper the British arms;\" on the west, \"Lord,\nfavor the patriots of these oppressed colonies!\" Such are the\nconsequences natively resulting from a theory alike unscriptural and\nabsurd--a principle deep-laid in that system of opposition to the Lord\nand his Anointed, emphatically styled \"The Antichrist.\"\n\nGreat national revolutions are special trials of the faith and patience\nof the saints. No firmness of character will be proof against popular\nopinion and example at such a time, without special aid from on high.\nReformed Presbyterians in the colonies rejoiced in the success of the\nrevolution, issuing in the independence of the United States. Their\nexpectation of immediate advantage to the reformation cause was too\nsanguine. A new frame of civil polity was to be devised by the colonies,\nnow that they were independent of the British crown. This state of\nthings called forth the exercise of human intellect, in more than\nordinary measure, to meet the emergency. Frames of national policy are\napt to warp the judgment of good men. Even Christian ministers are prone\nto substitute the maxims of human prudence for the precepts of\ninspiration. Many divines conceived the idea of conforming the visible\nchurch to the model of the American republic. The plan was projected and\nadvocated, of bringing all evangelical denominations into one\nconfederated unity, while the integral parts should continue independent\nof each other. This plan would have defeated its own object, the unity\nof the visible church, and subverted that form of government established\nby Zion's King. Upon trial by some of the New England Independents and\nPresbyterians, the plan has proved utterly abortive.\n\nPrior to the Revolutionary war, a Presbytery had been constituted in\nAmerica, upon the footing of the covenanted reformation. The exciting\nscenes and active sympathies, attendant on the Revolutionary war, added\nto a hereditary love of liberty, carried many covenanters away from\ntheir distinctive principles. The Reformed Presbytery was dissolved, and\nthree ministers who belonged to it, joining some ministers of the\nAssociate Church, formed that society, since known by the name of the\nAssociate Reformed Church. The union was completed in the year 1782,\nafter having been five years in agitation.\n\nThese ministers professed, as the basis of union, the Westminster\nstandards; but the abstract of principles, which they adopted as the\nmore immediate bond of coalescence, discovered, to discerning\nspectators, that the individuals forming the combination, were by no\nmeans unanimous in their views of the doctrines taught in those\nstandards. Indeed, there were certain sections of the Confession\n_reserved_ for future discussion, which, in process of time, were wholly\nrejected. This attack upon a document, venerable not so much for its age\nas its scriptural character, gave rise to zealous opposition by some in\nthe body, and ultimately resulted in a rupture. Two ministers dissented\nfrom the majority, left their communion, and proceeded to erect a new\norganization, styled \"The Reformed Dissenting Presbytery.\" This was in\nthe year 1801. At this date, there were four denominations, in the\nUnited States, claiming to be the legitimate successors of the British\nreformers, viz., the Associate, Reformed, Associate Reformed, and\nReformed Dissenting Presbyterians. Three of these professedly appear\nunder the banner of a standing judicial testimony, which they severally\nemitted to the public. The Associate Reformed Church, by judicial\ndeclaration and uniform practice, is opposed to this method of\ntestimony-bearing.\n\nThe Reformed Presbytery, which had been dissolved by the defection of\nthe ministry, during the Revolutionary war, was reorganized toward the\nclose of the eighteenth century. The troubles in Ireland, when the\ninhabitants united for the purpose of gaining independence of the\nBritish crown, were the occasion of bringing strength to the church in\nAmerica. Reformed Presbyterians, feeling sensibly with others the arm of\nBritish tyranny, joined interests hastily with Papists and others, in\none sworn association, for the purpose of overturning the existing\ngovernment by force of arms. The enterprise, as might have been\nexpected, was unsuccessful; Isa. viii, 11, 12; Obadiah 7; 2 Cor. vi, 17.\nMany fled to the asylum which God had provided, shortly before, in\nAmerica. Among the refugees were some of the Covenanters, by which the\nchurch was strengthened in her ministry and membership.\n\nEarly in the nineteenth century, measures were taken by the Reformed\nPresbytery, in the United States, for re-exhibiting the principles of a\ncovenanted reformation, in a judicial way. Accordingly, in the year\n1806, the Presbytery published, as adopted, a work entitled \"Reformation\nPrinciples Exhibited\"--a book which has ever since been popularly called\nthe American Testimony. The familiar designation, _Testimony_, the\ngeneral complexion of the book, the orthodox aspect of terms, and even\nmost of the leading sentiments of the work, gave it currency, and\nrendered it generally acceptable to pious and intelligent Covenanters.\nAnd however it seemed to the unsuspecting to sustain, it eventually and\neffectually supplanted the Scottish Testimony. The men who had the\nprincipal hand in giving shape and direction to the principles and\npractice of Covenanters in the United States, at that time, were located\nin some of the most populous and commercial cities on the Atlantic\ncoast, where temptations to conform to this world were many and\npressing. A disposition to temporize was manifested in these localities,\nsoon after their principles had been judicially exhibited. The last war\nbetween the United States and England, subjected Covenanters to new\ntrials in America. As aliens, they were deemed unsafe residents at the\nseaboard, and were ordered, by the government, to retire a certain\ndistance to the interior (much like the course pursued by Claudius\nCaesar toward the Jews, Acts xviii, 2). To meet the exigency, a\ndeputation of the church was appointed to repair to Washington, in 1812,\nand offer a pledge that they would defend the integrity of the country\nagainst all enemies. This measure was, however, never carried out.\n\nThe church increased in numbers and influence, and began to be noticed\nwith respect and professions of esteem among surrounding denominations.\nSome of her members had ventured to act in the capacity of citizens of\nthe United States, by serving on juries. This was of course managed for\na time clandestinely. At length, waxing confident by success, they began\nto act more openly. This gave rise to a petition addressed to the\nsupreme judicatory of the church. The petitioners were answered by\ninstructing them to apply for direction to the inferior\njudicatories--thus shunning the duty of applying their own acknowledged\nprinciples. This was in the year 1823. This course did not satisfy the\npetitioners, and application was again made to Synod in 1825, to explain\nthe import of their former Act. The reply was--\"This Synod never\nunderstood any act of theirs, relative to their members sitting on\njuries, or contravening the old common law of the church on that\nsubject;\" a response obviously as equivocal as the preceding. As early\nas 1823, a motion was made in the Synod to open a correspondence with\nthe judicatories of other denominations. This motion was resisted, and\nfor the time proved abortive. At next meeting of Synod, however, the\nmeasure was brought before that body, by a proposal from the General\nAssembly to correspond by delegation. This proposal found many, and some\nof them able, advocates in the Reformed. P. Synod. The measure was,\nhowever, again defeated; but immediately after the failure, a number of\nministers forsook the Reformation ranks and consorted with the General\nAssembly. In the year 1828, the Synod gave its sanction and lent its\npatronage to the Colonization Society, which was continued till the year\n1836, when its patronage was transferred to the cause of Abolition. The\nspirit of declension became manifest at the session of Synod in 1831,\nwhen some of the most prominent and practical principles of the Reformed\nChurch were openly thrown into debate, in the pages of a monthly\nperiodical, under the head of \"Free Discussion.\" Through the pernicious\ninfluence of that perfidious journal, sustained by the patronage of\nministers of eminent standing in the church, a large proportion--neatly\none-half--of the ministry were prepared, by the next meeting of Synod in\n1833, to renounce the peculiar principles and long known usages of the\nReformed Covenanted Church. Organizing themselves as a separate body,\nyet claiming their former ecclesiastical name, they deliberately\nincorporated with the government of the United States, and some of the\nsenior ministers, more fully to testify their loyalty, in their old age,\ntook the oath of naturalization!--thus breaking down the carved work\nwhich they had for many years assiduously labored to erect.\n\nIt was hoped that the severe trial to which the professing witnesses of\nChrist were subjected at that time, would have taught them a lesson not\nsoon to be forgotten. It was thought by many that the church was now\npurged from the leaven which had almost leavened the whole lump. The\nSynod met in 1834, when a perverse spirit was evident in the midst of\nits members. The Colonization and Abolition Societies, with other\nassociations--the exfoliations of Antichrist--had evidently gained an\nascendency in the affections of many of the members. The altercation and\nbitterness with which the claims of these societies were discussed,\nevidenced to such as were free from their infection, that some of those\npresent viewed these popular movements as transcending in importance,\nthe covenanted testimony of the church. As the practice of occasional\nhearing was on the increase in some sections of the church, Synod was\nmemorialized on that subject, but refused to declare the law of the\nchurch. The old spirit of conformity to the world was still more\nmanifest in 1836, when Synod was importuned by her children, from the\neastern and western extremes of the church, by petition, memorial,\nprotest and appeal--growing out of the practice then generally prevalent\nof incorporating with the voluntary associations of the age. The\nresponse of the supreme judicatory was in this case as ambiguous as on\nany former occasion. The backsliding course of the factious majority was\nbut feebly counteracted by dissent from only two members of Synod; a\nrespectable minority having been outwitted by the carnal wisdom of those\nwho were prompt in applying the technicalities of law. Hope was,\nhowever, cherished, that this check so publicly given, together with the\npractical workings of the system of moral amalgamation, would induce\neven reckless innovators to pause--to consider their ways and their\ndoings. This hope, however rational and sanguine, was totally\ndisappointed in 1838, when the table of the supreme judicatory might be\nsaid to be crowded with petitions, letters, remonstrances, memorials,\nprotests and appeals. The just grievances of the children of witnessing\nand martyred fathers, were treated with contempt--\"laid on the table,\"\n\"returned,\" with the cry \"let them be kicked under the table,\" &c. And\nwhen some attempted to urge their right to be heard, they were called to\norder, treated with personal insult, or subjected to open violence. A\nfew of these, having thus experienced the tyranny and abuse of the\nruling faction, declined the authority and communion of Synod, and\nestablished a separate fellowship.\n\nWhen the Synod again met in 1840, the same measures which had been\ncarried by mob violence at the preceding meeting, were pressed as\nbefore; but with less tumult--leaders having learned caution from the\nconsequences following their former outrageous conduct. Matters had now\ncome to a crisis, when a reclaiming minority were reduced to this\ndilemma--either to acquiesce in the almost total subversion of the\ncovenanted constitution of the church; or, by separating from an\nirreclaimable majority, attempt, by an independent organization, to make\nup the breach. It is easy to see which alternative was duty, not only\nfrom the nature of the case, but from the well defined footsteps of the\nflock. Reformation has been effected in the church of God in all ages,\nby the protestation and separation of a virtuous Minority. At this\njuncture a paper was laid upon the table of Synod, of which the\nfollowing is a true copy:\n\n\"PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS.\n\n\"Whereas, It is the province and indispensable duty of this Synod, when\nsociety is in a state of agitation as at present, to know the signs of\nthe times and what Israel ought to do: and whereas it is also the duty\nof this Synod, to testify in behalf of truth, to condemn sin and testify\nagainst those who commit it; to acquaint our people with their danger,\nand search into the causes of God's controversy with them and with us:\nand whereas it is the duty of Synod further, to point out to the people\nof God the course to be pursued, that divine judgments may be averted or\nremoved--therefore,\n\n\"1. _Resolved_, That uniting with, or inducing to fellowship, by the\nmembers of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, in the voluntary and\nirresponsible associations of the day--composed of persons of all\nreligious professions and of no profession--be condemned, as unwarranted\nby the word of God, the subordinate Standards of the church, and the\npractice of our covenant fathers.\n\n\"2. That an inquiry be instituted, in order to ascertain the grounds of\nGod's controversy with us, in the sins of omission and commission,\nwherewith we are chargeable in our ecclesiastical relations.\n\n\"3. That the sins thus ascertained, be confessed, mourned over and\nforsaken, and our engagement to the contrary duties renewed; that the\nLord may return, be entreated of his people and leave a blessing behind\nhim.\"\n\nThis paper was instantly \"laid on the table;\" and when, at a subsequent\nsession of the court, it was regularly called up for action, it was\nagain and finally \"laid on the table!\" Ever since that transaction, this\npaper has been diligently misrepresented, as consisting only of _one_\nresolution, and that the _first_, contrary to its own evidence.\n\nAfter the final adjournment of Synod, those individuals who, as a\nminority, had opposed the innovations and backslidings of their\nbrethren, embraced an opportunity for consultation. It appeared that\nwithout preconcert, they were unanimous that all legal means having\nfailed to reclaim their backsliding brethren, who constituted a large\nmajority of Synod; both duty and necessity required them to assume a\nposition independent _of_ former organizations, that they might,\nuntrammeled, carry out practically their testimony. Accordingly two\nministers and three ruling elders proceeded to constitute a Presbytery\non constitutional ground, declaring in the deed of constitution,\nadherence to all reformation attainments. This transaction took place in\nthe city of Alleghany, June 24th, 1840. The declining majority continued\ntheir course of backsliding, following those who had relinquished their\nfellowship with slanderous imputations and pretended censure, as is\nusual in such cases. Since that time, there are no evidences given by\nthem either of repentance or reformation.\n\nThe Synod of Scotland has for many years been in a; course of\ndeclension, in many respects very similar to that of America. As early\nas the year 1815, some ministers of that body began to betray a\ndisposition to accommodate their profession to the taste of the world.\nThe judicial testimony emitted by their fathers was represented as too\nelaborate and learned to be read and understood by the common reader,\nand too severe in its strictures upon the principles and practice of\nother Christian denominations. The abstract of terms of communion was\nviewed as too strict and uncharitable, especially the Auchensaugh\nCovenant became particularly obnoxious. By a persevering importunity for\na series of years this degenerating party prevailed so far in the Synod\nas to have the Auchensaugh Deed expunged from the symbols of their\nprofession. This was accomplished in 1822; and, taken in connection with\nother movements indicating a prevailing spirit of worldly conformity,\nthis outrage upon the constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church,\ngave rise to a secession from the body, by the oldest minister in the\nconnection, and a considerable number of others, elders and members. At\nthe above date, the Rev. James Reed declined the fellowship of the\nScottish Synod; and he maintained the integrity of the covenanted\nstandards in a separate communion till his death: declaring at his\nlatter end, that \"he could not have laid his head upon a dying pillow in\npeace, if he had not acted as he did in that matter.\"\n\nDeaf to the remonstrances of this aged and faithful minister, his former\nbrethren pursued their perverse and downward course, until their new\nposition became apparent by the adoption of a Testimony and Terms of\nCommunion adapted to their taste. Their Testimony was adopted in 1837.\nThis document ostensibly consists of two parts, historical and\ndoctrinal; but really only of the latter as _authoritative_. This will\nappear from the preface to the history, as also that it is without the\n_formal_ sanction of the Synod, which appears prefixed to the doctrinal\npart of the book. A considerable time before they ventured to obtrude\nthis new Testimony on the church; they had prepared the way for its\nintroduction, by supplanting the authoritative \"Rules of Society,\"\nframed and adopted by their fathers. This was done by issuing what they\ncalled a \"Guide to Social Worship,\" which the Scottish Synod sent forth\nunder an ambiguous _recommendation_, and the spurious production was\nrepublished by order of Synod, in America, 1836, with the like equivocal\nexpression of approbation.\n\nWhat has been just related of the Ref. Pres. Church in Scotland, will\napply substantially to that section of the same body in Ireland. On the\ndoctrine of the magistrate's power _circa sacra_, however, there was a\ncontroversy of several years' continuance and managed with much\nasperity, in which Rev. Messrs. John Paul, D.D., and Thomas Houston were\nthe most distinguished disputants. Their contendings issued in breach of\norganic fellowship in 1840. Indeed the sister-hood which had subsisted\nfor many years among the Synods east and west of the Atlantic ocean, was\nviolated in 1833; when the rupture took place in the Synod of America,\nby the elopement of the declining party, who are since known by alliance\nwith the civil institutions of the United States. Among these five\nSynods, the principle called _elective affinity_ has been strikingly\nexemplified; while what the Scripture denominates _schism_, has been as\nvisibly rampant as perhaps at any period under the Christian\ndispensation.\n\nThis brief historical sketch may serve to show the outlines of the\ncourses respectively pursued by the several parties in the British Isles\nand America, who have made professions of attachment to that work in the\nkingdom of Scotland especially, which has been called the Second\nReformation. But the duty of fidelity to Zion's King, and even the duty\nof charity to these backsliding brethren; together with the informing of\nthe present and succeeding generations, require, that we notice more\nformally some of the more prominent measures of these ecclesiastical\nbodies and so manifest more fully our relation to them. It is not to be\nexpected however, that we are about to condescend upon _all_ the\nerroneous sentiments or steps of defection, supplied by the history of\nthese communities. To direct the honest inquiries of the Lord's people,\nand assist them in that process of reasoning by which facts are compared\nwith acknowledged Standards, supreme and subordinate, that their\nmoral character may be tested, is all that is proposed in the following\nsections.\n\nSECTION I. The Secession from the Revolution Church of Scotland in that\ncountry assumed a position in relation to the civil institutions of\nGreat Britain, which their posterity continue too occupy until the\npresent time in the United States without material alteration.\n\n1. They cooperate practically with all classes in the civil community,\nin maintaining national rebellion against the Lord and his Anointed.\nThey give their suffrages toward the elevation of vile persons to the\nhighest places of civil dignity in the American confederacy--knowing the\ncandidates to be strangers or enemies to Immanuel. And although they\nhave recently lifted a testimony against that system of robbery called\nslavery, which is so far right; yet this fact only goes to render their\nprofessed loyalty to an unscriptural frame of civil government, as\nmanifestly inconsistent as it is impious.\n\n2. The have all along in the United States renounced the civil part of\nthe British Covenants, declaring that they \"neither have nor ever had\nanything to do with them.\" Truth is not local, nor does the obligation\nof the second table of the moral law, on which that part of our\ncovenants is plainly founded, depend on the permanency of our residence\nin a particular portion of the world. \"The earth is the Lord's and the\nfullness thereof.\" It follows, that however solemnly or frequently they\nprofess to renew their fathers' covenants; the whole transaction\ndisplays their unfaithfulness to the Lord, who is a party in the\ncovenants; and is calculated to mislead the unwary.\n\n3. Their unsteadfastness is further evidenced, by conforming to other\necclesiastical communities in the loose practice of occasional or\nindiscriminate hearing; and even in some instances of ministerial\nintercommunion--the law of their church on that matter having become\nobsolete. Against these courses, in some of which that body has\nobstinately persevered for more than a hundred years, we deem it\nincumbent on us to continue an uncompromising testimony. Many comments\nthe Moral Governor of the nations has furnished in his providence within\nthe last century, making still more intelligible the righteous claims of\nhis word: but Seceders seem to have their moral vision obscured by a\nvail of hereditary prejudice. We trust the Lord is on his way to destroy\nthe face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is\nspread over all nations; Is. xxv, 7.