Humble Pleadings; or, a Representation of Grievances for the Consideration of the Reformed Presbytery.
James Dodson
Wherein their Defections, Declinings, and Corruptions, both in Principle and Practice, is held forth as true matter of Grievances, to every one who resolves to adhere to the Word of God, and our Reformed and Covenanted Laws, as founded thereon.
LIKEWISE
A LETTER TO A FRIEND.
CONTAINING,
I. Punitive Justice.
II. The Mediator’s Power.
III. A few Remarks or Observations, in Answer to some of the Groundless Reflections cast upon Faithful Contenders, by lukewarm Professors.
BY JOHN HOWIE, IN LOCHGOIN.
TO WHICH IS ADDED,
A POSTSCRIPT.
None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity, Isa. lix. 4.
KILMARNOCK:
PRINTED BY H. & S. CRAWFORD, FOR THE PUBLISHER.
1809.
The Publisher thinks it may not be improper to inform the Reader, that the following has been printed according to the Original, and that no alteration whatever has been made. And that the sole intention of it being now published, is for the benefit of those who are favouring the rubbish and stones of that once fair superstructure, the Covenanted Church of Scotland.
TO THE READER.
COMFORTABLE is that account that is left in record in the scriptures, that though the woman be driven into the wilderness, yet she hath a place prepared for her of God. Therefore, whether she be in a prosperous or suffering state, God brings glory to himself, and makes all things work for her good: in her suffering state he brings glory to himself, and good to her, by discovering who are rotten hearted, unfaithful, time-serving professors; such as those members who turn neutral, then conformists to the times, then refuses to vindicate those truths that are most opposed in their day; and lastly, these rotten hearted and apostate members, comes, by many arguments, to vindicate their rotten heart and apostasy. But it will be comfortable to every child of God to consider, that by their suffering oppression, persecution, and their evil treatment, either in their bodies or names, God is only letting his and their enemies discover what is in their hearts, and to harden them, that he may be honoured in their destruction, that his children may have reason to sing and rejoice; for it is clear from scripture, that when God suffers his children to be maltreated, he is only suffering those that maltreat them to ripen themselves for their own destruction. That this is a scripture truth, is clear in the case of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar.
Again, it is comfortable to the true child of God, that God glorifies himself when he suffers these rotten apostate members to fall into such defections from the ways of truth and godliness, and his own people to be calum-
[ iv ]
niated and maltreated for their bearing witness for truths avowed in their day; for, in a time of defection, God discovers who are contenders, and who are not; and in a time of general defection, it must be very evident who are faithful maintainers of the testimony of Jesus, from those who are compliers [accommodationists] with the fashions and ungodly practices of their day: for those who are maintaining a faithful testimony in a general defection, are still giving evidences what way that testimony is deviated from; but those who are compliers [accommodationists] with the defections, are always vindicating the practices of the day they live in, and are always maltreating of those few, or small remnant; and always the fewer or smaller that remnant is, they be the more driven out into a solitary or wilderness condition, for their attachment to the word of God, and testimony of Jesus Christ; and when the people of God are driven from the societies of men into a wilderness, or obscurity and contempt, because they will not either vindicate the defections, nor be neutral, nor give up with witnessing against the corruptions of any kind; then the backslidings and corruptions of the church are made evident to all that desire to see them; which is the very case at present: which should make all persons who have the least fear of God in them, to consider of their ways, lest they be found fighting against God. In the age of the church just preceding this, the suffering people of God took joyfully cruel bodily deaths, seeing God was to receive glory, these truths maintained that concerned the Lord Jesus Christ in his person and offices. But at present, those people who would wish to see these sufferers’ characters who suffered in the last persecution maintained, are suffering cruelly, by having their names murdered as pests to society, void of Christian charity, and calumniators, for contending for that practice and conversation that becometh the gospel of Christ; for though God suffered Pharaoh, that great enemy to the people of God, who would not suffer them to go and serve the Lord, as is seen in Exod. v. 2. and then we see in chap. xiv. that he honours himself upon Pharaoh, as in verse 17. “I will get me honour upon Pharaoh,” &c. And though God
[ v ]
suffered his people to wander forty years in the wilderness, it was for his own glory, that he might prove them whether they would walk in his law or not, that he might do them good at the latter end; which is clear from Exod. xvi. 4. Deut. viii. 16. And when God suffered Nebuchadnezzar to carry his people, or the church, into Babylon, it was for his own glory, and the good of his people, that they might be reclaimed from idolatry, and trusting in a form of godliness, by attending on divine ordinances, when living in those practices that are condemned in the word of God.
