MINISTERS OF THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN
DELIVERED AT THE REQUEST OF THE GLASGOW SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING
THE SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES OF THE SECOND REFORMATION.
J. KEITH, HUTCHESON STREET; W. MARSHALL, MAXWELL STREET;
THOS. NELSON, EDINBURGH; D. HALLIDAY, DUMFRIES;
J. M'COID, STRANRAER; ALEX. GARDNER, PAISLEY.
1841-James Ferguson (1797-1862).-An essay setting forth the complete spiritual independence of the government of the Church of Christ from the interference of the civil magistrate or any other institution. Jesus Christ has set a government in his Church distinct from that of the state.
1841-Thomas Neilson (1801-1872).-An excellent essay describing the unscriptural character of hierarchical prelacy and the Erastianism of the Church of England. This also surveys the popish nature of Anglican liturgy and its persecuting spirit.
1841-John Graham (1807-1876).-An essay surveying the various defects in the Revolution establishment and its incursions upon the spiritual independence of the Church of Scotland. This contains an apology for Reformed Presbyterians remaining apart from this settlement in 1690.
1841-William Henry Goold (1815-1897).-In this essay, Goold explores an issue which greatly agitated the Church of Scotland around this time—patronages. This would lead to the formation of the Free Church of Scotland, in 1843. However, besides surveying the topic from a Biblical and historical point of view, he spends much ink defending the right of Christian people to chose their own pastors and elders.
1841-William Symington.-An essay exploring the doctrine of social covenanting with an excellent discussion of the descending obligations of lawful covenants upon the societies which entered into them. In addition, Symington undertakes a defence of the National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant.
1841-Stewart Bates (1794-1856).-In this lecture, Bates considers the ramifications of any union between church and state wherein the latter is immoral or antichristian. While accepting the premise that national establishments are both legitimate and desirable, the case is made that this does not hold when the state exists in opposition to the true religion.