\n\nSEC. II. Our testimony against the unfaithfulness of the Associate\nReformed Church, continues also without material change since the rise\nof that body. The following among others may here be noticed, as\nconstituting just grounds of opposition in a way of testimony-bearing,\nby all who would be found faithful to the Lord, and their covenant\nengagements.\n\n1. Their very origin was unwarranted by scripture. All the scriptural\nattainments to which they profess to adhere, were already incorporated\nin the standards of the organic bodies, from whose fellowship they\nseceded. They did therefore make a breach without a definite object, and\nmultiply divisions in the visible body of Christ without necessity. Thus\nthey did violence to the royal law of love; for while under a profession\nof charity they invited to their new fellowship their former brethren;\nthe nature of the case evinces a disposition to unmitigated tyranny.\nThis state of things we think has not been generally understood. We\nshall here endeavor to render it intelligible. The fact of organizing\nthat church (the Associate Reformed) said to both Covenanters and\nSeceders \"It is your duty to dissolve your respective organizations, and\njoin us.\" This is undeniable. The Covenanter or Seceder replies by\nasking--\"What iniquity have you or your fathers found in us, that you\nforsook our communion?\" &c. \"Not any,\" replies the Associate Reformed\nChurch; \"only some trifling opinions peculiar to you severally which we\ndeem unworthy of contending about. Only join our church, and we will\nnever quarrel with you, relative to your singularities.\" \"Ah,\" replies\nthe other party, \"the matters about which we differ, are trifling in\nyour account; how then could they be of such magnitude as to warrant\nyour breaking fellowship with us? What you call _trifles,\npeculiarities_, &c, we cannot but still judge important principles,\nsealed by the precious blood of martyrs: must we deny these or bury them\nin silence, to gain membership in your new church? Is this the nature\nand amount of your professed charity? This is not that heaven-born\nprinciple 'that rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.'\nYou break fellowship for what you esteem mere trifles--you propose to us\na new term of communion, with which it is morally impossible that we\nshould comply, without doing violence to our consciences. Is this\ncharity or tyranny?\"\n\n2. Although covenanting was declared by this body at their origin, to be\nan \"important duty,\" they never recognized the solemn deeds of their\nfathers as binding on them; nor have they ever attempted the\nacknowledged duty in a way supposed to be competent to themselves. Nay,\nthe obligation of the British covenants has been denied both openly and\nfrequently from the pulpit and the press; and even attempts have been\nmade, not seldom, by profane ridicule, to bring them into contempt. The\nvery duty of public, social covenanting, either in a National or\necclesiastical capacity, has been often opposed in the polemic writings\nof the ministers of this body, however often inculcated and exemplified\nin the word of God. The moral nature of the duty taken in connection\nwith prophetic declarations, to be fulfilled only under the Christian\ndispensation, demonstrates the permanency of this divine ordinance until\nthe end of the world.\n\n3. This church set out with unsound views of church fellowship, as has\nbeen already in part made appear. But when their position came to be\nmore pointedly defined, they made the novel distinction between _fixed_\nand _occasional_ communion. The practical tendency of this unscriptural\nexperiment was necessarily to _catholic_ communion, which theory was\nsoon advocated by some of the most prominent of the ministry; and\naccordingly eventuated in the merging of a large number of her ministry\nand membership, in the communion of the General Assembly.\n\n4. On the doctrine of the divine ordinance of civil government, this\nchurch has all along been unsound; as is fully evidenced in the practice\nof her members, which has been similar to that of Seceders. Our\ntestimony against the latter is, in this particular, equally directed\nagainst the former.\n\n5. This church has appeared as the advocate of a boundless toleration,\nconforming her views and policy in a most servile manner to the infidel\nmodel presented in the civil constitutions of republican America. It\nwould seem, indeed, that this body aimed at conforming their\necclesiastical polity to that standard, from the fact that the very\nsymbol of their profession as a corporate body, is designated the\n\"Constitution of the Associate Reformed Church\"--a designation which\nmight be considered as militating against the supremacy of the Holy\nScriptures. In this Constitution a sphere is assigned to conscience,\nwhich is incompatible with due subjection to the Supreme Lawgiver. As\nwell might the _will_, or any other faculty of the soul of man, be\ninvested with this impious supremacy, and immunity from control, by any\nauthority instituted on earth by the only Lord of conscience. Jehovah\nwill rule the _consciences_ of his creatures, as well as their\n_judgments_ and _wills_, by his holy law, in the civil commonwealth, in\nthe church and in the family.\n\n6. The unfaithfulness of this body appears further, in shunning to\ndeclare the _divine right_ and unalterableness of Presbyterial Church\nGovernment, she testifies not against Prelacy or Independency. If this\nchurch is Presbyterial in practice, it is on no better footing than that\nof the Revolution Church of Scotland.\n\n7. The purity of divine worship is not guarded by the terms of\nfellowship in this church. It is true, \"No Hymns merely of human\ncomposure, are allowed in her churches.\" But what mean these guarded\nterms and phrases, \"merely;\" \"churches?\" The best interpretation of\nthese cunningly contrived expressions is supplied by the practice of\nthose ministers of the body, who scruple not to offer unto God \"hymns\nmerely of human composure\" when occupying pulpits of other\ndenominations, or sojourning for a night in families where these hymns\nare statedly used. It is known that this part of the order of public\nworship has been submitted in some instances, to the voice of the\ncongregation by their pastor; thus manifesting in the same act,\nlatitudinarianism in regard both to the government and worship of the\nhouse of God.\n\nLastly, to specify no further--Laxity of discipline is observable in\nthis church. She has always admitted to her fellowship, and to a\nparticipation in her special privileges (the seals of the covenants),\npersons who openly deny the divine warrant for a fast in connection with\nthe celebration of the Lord's Supper; yea, who ridicule that part of the\nsolemnity as _superstitious_! The same privileges are granted in this\nchurch to such as habitually neglect the worship of God in the family.\nNor does this church inculcate or enjoin, as a part of Christian\npractice, fellowship meetings for prayer and conference. We must, as\nwitnesses for the cause of Christ, solemnly protest against these\nsentiments and correspondent practices, as inconsistent with the\nscripture and the reformation attainments of our covenant fathers.\n\nSEC. III. The Reformed Dissenting Church embraced more of the peculiar\nprinciples of the covenanted reformation than either of the two\npreceding. On the doctrines of magistracy and toleration, abstractly\nconsidered, they have manifested commendable fidelity. Nevertheless, in\nthe practical application of these doctrines and in other respects, we\nare constrained to continue a testimony against them.\n\n1. What has been remarked of the origin of the Associate Reformed body,\nis partly true also of the party which dissented from them: their\norganization was uncalled for, there being no scriptural attainment\nembraced by them, which was not already exhibited under a judicial\nbanner. Those who erected the Reformed Dissenting Presbytery may have\nbeen harshly treated by ministers of the Reformed Presbytery, when\nattempting negotiations for union, as public fame has often rumored: yet\nsupposing this to have been the case, multiplying separate fellowships\nwas not a happy expedient for effecting union in the truth.\n\n2. This body of Christians have been all along unfaithful in applying\ntheir own avowed principles relative to magistracy. Their innovation in\nthis respect would seem to have been a carnal expedient to reach a\ntwo-fold object: the one, to retaliate on the Reformed Church for\nsupposed indignities offered; the other, to render themselves more\npopular in the eyes of other communities. They admit that a constitution\nof civil government may be so immoral, that it cannot be considered as\nGod's ordinance; that in such a case \"no Christian can, without sinning\nagainst God, accept any office supreme or subordinate, where an oath to\nsupport such a constitution is made essential to his office.\" These\nadmissions are equally just and important; yet these concessions are\nwholly neutralized in practice by these people, for they claim it as\ntheir privilege to choose others to fill those offices, which they say,\nthey themselves cannot fill \"without sinning against God.\" We must\ncontinue our earnest testimony against this attempt to separate in law,\nbetween the representative and his constituents, involving as it does,\nif consistently carried out, the total overthrow of the covenants of\nworks and grace, and ultimately of God's moral government by his\nannotated Son! The effort made to sustain their practice in this matter,\nfrom the examples of the Marquis of Argyle and Lord Warriston, is very\ndisingenuous; simply because the church of Scotland had not at the date\nreferred to, reached the measure of her attainments on that head.\nIndeed, the whole drift of their argument goes to justify the position,\nthat in some cases, it is expedient to do evil that good may come.\n\n3. On the doctrine of faith this church has, we think, darkened counsel,\nby words without knowledge. Their distinctions and caveats relative to\n_assurance_, are calculated rather to bewilder than enlighten the mind\nof the general reader. \"Receiving and resting on Christ as offered in\nthe gospel,\" amounts to \"appropriation, certainty, assurance,\" &c. There\nis evidence of a tendency to \"vain jangling\" here, against which, even\nsuppose there be no error couched in the terms, we ought to testify.\n\n4. This church evinces a disposition to intercommunion, in the practice\nboth of ministers and members, wholly inconsistent with steadfastness,\nand at war with her own declared views of toleration. Occupying pulpits\nin common with more corrupt communities, doing this in connection with\nthe celebration of the Lord's Supper, and attendance and co-operation\nwith others in conventional proceedings among those who style themselves\n\"Reformed Churches,\" are practices among these people, on which we feel\nconstrained to animadvert with decided disapprobation. As also their\nviolation of the form of Presbyterian church government by one minister\nwith ruling elders presuming to set apart candidates to the office of\nthe holy ministry.\n\nSEC. IV. To speak thus publicly against those who may be the precious\nsons of Zion, is a painful duty. That charity, however, which rejoiceth\nin the truth, requires of Christ's witnesses that they censure and\nrebuke, in a way competent to them, those of the household of faith whom\nthey see and know to be in a course of error or of sin; _Isa._ lviii, 1;\n_Tit._ i, 13.\n\nMany of those with whom we were wont to take pleasure in displaying a\nbanner jointly, and in a judicial capacity, are now, alas! arrayed\nagainst us. To the real friend of Jesus, and the truth as it is in\nJesus, there cannot be a more lamentable spectacle than the _professed\nwitnesses_ of the Lamb disposed in rank under hostile colors as the\ncompany--not of two, but of many armies, ready to engage in mutual\ndestruction! And indeed those who bite and devour one another, are in\ndanger of being consumed one of another. The Lord is righteous in all\nthat is come upon us; for we have sinned against him--both we and our\nfathers. We know not how to avert more wrath from the Lord, reclaim\nbacksliders, confirm the wavering, direct sincere inquirers, apprise the\nunsuspecting of their danger, and exonerate our own consciences,\notherwise than by giving open, candid and honest testimony for Christ\nand truth, against those, even once brethren by covenant bonds, who have\ndishonored him, and caused the way of truth to be evil spoken of.\n\nAgainst those who separated from us in Philadelphia, 1833, erecting a\nrival judicatory, and dishonestly claiming the name Reformed\nPresbyterian Church, we bear our feeble testimony for the following\namong other reasons:\n\n1. They did then openly enter on a course subversive of our whole\ncovenanted system of doctrine and order, by withdrawing their dissent\nfrom the civil institutions of the United States, and incorporating with\nthe National Society--knowing the same to be, by the terms of the\nnational compact, opposed in many respects, both to godliness and\nhonesty.\n\n2. This party had, in a clandestine way, exerted their influence to\nseduce and draw away disciples after them for a series of years. This is\nevident from the petitions addressed to Synod on the jury law, issuing\nfrom those who are known to have been in correspondence with some of the\nleaders in that defection.\n\n3. This party are chargeable with mutilating the Judicial Testimony\nemitted in Scotland, 1761; and also with changing the terms of\ncommunion, and obtruding a mutilated formula upon an unsuspecting\npeople, contrary to due order.\n\n_History_ and _argument_ are excluded from the terms of Church\nFellowship, on the very face of \"Reformation Principles Exhibited;\" and\nthe Auchensaugh Covenant expunged from the formula of terms of\ncommunion, without submitting them in overture to the people for\ninspection. We say these steps of defection and apostasy are chargeable\nto the account of those who made the breach in 1833: _First_, Because\nthe senior and leading ministers in that separation were the men who\nframed the American Testimony and Terms of Communion; and so had many\nyears before laid the platform and projected the course on which they\nviolently entered at that date. _Second_, These separatists, in the\nedition of these symbols of their profession lately published, have\nconsistently left out of the volume, the Historical Part, and also\nremodeled the formula of Terms of Communion.\n\n4. This body continues to wax worse and worse, against all remonstrance\nfrom their former connections and others, as also in the face of\nprovidential rebukes;--losing, because forfeiting, the confidence of\nconscientious and honorable men, exemplified in the frequent meetings,\nand to them, disastrous results, of the Convention of, so called,\nReformed Churches.\n\nSEC. V. With the foregoing party may be classed those different and\nconflicting fellowships in Scotland and Ireland, whose recent Terms of\nCommunion and Judicial Testimony, substantially identify with those\nmentioned in the preceding section.\n\n1. Public fame charges the Eastern Synod of Ireland, and the Synod of\nScotland, with connivance at the members and officers under their\ninspection, in co-operating with the immoral and anti-christian\ngovernment of Great Britain. They are therefore guilty of giving their\npower and strength to that powerful and blood-thirsty horn of the beast.\nWe are inclined to give more credit to public fame in this than we would\nin many other cases, because:\n\n2. These Synods have opened a door in their new Testimony for such\nsinful confederacies. \"What!\" will the simple and uninitiated reader of\nthe Testimony ask, \"does not that Testimony declare, often and often,\nthat the British constitution is anti-christian?\" We answer, the _book_\ndeclares so; but we caution the reader to be on his guard, lest he judge\nand take for granted, without a careful examination, that the book and\nthe Testimony are the same thing. Let the honest inquirer consult the\n_preface_ to the _Historical_ part of the book, and then the preface to\nthe Doctrinal part: the latter, he will find, on due examination, to\nconstitute the Testimony. True, in page 8 of the preface to the volume,\nit is said, \"the Testimony, as now published, consists of two parts, the\none _Historical_ and the other _Doctrinal_.\" This sounds orthodox; but,\nin the same page, when these two parts come to be defined, it is said,\n\"when the church requires of those admitted into her fellowship, an\nacknowledgement of a work like the present, the approbation expressed\nhas a reference to the _principles_ embodied in it, and _the proper\napplication_ of them,\" &c. \"So they wrap it up\"--better than our fathers\nsucceeded in a similar enterprise in America. The truth is what they\ncall the _historical_ part is largely _argumentative_; and both these\nparts are carefully and covertly excluded from the _terms of\nfellowship_! We shall have occasion to recur to this subject, as there\nare many others likeminded with these innovators.\n\n3. These people are also deeply involved in the popular, so called,\nbenevolent associations of the world, Sunday Schools, Bible Societies,\nTemperance Reforms, Missionary Enterprise, &c, evidencing a wide\ndeparture from our covenanted uniformity, based upon our covenanted\nTestimony.\n\nSEC. VI. Those who in 1838, on account of sensible tyranny, growing out\nof defection on the part of the majority, declined the authority of\nSynod, have shared all along in our sympathies; and it has been our\ndesire that they and we could see eye to eye in the doctrines and order\nof the house of God.\n\nAlthough this party promised fair for a time, and apparently contended\nfor \"all the attainments of a covenanted reformation,\" in process of\ntime it became apparent that they possessed not intelligence sufficient\nto manage a consistent testimony for that cause. They seem to have been\nunder the influence of temporary impulse, arising from the experience of\n_mal-administration_; rather than to have discovered any\n_constitutional_ defection in the body from which they separated. This\nis apparent indeed if we have access to any credible source of\ninformation relative to the principles they profess, and their Christian\npractice. More particularly,\n\n1. Although that paper which they designate \"Safety League,\" has the\nsound of orthodoxy; yet, as originated, and since interpreted by them,\nthere is a lamentable falling off from the attainments and footsteps of\nthe flock. _First_, so far as we can ascertain, that instrument had\nclandestine origin being framed and subscribed by those _who were yet in\nfellowship with the Synod_! This might be earnest, but, we think, not\nhonorable contending for the truth. _Second_, when this paper comes to\nbe interpreted by its framers and signers, it seems to cover only the\nAmerican Testimony and Terms, as remodeled by breach of presbyterial\norder. At other times, it will conveniently extend to the Scottish\nTestimony, 1761, and the Auchensaugh Deed, 1712! From which we infer\nthat these people have no settled standards.\n\n2. We testify against these people for unwarrantable separation from us.\nOne of their elders co-operated in organizing the Reformed Presbytery in\n1840; this in official, and, as then distinctly understood,\nrepresentative capacity. Yet, some time afterward, he and his brethren\nwithdrew from said Presbytery, without assigning justifiable reasons.\n\n3. Efforts are known to have been made, by some then in their\nfellowship, to have social corresponding meetings established among\nthem, but without success; in opposition to the well-defined example of\nour witnessing fathers, whose example they affect to imitate.\n\nLastly, these quondam brethren are not, to this day, distinguishable, in\nthe symbols of their profession, from any party who have more evidently\nand practically abandoned the distinctive principles and order of a\ncovenanted ancestry. There is no constitutional barrier in the way of\ntheir coalescence with any party, whom interest or caprice may select.\n\nSEC. VII. Against that party usually, but improperly, styled the Old\nLights, are we obliged to testify more pointedly than against any other\nparty now claiming to be Reformed Presbyterians. _First_, because we\nbelieve there are among them still, real Covenanters; and, in proportion\nto the whole body, a greater number of such than in any other\nfellowship. These we would undeceive, if the Lord will; for we earnestly\ndesire renewed fellowship with all such on original ground. _Second_,\nbecause the leaders among these make the fairest show in the flesh, and,\ncalculating on spiritual sloth and the force of confirmed habit, hope to\nlead honest people insensibly after them back into Egypt. _Third_,\nbecause they are more numerous, and, from habit, more exemplary than\nother parties; and therefore more likely to influence honest Christians\nunwittingly to dishonor Christ, and gainsay his precious truth.\n\n1. These former brethren acted, in 1833, very similar to the policy of\nthe Revolution Church of Scotland in 1689. Instead of repairing the\nbreaches made, and going on to fortify our New Testament Jerusalem,\nagainst the assaults of enemies in future, they rested in their present\nposition, providing only for a new edition of Reformation Principles\nExhibited, with a continuance of the history to that date. It was urged,\nat the time, that the argumentative part of our Testimony should be\nhastened to completion, but without effect. As the apostate Assembly of\nScotland, 1689, admitted unsound ministers, curates, &c., to seats in\ncourt; so, with the like politic design, members were admitted to seats\nin Synod, 1833, who claimed \"a right to withdraw to another party, if\nthey should see cause\"--yea, one of these was called to the moderator's\nchair!