And again, when he suffers his people, or the church, to be driven into a spiritual wilderness, it is for his own glory; for then God prepares a place for his people, or church, where he feeds and nourishes them from the malice of wicked men and devils, and then gives them warrant and ground to triumph, rejoice, and sing to the glory of God at the destruction of their enemies. Yet it appears that the churches at present are none afraid of being driven into the wilderness; or that the candlestick of the gospel may be removed from them; because they are suffering their members to live in the very same practices for which the Lord hath brought judgments on the churches before: neither are their ministers testifying to their members, that undoubtedly if they continue in their practices, the Lord will remove the candlestick from them. So there are three articles that seems neither to be stated nor explained in a scriptural manner. And,
I. It seems neither to be stated nor explained in a scriptural manner, by any of them at present, whereby honest and faithful contending for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom doth consist.
II. It is neither faithfully stated nor inquired unto, what these bars are that are now standing most in the way of the reformation of the corrupt practices of this day.
III. It seems neither to be scripturally stated nor inquired into by the churches at present, how and by what means it is, that the hypocrisy and presumption of church
[ vi ]
members is maintained, supported, and encouraged at this day. And,
I. It seems neither to be stated nor explained in a scriptural manner, by any of the present churches, wherein honest and faithful contending for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom doth consist. And,
1st. Though all those that read the scriptures, and owns them to be the word of God, and a complete rule of faith and practice; and also, that all Christians are commanded in them to contend earnestly for the faith, once delivered to the saints. Therefore all that are believing the doctrines taught in the scriptures, both ministers and people, will be careful to teach and practise those duties that makes it most appear who are faithful contenders, and who are not. Therefore, all that profess to be faithful contenders for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, their principles must be scriptural, and they must contend in a scriptural method; and the articles contended for, must be present duty, and the present word of Christ’s patience; and the contender must testify against corruption of all kinds, that are condemned in the word of God, without partiality or hypocrisy; for if the contender is partial to some corruptions, or some corrupt person, then his contending is in vain; for partiality has made the professed contendings of many thousands in this day, to be of no purpose.
2d, The contender must make an open profession of all truth, by a public owning, maintaining, and defending of all those truths that are either denied, questioned, or is not vindicated in this day.
3d, Those who profess to be contenders for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, must not be conformed to the world in its vain and corrupt practices; nor yet keep familiar company with those that are vindicating a conformity to the world; for if those that profess to be contenders, can associate in church communion, or yet civilly, merely for worldly gain or wealth, with those that are conformed to the world, and are given up to a detestable neutral indifferency about the defections and wicked practices of this day; for it is evident from scripture
[ vii ]
that a faithful contender will not be neutral in a day of defection; and an honest contender will be known by his refusing to be conformed to the world: for that man that cannot be distinguished from the men of the world in his practices, is no contender for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom.
4th, But though honest and faithful contending for the duty of adhering to the scripture rule, both in principle and practice; and also the scripture rule in testifying against corruptions of all kinds, has been the criterion of faithfulness in all ages; and has more clearly shown the unfaithfulness and backsliding of churches into corrupt practices, than their opposing of the testifying and bearing witness against the immoral practice of church members; and tho’ the opposing of the testifying against a conformity to the world in its corrupt practices, has been the criterion of a decline of true godliness, by all faithful ministers. Yet testifying against corrupt practices was never more calumniated by professors than now; which is a clear evidence of the great decline of true godliness, when a church will not allow the corrupt practices of her members to be testified against, which is proven by the usage every one gets that seeks any redress, because there is none got at this day; but in those days when the church of Scotland was contending for the purity of church communion, and the edification of her members, neutrality was then esteemed a ruinous sin, which is shown by that assembly of divines at Westminster, who made neutrality one of the crimes sworn against in the Solemn League and Covenant.*
_____
* A second use of this point doth minister matter of just and sharp reproof; first to neuters [fence-sitters], a sort of men wise in their own conceit, secretly condemning all others, and justly to be condemned of all. I may truly say, that neither God nor man loves them; it is only the devil and themselves that they please: and were not these a kind of unteachable creatures, I should speak much to their reproof; but I refer them to two places of scripture, one in the Old Testament, Judges v. 23. the other Rev. iii. 15, 16.