\n\n2. At next meeting, 1834, when the continuation of the historical part\nof the Testimony was read, and referred to a committee for publication\nin the forthcoming edition of Reformation Principles Exhibited, it was\ndirected that the terms of communion should be inserted, supplying the\ndeficiency in the first term, in these words: \"and the alone infallible\nrule of faith and manners.\" In the new edition these important words\nwere omitted, as before! Several ministers seemed to be influenced in\nsocial relations, at that time, more by public opinion, than by the\ninfallible rule. No further progress was made with the argumentative\npart of the Testimony, and a petition from Greenfield, to have Synod's\nmind relative to occasional hearing, was returned. Against these steps\nof unfaithfulness we lift our protest.\n\n3. Against the tyranny manifested at the next meeting, there were some\nto stand up at the time; but the spirit of the world prevailed in all\nthe important transactions. We testify against those who refused to\npermit petitions, memorials, and other papers addressed to that court,\nto be read. Especially do we protest against that satanical spirit\nevidenced in misrepresenting certain respectful and argumentative\npapers, as being \"abusive,\" \"insulting,\" &c.: also the unrighteous\nattempt, by some guilty members of that court, to stop the mouth of\npetitioners; and we condemn the reason assigned for so doing, viz.,\n\"They had no right to petition, because they were under suspension\"!\nThis reason is worthy of double condemnation, as coming from the mouth\nof him who, in this instance, acted the ecclesiastical tyrant, and who\nwould come down from Zion's walls to the plains of Ono, mingle in\npolitical strife, that he might open his mouth for the dumb; and because\na brother in covenant bonds would demur, censure him, and then make the\nfact of censure a reason why he should not be heard when petitioning for\nrelief from such tyranny! \"Revolters are profound to make slaughter.\"\n\n4. As papers were numerous on the table of Synod in 1838, so they\nfurnished occasion for displays of character and conduct, humiliating to\nall lovers of Zion, who witnessed the transactions of that meeting of\nthe supreme judicatory.\n\nThis was the first time, so far as we know, when that body was called\nupon formally to review and rectify, in a way competent to them, some\nparts, both of the constitutional law and administration of the Reformed\nPresbyterian Synod and Church in America. For a series of years, and\nchiefly through the influence of leaders in that faction which separated\nfrom the body in 1833, high-handed measures of tyranny had transpired:\nand some of the subjects of that tyranny were yet writhing under a sense\nof accumulated wrongs; others had, by death, been released from this\nspecies of persecution. Some thought it dutiful to call Synod's\nattention to these matters, and a _petition_ was laid before them, from\nRev. Robert Lusk, requesting that certain cases of discipline, which the\npetitioner specified, be reviewed; and especially asking, that \"the term\n_testimony_ be restored to its former ecclesiastical use.\" As this was,\nin our deliberate opinion, the most important measure brought under the\ncognizance of the church representative in America, during the current\nof the nineteenth century, it was thought the court would take the\nmatter under deliberate consideration. Whether through ignorance of the\nmatter proposed, or that sectional interests engrossed the attention of\nparties, or that the prevailing majority desired to be untrammeled in\ntheir future course, the petition was smuggled through and shuffled by,\nunder the cognomen of a \"letter,\" which a member of Synod answered on\nbehalf of the court, as though it were a matter of the smallest\nimportance imaginable! We solemnly testify against this manner of\ndisposing of a weighty matter at that time, whether through inattention\nor design. We protest also against the violent conduct of those\nministers, and others on the same occasion, who made the place of solemn\nworship and judicial deliberation, a scene of confusion, by\nvociferations, gesticulations and physical force, in violation of God's\nlaw, ordination vows, and the first principle of Presbyterian church\ngovernment.\n\n5. Here we can advert only to a tithe of the fruits of darkness, which\nhad been increasing in quantity and bitterness, since the meeting of\nSynod in New York, 1838. To carry out measures of worldly policy, in\n1840, diligent electioneering was carried on during the intermediate\ntime, that the court might be what is technically called a _packed\nSynod_. That court was chiefly composed of such ministers and elders as\nwere known to favor innovations; and some who were known to be disposed\nto resist defection, were excluded from seats in court. Against this\ndishonest, partial and unjust measure, we protest. And here we lift our\ntestimony against this course, as having greatly retarded the Lord's\nwork for many years before, and as having facilitated the introduction\nof error, disorder and open tyranny, in manifold instances, during the\nsame period.\n\n6. We testify against the tyranny exercised upon James McKinney, of\nColdenham, who was not allowed to read his vindication and\njustification, when he asked permission to do so, from the published\nsentiments of some of those who condemned him!!! Also the cruelty\npracticed toward Miss King, an absent member, whose representation of\nher case to the Synod, could not so much as be heard. We bear testimony\nagainst those who in that Synod would interrupt, call to order--in\nviolation of order--those members who were appearing in defense of\ninjured truth, and who were often silenced by tumult, or the call of\norder by an obsequious moderator. Especially do we testify against the\ndishonesty and unfaithfulness of that body, displayed by them in\ndisposing of the paper inserted (see p. 132), calling Synod's attention\nto what we firmly believe to be the source of all the error, guilt and\ndistractions incident or attending to that body for many years.\n\nOn the practice of confederating with the enemies of God, we testify\nagainst this party, not only for the _fact_ of so confederating, but\nalso, and chiefly, for resisting the evidence of God's word, often\nadduced in condemnation of the practice--refusing to hear the\ntestimonies, experience, and reasoning of Christ's witnesses and\nmartyr's when cited from the Cloud of Witnesses, Informatory\nVindication, Gillespie on Confederacies, &c; and for obstinately going\non in this trespass, in the face of manifold convictions from living\nwitnesses and providential rebukes.\n\nAs it respects ecclesiastical relations, we testify against these former\nbrethren for having wittingly, perseveringly, and presumptuously\nfostered _schism_ in the visible church, manifestly for carnal ends,\nduring many years. It is notorious that five Synods are in organic\nfellowship, while hardly two of them will hold ministerial or\nsacramental communion! What a picture does this state of things in the\nprofessing church of Christ present to the infidel; how hardening to the\nself-righteous and the openly profane! And although conventional\nregulations be lightly looked upon by many, not being based upon express\nwords of scripture; yet when framed and engaged to, according to the\ngeneral rules of scripture, much sin is the result of violating them,\nand trampling them under foot, as has often been done by this body of\npeople. This has been the case in Presbyteries, subordinate Synods, and\nespecially in the general Synod. Subordinate Synods have been dissolved\nby the action of the general Synod after they had ceased to be; and\nwithout consulting the Presbyteries, who alone were competent to decree\nor dissolve the delegation form of the general Synod, that court\ndissolved itself, after having many years trampled upon the law of\nPresbyteries fixing the ratio of delegation. Against such reckless,\ndisorderly procedure we testify as being the cause or occasion of much\nsin against Zion's King, and much suffering to his precious people.\n\nFinally--We solemnly enter our protestation against this church, as\nhaving taken the lead of most others in razing the very foundation stone\nof the covenanted structure. All the evils that have befallen the\nprofessed friends of a work of reformation on both sides of the Atlantic\nare traceable to a _setting aside_ the _footsteps_ of the flock from\nbeing terms of ecclesiastical communion. It is now more than ten years\nsince this important matter was expressly submitted to the Old Light\nSynod's consideration, and during the subsequent period, in various\nforms, the same has been pressed, but without effect; except as\nmanifesting more fully their obduracy. They refuse still to return,\nEphraim-like, going on frowardly in the way of their own heart.\n\nThat uninspired history ought to be incorporated among the terms of\ncommunion in the Church of Christ, is a proposition which we firmly\nbelieve, on the evidence both of reason and Scripture, although denied,\ncondemned, and rejected by all pretenders to reformation attainments.\nThat _history_ and _argument_ are so rejected by all parties affecting\nto be _reformed_ churches, will appear from the following citations from\ntheir own authoritative judicial declarations: \"Authentic history and\nsound argument are always to be highly valued; but they should not be\nincorporated with the confession of the Church's faith.\" \"The\nDeclaratory part is, the Church's _standing Testimony_.\"--Ref. Prin.\nExhibited, preface--edition, 1835. Here history and argument are both\nexcluded, not only from the Church's _testimony_ but also from her\nconfession! This is the declared sentiment of Old and New Light\nCovenants, together with the Safety League people--evidencing to all who\nare free from party influence, that however they differ in practice, on\nthis all important point they perfectly harmonize in principle. East of\nthe Atlantic, among the three Synods professing to follow the footsteps\nof the flock, the declared sentiment is the same, but then they differ\nfrom their brethren in practice--mingling with the heathen and learning\ntheir works without scruple. In this respect they are more consistent\nthan the other parties, though more visibly corrupt.\n\nThe Reformed Dissenters \"prefix a _Narrative_ to their testimony,\" thus\nrejecting _history_ from _testimony_. Some advocates for union in\nconventions of reformed churches, have plead for a historical\nintroduction to their proposed _testimony_; but they have carefully\nassured the public that this introduction shall constitute no _term_ of\nunion or communion. Thus, it is evident, that all the professed\nfollowers of the British Reformers around us, have cast off this\nreformation attainment from the standards of their professions\nseverally. We condemn this church-rending and soul-ruining sentiment,\nand testify against all who maintain it, for the following reasons:\n\n_First_, on their part it is inconsistent and self-contradictory. They\nall say they are following the footsteps and holding the attainments of\nthe Scottish Reformers. But how do they discover these footsteps, or how\nascertain these attainments? Are they recorded in the Bible? No. Are\nthey to be found elsewhere but in _uninspired history_? Certainly no\nwhere else. Yet all these parties absurdly reject uninspired history\nfrom their bonds of fellowship! and still venture to tell the world,\nthey are holding fast these attainments!! This is solemn trifling,\nprofane mockery. _Second_. This position is unsound and false in the\nlight of reason. All civilized nations, as well as the Jews, have it\nwritten in their laws, \"That the testimony of two men is true.\" The\nwitnesses do not need to be inspired to be credible. \"We receive the\nwitness of men,\" although a \"false witness will utter lies.\" No society\ncan exist without practical recognition of the credibility of human\ntestimony; and this is especially true of the \"Church of the living God,\nwhich is the pillar and ground of the truth;\" for, _Third_. In the light\nof Scripture, her members cannot perform some of their most important\nduties, either to God or to one another if they irrationally and\nwickedly relinquish this principle. God's people are charged \"not to\nforget his mighty works;\" Psa. lxxviii. 7. Are these works all written\nin the Bible? They are required to confess their fathers' sins, as well\nas their own. Since the divine canon was closed, many sins have been,\nand now are chargeable against professing Christians. Are these recorded\nin the Scriptures? And thus the reader may ask himself of sin and duty\nto any extent, in relation to God as a party.\n\nAnd the same is true of the second table of the moral law. For example:\nin reference to \"the first commandment with promise,\" should the\nChristian minor be asked as the Jew did his Lord, \"Who is your father?\"\nHow shall he answer? Is he warranted to appeal to God to manifest his\nearthly sonship? No; but he is required by God's law to \"honor his\nfather;\" and his obedience to this command is grounded on human\ntestimony as to the object to whom this honor is due. Thus consistency,\nreason and scripture combine, to accuse and fasten guilt--the guilt of\napostasy upon all who have renounced that fundamental principle of our\nglorious covenanted reformation--_that history and argument belong to\nthe bond of ecclesiastical fellowship_. With any who hold the theory\nhere condemned, however exemplary or even conscientious in morals and\nreligion they may appear, we can have no ecclesiastical fellowship; for,\nhowever ardent their attachment or strong their expressions of affection\nto Confession, Catechisms, Covenants, &c.; they give no guarantee of\ncompetent intelligence or probable stability; as alas! we see in the\npresent declining course of many in our day.\n\nWe would earnestly and affectionably beseech all well wishers to a\ncovenanted work of reformation: that they would take into their serious\nconsideration whether these things are, or are not connected inseparably\nwith the wellfare of Zion. Especially would we expostulate with such as\nhave any regard for the Judicial Testimony adopted at Ploughlandhead,\nScotland, in 1761: that they conscientiously compare it with the book\ncalled Reformation Principles Exhibited, and also with the new Scottish\nTestimony, where it is practicable, and all these with the supreme\nstandard, the holy scriptures. They will find on examination, that these\nare wholly irreconcilable in the very form of testimony-bearing.\nParticularly, let the reader notice that our fathers in 1761, considered\n_history_ and _argument_ as constituting their testimony: and did not\nlook upon _doctrinal declaration_ as formal testimony at all. Look at\nthe very title page of their Testimony; where you read, \"Act,\nDeclaration and Testimony,\" plainly distinguishing between _declaration_\nand _Testimony_. Now, all innovators make doctrinal declaration their\ntestimony, reversing our fathers' order; yea, we would add God's order,\nfor he distinguishes between his law and testimony; Ps. lxxviii, 5-7;\ncv, 42-45. God's special providences toward his covenanted people\nconstitute his testimony by way of eminence; Exod. xx, 1, &c., and their\nconduct under his providences constitute their testimony, which must\nconsist of history; and by this and the blood of the Lamb, Christ's\nwitnesses are destined to overcome all anti-christian combinations.\n\nIn attempting thus to follow the approved example of our covenant\nfathers, whose practice it was to testify not only against the\ncorruptions of ecclesiastical, but also of civil constitutions, where\ntheir lot was cast, we deem it incumbent on us to continue our testimony\nfirst published in 1806, against the immoralities incorporated with the\ngovernment of these United States.\n\nBelieving that a nation as such, is a proper subject of God's\ngovernment, and that those nations favored with his law as revealed in\nthe holy scriptures, are peculiarly required to regard the authority of\nthe Lord and his Anointed, therein made fully known: it is with deep\nregret that we feel constrained to designate and testify against evils\nin the Constitution of this nation. Notwithstanding numerous\nexcellencies embodied in this instrument, there are moral evils\ncontained in it also, of such magnitude, that no Christian can\nconsistently give allegiance to the system. There is not contained in it\nany acknowledgment of the Christian religion, or professed submission to\nthe kingdom of Messiah. It gives support to the enemies of the Redeemer,\nand admits to its honors and emoluments Jews, Mohammedans, Deists and\nAtheists--it establishes that system of robbery by which men are held in\nslavery, despoiled of liberty, and property, and protection. It violates\nthe principles of representation, by bestowing upon the domestic tyrant\nwho holds hundreds of his fellow creatures in bondage, an influence in\nmaking laws for freemen proportioned to the number of his own slaves.\nThis constitution is, in many instances, inconsistent, oppressive and\nimpious.\n\nMuch guilt, and of long standing, is chargeable against this nation, for\nits cruel treatment of the colored race, in subjecting them ever since\n1789 to hopeless bondage; its unjust transactions with the Indian race,\nand more recently waging an unjust war with a neighboring republic, as\nwould appear, for the wicked purpose of extending the iniquitous system\nof slavery.\n\n\"Arise O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.\"\n\n\n\n\nPART IV.\n\nA brief declaration or summary of the principles maintained by the\nPresbytery, as to doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, in\nagreeableness to the word of God, our Confession of Faith and\nCatechisms, and whole covenanted testimony of the Church of\nScotland.--The contrary doctrines condemned.\n\n\nUnto what has been more generally laid down in the preceding pages, with\nrespect to the principles and practice of this church and nation, both\nin former and present times; the Presbytery proceed to subjoin a\npositive and explicit declaration of their principles anent the truths\nof our holy religion, whether by the generality agreed unto, or by some\ncontroverted.\n\nI. OF GOD.--The Presbytery did, and hereby do acknowledge and declare,\nthat there is one infinite, eternal, self-existent, and independent\nBeing; and that this only true and living God, absolutely\nall-sufficient, having all being, perfection, glory, and blessedness, in\nand of himself, subsists in three distinct, divine persons, the Father,\nSon, and Holy Spirit (in one and the same undivided essence and\ngodhead), all equally the same in substance, power, and glory, although\ndistinguished by their personal properties; according to Deut. vi, 4; 1\nCor. viii, 6; 1 Tim. i, 17; Acts xvii, 24, 25; 1 John v, 7; Matth.\nxxviii, 19; Confession of Faith, chap. 2; larger catechism, quest.\n7--11; shorter catechism, quest. 4--6.\n\nII. OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.--Again, they confess and declare, that\nalthough the light of nature discovers unto us that there is a God, yet\nof itself it is absolutely insufficient to teach us the saving knowledge\nof the invisible Being and his will; and therefore God of his infinite\ncondescension has given us a most perfect revelation of himself and of\nhis will in the scriptures of truth, contained in the sacred books of\nthe Old and New Testament; which scriptures the Presbytery assert to be\nof divine authority, and not to be believed and received because of any\nother testimony, than that of God their author, who is truth itself.\nWhich word of God is the alone perfect and complete rule, both of faith\nand practice, containing a full and ample revelation of the whole\ncounsel of God, both respecting his own glory and the salvation of men;\nby which all spirits are to be tried, and to which all doctrines and\ncontroversies in religion are to be brought, as to the supreme judge, in\nwhose sentence alone we are to acquiesce; according to Rom. i, 19, 20; 1\nCor. ii, 13, 14; Heb. i, 1; 2 Tim. iii, 16; 2 Pet. i, 19, 21; 2 Tim.\niii, 15; Gal. i. 8, 9; Eph. ii, 20, and our standards, Confess. chap. 1;\nlarger Cat. quest. 2-5; shorter Cat. quest. 2, 3.\n\nIII. OF THE DECREES OF GOD.--Again, they assert and maintain, that\nJehovah, according to his own most wise counsel, and for his own glory,\nhas, by one immanent act of his will from eternity, purposed and decreed\nall events in time; and particularly, that by his absolute sovereignty,\nhe has unchangeably determined the final state of all intelligent\nbeings, visible and invisible. That God of his mere good pleasure,\nabstracting from all other causes whatever, for the praise of his\nglorious grace to be manifested in time, has from all eternity\npredestinated a certain definite number of mankind sinners, in and\nthrough Jesus Christ, to eternal life, together with all the means\nleading thereunto. And also, by the same sovereign will, has passed by,\nand left others in their sins, foreordaining them to bear the just\npunishment of their own iniquities; as is evident from Rom. ix, 11, 13,\n15, 16, 18; Eph. i, 4, 6, 9, 11; Jude verse 4; and according to Confess,\nchap. 3; larger Cat. quest. 12, 13; shorter Catechism quest. 7.\n\nIV. OF CREATION.--In like manner they acknowledge and declare, that as\nGod, from the infinity of his being and goodness, has communicated a\nfinite created existence to all other beings, framing them with natures\nwisely suited and adapted to the different ends of their creation; so by\nthe same all-powerful word whereby they were at first created, he\npreserves and upholds all his creatures in their beings, and by the\nincessant care and invariable conduct of his divine providence, does\nconstantly direct and overrule them and all their actions unto his own\nglory; according to divine revelation, Gen. i, throughout; Col i, 16;\nRom. xi, 36; Psal, cxlv, 17, and xxxiii, 9; and cxix, 91; Heb. i, 2, 3;\nConfess, chap. 4, 5; larger Cat. quest. 14; short. Cat. quest. 8.\n\nLikewise they profess and declare, that God, as the last and finishing\npart of his workmanship in this lower world, created man an intelligent\nbeing, endued with a living, reasonable and immortal soul, whose\ngreatest glory consisted in his having the gracious image of his God and\nCreator drawn upon his soul, chiefly consisting in that knowledge,\nrighteousness and inherent holiness wherewith he was created. And\nfurther, that God, in his favor and condescension to man, was pleased to\nenter into a covenant with him, as the public head and representative of\nall his posterity, wherein God promised unto him eternal life and\nblessedness with himself in glory, upon condition of personal, perfect\nand perpetual obedience; to the performance whereof, he furnished him\nwith full power and ability, and threatened death upon the violation of\nhis law and covenant, as is evident from the sacred text; Gen. i, 26,\n27; Eccl. vii, 29; Gen. ii, 17; Rom. x, 5, and according to our Confess,\nchap. 4, \u00a7 2; chap, 7, \u00a7 1, 2; chap. 19, \u00a7 1; larger Cat. quest. 20;\nshort. Cat. quest. 10, 12.\n\nV. OF THE FALL OF MAN.--They again assert and maintain, that the first\nand common parents of mankind, being seduced by the subtilty of Satan,\ntransgressed the covenant of innocency, in eating the forbidden fruit;\nwhereby they lost the original rectitude of their nature, were cut off\nfrom all gracious intercourse with God, and became both legally and\nspiritually dead; and therefore they being the natural root of all\nmankind, and the covenant being made with _Adam_, not as a private, but\na public person, all his descendants by ordinary generation, are born\nunder the guilt of that first sin, destitute of original righteousness,\nand having their nature wholly depraved and corrupted; so that they are\nby nature children of wrath, subjected unto all the penal evils\ncontained in the curse of a broken law, both in this life, and in that\nwhich is to come; Gen. iii, 6, 13; Eccl. vii. 20; Rom. v, from 12 to 20;\nRom. iii, 10-19; Eph. ii, 3; Confess, chap. 6: larger Cat. quest. 21,\n22, short. Cat. question 13 to 20.\n\nIn like manner they assert and declare, that all mankind, by their\noriginal apostasy from God, are not only become altogether filthy and\nabominable in the eyes of God's holiness; but also, are hereby utterly\nindisposed, disabled, and entirely opposite to all good, the\nunderstanding become darkness, and the will enmity and rebellion itself\nagainst God; so that man, by his fall, having lost all ability of will\nto what is spiritually good, cannot in his natural state, and by his own\nstrength, convert himself (being dead in trespasses and sins), nor can\nhe in less or more contribute to his own salvation, or in the least\nprepare himself thereunto; neither is there any natural, necessary or\nmoral connection between the most diligent and serious use of the means,\nand obtaining salvation thereby. Although the Presbytery maintain, that\nas a God of grace has promised the converting influences of his Spirit\nto be showered down upon dead souls, in the use of means of his own\nappointment; they are therefore to be attended to with the utmost care\nand diligence; as appears from Rom. v, 6; John vi, 44, 65; Tit. iii,\n3-5; Job xiv, 4; Confess. chap. 9, \u00a7 3; larger Cat. quest. 25.\n\nVI. OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE.--Likewise they assert and declare, that\nJehovah, in the person of the Father, having purposed to save a certain\nnumber of the ruined family of _Adam_, did from all eternity enter into\na covenant transaction with Jesus Christ, his eternal and only begotten\nSon, who contracted as the second _Adam_, in the name of all his\nspiritual seed. In which covenant, the Father promising to confer\neternal life upon a select number given unto Christ, upon condition of\nhis fulfilling all righteousness for them; the Lord Jesus Christ did\nagain stipulate and engage, as the condition of the covenant by him to\nbe fulfilled, that in the fullness of time, assuming the human nature\ninto a personal union with the divine, he would therein, and in the\nelect's name fulfill, not only the preceptive part of the law, but also\nbear the whole punishment contained in the threatening thereof: which\ncovenant, that it might be absolutely free to sinners, and that the\nsalvation therein provided for them, might not be of debt, but of grace,\nwas unto Jesus Christ a covenant of redemption, nothing being therein\npromised to him, but upon his paying a full price, adequate to the most\nextensive demands of law and justice; according to Psal. lxxxix, 2, 3,\n28, 34, 35; Tit. i, 2; Isa. liii, 10, 11; Matth. v, 17; Confess. chap.\n7, \u00a7 3; Larg. Cat. quest. 30, 31; Short. Cat. quest. 20.\n\nVII. OF THE MEDIATOR.--In like manner they profess, assert, and declare,\nthat the Lord Jesus Christ, the second person in the glorious and\nadorable Trinity, being by the Father's appointment constituted mediator\nand surety of the new covenant, did, in the fullness of time, assume the\nhuman nature, consisting of a true body and reasonable soul, into a\npersonal union with his divine; which two natures, in the one person of\nour Immanuel, God-man, remain distinct, without conversion, composition,\nor confusion. And being every way completely qualified and furnished for\nexecuting his mediatory offices of prophet, priest, and king, was called\nto the exercise thereof, by God the Father, who put all power and\njudgment into his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same;\nProv. viii, 23; Heb. ii, 14; 1 Tim. ii, 5; John vi, 27, and v, 27;\nConfess. chap. 8 throughout; Larg. Cat. quest. 21-23; short. Cat. quest,\n21, 22.\n\nAgain, they acknowledge and declare, that the Lord Jesus Christ our\nREDEEMER, the only begotten Son of God, by eternal and ineffable\ngeneration, is most properly a divine person, true and very God, one in\nessence, equal and the same in power, eternity, glory, and all divine\nperfections with the Father and Holy Ghost: and that therefore it is\nmost blasphemous to assert, that the terms, _necessary existence_, and\n_supreme deity_, and the title of _the only true God_, do not belong to\nthe Son equally with the Father, as the same in substance, being\nexpressly contrary to these texts of sacred writ which assert the\nopposite truth; John i, 1-4; Phil, ii, 6; John x, 30; 1 John v, 20, and\nto our standards, Confess. chap. 8, \u00a7 2; Larg. Cat. quest. 36; Short.\nCat. 6.\n\nThey likewise further acknowledge, assert, and declare, that the Lord\nJesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, and only Mediator between God and\nman, being designed from everlasting the REDEEMER of his people, and\nhaving all fullness, power, and authority lodged in him for the\nexecution of his mediatory trust, has, ever since the fall of mankind,\nas the great and good shepherd of _Israel_, undertaken the care,\ngovernment, protection, and instruction of the Church of God, in\nagreeableness to the above said trust: which he did all along under the\nOld Testament, and still continues faithfully to discharge in all the\nparts thereof; so that whatever revelation God made unto his church\nsince the fall, was by Jesus Christ as the great prophet and preacher of\nrighteousness. Particularly, it was he that first appeared unto lapsed\nman, and as the great revealer of the council of peace, called upon him\nin the voice of mercy, saying, \"_Adam_, where art thou?\" It was he that,\npleasing himself in the forethoughts of his future incarnation, and as a\nprelude thereto, condescended at different times to appear in a human\nform, and speak unto the fathers. By him, as the messenger of the\ncovenant, were the lively oracles delivered to the Israelitish church;\nand by his Spirit in the prophets, successively raised up to instruct\nhis church in the knowledge of the divine will, was signified and\nforetold the grace that should come, until the fullness of the time\nappointed in the council of Heaven, when it was promised he should come,\nand by his personal presence fill his house with glory. Then did God in\nthese last days speak unto men by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of\nall things; who, not only by himself, but also, after his ascension, by\nhis evangelists and apostles filled with the Spirit, has made known all\nthings that he heard of his Father. And now, after the canon of\nscripture is completed, and no new revelation to be expected to the end\nof time, continues by his word and spirit to instruct sinners in the\nknowledge of all things necessary for their sanctification and\nsalvation; according to Acts x, 38, and iii, 22; Luke iv, 18, 21; John\ni, 18; 1 Pet. i, 10-12; Heb. i, 1, 2; Eph. iv, 11-13; Confess. chap. 8,\n\u00a7 1; Larg. Cat. quest. 43; Short. Cat. quest. 24.\n\nIn like manner, they profess and declare, that the Lord Jesus Christ,\nbeing called of him that said unto him, \"Thou art my Son, this day have\nI begotten thee,\" unto the honorable office of High Priest over the\nhouse of God, and confirmed therein by all the solemnities of the oath\nof God, he did most willingly undertake this work, saying, _Lo, I come\nto do thy will, O God!_ And that he might finish and fulfill the same,\nin agreeableness to his eternal engagements to the Father, to the Old\nTestament types and sacrifices, promises and prophecies, wherein he was\nforesigned and revealed to be the seed of the woman, that should bruise\nthe serpent's head, did, in the fullness of time, humble himself to be\nmade of a woman, made under the law, in the form of a bond servant to\nJehovah. In which character, he not only fulfilled the preceptive part\nof the law, but also, with the most unparalleled meekness, patience and\nresignation, submitted to the most grievous and dreadful sufferings,\nboth in body and soul, even all that divine wrath, indignation and\npunishment, wrapped up in the terrible curse of a broken covenant of\nworks. By which obedience of his unto the death, through the eternal\nSpirit offering himself without spot unto God, a proper, real and\nexpiatory sacrifice for sin, he has fully satisfied divine justice, made\nreconciliation for the iniquities of his people, and purchased an\neternal inheritance for them in the kingdom of glory. The saving\nbenefits of which redemption, by the Spirit's effectual application\nthereof, he does, by his intercession at the Father's right hand, as an\narisen, living, and now glorified Savior, constantly and certainly\ncommunicate unto all those whom the Father has given him. Further, the\nPresbytery declare, that however they acknowledge the standing of the\nworld, as a theater to display the riches of divine grace, the preaching\nof the gospel indefinitely to mankind sinners, and all the common favors\nof life indifferently enjoyed by them, do all result, as native,\nnecessary and determined consequences, from the interposition of Christ\nin behalf of his spiritual seed, and have their ultimate foundation in\nthe infinite sufficiency, fullness and perfection, of the blood and\nsacrifice of Christ, God-man: yet they affirm, that, as a certain elect\nand select number were given unto Christ, to be redeemed from among men,\nso, for their sakes alone, he engaged his heart to approach unto God.\nFor their sakes, he sanctified himself; in their name, i.e., in their\nlaw-room and stead, and for their good, as the surety of the better\ncovenant, he became obedient unto death, and endured the whole of that\npunishment threatened by the law, and incurred by the transgression of\nit. He subjected himself to that very curse, bore that wrath and died\nthat death, which they themselves should have undergone. And hereby, by\nhis doing and dying, he made a proper, real, full and expiatory\nsatisfaction to the justice of God for their sins. Wherefore it is\nimpossible but that to all those for whom Christ has purchased this\ncomplete redemption, and for whose sins he has given this full\nsatisfaction accepted of God, he will certainly and effectually apply\nand communicate the same in the saving benefits thereof; seeing that it\nis his will who has merited it, that all those who are the Father's\nchoice by election, and his purchase by redemption, should be _ever with\nhim where he is, that they may behold his glory_; and since, as he is\nthus willing, he is also able, to save them to the uttermost that come\nto God by him. So that all for whom Christ died, all that are redeemed\nby his blood, are, in consequence hereof; effectually called, justified,\nsanctified and glorified; according to Psal. xl, 7, 8; Heb. x, 5-11;\nPhil. ii, 8; Gal. iv, 4, 5; Heb. ix, 14, 28; Dan. ix, 24; Psal. lxxv, 3;\nIsa. xlix, 8; John vi, 37, 39, chap. x, 15, 16; Eph. i, 7; Rom. viii,\n34, and ver. 29, 30; John xvii throughout; John xi, 52; Confess, chap.\nvii, \u00a7 4, 5, 8; Larg. Cat. quest. 44; Sh. Cat. quest. 25.\n\nThey also acknowledge, assert and declare, that the Lord Jesus Christ\nis, by the appointment of God the Father, set as King upon his holy hill\nof Zion; over which, as his special kingdom, he is invested with an\nabsolute power and supremacy, as the sole and only head thereof, to\nappoint offices, officers, laws and ordinances. And that accordingly, by\nvirtue of this solemn investiture, the same Lord Jesus Christ has, in\nall ages, called out of the world, and maintained therein, a church unto\nhimself, which he visibly governs by a complete system of laws, officers\nand censures, instituted in his word, and has not left the affairs of\nhis church, in which (as a Son over his own house) he peculiarly\npresides, to be regulated and modeled by the carnal policy and invention\nof men. Also, that, as King in _Zion_, he powerfully and irresistibly,\nin a day of efficacious grace, subdues the perverse hearts and wills of\nsinners unto his obedience, persuading and enabling as many as were\nappointed to obtain salvation through him, to believe in his name, in\norder thereunto. All whom he either preserves from, or supports under,\nthe various temptations, trials and afflictions, they are liable to in\nthis mortal life; till at last, completing a work of grace in their\nsouls, he advances them to a state of perfection and glory.\n\nFurther, the Presbytery declare and maintain, that, in subserviency to\nthis his special mediatory kingdom, the Lord Jesus Christ has a supreme\nand sovereign power given unto him, in heaven and in earth, and over the\ninfernal powers of darkness--angels, authorities and powers being put in\nsubjection to him; that he has the management of all the wheels of\nprovidence put into his hand, whereby he restrains, disappoints, and at\nlast totally destroys, all the enemies of his interest and glory; and by\nwhich he orders and overrules all the events that fall out in time, for\nthe accomplishment of the great and glorious ends of his incarnation,\nand lasting good of those that love him: according to Psal. ii, 6; Isa.\nix, 6, 7; Isa. xxxiii, 22; Matth. xxi, 5; Isa. lv, 4, 5; Gen. xlix, 10;\nHeb. iii, 6; Psal. cx, 1, 2; Matth. xxviii, 18; John vii, 2; 1 Pet. iii,\n22; Phil, ii, 9-11; Confess, chap, viii \u00a7 3; Larg. Cat. quest. 45; Sh.\nCat. quest. 26.\n\nThey again declare and assert, that as the light of nature is absolutely\ninsufficient to give a just discovery, either of the grievous malady of\nsin, or the blessed remedy provided for sinners, so none, however\ndiligent they may be to frame their lives according to the dictates of\nnature's light, can possibly attain to salvation, while they remain\nwithout any objective revelation of Jesus Christ, as the great\npropitiation and peace-maker, who has abolished death, and brought life\nand immortality to light, by the gospel. And further, that there is no\nother name, doctrine or religion, whereby any can be saved, but in the\nname, doctrine and religion of the Lord Jesus Christ, of which he is the\ngreat author and institutor; in the profession and faith whereof, he\nleads his people through this world into the possession of endless\nfelicity and glory in the world to come.\n\nVIII. OF THE GOSPEL OFFER.--They further declare, that, as God the\nFather, out of his unbounded love, has, on the footing of the infinite\nsufficiency of the death and sacrifice of Christ, made a free and\nunhampered gift and grant of him, as an all-sufficient Savior, unto\nsinners of mankind lost, as such, in the word: so the ministers and\nembassadors of Christ (according as they are expressly authorized and\ncommanded by him) are to publish this gospel, these glad tidings of\ngreat joy to all the world, wherever they may be called or cast, in the\nprovidence of God, and make a full, free and unhampered offer of Christ\nand his whole salvation to sinners, without distinction, assuring them\nof God's mercy and grace, through Christ, in whom he proclaims himself\nwell pleased; of Christ's omnipotent power and ability to save to the\nuttermost all that come unto God by him; and that there are no\nimpediments, bars or hinderances, _ab extra_, between Jesus Christ, as\nheld forth in the offer of the gospel, and sinners lost, why they, even\nevery one of them, may not receive and appropriate him, as the Lord\ntheir righteousness. And the above said frank and unhampered gift of\nChrist, and him crucified, by God the Father, as a full and\nall-sufficient Savior unto lost and ruined sinners, the Presbytery view\nas the great and prime foundation, both of the ministerial offer, and\nof, faith in the Lord Jesus, for life and salvation: as is clear from\nRom. x, 14; 1 Cor. i, 21-25; Isa. lv, 1; Mark xvi, 15; John iii, 16;\nConfess, chap, vii, \u00a7 3; Larg. Cat. ques. 67; Sh. Cat. ques. 31, &c.\n\nIX. OF JUSTIFICATION.--Again, they profess and declare, that the active\nand passive obedience, or the complete mediatory righteousness, of the\nLord Jesus Christ, is the only meritorious cause of a sinner's\njustification, pardon of sin, and acceptance of his person and services\nwith a holy God; and that true and saving faith, which is also the gift\nof God, is the alone instrumental cause of the sinner's justification in\nhis sight; or that evangelical condition, or internal mean, in and by\nwhich the soul is interested in Christ, and the whole of his\nrighteousness and salvation. Which righteousness, received and rested on\nby faith, is the only foundation of a sinner's title to eternal life and\nglory; as appears evident from Rom. iii, 22-29; Rom. v, 17-20; Jer.\nxxiii, 6; Gal. ii, 16; Acts x, 43; Col. i, 27; Acts viii, 37; Rom. x, 9;\nMark v, 36; Eph. ii, 8; Confess, chap. 11, 14; Larg. Cat. ques. 70, 73;\nSh. Cat. ques. 3.\n\nThey likewise profess and maintain, that believers, by the righteousness\nof Christ being justified from all things, from which they could not be\njustified by the law of Moses, are by Jesus Christ perfectly delivered\nfrom the law, as a covenant of works, both as commanding and condemning;\nso as that thereby they are neither justified nor condemned, it being\ndead to them, and they to it, by the body of Christ, to whom they are\nmarried. However, notwithstanding of this freedom, they are still\nservants unto God; still under the moral law, as a rule of life in the\nhand of their glorious Mediator and new covenant Head, directing them\nhow they are to walk, so as to please God; the obligation whereof, as\nsuch, remains perpetual and indissoluble; and that this privilege is\npeculiar to believers only, all others being still under the old\ncovenant obligation, both as to the debt of obedience and punishment;\naccording to Rom. vi, 14, and vii, 4, 6; Gal. iv, 4, 5, and ii, 16; Rom.\nviii, 1; Gal. iii, 10; Confess, chap, xix, \u00a7 5, 6; Larg. Cat. ques. 97;\nSh. Cat. ques. 43, 44.\n\nX. OF GOOD WORKS.--Again, they assert and declare, that as no works\nare truly and spiritually good, but those that are performed by a person\nunited to the Lord Jesus Christ by faith, and under the influence of his\nHoly Spirit; and consequently, that none of the actions of the\nunregenerate, however in themselves materially agreeable unto the letter\nof the law, are either pleasing or acceptable to God; nor can they\ndispose or prepare their souls for receiving his grace, though their\nomission and neglect of these is still more displeasing unto God, and\ndestructive unto themselves. So likewise they declare, that even the\nbest works of obedience performed by the regenerate, can neither merit\nthe pardon of any one sin, nor procure them the smallest measure or\nGod's grace or favor, because of the manifold sins and imperfections\nthey are still attended with, and because of the infinite distance\nbetween God and them, with respect to whom, when they have done all that\nthey can, they are but unprofitable servants. Neither is their ability\nto do them at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit dwelling in\nthem. And further, that the spring and principle motive of true love to\nGod, and acceptable obedience to him, is not self-interest or love to\nour own felicity, nor yet a slavish fear of punishment; but the glorious\nperfections and transcendent excellencies of the Deity, manifested in\nthe face of Jesus Christ, who is the brightness of the Father's glory,\nand express image of his person, are the prime and chief motives both of\nlove, fear and obedience unto God; all who really love God loving him\nprincipally for himself. As also, that all acceptable service to God,\nperformed by believers, is principally influenced by the authority of a\nGod of grace, stamped upon his word, springs from faith in Jesus Christ,\nas an animating and active principle in their souls, and is ultimately\ndirected to the glory of God in Christ, as the great end thereof. Hence,\ntherefore, although God has graciously connected his own glory and his\npeople's felicity inseparably together, that yet no actions, however\ngood in themselves or beneficial to others, which arise only from a\nprinciple of self-interest, love to one's own bliss, or fear of hell,\nare evidential of saving grace in the soul, or any more than what one in\na state of nature may perform; according to Gen. iv, 5; Heb. xi, 4, 6;\nMatth. vi, 2, 5, 16; Hag. ii, 14; Amos, v, 21, 22; Tit. i, 15, and iii,\n5; Rom. iii, 20, and iv, 2, 4, 6; Job xxii, 2, 3; Eph. i, 6; 1 Pet. ii,\n5; Exod. xxviii, 38; Confess, chap. 16 throughout; Larg. Cat. ques. 73,\n101; Sh. Cat. ques. 44.\n\nXI. OF ASSURANCE OF GRACE.