Humphrey Hardwick’s Sermon before the House of Commons, the 26th of June 1644, p. 30. This was the character the honest reformers gave to all persons that were neutral about the defections of the church, and concerned themselves none whether the corruptions of the church was reformed or not. But all persons that testifies against the corruptions and defections of the present churches, and craves [requests] any redress of these, and will not be neutral, are held up now by church rulers as trouble-one persons, for neutrality seems now to be made an evidence of true godliness by all the churches, since the public resolutioners time, 1650.
[ viii ]
which shews that these divines and reformers were far from holding up all persons as uncharitable hypocrites, or troublers of the church, that testifies against immoral practices, and craves [requests] any redress; like the ministers in our day, that seems to be making neutrality, and an unlimited submission to all their rules, the only evidence of mens’ soundness in the faith and true godliness. That this is a truth, is made evident by that doctrine that condemns all persons inclusive for representing their defections; and also by observing the practices of those that are now esteemed the most religious persons, and they are those that are giving unlimited submission; and then observing those persons that are not esteemed to be religious, and it is those that points out the defections either of principle or practice, doctrine or government, and craves a redress. The man will still continue to be religious if he complains of defections along with a general sound; but then let him complain of defections in a way of purging of communion, and then he must be denied privileges, though the congregation must be informed that he is neither immoral nor scandalous.
5th, That the churches at present are neither stating, explaining, nor showing wherein scriptural and faithful contending for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom doth consist. This will be evident to all persons that believe that a church is bound to contend for the performance of those duties that are enjoined in the word of God; but the churches at present (which comprehends all organized societies,) are not requiring the performance of those duties; because they are suffering their members to live in the utter neglect and contempt of brotherly love, which is stated in the scriptures as a great evidence of being the disciples of Christ, and also of true godliness. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another. Now, if covetousness, oppression, fraudulent
[ ix ]
dealing, and bribery, (it need not be mentioned what way these evils are carried on, it is so plain,) and that church members are living in the open practice of these things, and many more of a similar nature, is a truth that will not be got denied, which is an open contempt of these scriptures, Matt. vii. 12. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matt. xxii. 40. On these two commandments hang the law and the prophets, the love of God and our neighbour: for love to our neighbour is the only evidence of love to God; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen.
6th, The church at present are not requiring the performance of the duty of keeping up society meetings for prayers and conference, admonishing, exhorting, and rebuking of one another, though the attending these meetings are stated in the scripture as the evidence of those that fear God, Mal. iii. 16. and also those that are contending for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, Heb. x. 25. Though the duty of these meetings is yet partially asserted by some ministers, both in sermons and in print; yet what of all that, since it is not asserted that the neglecters of these meetings cannot be owned as church members, nor yet as religious men. But perhaps there never was a church since the commencement of Christianity, that required so little of a Christian practice, and as little performance of scriptural duties to constitute their members to be owned both truly religious and faithful contenders for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, as the church at present. But it must be plain, both from the above texts and others, that meetings of the fearers of the Lord, is a mean for preserving and maintaining both the truths of Christ, and the life of godliness; and a practice becoming the gospel of Christ and fellowship meetings, was owned by the suffering remnant in the time of persecution; and ever since, by all faithful contenders, as a mean to preserve their members from falling into defection, and to strengthen one another’s hand against the prevailing stream of the defections of their day,
[ x ]
or admonish and rebuke any of their members that transgressed their rules: and these duties were, by organized societies or ministers since the persecuting period, a term of admission with them; but the churches, or organized societies, in place of requiring these duties as a term of admission (or even the performance of these duties) that they even hold up all persons as hypocrites that complains against churches for not requiring these of their members. But these societies seem to be so purely antiscriptural about these duties above mentioned at present, that they have banished them out of their churches altogether; and even threatening all persons with punishment that finds any fault with them; and have substituted in their place, a legal proof of all sins, either public or private, before admonition be given, though the not performing of these duties of admonition is made an evidence of hatred, and of wicked men, like Cain. So mournful is the case at present, that even that church who takes her members, when receiving baptism to their children, to keep up society meetings, hath in her communion, some who will not so much as sit at a common meal with his brother because of personal quarrels; and is even complained of to the members of that church: so that it seems from all these, and many more of a similar kind, that it is neither stated nor explained in a scriptural manner by any of the churches, wherein honest and faithful contending doth consist.