--In like manner they declare and assert, that\nalthough there may be much darkness, and manifold doubts and fears,\nseated in the same soul where true and saving faith is: and although\ntrue believers may wait long before they know themselves to be\nbelievers, and be assured that they are really in a state of grace; and\neven, after they have arrived at a subjective assurance of their\nsalvation, may have it much shaken, clouded and intermitted; that yet\nthere is no doubting, no darkness, in the saving acts of a true and\nlively faith: but in all the appropriating acts of saving faith, there\nis an objective assurance, an assured confidence and trust in Jesus\nChrist, and the promise of life in which he is revealed to the soul;\naccording to Isa. 1, 10; Mark ix, 24; 1 John v, 13; Psal. lxxvii, 1 to\n11; Psal. lxxxviii, throughout; Gal. ii, 20; Mark xi, 24; Confess, chap.\n18 throughout; Larg. Cat. ques. 72, 80, 81; Short. Cat. question 86.\n\nXII. OF THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.--They further assert and\ndeclare, that whosoever, of any of the children of men, in all ages,\nhave attained salvation, did believe in, and receive the Lord Jesus\nChrist, the promised Messiah, and only Savior from sin, to whom all the\nprophets bear witness, in whom all the promises and lines of salvation\ndo center; and particularly, that however much the faith of the\ndisciples and apostles of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in him, as\ntheir only Redeemer, might be at any time overclouded, yet it was never\ntotally subverted; and that the noble grace of faith in the souls of\nbelievers cannot be totally lost; but that such is the immutability of\nGod's decrees, and his unchangeable love; such the efficacy of their\nRedeemer's merit, and constant abiding of the spirit of holiness in\nthem; and such the nature of the new covenant, that, notwithstanding of\nvarious temptations and afflictions, the prevailing of remaining\ncorruption in them, they must all and every one of them, certainly and\ninfallibly persevere in a state of grace unto the end, and be at last\nsaved with an everlasting salvation; as appears from Heb. xi, 13; John\niv, 42; Phil. i, 6; John x, 28, 29; 1 Pet. ii, 9; Jer. xxxiv, 4;\nConfess, chap. 8, \u00a7 1, chap. 14, \u00a7 2, and chap. 17 throughout.\n\nXIII. OF LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE.--They further assert and declare, that\nthe noble faculty of conscience, God's deputy in the soul of man, over\nwhich he alone is absolute Lord and Sovereign, is not subjected unto the\nauthority of man; neither are any human commands further binding upon\nthe consciences of men, than they are agreeable unto, and founded upon\nthe revealed will of God, whether in matters of faith or practice. And\nalthough the Lord Jesus Christ has purchased a glorious liberty unto\nbelievers from sin, and all the bitter fruits thereof, and of access to\na throne of grace with boldness; and has procured unto his church\nfreedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, with a more abundant\ncommunication of gospel influences: yet, inasmuch as conscience is the\nrule ruled, not the rule, ruling, none can, without manifest sin, upon\npretense of conscience or Christian liberty, cherish any forbidden lust\nin their souls, nor are left at freedom to reject any of the divine\nordinances instituted in the word, to change or corrupt their scriptural\ninstitution, by immixing human inventions therewith, or in the least\ndeviating from the punity thereof. And that therefore, all who vent or\nmaintain tenets or opinions, contrary to the established principles of\nChristianity, whether in the matter of doctrine, divine worship, or\npractice in life, which are contrary to, and inconsistent with the\nanalogy of faith, and power of true godliness, or destructive to that\npure peace and good order established by Christ in his church, are\naccountable unto the church; and upon conviction, ought to be proceeded\nagainst, by inflicting ecclesiastical censures or civil pains, in a way\nagreeable unto the divine determination in the word concerning such\noffenses.\n\nAnd further, they declare, that it is most wicked, and what manifestly\nstrikes against the sovereign authority of God, for any power on earth\nto pretend to tolerate, and, by sanction of civil law, to give license\nto men to publish and propagate with impunity, whatever errors,\nheresies, and damnable doctrines, Satan, and their own corrupt and\nblinded understandings, may prompt them to believe and embrace;\ntoleration being destructive of all true religion, and of that liberty\nwherewith Christ has made his people free; and the great end thereof,\nwhich is, \"That being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we may\nserve the Lord--in holiness and righteousness, all the days of our\nlives.\" Agreeable to James iv, 12; Rom. xiv, 4; Acts iv, 19, and v, 29;\n1 Cor. vii, 23; Matth. xxiii, 9; 2 John 10, 11; 2 Cor. i, 24; Matth. xv,\n9; Col. ii, 20, 22, 23; Gal. ii, 4, 5, and v, 1, 13; Isa. viii, 20; Acts\nxvii, 11; Hosea v, 11; 1 Cor. v, 1,5, 11, 13; Tit. i. 10, 11, 13, and\niii, 20; Matth. xviii, 15-17; Deut. xiii, 6-12; Ezek. vii, 23, 25, 26;\nZech. xiii, 2, 3; Rev. ii, 2, 14, 15, 20; Confess, chap. 20; Larg. Cat.\nquest. 100, 103; Sh. Cat. quest. 49, 50.\n\nXIV. OF TESTIMONY-BEARING.--Again, they declare and assert, that all\ntrue believers, members of the church invisible, are by the indissoluble\nbond of the Spirit, and true faith in Christ, their Head, savingly\nunited unto, and have communion with him in grace and in glory, in this\nlife and the life to come. In all their afflictions he is afflicted, and\nshares with them in their sufferings and trials, is with them in and\nthrough death, exalteth them at last over all their enemies, receiving\nthem into glory and blessedness with himself, that they may behold and\nshare in his glory with him through eternity: and that all of them being\nknit and joined together in holy love and affection, do participate\nmutually of each others gifts and graces; and are indispensably bound to\nexercise themselves in the practice of all commanded duties, for\npreserving the love of God, and life of grace, in their own, and one\nanother's souls. And further, they declare that the visible church, and\nthe members thereof, are externally in covenant with Christ their Head,\nhave one and the same Lord, profess the same faith in doctrine and\nworship, receive the same seals of God's covenant, baptism, and the\nLord's Supper: and are thereby bound to hold fast the Head, to be\nsubject to his authority, keep the faith they have received, and\nmaintain an holy communion and fellowship in the worship of God; closely\nabiding by the standard of Christ, their captain and leader, and lifting\nup the banner of divine truth, in opposition unto, and holy contempt of\nall their enemies of every kind. And further, they affirm, that as the\nvisible church in general, is bound to be faithful to Christ, their Head\nand Lord, and to preserve inviolate, the whole of that sacred\n_depositum_ of truth wherewith she is intrusted by him, not quitting\nwith, nor willfully apostatizing from the same, in profession or\npractise: so no particular subject of this spiritual kingdom of Christ\ncan recede from any part of divine truth, which they have received, and\nwhereof they have made profession, without lese-majesty unto the Son of\nGod, and violation of their obligations they have come under, at\nreceiving the seals of the covenant, with whatever other lawful vows\nthey have made unto the Most High; according to 1 John i, 2, 3; Eph.\niii, 16-19; John i, 16; Heb. x, 24, 25; Acts ii, 42, 46; Eph. iv, 4-6;\nPhil. iii, 16; Rev. ii, 25, and iii, 3; Confess, chap. 2, 6; Larg. Cat.\nquest. 63; Short. Cat. quest. 50.\n\nXV. OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT.--They likewise affirm and declare, that the\nLord Jesus Christ, our exalted Immanuel, the sole and supreme Head,\nLawgiver and King of his church, which is his spiritual and absolutely\nfree and independent kingdom, has herein warranted, instituted and\nappointed certain office-bearers (who derive their mission and authority\nfrom him alone) to regulate, administer, judge and determine in all the\naffairs of his house, to whom alone the keys of the kingdom of heaven\nare by him committed. Particularly, they are intrusted with the key of\ndoctrine, to discover the mind of God, and preach Christ crucified unto\nsinners; the key of government for preserving that beauty of order,\npurity and power in the house of God, which he has enjoined should take\nplace therein; the key of discipline, to inflict ecclesiastical censures\nupon such as turn aside after their _crooked ways_, or continue\nobstinate in their offenses; the key of ordination and mediate mission,\nin ordinary circumstances of the church, solemnly to set apart and send\nforth church officers unto that sacred function and official trust in\nthe house of God, on the regular trial of the suitableness of their\ngifts and qualifications for that spiritual service and ministration;\naccording to 1 Cor. xii, 28; Eph. iv, 11; Matth. xviii, 19; John xx, 23;\nMatth. xviii, 18; Acts xv, throughout, and xvi, 4; Matth. xxviii, 19,\n20; Mark xvi, 15; Acts vi, 6; 1 Tim. iv, 14, and iii, 10; Confess, chap\n30, \u00a7 2, 3 and 31; \u00a7 3. Form of church government, books of discipline,\nand the several laudable acts and constitutions of this church;\nparticularly, _Act_ of _Assem._ at _Edinburgh, August_ 4th, 1649,\n_Sess._ 4, entitled, _Directory for electing of ministers_.\n\nThey likewise assert and maintain, that the Lord Jesus Christ, the\nchurch's glorious Head, hath appointed a certain form of government\ntherein, distinct from civil government, and not at all subordinate to\ncivil rulers. And that the only ecclesiastical government warranted by\nChrist is his word, and to continue in his church unalterable, is\nPresbyterial church government, exclusive of all superior dignity above\na teaching presbyter, and consisting in her judicative capacity of\nkirk-sessions, in subordination to presbyteries; of presbyteries, in\nsubordination to provincial synods; of provincial synods, in\nsubordination to national; and national to ecumenical assemblies, or\ngeneral councils.\n\nAnd further, they assert, that the office-bearers of the Lord's house,\nare, according to the command, and in the name and authority of the Lord\nJesus Christ, the only Lawgiver and King of his church, and by virtue of\nthe church's intrinsic power derived from Christ, to assemble,\nconstitute and adjourn these several courts of his house, nominate the\nfixed or occasional times of their subsequent meetings, as the church's\ncondition or exigencies require; although they grant that the Christian\nmagistrate may, in extraordinary cases, or otherwise, call together a\nsynod of ministers, and ether fit persons, for consultation and advice\nin religious matters: but in which they have no power to judge or\ndetermine in matters of faith; but only discretively to examine, whether\nthe synod's determinations and decisions be consonant and agreeable to\nscripture, and accordingly to acquiesce therein; Isa. ix, 6, 7; Ezek.\nxliii, 10, 11; Acts xv, 2, 4, 6; 1 Tim. v, 17; Heb. xiii, 17; 2 Chron.\nxix, 8-11; Acts xvii, 11; Confess, chap. 30, \u00a7 1 and chap. 31, \u00a7 1, 2,\nand conform to act of assembly, anno 1647; \u00a7 2,3; 2d book of discipline,\nand propositions for church government.\n\nThey likewise assert and maintain, that the office-bearers in the church\nof Christ, according to their different places and stations therein,\nmust give evidence of their being possessed in some suitable measure of\nthe qualifications which God in his word requires to be in any that are\nto be placed in such stations or offices, particularly that of\ndevotedness to the cause and honor of Christ. And they further assert,\nthat ministers of the gospel, and other church officers, must enter into\nthe exercise of their office, at the door of Christ's appointment, by\nthe call and choice of the Christian people, who are capable with\njudgment to give their consent; 1 Tim. iii, from verse 2 to 12; Tit. i,\n5, 6, 7; Acts vi, 2 to 6; Chap, xiv, 23; John x, 4, 5, and agreeable to\nthe laudable acts and ordinances of this church and state, in favor of\nreformation principles, books of discipline, &c.\n\nXVI. OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT.--In like manner they assert and maintain, that\nGod Almighty, the Sovereign Lord of all things, and special protector\nand preserver of his professed subjects in this lower world, hath for\nhis own glory and the public good, authorized and instituted in his word\nthe office and ordinance of civil government and governors, for the\npreservation of external peace and concord, administration of justice,\ndefense and encouragement of such as are, and do good, and punishment of\nevil doers, who transgress either table of the law. For all which ends,\nsubordinate unto that of his own glory, God, the alone supreme fountain\nof all power, has instituted and appointed this ordinance. And further\nthey maintain, that a due measure of those qualifications which God, the\ngreat lawgiver requires in his word, together with what other\nstipulations according to the same unerring rule, a Christian people,\nwho are blessed with the light of divine revelation, have made the\nfundamental conditions of civil government among them, are essentially\nnecessary to the constitution and investiture of lawful authority over\nsuch a people. No other but such a constitution and investiture, can\neither be approven of by God, or answer the ends, ultimate or\nsubordinate, of this ordinance, unto the honor of the great institutor,\nas appears from Prov. viii, 15, 16; Psa. cxlvii, 19, 20, and cxlix, G,\n7, 8, 9; Isa. xlix, 23; Rom. xiii, 1, 2, 3, 4; Deut. xvii, 14, 15; 2\nSam. xxiii, 2, 3, 4; Exod. xviii, 21. Confess, chap. 23, \u00a7 1. Seasonable\nwarning by the general assembly, July 27, 1649. Act 15, Sess. 2, Parl.\n1, 1640.\n\nThey further assert and maintain, that the constituting of the relation\nbetwixt rulers and ruled, is voluntary and mutual; and that the lawful\nconstitution of civil magistrates, is, by the mutual election of the\npeople (in whom is the radical right, or intermediate voice of God, of\nchoosing and appointing such as are to sway the scepter of government\nover them) and consent of those who are elected and chosen for the\nexercise of that office, with certain stipulations according to\nscripture and right reason, obliging each other unto the duty of their\ndifferent stations and relations. And further they affirm that when\nmagistrates are so constituted, Christians are bound by the law of God\nto pray for the divine blessing upon their persons and government,\nreverence and highly esteem them, yield a conscientious subjection and\nobedience to their lawful commands, defend and support them in the due\nexercise of their power; which power magistrates are especially to exert\nfor the outward defense of the church of God, against all her external\nenemies, restraining or otherwise punishing, as the case may require,\nall open blasphemers, idolaters, false-worshipers, heretics, with all\navowed contemners of the worship and discipline of the house of God; and\nby his civil sanction to corroborate all the laws and ordinances of\nChrist's house, providing and enjoining that every thing in the house of\nthe God of heaven, be done according to the law of the God of heaven;\nDeut. xvii, 14; 2 Kings xi, 17; 1 Sam. xi, 15; 1 Tim. ii, 1,2; 1 Peter\nii, 17; Rom xiii, 2 to 8; 2 Kings xviii, 4, and xxiii, 1 to 26; 2 Chron.\nxxix, and xxx, chapters throughout; Ezra vii, 23. Confess. chap. 23, \u00a7\n3, coronation oath of Scotland, sworn and subscribed by Charles II. at\nScone, January 1st, 1651, and oath of fidelity by the people.\n\nXVII. OF CORRUPTIONS IN THE TWO PRECEDING ORDINANCES.--But, with respect\nto these two great ordinances of divine institution, the magistracy and\nministry, with the qualifications of the persons and duty of the people,\nas before asserted, the Presbytery reject, like as they did, and hereby\ndo reject and condemn the following contrary errors, tenets and\nopinions, whether of older or later date, vented either by open enemies\nor professed friends to the reformation cause. And,\n\n1. They reject and condemn that loose latitudinarian tenet and opinion\nof opening the door of communion with the church in her judicative\ncapacity, or sealing ordinances, unto the grossly ignorant, loose,\ncareless, profane and scandalous: and to the anti-christian deist,\nblasphemous heretic, or any who maintain doctrines, principles and\nopinions contrary to, and eversive of the cardinal and fundamental\ndoctrines of Christianity, or such principles and practices as oppose,\nobscure or darken the church's beauty and purity, and spoil her of her\npower, and particularly that of the church of _Scotland_, in her\nattainments in reformation; this being evidently destructive and ruinous\nto truth and holiness, the only foundation and basis of external union\nand concord in the church, and consequently of all durable, harmonious\nand comfortable communion among the ministers and members of Christ's\nmystical body: See Eph. v, 11; Isa. viii, 20; Amos iii, 3; 1 Cor. vi,\n10; Heb. xii, 14; Rev. xxii, 14, 15; 2 Cor. vi, 17, 18; and conform to\nthe acts and practice of this church, in her best and purest times, in\nexcluding from her communion, and refusing to unite with any chargeable\nas above.\n\nAgain, they hereby reject that false and ungodly principle and opinion,\nThat a God of infinite wisdom has left his professing people destitute\nof any declaration of his will (which they are absolutely bound to\nregard) concerning both the institution, administration and\nqualifications of such persons as should administer these two distinct\nordinances, government, civil and ecclesiastical; or that these two\ndifferent species of government have not their foundation and\ninstitution, as the ordinances of God, in his revealed will; but that\neither (with the corrupt revolution church) he hath left the government\nof his house a matter of indifference, and the pattern thereof to be\nmoulded by the discretion of the wise men of this world, and according\nto the corrupt will and fluctuating inclination of the people; or, with\ntheir public resolution-brethren, the _Seceders_, exchanging the clear\nscriptural and covenanted basis of civil government, with the obscure\nfoundation of the law and light of nature, or the more dissolute basis\nof mere election and acknowledgment of whomsoever the _primores regni_,\nthough never so wicked and licentious, choose and set up as magistrates.\nWhich notion contains an injurious and impious impeachment of divine\nrevelation, as a rule imperfect and insufficient to guide Christians\ninto the knowledge of the will of God, and their duty, as the peculiar\nand professed subjects of the King of kings, and supreme lawgiver,\nconcerning all his ordinances; and is contrary to 2 Tim. iii, 16; Rom,\nii, 14; Ezek. xliii, 11; and xliv, 5; Lev. xviii, 2, 3, 4, 5; Matt,\nxxviii, 20. Confess, chap. 23, \u00a7 3.\n\nThey in like manner reject and condemn the ecclesiastical headship of\nthe church, blasphemously arrogated by that man of sin, and son of\nperdition the Pope of _Rome_; with all that superiority of dignity and\noffice in the house of God, claimed by anti-christian Prelates, together\nwith the whole of their hierarchical order, and the civil places and\npower of churchmen, by both usurped; which is a most wicked attempt to\noverturn God the Father's deed, constituting his Son Christ, sole King\nand Head of his church, an exauctorating of Jesus Christ from his\nthrone, and headship in his church, an elevation of his ministers,\ncontrary to his will, and the nature and ends of their office; and an\nanti-scriptural and confused blending together of different and distinct\nordinances. Psa. ii, 6; Isa. ix, 6, and xxii, 24; Col. i, 18; Mark x,\n42, 43; Luke xxii, 25, 26; I Pet. v, 3; 2 Chron. xix, 12; 1 Cor. vii, 2.\nConfess. chap. 25, \u00a7 6, and contrary to our solemn covenants, and many\nacts and ordinances of both church and state, in times of reformation.\n\nThey likewise reject and condemn that gross Erastian principle, That the\ncivil magistrate is supreme head over all persons, and in all causes,\necclesiastical as well as civil, whether in more ancient and later times\nof tyranny and persecution, openly and blasphemously usurped, or at and\nsince the Revolution, more craftily yet too manifestly claimed; as\nappears from the 37th article of the church of _England_, and king's\ndeclaration prefixed to the said articles: and is further evident from\nthe many encroachments made upon the royal dignity and headship of\nChrist, by the usurpers of his throne, practically vesting themselves\nwith power and authority to convene and adjourn at their pleasure, and\ngive laws and ordinances to the church, which is a daring attack on the\nprerogative, sovereignty, wisdom and power of her absolute King and\nLord, on whom, as a nail fastened in a sure place, his Father has hung\nall the glory of his house, and vested him with the sole supremacy over\nthe same, being filled abundantly with the spirit of wisdom and\nunderstanding, with the spirit of counsel and of might, to direct and\npreside in the management of all her concerns, and to preserve from and\novercome all her enemies; Isa. xxii, 24, and xi, 2, 3, and ix, 6; Col.\ni, 18; Eph. i, 22; 2 Chr. xxvi, 18; Heb. v, 4; Confess. chap. 25, \u00a7 6.\n\nThey also reject and condemn that Erastian tenet and opinion, that the\nwhole or any part of the power, mission, qualifications, or\nadministration of ecclesiastical officers, or ministers of the church of\nChrist, depends upon the authority and dictation of the civil\nmagistrate, because it is manifestly destructive of the church's power\nand authority, under Christ her Head, and derived from him, and likewise\nof the ministerial freedom and faithfulness of Christ's embassadors: and\nparticularly they reject and condemn, as gross Erastianism (whether\npracticed before or since the Revolution, and especially since the\nincorporating union with _England_ on terms diametrically opposite to\nour covenant union), the civil magistrate's limiting the mission of\noffice-bearers in the church, according to his will; prescribing certain\nqualifications, and restricting to certain limitations; such as the\ntest, indulgences, allegiance, assurance, and abjuration oaths, act\nrestoring patronages, and the act anent _Porteous_, together with the\nthreatened deprivation of office and benefice, upon non-compliance; 1\nCor. xii, 28; Matt, xviii, 17, 18; John xx, 23.\n\nThey further reject and condemn that Erastian opinion, that the external\ngovernment of Christ's house is left unto the precarious determination\nof sinful men, or hath either its immediate or mediate dependence upon\nthe will and pleasure of the civil magistrate, according to the import\nof the claim of right, the anti-scriptural basis of the revolution\nsettlement. This being evidently an impious reflection on the perfect\nwisdom of the church's Head, subversive of the beauty of his house, and\nfertile of disorder therein, laying the kingdom of Christ obnoxious to\nspiritual tyranny and oppression, when strangers, enemies, or such as\nhave no call or warrant to build the house of the Lord, put to their\nhand to model the form of her government as best suits their perverse\ninclinations and secular views, in express contradiction to the will and\nlaw of the God of heaven, Exod xxv, 40, and xxvi, 30; Ezek. xliii, 11; 1\nChron. xv, 12, 13; Neh. ii, 20, with many other texts above cited.\n\nAgain they reject and condemn that latitudinarian tenet, That the Lord\nJesus Christ, the alone Head of the church, hath left his house void of\nany particular form of government, of divine institution exclusive of\nall other, under the New Testament dispensation: which, is a manifest\nreflection upon his fidelity to him who appointed him, and most absurd\nto suppose of him who is true and faithful, as a Son over his own house,\nand contrary to Isa. ix, 6, 7; 1 Tim. v, 17; Heb. iii, 2, 3, 5; 1 Cor.\nxii, 28; Rom. xii 6, 7, 8; Acts xx, 17, 28; Matt, xxviii, 20. Confess.\nchap. 30, \u00a7 1, and to the propositions for church government.\n\nThey further reject and condemn that sectarian principle and tenet,\nwhether in former or latter times maintained, that a kirk session, or\nparticular congregational eldership, is vested with equal ecclesiastical\npower and authority, with any superior judicatory, and is neither\nsubordinate nor accountable to them (in the Lord) in their\ndeterminations. They likewise reject as sectarian, That the community of\nthe faithful or professing Christians, in a private station hath any\nscriptural warrant for public teaching, or judicative determination in\nthe church; both which opinions are not only expressly contrary to\nscripture, Acts xv, throughout, and xvi, 4; I Cor. v, 4; 1 Tim: v, 17;\nHeb. v, 4, and xiii, 17, &c, but also have been found hitherto most\nhurtful and dangerous to the church of God, depriving her ministers and\nmembers of just and necessary recourse to superior judgment and decision\nin matters difficult, discrediting and prostituting the sacred office of\nthe ministry, and tending to overthrow a standing ministry in the church\nof Christ, and subvert that comely and beautiful order he hath\nprescribed therein.\n\nIn like manner they reject and condemn that gross invasion and\nencroachment upon the church's liberties, by the intrusion of popish\npatronages, whether imposed as a law by civil, or executed by\necclesiastical powers. Of the latter of these, the ministers and\njudicatories of the now corrupt, harlot Church of _Scotland_, cannot but\nbe more egregiously guilty. The nature of their sacred function and\ntrust obliges them to preserve inviolate the church's freedom and\nliberties: but in place of this, their hands are _chief in the\ntrespass_, in an authoritative and active enforcement of this wicked\nact--an act evidently destructive of the very nature and essence of that\nmutual relation between pastor and people, and which has the native and\nnecessary tendency to schism in the church, spiritual leanness, and\nstarving of the flock, by thrusting in idle, idol shepherds upon them,\nsuch as serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own bellies; feed\nthemselves, but not the flock; and seek not them, but theirs, contrary\nto John x, 2, 9; Heb. v, 4; 1 Tim. iii, 3; 1 Cor. xii, 14, with many\nmore; and to acts of both church and state, in times of reformation in\nthese covenanted lands.\n\nBut, on the other hand, that the Presbytery, when thus condescending on\nparticulars, pass not over in sinful silence, what stands opposite to\nthe word of God and their declared principles, as above concerning civil\nauthority, the administrators thereof, and subjection of the people\nthereto: they reject, likeas they hereby reject and condemn that\nanti-scriptural principle and opinion, that the divine scriptural\nordinance of magistracy has not its foundation in the moral preceptive\nlaw of God (wherein alone his will is revealed and declared unto his\npeople, concerning the nature, use, and ends of all his ordinances), but\nin the subjective light of nature (even as corrupted), so confused and\ndark in its discoveries, so gross and selfish in its principles,\nmotives, and ends, that neither the true nature of this, nor any other\nof the ordinances of Jehovah, as revealed in his word, can hereby be\nknown, or the true use and ends thereof sufficiently discovered or\nobtained.\n\nThey likewise testify against, and reject that equally absurd opinion,\nas a stream flowing from the foresaid corrupt fountain, that the office,\nauthority, and constitution of lawful magistrates, does not solely\nbelong to professing Christians, in a Christian reformed land, but that\nthe election and choice of any one whosoever, made by the civil body\n(whether Pagan, Papist, Atheist, Deist, or other enemy to God, to man,\nand to true religion), makes up the whole of what is essential to the\nconstitution of a lawful magistrate according to God's ordinance. A\ntenet contrary to the light and dictates both of reason and scripture.\n\nAnd they hereby also disclaim that corrupt notion, that all providential\nmagistrates, who are, and while they are acknowledged by any civil\nsociety especially in an apostate backsliding land and people from the\nscriptural standard (in respect of the origin of their office), are also\npreceptive; and that the office and authority of all so constituted and\nacknowledged, in itself considered, does equally arise from, and agree\nunto the preceptive will of God, contrary to scriptural precepts, Deut.\nxvii, 18; what falls under scriptural reproof, Hos. viii, 4; and what\ngreatly depreciates the valiant contendings of our honored ancestors for\ncivil reformation, and tends to invalidate their deeds of constitution\nthereanent.\n\nAgain the Presbytery testifies against, and condemns that principle,\nthat the Christian people of God ought to give explicit acknowledgment\nof, implicit subjection and obedience to, whatever civil authority\n(though most wicked and unlawful) the Lord in his holy providence, may,\nfor the trial and punishment of his church, permit a backsliding people\nto constitute and set up, without regard to the precept of his word. And\nthey hereby reject whatever in opposition to the covenanted principles\nof the Church of _Scotland_, does justly, and in its own nature imply a\nvoluntary and real acknowledgment of the lawfulness of the title and\nauthority of an anti-scriptural, anti-covenanted, and Erastian\ngovernment, constituted upon the ruins of our scriptural covenanted\nreformation. Particularly, they testify against praying for success and\nprosperity to such, in their stated opposition to the Lord and his\nAnointed, or in any form implying a homologation of their title as\nlawful, swearing oaths of fidelity and allegiance to such, accepting any\noffice from such, and executing these in their name and authority under\nthem, military associations with such, by a voluntary enlisting under\ntheir banner, and fighting for their support and establishment. And that\nin regard these are actions, as they express a proper and explicit\nowning of the lawfulness of that authority, which they immediately\nrespect, so they are such as cannot be obtained without the actual\nconsent of the party performing, and must therefore imply a deliberate\napprobation of foresaid iniquitous authority.\n\nFurther, they testify against a direct and active, free and voluntary\npaying of tribute and other dues, unto such, and that for conscience\nsake, as unto the ordinance of God, according to his precept; and\nparticularly, when these dues are required as a tessera of loyalty to\nsuch; or when required, as an evidence of a person's active contributing\nto the accomplishment of some wicked action, expressly declared to be\nthe immediate end of the imposition. Thus the case was in the time of\npersecution, when the declared end of the additional cess, was the\nimmediate suppression of the pure preaching of the gospel in the fields.\nAs also, not only against professed witnesses for reformation\nprinciples, their prosecuting of their witnessing brethren at law before\nthe courts of anti-scriptural, unqualified judges; but generally,\nagainst all law processes, in a way of direct counteracting any part of\nreformation attainments, or express homologating the authority of an\nunlawful judge. And, in fine, against all voluntary subjection, for\nconscience sake, unto such powers as are not the ordinance of God,\naccording to his revealed preceptive will, as contrary to scripture; 2\nSam. ii, 10; 2 Kings xi, 4, 17; 2 Chron. xix, 2; Isa. viii, 12 and lxv,\n11; Rom. xiii, 1 to 8; 1 Cor. vi, 1 to 8, contrary to the acts of this\nchurch approving, and ordinances of the state, establishing the civil\nauthority upon its scriptural foundation, and thereby discovering the\nproper object of a Christian people's voluntary and conscientious\nsubjection; and particularly, to the act of classes. While in the\nmeantime, it must be acknowledged, that the state and condition of\nPresbyterian Covenanters in these lands, continuing, as a community, to\nwitness and contend for reformation of both church and state, that\nobtained, and was established, between 1638 and 1650, cannot be regarded\nas that of a free people enjoying their ancient privileges and\nliberties, but as that of an oppressed people, brought under the power\nof a conqueror, and no better than captives in their own land. As this\nwas evidently the state of the suffering remnant under the persecuting\nperiod, when, by the force of the sword, they were robbed of their\nformer liberties, and reduced to the most deplorable condition. So,\nhowever the Revolution did alter some circumstances in the condition of\nCovenanters; yet, in regard it was established upon, and did homologate\nthe overthrow of the reformation, to which that people do still adhere,\nit could make no substantial change in their condition, from what it\nformerly was. And moreover, as it is necessarily requisite to the\nconstituting of the relation between magistrate and people, that there\nbe a mutual and voluntary consent; and as the community of presbyterian\nCovenanters did never, at or since the Revolution, give such consent;\nbut, on the contrary, have, in the most public manner, protested against\nthe constitution and installment of rulers in agreeableness thereto, as\nbeing contrary to the word of God, covenanted constitution, and\nfundamental laws of the nations; as is evident from their printed\ntestimonies and declarations. It follows, that their state is that of an\noppressed people, in passive subjection to a conquering power, whose\nduty is, to wait with patience upon _Israel's_ God for his return to\nrevive his work, and recall the bondage of his _Zion_. And while they\nare to take care to do nothing that justly implies their consent to the\ncontinued opposition made unto the covenanted reformation, yet they\nought to observe a proper difference between such actions and things as\nare necessary, and in themselves just and lawful, by a moral obligation,\nand those that are not so. As also, between that which cannot be had,\nnor the value or equivalent of it, unless the person actually give it;\nand that which may be obtained, whether he actually contribute to it or\nnot.[7] Most applicable to this our present condition, are the words of\nthe _Levites_, expressing the distressed state of _Israel_, which they\nhad brought themselves into by their sins, as recorded by Neh. ix, 36,\n37: \"Behold we are servants this day; and for the land thou gavest unto\nour fathers, to eat the fruit thereof, and the good thereof, behold we\nare servants in it: and it yieldeth much increase unto the kings which\nthou hast set over us, because of our sins; also they have dominion over\nour bodies, and over our cattle, at their pleasure, and we are in great\ndistress.\"\n\nLikewise the Presbytery testify against all ministerial or church\ncommunion with such, who, though they may occupy the place of\noffice-bearers in the church of Christ, yet are destitute of those\nqualifications indispensably required by the church's Head, or enter not\ninto their office by the door he has appointed in his word, own another\nhead than Christ, or apostatize and fall from the truth and cause of\nChrist, formerly espoused and sworn to by them in a church capacity;\nagainst all active owning and countenancing of such, by attending upon\nany of their corrupt official ministrations, or receiving any ordinances\nfrom such, to whom the Lord has denied his blessing. Against all\nvoluntary contracting with prelates, curates, or such officers of human\ninvention in the church, for paying tithes or other dues unto them, as\nunto lawful, scriptural parish ministers. For besides that there is\nnothing due unto them, their office having no divine authority; so there\nbeing under the New Testament a change of the priesthood, there is also\na change of the law, respecting tithes; according to 2 Cor. vi, 17; Rev.\nii, 20, &c.\n\nBy all which it appears, from what is above asserted and declared\nconcerning these two divine distinct ordinances, the ministry and\nmagistracy, that the principles maintained thereanent by the Presbytery,\nare nothing else than an endeavor, as a judicatory of the Lord Jesus\nChrist, constituted in his name, to hold fast the church of _Scotland's_\ntestimony, agreeable to the scriptures of truth, for confession and\ncovenants, fundamental acts and constitutions both of church and state\nand this, according to the command of the church's sole King and Head;\nRev. ii, 25, and iii, 11. And what is testified against, is, in the\nnature of it, an homologation of the church's faithful opposition to\nbacksliders, in their course of defection, from the national,\nattainments in religion and reformation, resisting even unto blood,\nstriving against sin.\n\nXVIII. OF OATHS AND VOWS.--The Presbytery further assert and declare,\nthat oaths and vows are a part of religious worship, warranted in the\nword of God, and under the New Testament dispensation, and may be\nlawfully taken and entered into by the Lord's people. That such oaths\nand vows only are warrantable, as are lawful both for the matter and the\nmanner of them; and those that are so, when once engaged in, must not be\nviolated on any consideration, and that, because of the authority of the\nawful name of God interposed in them. And further, they declare, that\nthe right of administering oaths is competent only to those vested with\nsuch authority as is agreeable to the word of truth. As also, that it is\nthe incumbent duty of Christians, by solemn oath to bind themselves to\nmaintain and defend the persons of righteous rulers, in the lawful\nexercise of their authority; and to such only, it is lawful to swear\noaths of allegiance and fidelity. And hereby, they disapprove the\nprinciple of refusing allegiance to lawful authority. At the same time,\nthe Presbytery testify against, as above, all the oaths of allegiance in\nbeing, to an Erastian Prelatical government. And further, they reject\nand detest that sinful, idolatrous and superstitious form of swearing,\nin laying the hand upon, and kissing the gospels, practiced by the\nPrelatical churches of _England_ and _Ireland_, and even introduced into\n_Scotland_, as a gross profanation of that holy ordinance, and contrary\nto the scripture examples thereof. Hereby they also testify against all\nsinful swearing, whereby the name of God, his titles, perfections, or\ngraces of his Holy Spirit, are profaned in ordinary discourse. As also,\nthe unnecessary oaths of customhouse, trade, &c., as a reiterated and\nfearful profanation of the name of God. And moreover, they testify\nagainst, and condemn that ungodly and superstitious oath, practiced by\nthat unhallowed club, called _Free Masons_: according to Deut. x, 20;\nExod. xx, 7; Neh. xiii, 25; Ezra x, 5; Deut. vi, 13; Matth. iv, 35, 36;\nEzek. xvii, 16, 17, 18, 19; Rev. x, 5, 6; Jer. iv, 2. and v, 2; Confess.\nchap. 22.\n\nAgain, they testify and declare, that the work of solemn covenanting\nwith a God in Christ, is a duty warranted in the scriptures of the Old\nand New Testament, and by the examples of the godly, agreeable thereto;\nand that not only to individuals in particular, but to churches and\nnations in general. Which covenants once entered into, and being for the\nmatter of them lawful, are most sacred, and therefore inviolably\nbinding; and what cannot be broken or transgressed, without manifest\nguilt, and incurring the dreadful resentment of a holy and jealous God,\nwho has severely threatened to punish covenant-breakers. And hence they\nassert, that the National Covenant of _Scotland_, and the Solemn League\nand Covenant entered into by the three nations, for reformation and\ndefense of religion, and for the maintainance and preservation of the\ntruths and ordinances of God in purity, and sworn by our honored\nancestors, not only for themselves, but including also their posterity,\nare of divine authority, as having their foundation upon the word of\nGod; therefore moral, and so perpetually binding upon the nations, and\nevery individual of them, to the latest posterity. Wherefore, the\nPresbytery testify against the principle of refusing the lawfulness of\nnational covenanting, particularly, under the New Testament\ndispensation, and all principles and practices that strike against the\nmoral obligation of these covenants; see Deut. vi, 13, Isa. ix, 18, and\nxliv, 5; Jer. 1, 5; Deut. xxix, 12 to 16, 24, 25; Lev. xxvi, 25, 26;\nJosh, ix, 14, 15, 18, 19; 2 Sam. xxi, 1; Ezek. xvi, 59, and xvii, 15,\n16, 18, 19; Hos. x, 4; Gal. iii, 15; 2 Cor. viii, 5. See also acts and\nordinances both of church and state in times of reformation, respecting\nthe taking, and binding obligation, of the covenants.\n\nAgain, the Presbytery hereby testify and declare their approbation of,\nand adherence unto, all the different steps of reformation, that ever,\nin any period, were attained unto in this church and land: particularly,\nbesides what has been mentioned above, they declare their adherence to\nthe Westminster Confession of Faith, as it was approven by act of the\nGeneral Assembly of the Church of _Scotland, anno_ 1647: Catechisms,\nlarger and shorter; Form of church government, Directory for worship,\nand Books of Discipline, as agreeable to, and extracted from the sacred\noracles.\n\nAnd with respect to the fourth article of the 23d chapter of our\nConfession, the Presbytery hereby declare, that they reject that corrupt\nsense and gloss which has been imposed upon it, whether by open enemies,\nor false friends to our covenanted reformation in former or latter\ntimes, viz., That a reformed Christian people, having generally\nreceived, and publicly professing the true religion; and more\nespecially, having expressly and solemnly bound themselves by public\nnational vows to the Most High, for the preservation of it, may\nwarrantably set over them an infidel, or one of a religion differing\nfrom the true religion, and thereupon acknowledge and submit themselves\nunto him, as their lawful civil ruler for conscience sake. And moreover,\nthey declare that they understand said articles, as principally relating\nto the condition of a people emerging out of the darkness and\nsuperstition of Paganism or Popery, &c., before that religion has\nobtained the sanction of civil authority; when, although the major part\nor bulk of a people should embrace the true religion, yet that does not\ndissolve or loose the relation subsisting between them and their civil\nrulers, prior to their conversion, agreeable to, and founded upon the\njust and reasonable laws of the realm. In this case only, it is granted,\nthat an infidel, or one of a different religion, may have authority just\nand legal over a people partly converted to the knowledge and gospel of\nChrist. Thus it was with the primitive Christians, and thus it was\nparticularly with our ancestors in _Scotland_, at the beginning of the\nreformation; and this perfectly well agrees to the apostolic precept and\ndetermination in a case similar to the above; 1 Cor. vii, 12, 13 and 39,\nand 2 Cor. vi, 14.\n\nAs also, they further declare their approbation of, and adherence to all\nthe faithful testimonies, declarations and protestations, emitted by the\nwitnesses for the work of reformation, whether before or under the late\ntimes of tyranny and persecution, in prisons, scaffolds, or in the\nfields, by land or sea; or by such, as since that time have succeeded.