II. It is neither faithfully stated nor inquired into by the churches at present, what these bars are, that are standing most in the way of the reformation of the defections and corrupt practices of their members at this day.
The first bar that is now standing in the way of a reformation is, that church members are not exhorted by their ministers to consider, that their present great defections from truth, and their corrupt practices, will bring a church of Christ to ruin; or that they will in no ways other evidence them to be godly persons. But on the other hand it is now stated, that if any person state the defections and corrupt practices, and represent them as grievances to church rulers in a way to have them redressed,
[ xi ]
because they are contrary to reformation principles, or complains of the corrupt practices of church members, he has as much need of godly zeal, courage, and patience, as ever these persons had who opposed the corruption of the popish church: for though those who are now opposing the corrupt practices of this day be not persecuted to death, yet they are suffering cruel mockings; and by the mouths of those who are pretending to be grieved for the defections of this day: which makes it worse to bear, than it were from those who are open enemies to godliness. But infinite wisdom seems to be making a trial of all persons at this day, and to discover the hypocrisy of those ministers and people who are pretending to bear witness for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom; for there can be no better evidence of hypocrisy, than for ministers and churches to be complaining of defections; and yet when any person represents these grievances in a way for a redress, they are reproached as calumniators and pests to society; and those also who refuse to keep church communion with the erroneous or profane, or refuses to be conform to the world in its immoral practices, or testifies against the practices that are altogether inconsistent with a life of godliness; but God has so ordered matters, that a man must either choose to suffer in his name, by being held up by the churches as an ungodly person, and void of Christian charity, if he represents the backsliding of the church from former attainments of reformation in Scotland, and from those principles the martyrs suffered to death for the maintaining of; or he must be neutral, and choose to contend none for the purity of church communion, nor yet point out any defections their members are guilty of; or he must suffer the reproaches of compliers.
The second bar that stands in the way of reforming the backslidings and corrupt practices of this day, is, the antiscriptural antichristian doctrine about the nature and binding obligations of oaths and covenants for the maintaining of the reformation of religion upon posterity: for if covenanting be a moral duty, then it must be binding upon posterity; and if it can be proven from scripture,
[ xii ]
that children are to receive any privilege from the obligation or deeds of their fathers; or if parents can bequeath to their posterity any privilege, then why not that privilege of knowing what was their mind about the moral law, or to bind to own these covenants which they swear to, that there is nothing in but what is comprehended in the moral law; so all those that are denying the binding obligations of these covenants, national and solemn league, are as far denying the binding obligations of the moral law; and also denying the obligation they are under to maintain any reformation attainments, which is a very general opinion in our day of a liberty of conscience; so it must be a bar in the way of any reformation, when covenanting, or the obligations of the covenants upon posterity, is either positively denied, or yet, when the duties contained in these covenants are not both owned and performed; for if the duties sworn to in these covenants be not performed, neither is the obligation of them maintained, though there should be ever so great pretensions of owning their obligations; which is the manner at present with those professors who are making the greatest noise about owning their obligation upon posterity. But the covenanted cause is more ruined at this day by those who are owning by a profession their obligation, and yet are living in the utter neglect of those duties sworn to in them; than it is by those that deny covenanting obligations altogether. Because the members of these churches who are professing to be maintaining the obligations of the covenants, cannot be distinguished from others that deny them, by their performing of the articles sworn to in these covenants; this is clear by observing what truths and duties these covenants binds all unto that maintains their obligations; for these covenants bind all to persevere in the reformation of religion, and to extirpate profaneness, and whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness, and faithfully to discover all malignants, or evil instruments, that hinder the reformation of the covenanted religion of the church of Scotland betwixt 1638 and 1649; and to assist and strengthen one another’s hands in owning and
[ xiii ]
maintaining the ends of these covenants; and to show to the world that all those who own and perform the obligations of these covenants, are of one mind about the articles of these covenants. Now, if the intent of these covenants be to bind the covenanters not to be conform to the world in ungodly customs and wicked fashions; and that the covenanters were, by so doing, evidencing themselves to be witness-bearers for a faithful testimony against defections of all kinds, both civil and religious, and a maintaining all the truths sworn to in these covenants; then the present method of owning the obligations of these covenants, without performing the duties required in them, nor yet reforming these defections and corrupt practices that these covenants bind unto; such owning is to no purpose.