\nthem in the self same testimony, as they are founded upon, and agreeable\nto the word of truth, and as a just and proper vindication of foresaid\ncovenanted cause. And particularly with the above proviso and\nlimitation, they declare their adherence to the _Rutherglen, Sanquhar_\nand _Lanerk_ declarations, _annis_ 1679, 1680, 1682; as also to the\ndeclarations published at _Sanquhar_, 1683, 1684, 1692, and 1695, 1703,\n1707; to the _informatory vindication_, and _cloud of witnesses_; to the\n_covenants national_ and _solemn league_, sworn at _Auchensaugh_, near\n_Douglas_, in the year 1712, at _Crawfurd-john_ 1745; with the\nadditional acknowledgments of sins, and engagements to duties at these\ntimes; to the declarations published at _Sanquhar_, 1718, and at\n_Montherrick_, 1740, 1741. And in like manner, they testify their\nadherence to the _Act_ formerly emitted by this Presbytery, in\ncondemnation of the universal scheme. And they do hereby testify\nagainst, and disapprove all partiality and unfaithfulness, whether in\nrespect of right or left hand extremes, in any testimonies, published in\na way of professed adherence to reformation principles; particularly,\nthey reject the testimony published by those designated the _Associate\nPresbytery_, as no adequate testimony for truth, because of the\npartiality and unfaithfulness, both to God and the generation,\ndiscovered therein; being, instead of a faithful vindication, no better\nthan a burial of some of the most important attainments in reformation\nof this church and land. And they likewise reject, detest and abhor that\nspurious brat, stuffed with gross error, blasphemy and nonsense, most\nfalsely and unjustly designated, \"A testimony for the word of Christ's\npatience,\" by that sacrilegious usurper of the ministry, _William\nDunnet_, who, being once plunged into the depths of enthusiasm, such is\nhis madness, that under pretense of an immediate mission from heaven, he\nnot only daringly usurps the whole of the ministerial function, but also\nwickedly claims an Erastian exercise of the office of the civil\nmagistrate, in a stupid unaccountable declaration of war, offensive and\ndefensive, against all mankind, himself, and his blind-folded\nconfederates only excepted; having probably had these anti-scriptural\nnotions instilled into him by the industry of some unstable heads, who,\nafter they had made a professed subjection to this Presbytery, in the\nLord, did, with some others of the same stamp, in a most unwarrantable\nand schismatical manner, break off from their communion, without so much\nas discovering any shadow of reason, in justification of their rash,\nungrounded and precipitate separation.\n\nUpon the whole, the Presbytery, protesting that they have been\ninfluenced to this necessary work of displaying a judicial banner for\nthe covenanted cause and interest of our exalted Redeemer, purely out of\na regard to the glory of God, a desire that Christ's kingdom may be\nadvanced, and his buried truths revived, as also a concern for the\nwelfare and happiness of the present and succeeding generations, do\nearnestly, in the bowels of our Lord Jesus Christ, beseech and obtest\nall and every one, into whose hands this testimony may come, that,\nwithout considering the insignificancy of the instruments, and laying\naside prejudice and carnal selfish considerations, they receive the\ntruth as it is in Jesus, not only in the notion, but in the love and\npower of it; that they take with the many just and highly aggravated\ngrounds of the Lord's controversy, and causes of his wrath against us,\nnot only on account of private and personal wickedness come to a very\ngreat height, but particularly on account of the general opposition to\nthe public concerns of his glory, in what respects the doctrine,\nworship, government and discipline of his house. Alas! our public\nabominations are both obstinately persisted in and publicly justified.\nThat they lay to heart the great and terrible wickedness of the day and\ngeneration, with deep humiliation before the Lord, while he waits to, be\ngracious, and is calling all ranks to humble themselves, and saying,\n\"Rend your heart and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God,\nfor he is gracious and merciful;\" Joel ii, 13. That, in the way of\nflying under the covert of the atoning blood of the Son of God, by faith\nin his name, for the remission of sins, and endeavoring after personal\nreformation, as to all the impiety and irreligion, all the detestable\nindifferency, lukewarmness and hypocrisy, in the matters of God, which\nuniversally prevail; they also study and set about public reformation,\nevery one in their several stations, according to our solemn national\nengagements, concurring to restore the Lord's ruined and buried work,\nand rebuild his house, which is now lying as a desolate heap, covered\nover with the rubbish of manifold errors, corruptions and human\ninventions. If we still hold fast our abominations, and will not, by\nrepentance and reformation, return and give glory to the Lord our God\nbefore he cause darkness, then, when he returns for the salvation of\n_Zion_, \"He will come treading down the people in his anger, and making\nthem drunk in his fury, and bringing down their strength to the earth;\"\nIsa. lxiii, 6. \"But is there no hope in _Israel_ concerning this thing?\nIs there no balm in _Gilead_? Is there not a physician there?\" Is there\nnot virtue in Christ's blood for the most desperate cases, that\nchurches, as well as particular persons, can be in? Is there not ground\nto hope, that the Lord will not altogether forsake these sinful lands,\nwhich were given to him of old for an inheritance, and wherein he has so\nlong maintained his possession, but that he will yet build up our\n_Zion_, and appear in his glory therein, will plead his own cause,\nrevive his own work, a covenanted work of reformation, and remove all\nthe contempt and ignominy which it presently lies under? Sure the\ncontinuance of his gracious calls and invitations to return to him,\ngives ground to hope, that our \"_Israel_ hath not been forsaken, nor\n_Judah_ of his God, of the Lord of Hosts, though their land was filled\nwith sin against the holy One of _Israel_;\" Jer. li, 5. And though, while\nso much of error, prejudice and carnal interest, lie as impassable\nmountains in the way, there is little appearance of the nations taking\nthis course yet the Lord seems still to bespeak us in that endearing\nlanguage, Jer. iii, 12, \"Go and proclaim these words towards the north,\nand say, Return thou backsliding _Israel_, saith the Lord, and I will\nnot cause mine anger to fall upon you; for I am merciful, saith the\nLord, and I will not keep anger forever.\" Though we have nationally torn\nour marriage contract with heaven, and taken away our names, yet the\nLord has not. _Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord, for I am\nmarried unto you._ Let all, then, _repent, and turn themselves from all\ntheir transgressions, so iniquity shall not be their ruin_; but if not,\nthen let all the impenitent despisers of the repeated calls of mercy\nknow, that abused patience will at length turn into fury, and the Lord\nJehovah, who has already furbished his sword, and prepared the\ninstruments of death, will speedily give that dreadful commission to the\nexecutioners of his wrath: \"Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is\nripe; come, get you down, for the press is full, the fats overflow, for\ntheir wickedness is great:\" Joel iii, 13. \"But because God will do this\nto _Israel_, let us prepare to meet our God.\" Further, the Presbytery\ninvite and entreat all who tender the glory of God, the removal of the\ncauses of his wrath and indignation, and who desire the continuance of\nhis tabernacle and gracious presence among us, to come and join in a\nharmonious, zealous and faithful testimony for the precious truths and\ninterest of _Zion's_ glorious King, and against every course that has a\ntendency to heighten, and at last to lay on the copestone of our\ndefections. Consider it is the Lord's call and command to every one,\neven in their most private station, _Contend earnestly for the faith\nonce delivered to the saints_. It is the burden he, at this day, lays on\nhis church and people: _Hold fast what thou hast till I come, that no\nman take thy crown_; hold fast by our former attainments in reformation.\nAnd finally, the Presbytery exhort all with whom they are more\nparticularly connected, _To stand fast in one spirit, with one mind,\nstriving together for the faith of the gospel, and in nothing terrified\nby your adversaries_. Let the flame of fervent and true love to God, his\ntruths, and to one another, prevent and extinguish the wild fire of\nunnecessary and hurtful mutual animosities; and _endeavoring to keep the\nunity of the spirit in the bond of peace_, study oneness in promoting\nthe Lord's opposed work, and in walking in the good old way, without\nturning aside to the right hand or to the left, because of the lion that\nis therein, and without laying other foundations than what were laid.\nLet none of Christ's true and faithful witnesses suffer their hearts to\nsink into despondency; the cause is the Lord's, and assuredly he will\nthoroughly plead that cause which is his own. It will outlive all its\nenemies, and yet have a glorious resurrection; and this will be the\ncrown and comfort of all such as continue, amidst all trials and\nsufferings, contending for him, in the blessed expectation of the\nconqueror's everlasting reward. Therefore, _lift up the hands that hang\ndown, and strengthen the feeble knees_; greater afflictions have been\naccomplished in those that are gone before, and are now inheriting the\npromises, than any wherewith the Lord is presently trying his church.\nAnd as the God of all grace, after they had suffered awhile, made them\nperfect, and put them in possession of that eternal glory to which they\nwere called by Jesus Christ, so shall he establish, strengthen and keep\nhis people still from falling, and, after all their sorrows and\nsufferings, present them faultless before the presence of his glory,\nwith exceeding joy. \"Return, we beseech thee, O God of Hosts; look down\nfrom heaven, and behold and visit this vine; and the vineyard which thy\nright hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for\nthyself, it is burnt with fire, it is cut down, they perish at the\nrebuke of thy countenance. Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right\nhand, upon the Son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself, so will\nnot we go back from thee; quicken us, and we will call upon thy name;\nturn us again, O Lord of Hosts, cause thy face to shine, and we shall be\nsaved: Let God arise, let _Zion's_ immortal and omnipotent King Jesus\nreign, and let all his enemies be scattered; but let them that love him\nbe as the sun, when he goeth forth in his might.\"\n\nExtracted by JO. THORBURN, Pr. Clk.\n\n\n\n\nADDENDA.\n\nIn addition to what is said (from page 65 to 67 preceding, respecting\nthe establishment of Popery in Canada), the Presbytery deeply lament,\nthat, in the present edition of their Testimony, they are furnished with\nfresh matter to animadvert upon the continued tendency of the British\nadministration in favor of the religion of Antichrist.\n\nNot long after the civil establishment of Popery in Canada, new\nprivileges, civil and religious, were bestowed upon the professors of\nthat religion at home, both in England and Ireland, by which Catholics\nhave received toleration, under the sanction of law, openly to profess\nand practice their idolatry, to open seminaries of learning for the\npublic instruction of youth in their own religion, and to purchase and\ntransfer estates to their Popish relations, in direct opposition to the\nestablished laws of the land, framed by our Protestant ancestors, under\nthe sense of felt necessity, whereby Catholics were laid under\ndisabilities, as to the enjoyment of those privileges, which they saw to\nbe inconsistent with the peace of the state and safety of the Protestant\nreligion, on account of the barbarous massacres committed by Catholics\nupon Protestants, and the numerous hostile attempts made to overturn, by\nviolence, the Protestant religion within these lands, as proceeding from\nthe sanguinary spirit of Popery. The modern plea set up in favor of\nthose privileges being conferred upon Popery, that the Catholics of this\nday have candidly renounced the whole of their old principles which they\nheld, as inimical to a Protestant country, never can be admitted, while\nthey still retain the most dangerous of all their principles, viz.,\nimplicit faith in the doctrines of supreme councils, and the dispensing\nauthority of the Pope. Against this sinful indulgence granted to Popery,\nthe Presbytery testified at the time, in a separate piece, entitled, A\nTestimony and Warning against the Blasphemies and Idolatries of Popery,\n&c., to which they still refer the reader. An attempt also was made to\nextend a similar indulgence to Catholics in Scotland, but which was\nhappily frustrated through the zealous exertions of the people, who,\npleading the established laws of the land, boldly reclaimed against the\nmeasure, which produced the desired effect of compelling the government\nto desist. But alas! no sooner, was the popular zeal cooled, than\ngovernment sowed tares by enlarging the privileges of Catholics with\nregard to civil property. The deplorable fact now is, that Popery,\nbasking in the sunshine of legislative power, advanced to the legal\npossession of new privileges, and shielded by a formal toleration in the\nneighboring kingdoms, may be considered as enjoying the actual\nprotection of government in Scotland. In Ireland, privileges of a still\nmore exalted nature are bestowed upon Popery, while the Catholic is so\nfar enfranchised, that, in conjunction with the Protestant, he may give\nhis voice for members to serve in the legislature of the country. What\ngreatly adds to the evil is, the lamentable alteration of public\nopinion, so lately displayed against the measures of government in\nformer indulgences bestowed upon the Catholic interest; but which has\nnow changed into an entire approbation thereof, both by the great body\nof the people and the minority in the two houses of Parliament; and the\nonly complaint against government on that score is, that, stopping short\nof meeting just claims of Catholics, they have not ingrafted them into\nall the privileges of British subjects, and for ever done away the\nodious distinction between Protestant and Catholic, as to privilege.\n\nWhen we open our eyes to the measures of the present day, we behold\nstill more abominations. The government so far from remembering whence\nthey are fallen, repenting and doing their first works, have started\nagain in the cause of Antichrist, by leaguing themselves in a military\nexpedition with a group of Popish despots on the continent, who have\nlong given their power to the beast; of this expedition one object\nevidently appears to be the re-establishment and support of Popery in\nFrance, where under the administration of the omnipotent, and avenging\nholy providence of God, in the pouring out of the vials of his wrath\nupon the beast, that false religion has received a sore and bleeding\nwound, and where the people, long crushed under the tyranny of a\ndespotic throne, and usurpation of an imposing priesthood, have risen to\nextricate themselves from the accumulated oppression, and by their\nastonishing efforts have shaken off the Papal yoke, by renouncing their\naccustomed allegiance to the head of the Antichristian states at Rome,\nhave withdrawn their wonted supplies from his treasures, and completely\noverthrown the temporal power of his religion in their own country,\nwhich had for many ages kept them in fetters. If any doubt should be\nentertained with regard to the support afforded to the sinking cause of\nPopery in France by this expedition, the declaration published by the\nbrother of the late King of France, stiling himself Louis XVIII, at the\nhead of the emigrants in arms, exhibits the fact in the clearest point\nof view, while he plainly and unequivocally says, in that declaration,\nthat their designs are the erection of the throne and altar, by which\nare meant the civil government and the Catholic religion, as they\nexisted in France prior to the revolution. Britain, not satisfied with\nsending forth numerous hosts to the field abroad, and lavishing her\ntreasures to supply the exhausted finances of the coalesced powers, has\nopened her arms at home to receive flying emigrants, caressed by her, as\nif they had been sufferers in the cause of genuine Christianity. By the\nvoice of Episcopal dignitaries the Popish clergy have been extolled, as\nmen of the most eminent piety, while places have been furnished by\ngovernment, to accommodate them in their mass service; and a branch of\nthe bloody house of Bourbon, whom divine vengeance has reduced to the\nabject state of a wandering exile, is admitted among us, with all marks\nof honor, and, with his train, provided for, as if he were a zealous\nsupporter of the Protestant cause, seeking an asylum from the rage of\nPapal persecution in this reformed land. It cannot escape the notice of\nthe attentive observer, how closely the crown of Britain has become\nallied to this false religion, in consequence of the conquest of the\nisland of Corsica, and the accession of the crown of that island to the\ncrown of Britain. According to the new constitution of Corsica, the king\nof Great Britain, as represented by his viceroy, makes an essential\nbranch of the parliament, all the acts whereof must be assented to by\nhim, in order, to give them the force of law. Now, it is to be remarked,\nthat in this constitution Popery is expressly declared to be the only\nestablished religion in the island; it is therefore agreed to be divided\ninto districts, to be filled up with ministers of the Catholic religion,\nendowed with legal maintenance. So the king of Britain, as wearing the\nCorsican crown, engages to unite this constitutional establishment of\nthe Catholic religion, the king of Great Britain, as the king of\nCorsica, gives his firm assent. Moreover, to provide for the more\nextensive propagation of Popery in Corsica, the legislature stipulate to\nconsult with the See of Rome; here, also, he engages to join the wisdom\nof his counsels to those of the Pope, for the express purpose of giving\na wider spread to Popery. If the prophet Jehu accused Jehoshaphat,\nthough a good prince, when he was returning from a military expedition\nwith Ahab, king of Israel, in such cutting language; 2 Chron. xix, 2,\n_Shouldst thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?\ntherefore, is wrath upon thee from the Lord_: in what words shall we\npronounce upon this conduct of Britain, in mixing with her politics and\nwars, active measures to raise again the falling Dagon of Popery from\nthe threshold, and to help forward the interests of a religion which the\nLord has solemnly declared he will destroy with the judgments of his\nhand and the brightness of his coming. Besides the iniquity of the thing\nitself, in giving direct aid to this religion; our guilt derives great\naggravations from a view of the present dispensations of Providence in\nvisibly sending down terrible judgments (no matter through what rough\nhands) upon that anti-christian power, that has long, sat upon many\nwaters; and the loud voice of Jehovah is uttering, on the awful crisis\nof its downfall, to all the fearers of his name to escape a share in its\njudgments, by flying away from all communion with its evils; Rev. xviii,\n4, _Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins,\nand that ye receive not of her plagues._ But, blind to his avenging\nhand, and deaf to this summons, Great Britain, once without, is now\nagain returning into a most unlawful communion to support this adjudged\npower, by which she constitutes herself a partner in its sins, and\nthereby exposes herself to a portion of its plagues. In vain will it be\nurged as a plea of justification, that the authors of the revolution in\nFrance, having overturned the constitution of their own country, and\nspread desolation through the wide extent of it, menaced other nations,\nand us also; and that, therefore, Britain, acting on the first principle\nof nature's law, self-preservation, joined the allied powers for her own\ndefense. Though the Presbytery are by no means to be understood as\ngiving their suffrage for the lawfulness and justice of the war on our\nside; yet, for the sake of argument, allowing the plea--what then? Will\nthis sanctify the measures adopted by Britain, in recovering, supporting\nand propagating the cause of Popery, that the conquest of the enemy, and\nher own safety are the ends ultimately to be gained by them? The\nChristian maxim, that evil is not to be done that good may come, binds\nas strongly nations as individuals. Popery is not a local evil; it is\nstill the mystery of iniquity, as much in France, and in Corsica, as it\nis in Great Britain; it is everywhere the forbidden fruit, not to be\ntouched. If the security of a Protestant country is to be sought for, in\ndependence upon, or in any state of connection with the co-existence and\nmaintenance of Antichrist, we have indeed a feeble pillar to rest upon,\nfor, as sure as God himself has spoken it, the Papal kingdoms are the\nBabylon to fall and to rise no more again at all. Perhaps, our allies\nwould not be pleased with another mode of conduct; and shall we run the\nhazard of displeasing the God of all our salvation, to gratify, in sin,\nthe friends of the man of sin? If the crown of Corsica cannot be worn,\nbut upon the condition of supporting Popery, and joining in councils\nwith the Church of Rome, to advance her interest there, we are afraid\nthe weight of it, like a millstone, will sink us deep in the gulf of\nGod's wrath. But Popery was the former religion of that island, and the\npeople wished no change. If the wretched inhabitants, loving darkness\nrather than the light, refused to be reclaimed, leave them to\nthemselves, but why should we have fellowship with them in their\nunfruitful works of darkness. The Presbytery would not wish to be\nunderstood as if they meant that Protestants ought to raise a crusade,\nin order to exterminate Catholics in foreign lands, as Catholics have\nattempted to do against Protestants, for the weapons of our warfare, in\npropagating religion are not carnal. But it certainly is the incumbent\nduty of all Protestant nations to abstain from anything, that has a\ntendency to uphold and propagate their religion; and as no positive\ncountenance should be given to it, so it is highly proper that Catholics\nshould be kept in such a state of restraint, as they may not again have\nit in their power to repeat those bloody scenes, which Popery had acted\nupon us. With a view to deliver themselves from the guilt of\nparticipating in the evil, the Presbytery do lift up a judicial\ntestimony against the present anti-christian courses of administration;\nas, also, against those state fasts, proceeding from an Erastian\nsupremacy, which have been appointed to be observed by all persons, in\norder to engage by prayer the Almighty to crown their measures with\nsuccess. Likewise, the Presbytery do testify against the national\nchurch, particularly her ministers, who from their station ought to act\nas spiritual watchmen, and give pointed warning of sin and danger on the\npresent occasion; but, who, instead of faithfully discharging this duty,\nsanction all these measures of government, which cannot fail to produce\na hardening effect upon the generation.\n\nN.B. Since writing the above, by a reverse in the war, Britain has lost\npossession of Corsica, but while this does not acquit her of the guilt\nof her anti-christian administration there, neither will it supersede\nthe necessity of our testimony against it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\nThe late Reformed Presbytery, June 2d, 1845, adopted the following\ndoctrinal and practical declarations. They have therefore a judicial\nsanction; and having been in overture before the people prior to the\naction of Presbytery, we subjoin them as a suitable supplement.\n_Cincinnati, Nov. 12th_, 1850.\n\n\nJUDICIAL DECLARATIONS.\n\n1. Man is a free agent, unconscious of restraint in his volitions by the\nexecution of the immutable decree of God; and it is not possible for\nhim, in any instance, to avoid fulfilling that decree: yet the law of\nGod--not his decree--is the rule of man's conduct, and the standard of\nfinal judgment.\n\n2. It is the duty of a Christian to pray for the church of Christ--to\ninquire diligently into her scriptural character, and to seek covenant\nblessings in her communion.\n\n3. If the majority should violate the terms upon which church members\nwere united, it is lawful for the minority to testify against the\ndefection, and to walk by the rule of their former attainments. And when\nany community assuming to be the Church of Christ, imposes sinful terms\nof communion--when the constitution is anti-scriptural--when the\nadministration is corrupt, and attempts at its reformation have proved\nineffectual--it is the duty of Christians to separate from it: \"_Come\nout of her, my people_,\" &c.; Rev. xviii, 4.\n\n4. No member of the Reformed Presbyterian Church can, without\ncontracting guilt, in the present state of society, take the oath of\nallegiance to the government of these United States, hold office,\nexercise the elective franchise, act as a juror, or hold communion in\nother ecclesiastical bodies, by what is commonly styled _occasional\nhearing_; Rev. xi, 1-3.\n\n\n\n\nTERMS\n\nOF\n\nMINISTERIAL AND CHRISTIAN COMMUNION\n\nIN THE\n\nREFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n1. An acknowledgment of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God,\nand the alone infallible rule of faith and practice.\n\n2. An acknowledgement that the whole doctrine of the Westminster\nConfession of Faith, and the Catechisms, larger and shorter, are\nagreeable unto, and founded upon the Scriptures.\n\n3. An acknowledgment that Presbyterian Church government is of divine\nright, and unalterable: and that the most perfect model as yet attained,\nis exhibited in the Form of Government and Directory for Worship, as\nadopted by the Church of Scotland, in the Second Reformation.\n\n4. An acknowledgment that public, social covenanting, is an ordinance of\nGod, and obligatory on churches and nations under the New Testament\ndispensation: and that the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn\nLeague and Covenant of Scotland, England and Ireland, were an\nexemplification of this divine institution: and that these solemn deeds\nare of perpetual obligation upon the moral person, as continued by\nrepresentation and accession: and in consistency with this,\nacknowledging the renovation of these covenants at Auchensaugh, 1712, to\nbe agreeable to the Word of God.\n\n5. An approbation of the faithful contendings of the martyrs of Jesus,\nagainst paganism, popery, prelacy, malignancy, and sectarianism; and\nagainst immoral constitutions of civil government--Erastian tolerations\nand persecutions which flow therefrom: the Judicial Act, Declaration and\nTestimony, emitted by the Reformed Presbytery in North Britain, 1761,\ntogether with the Historical and Declaratory Supplements adopted by the\nReformed Church in North America, 1850--as containing an noble example\nfor their posterity to follow, in contending for all divine truth, and\nin testifying against all corruptions embodied in the constitutions of\neither church or State.\n\n6. Practically adorning the doctrine of God our Savior, by walking in\nall his commandments and ordinances blamelessly.\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: _Christ's rights, &c._ By these are not meant the rights of\nChrist personal. It is not in the power of mortals, or any creature, to\nacquire and secure these to him; but the rights of Christ mystical, that\nis, of the church, or, of his truth, true worship, and religion, and\nprofessors of it as such.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Besides the above instances of that unholy, tyrannical, and\nchurch-robbing policy, which has been exercised by the supreme civil\npowers in these nations with reference to religion and the worship of\nGod, all of which existed when the presbytery first published their\ntestimony, there has, of late, a very singular instance of the same kind\noccurred, in the course of administration, which the presbytery cannot\nforbear to take notice of, but must embrace the present opportunity to\ndeclare their sense of, and testify against; and especially, as it is\none that carries a more striking evidence than any of the former, of our\npublic national infidelity and licentiousness, and of our being\njudicially infatuated in our national counsels, and given up of heaven\nto proceed from evil to worse, in the course of apostasy from the cause\nand principles of the reformation. We particularly mean the instance of\na late bill or act, which has been agreed upon by both houses of\nparliament, and which also, June, 1774, was sanctioned with the royal\nassent, entitled \"An act for making more effectual provision for the\ngovernment of the province of Quebec in North America.\" By which act,\nnot only is French despotism, or arbitrary power, settled as the form of\ncivil government, but, which is still worse, Popery, the _Religion of\nAntichrist_, with all its idolatries and blasphemies, has such security\nand establishment granted it, as to be taken immediately under the legal\nprotection of the supreme civil authority of these nations in that vast\nand extensive region of _Canada_, lately added to the British dominions\nin North America--a province so large and fertile, that it is said to be\ncapable of containing, if fully peopled, not less than thirty millions\nof souls. This infamous and injurious bill, before it passed into a law,\nwas publicly reprobated and declaimed against by sundry members of both\nhouses. It has been petitioned and remonstrated against by the most\nrespectable civil body corporated in Britain, or its dominions, the city\nof London; by all the provinces of North America south of Quebec; and\neven by the inhabitants of the city of Quebec itself. It has been, in\nthe most public manner, in open parliament, declared to be \"a most\ncruel, oppressive, and odious measure--a child of inordinate power,\" &c.\nAll which are sufficient indications how scandalous, offensive, and\nobnoxious this act was. There was afterward, in the month of May, 1775,\na bill brought into the house of lords, in order to effectuate the\nrepeal of the foresaid disgraceful act, when, in the course of public\ndebate, it was represented by those few members of the house who\nappeared in the opposition, as \"one of the most destructive, most\ndespotic, most nefarious acts that ever passed the house of peers.\" But\nall in vain--the repeal could not be effected.\n\nAnd moreover, let it be further observed here, that the bench of bishops\nin the house of peers, who assume the anti-christian title of _spiritual\nlords_, and pretend to claim a seat in parliament for the care of\nreligion, during the whole course of this contest, instead of appearing\nfor the Protestant interest, have, to their lasting infamy, publicly\ndistinguished themselves in opposition to it, by--\"Standing forth the\navowed supporters of Popery.\"\n\nThe presbytery, therefore, find themselves in duty obliged, in their\njudicative capacity, principally in behalf of the rights and interests\nof the great God and of his Son Jesus Christ our Redeemer--that is to\nsay, in behalf of the rights of truth, true religion, and righteousness\namong men, which he ever owns as his, to add, as they hereby do, their\npublic testimony against this nefandous national deed, so manifestly\ninjurious to all these.\n\nThe presbytery do not, as some others, found their testimony against\nthis extravagant act establishing Popery, &c., in Canada, solely or\nsimply on its injuriousness to the private interests of men--their\nbodily lives, goods, or outward privileges; nor do they declare against\nand condemn it merely because _that_ religion which is sanctioned with\nthis national decree and engagement for its defense is a sanguinary one:\n\"Has deluged our island in blood, and dispersed impiety, persecution,\nand murder, &c., through the world.\" (See an address from the general\ncongress to the people of Great Britain.) These are all indeed\nincontestable proofs that it is not the religion of the divine Jesus,\nbut of antichrist. Nevertheless, the same have been known to be the\nstaple and constant fruits of Prelacy too, which, to the extent of its\nreach and influence, has as much Christian blood wrapped up in its\nskirts as Popery, if not more. Nor yet is it merely on account that it\nis greatly injurious, as indeed it is, and a notorious breach of the\npublic faith to the British Protestant settlers in that province. The\npresbytery's particular objections against this extraordinary measure\nare of a different quality. They are briefly such as follow:\n\n1. The _iniquity_ of it against God. It is certainly a deed highly\nprovoking and dishonoring to the God of heaven. For (1), it is a giving\nthat public protection and countenance to a _lie_, i.e. to idolatry and\nfalse worship (and to anti-christian idolatry, the worst of all other),\nwhich is only due to the truth of God. It is a devoting and giving our\nnational power to the preservation of the life of the Romish beast,\nafter the deadly wound given it by the Reformation. And therefore (2), a\nmost wretched prostitution of the ordinance of civil power, sacred by\nits divine institution, to be _a terror_ and restraint _to evil doers,\nand a praise to them that do well_, Rom. xiii,--to the quite contrary\npurposes. What right have open idolaters and blasphemers to be protected\nand supported by any ordinance of God in the public acts of their\nidolatry? And how awful is it to think (3), that it is a setting\nourselves openly to fight against God, in a national engagement to\nsupport and defend what God has declared and testified to us in his\nword, he will have destroyed; and wherein he expressly forbids giving\nthe least countenance to idolatry. And shall we thus harden ourselves\nagainst God and prosper? (4), As this last instance of our profane\nnational policy is a still more open discovery of our incorrigibleness\nin our apostasy, so it is also the most striking of all the former of\nthat Erastianism and spiritual supremacy exercised by the civil powers\nin these lands over the church and kingdom of Christ. Herein we have an\nopen and avowed justification of that anti-scriptural right and power\nclaimed by them to settle and establish whatever mode of religion they\nplease, or is most agreeable to the inclinations of the people, or which\nbest answers their worldly political purposes, although it should be the\nreligion of Satan in place of that of Christ. This has been the great\nleading principle all along since the Revolution, but never more openly\ndiscovered than in this instance. Upon all which it may appear how\nsinful and provoking to the divine Majesty this act must be.\n\n2. The _folly and shamefulness_ of it as to ourselves. How disgraceful\nand dishonorable is this public act in favor of Popery, even to the\nnation itself, and its representatives, who me the authors of it. How\npalpably inconsistent is it with our national character and profession\nas Protestant, and with our national establishments, civil and\necclesiastical (both which are professedly built upon reformation from\nPopery), to come to take that idolatrous religion under our national\nprotection, and become _defenders_ of the _anti-christian_ faith; nay,\nwere it competent for the presbytery as a spiritual court, and spiritual\nwatchmen, to view this act in a civil light, they might show at large,\nthat it is a violation of the fundamental national constitutions of the\nkingdom, and reaches a blow to the credit of the legal security granted\nto the Protestant religion at home. We need not here mention how\ncontrary this act is to the fundamental laws and constitutions of the\nkingdom of Scotland, which are now set aside. But it is contrary to, and\na manifest violation of the Revolution and British constitution itself;\ncontrary to the Claim of Right, yea, to the oath solemnly sworn by every\nEnglish and British sovereign upon their accession to the throne, as\nsettled by an act of the English parliament in the first year of William\nIII. By which they are obliged to \"profess, and to the utmost of their\npower maintain, in all their dominions, the laws of God, the true\nprofession of the gospel, and the true reformed religion established by\nlaw.\" But these things the presbytery leave to such whom it may more,\nproperly concern. Let it, however, be observed that the presbytery are\nnot here to be interpreted as approving of the abovesaid oath, as it\ndesignedly obliges to the maintenance of the abjured English hierarchy\nand popish ceremonies, which might better be called _a true reformed\nlie_, than the true reformed religion. Nevertheless, this being the\nBritish coronation oath, it clearly determines that all legal\nestablishments behoove to be Protestant, and that without a violation of\nsaid oath, no other religion can be taken under protection of law but\nwhat is called Protestant religion only.\n\nThe presbytery conclude the whole of this additional remark with\nobserving, That as in the former instances of the exercise of this\nErastian power above mentioned, the present church of Scotland never\ngave evidence of her fidelity to Christ, so far as to testify against\nthem; so their assembly has, in a like supine, senseless manner,\nconducted themselves with reference to this last and most alarming\ninstance. Notwithstanding all that has been remonstrated against it, and\nin favor of the reformed religion, they have remained mute and silent,\nwhich indeed evidences them not to be truly deserving of the character\nof _venerable_ and _reverend_, which they assume to themselves, but\nrather that of an association; or, in the words of the weeping prophet,\n_an assembly of treacherous men_: Jer. ix, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 3: See pages 68, 69, preceding.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Mr. _Andrew Clarkson_ originally belonged to the community\nof Old Dissenters under the pastoral inspection of the Rev. Mr. _John\nMcMillan_ senior; was educated and lived in communion with them, till\nupwards of the age of thirty years; during which time he wrote and\npublished a book, entitled, _Plain Reasons, &c._, setting forth the\ngrounds why Presbyterian Dissenters refused to hold communion with the\nrevolution, church and state; but, having no prospect of obtaining\nlicense and ordination among them, in regard they had then no ordained\nminister belonging to them but old Mr. _McMillan_ alone, it appeared\nthat, from a passionate desire after these privileges, he left his old\nfriends, and made his application to the Associate Presbytery, who\ntreated him as above narrated.]\n\n[Footnote 5: Mr. _John Cameron_, then a probationer and clerk to their\nPresbytery.]\n\n[Footnote 6: These people, referred to above, very unjustly designate\nthemselves such _who adhere to the testimony for the kingly prerogative\nof Christ_. They did at first, before their agreement with the\nPresbytery, and ever since their elopement, do still profess to appear\nfor what they call _An Active Testimony_, conform to the rude draft of a\npaper commonly known by the name of the _Queensferry Paper_ or\n_Covenant_ (see _Cloud of Witnesses_, Appendix, page 270). After their\n_activity_ had carried them the length of avouching the most\ninconsistent anti-predestinarian, Arminian schemes of universal\nredemption, and not only to a total separation from the Presbytery, and\nrejection of their judicial authority, but even to an open denial of the\nprotestative mission of the ministers therein, and of all others; the\nmost part of them were, in God's holy and righteous justice, left to\nreceive and submit to the pretended authority and ministrations of\n_William Dunnet_, a deceiver, destitute of all mission and authority,\nwhom they were afterward obliged to abandon In 1771, they published a\npamphlet entitled, _A short Abstract of their Principles and Designs_.\nIn this they cunningly evade the acknowledgment of our Confession of\nFaith and Catechisms, decline to own the doctrine of the holy Trinity in\n_unity_, and do professedly adopt and avow the hypothesis of the famous\nmodern Socinian, Dr. _Taylor, of Norwich_, anent the person of Christ.\nAccording to which he is no more than \"a glorious being, truly created\nby God before the world.\" This pre-existent creature they call a\n_superangelic_ spirit; which spirit, coming in time to be united to a\nhuman body, makes according to them, the person of Christ. A person\nneither truly God nor truly man, but a sort of being different from\nboth. The absurdity and blasphemy of this hypothesis needs no\nelucidation. Thus they idolatrously worship _another_ god than the\nScripture reveals, and blasphemously substitute and trust in _another_\nsavior than the gospel offers unto sinners. In the same pamphlet they\ndeclare and publish their resolution to take some of their number under\nformal trials, whom, upon being approved, they might appoint and send\nforth to preach the gospel and administer the ordinances of it. And all\nwhich they have accordingly done, to the great dishonor of God, reproach\nof religion, and the profession of it.\n\nAnd now, from the above principles and practices, the reader may justly\nconclude how unworthily these Christians (if they may be called such)\nprofess to stand up for the royal prerogatives of Christ. What an\narrogant and presumptuous invasion upon, and usurpation of, the powers\nand prerogatives of this glorious King, for any mortal to assume \"to\nappoint and call men,\" not to the _work_ (which yet is all that the\nChurch of Christ, according to the will of God, and her privileges from\nChrist her head, ever claimed), but to the very _power_ and _office_ of\nthe holy ministry, \"and to _install_ them in it.\" Besides, that their\ndoctrine as to Christ's person, which denies his divine nature and\nsonship, saps the very foundations of _that_ and all his other offices.\nWe would, therefore, yet beseech them, by the mercies of God, \"to repent\nthem of all their wickedness, and to pray God, if perhaps the thoughts\nof their heart may be forgiven them.\"]\n\n[Footnote 7: It has been complained by some, that the sense of both the\nmembers of this particular paragraph is obscure, and not so intelligible\nas it should be to many readers; but this complaint seems rather to\narise from the want of proper attention and consideration, than from any\nother cause. As to the first branch of the sentence, Among--\"Such\nactions and things as are necessary, and in themselves just and lawful\nby a moral obligation\"--may be reckoned the payment of county tolls on\nhighways and bridges, for the benefit of an easy and commodious\npassage--keeping watch in cities which have no settled or regular\nguard, to prevent public damage by fire or otherwise. In like manner,\nthe payment of custom in public markets or fairs, or of town dues, all\nof which, being intended for the benefit of public corporations, are\ngiven or paid as the price of liberty and privilege of trade and\ncommerce. And to this may be added, such necessary instances of\n_self-defense_ as a person may be obliged to, when maliciously and\nvillanously attacked in his character or goods, by persons perhaps\ndesignedly taking advantage of his Christian temper, or profession. Or\nwhen perhaps a person may be maliciously charged with, and prosecuted\nfor crimes not only peculiarly dishonorable to religion, but even\ncapital, as has been the case with some individuals. In all such cases,\nself-defense at law becomes necessary before the ordinary courts and\njudges of any nation, or place of the world whatever, when such defenses\nare admitted without the formal and explicit acknowledgment of the\nlawfulness of unjust or usurped authority (when such happens to be in\nplace, as in the instance of Paul's appeal to Caesar, Acts xxv), or\nacting any otherwise contrary to justice and charity. And with regard to\nthe other branch of the sentence where it is observed--\"That a\ndifference ought to made between those things that cannot be had, nor\nyet the value and equivalent of them, unless the person actually give\nit,\" &c.: This is sufficiently explained in a paragraph, page 163, near\nthe foot. Prayers for God's blessing on any government--enlisting and\nbearing arms in their service--accepting offices and places of power\nfrom them--swearing oaths of fidelity to them, &c.--are such things as\ncan by no means be got, nor yet the equivalent of them, unless the party\nactually consents and grants them. These, therefore, and, such like, are\nthe only instances of action which, the Presbytery judge, do, in their\nown nature, contain and express a proper and explicit acknowledgment of\nthe lawfulness of that authority which they immediately respect.]","title":"Act, Declaration, & Testimony for the Whole of our Covenanted Reformation, as Attained to, and Established in Britain and Ireland; Particularly Betwixt the Years 1638 and 1649, Inclusive","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":98556}