The present method of binding church members to creeds, confessions of faith, or church standards, is a great bar in the way of reformation. Because parents and church rulers are now bound to church standards at baptisms and ordinations, only to those they see or judge to be agreeable to the word of God; and then church members are only bound to their own judgment. But this method of binding church members to confessions of faith, is of no more use, if not worse, than no binding to creeds at all: for this reason, Such a method of binding to a confession of faith, can determine nothing about the union of sentiment that should be among church members; nor yet what a church owns as truths and duties; nor yet what a church disowns as sins and defections from truth, which method of binding to confessions of faith, cannot miss to be a great bar in the way of any reformation; because if church members be only bound to a creed, in as far as they judge it to be agreeable to the word of God; then one man may judge an article to be agreeable to the word of God, and another member of the same church may deny that article to be agreeable to the word of God; and one church member may judge he is bound by the word of God to contend for such and such truths and duties, and another member of the same church may
[ xiv ]
judge he is none bound to contend for these articles. And again, one church member may judge he is bound by the word of God to bear witness, and testify against the errors, corrupt practices, and backslidings of churches, as his duty; and another member of the same church may judge it is not his duty to concern himself with the errors, corrupt practices, or backslidings of churches at all: and though this is the very sentiment of church members at present, yet all persons are now threatened as despisers of God’s ordinance that scruples at church communion because of such difference of sentiment or practice. But the present method of binding church members to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the binding obligation of covenants upon posterity; and also the present way and manner that the truths are maintained, and the duties performed, which are contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Covenants; and yet by those churches who are professing to adhere to that Confession and covenant obligations. But the credit of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the binding obligation of the covenants, national and solemn league, is brought to more ruin at this day by the churches that profess to own them, than they are by the churches that deny them altogether: for if that Confession and the Covenants be agreeable to scripture, church members should be bound to them because they are agreeable to the scripture, and not because church members judge them to be agreeable to the word of God: for if church members cannot be bound to the Westminster Confession and Covenants because these are agreeable to the word of God, church members should not be bound to church standards at all. So this method of binding to the Westminster Confession has set it on such a footing, as the greatest heretic that ever lived on this earth, may be bound to it; which has entirely ruined the credit of it: because church members can now be bound to the Westminster Confession and Covenants, and yet maintain doctrines about the nature of the covenant of grace, and about the nature of saving faith, which is opposite to that Confession. So it was
[ xv ]
impossible to fall on a better plan to break the credit of that Confession, than to bind to it in as far as it is judged agreeable to the word of God; till now it seems to be come to that of it, that the Westminster Confession and Covenants has no credit, but from those that deny them altogether.
And again, the present method used by some in renewing these covenants, by binding only to what they call the religious part, and omits the civil, or state part; which is in effect a real denying of the obligations of them altogether; for, if the civil part be not binding, neither is the religious: which says in effect, that we christians, or covenanters, are to have no eye to the obeying or honouring of the Lord in civil dealings between man and man, nor yet in state matters. But this method of renewing of our covenants, must lead out to a great many absurdities; such as the church was to bind themselves to fear the Lord, but the state was not. Therefore, this way of treating of our covenants must stand in the way of any reformation.
And there is another opinion mentioned at this day, about renewing of these covenants, which may be ranked among the first bars: and it is, That joining at the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, makes every joiner a covenanter. But how pregnant is this also with absurdities; for these reasons, It makes one moral duty supplant another, and then the number of moral duties may be brought to as small a number as men of corrupt minds pleases to reduce them. And again, another absurdity (among many) that this doctrine maintains is, that all persons and churches that partake of the Lord’s Supper, are national covenanters: which many, who are both partakers and dispensers, will refuse that they are owners of these covenants. But if all the present doctrines and opinions about covenanting, and the binding obligations of them upon posterity, were examined according to the scripture rule, and the positive design of the covenants, it will be found there is not a church in Scotland at this day, that is maintaining them; for the present churches
[ xvi ]
that are professing to own the principles sworn to in these covenants, when they are not maintaining these principles, nor yet performing these duties sworn to in them, are driven to more absurd and inconsistent arguments about the nature and intent of these covenants, that they may get their modish [fashionable] and corrupt practices defended, than those churches who deny these covenants altogether.
And again, there is a third bar that stand in the heart of the church, which bars out all reformation out of her; which is a doctrine very general at this day: viz. that every man may now sit under his own vine and fig-tree, and none to make them afraid. This must be a very deluding doctrine, if it is set forth to make the hearers believe that they are in the same outward condition that these were of whom the prophet speaks of, that were to learn war no more, but to sit every one under his vine and fig-tree, and none to be afraid: which undoubtedly must be for to persuade their hearers, that they need not be afraid of judgments, since it is not pointed nor stated what practices they are that have brought judgments on a church or nation; neither is the similarity drawn between those that the Lord brought judgments on, and these that this doctrine is advanced to at this day, that it may pass for truth, that every man in Scotland may now live under his vine and fig-tree, and has nothing to make him afraid. So the advancers of this prophesy of Micah’s must be of opinion, that the church is now come to that period and state that he prophesied of, that they may get their hearers deluded, and their own plans carried on. And also, the advancers of this doctrine must be of opinion, that the practices which are pointed out in the Old Testament to have provoked God to have brought judgments on these practisers, are not sins under the New Testament, to provoke God to bring judgments on the inhabitants; but that they may sit under their vine and fig-tree, and no cause to be afraid. Therefore, those who are advancing that men may at this day live under their vine and fig-tree, and be none afraid, are following the example of those spoke of in Jer. vi. 13, 14. From the least
[ xvii ]
to the greatest, from the prophet to the priest, every one dealeth falsely: they have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there was no peace.
Therefore, those who are advancing that every man may now live under the vine and fig-trees, and need not be afraid, seems to be of opinion that the churches are answering the description given of her in these texts, Isaiah i. 25, 26. xxxii. 1, 2, 3, 4. chap. lx. chap. lxiii. 8. with Zeph. iii. 13. which must be a very hardening doctrine to presumptuous professors.
Therefore, by the present method of maintaining that the New Testament dispensation is more milder than under the Old Testament, seems to lay a foundation for all the defections that are now carried on and maintained. For it is upon this foundation that the present antiscriptural doctrine about liberty of conscience, a boundless toleration of all opinions, and a promiscuous admission into church communion to receive the seals of the covenant of grace, is now built, defended, vindicated, and practised; because the New Testament dispensation is said to be more milder than the Old.
It is readily granted, that we have not to go up to Jerusalem for to worship, neither to provide animals to our abilities, &c. &c. as was under that economy; but will this method of maintaining the mildness of the New Testament dispensation make it scriptural, that we may spend that time in dancing-balls, or any more liberty to pleasure ourselves in any amusement that stands condemned in the Old Testament, since we are not to go up to Jerusalem; or will the freeing of us from purchasing beasts, give us a liberty to make use of the gift of money that the Lord hath given us to be stewards of, give us a liberty to purchase privileges to learn us to dance, or to purchase ornaments to our bodies, that is both immodest and strange apparel, as is so glaringly seen at this day; for where will you fix your eyes on any assembly of people, but you will see such immodest and strange dresses, that plainly indicates that they are not satisfied with the form the God of nature has made their
[ xviii ]
bodies in. And how mournful is it to be seen how much of their means is used to make one member of the body less, and another bigger, in the shape of their clothes, to an immodest appearance. But were the method taken for maintaining mildness of the New Testament dispensation from the Old, in a way of not going through these legal ceremonies, but maintained that all our time was to be spent for the Lord’s glory, and all that we were stewards of was to be spent for the maintaining of his cause; then we would find that we had no time nor means to spend for self. All these, with many more, if your time could allow, might be mentioned, stands as great bars in the way of a reformation of any of the defections and corruptions of the day.
III. It is neither stated nor inquired, in a scriptural manner by the present churches, how and by what means the hypocrisy and presumption is maintained, supported, and carried on at this day.
It is evident that the author of these Grievances saw it clearly, that the great presumption and defections of the present professors of religion, was carried on, by some means, from the ways of truth and godliness. And also, the great presumption of those persons who think they are both living a godly life, and contending for a faithful testimony; when they are both living in a conformity to the world, in its ungodly fashions and wicked practices: and also in a neglect of many faithful contendings, plainly implied in that faithful testimony of the last sufferers. For if the present churches be contenders for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, then those doctrines and rules that were maintained by the reformers as the qualifications of faithful contending, are of no use at the present time. So it must be a very dangerous thing to encourage any that they are truly godly, when there is nothing of godliness appearing in their practice to prove them being mortified to the world; for there seems to be little more required of the different church members at this day to show the reality of their religion, but to be in communion
[ xix ]
with their church, and to meddle with the practice of no person in their community. And,
1st, The presumption of church members is greatly supported by holding up that duty of taking the Lord’s Supper, in such an unlimited manner, that the profane person is as much encouraged to take it, as the person of the most tender conscience, who is afraid of profaning it. But the doctrine at present seems not to admit that the Lord’s Supper can be profaned by admitting drunkards, swearers, oppressors, and even persons ignorant and inconsistent about the articles of their own testimony: for this reason, viz. No reasons almost are now sustained valid, to hinder any man from partaking of the seals of the covenant of grace, that a man can produce, because of profane persons being admitted; or yet for any matter of conscience. This is plainly implied in the Grievances.
And, 2dly, There is another way of supporting of presumption: by an unlimited condemning of all persons that scruples to join in taking of the Lord’s Supper with persons immoral, and living in a full conformity to the world; or yet with those that refuse a faithful testimony, and contend for a performance of those duties and truths sworn to in the covenants. This is again plainly implied in these Grievances.
A 3d way that the presumptuous professor is greatly supported, viz. By advancing in public, the great sin of wounding truth through the side of its professors. But though this argument be scriptural, yet it is so perverted at present, that presumptuous professors are greatly supported by this argument. For all persons that testify against the present defections of the church from that testimony which was sealed by the blood of the martyrs in Scotland from 1660, to 1688, are counted the wounders of truth through their sides; they are so held up to reproach in public, that profane persons can triumph over the most sincere, by crying out when coming from sermon, that such and such another complainer has got his true character this day, for meddling with the practices of other people. This seems to be a most effectual method, whereby the presumption and defection from
[ xx ]
truth is now maintained; because it encourages the nominal, the selfish, and hypocritical professor, to vindicate the defections of the present churches; and it makes the ignorant, the careless, and presumptuous professor, to think that there is no need at this day for any reformation of the practices of church members. But the methods that are now adopted by many, to make the world believe they are honest contenders for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, which has made the inconsistence and hypocrisy of many to appear.
But there is a 4th Way of hardening presumptuous professors; and that is, by church members or ministers making complaints about the low state of religion and true godliness, yet are pretending to be grieved for the great prevailing of corrupt practices: but these hypocrites that are pretending so much regard for God’s ordinances, they are now come to vindicate sitting in church communion with the most profane persons; which has greatly hardened the presumptuous and profane professors, when they see they have the countenance and approbation of those who are esteemed godly persons. Therefore, this practice, and the present method of stating a number of truths that should be believed, and a number of duties that should be performed, and a number of defections from godliness that should be lamented, and amend a number of wicked practices confessed; and though these articles are all taught and inculcated, at present, in sermons and otherways, yet all is rendered abortive; and, like an untimely birth, of no effect; by the present method of admitting into church communion those very persons who are either living in the utter neglect of these truths and duties, or in the contempt of them. Which has made the word of Christ’s patience, at this day, to consist in testifying and in bearing witness against the present method of admitting immoral persons to partake of the seals of the covenant of Grace; which has made the most of the truths that now remain to be taught, to have little more effect, but to harden church members in their present wicked practices, and to delude the ignorant and unwary. And yet these pretended complainers can sit in
[ xxi ]
communion with these very persons that has brought religion and true godliness low: and more, even revile all persons that attempts to show, from the word of God, that such practices are evidences of ungodliness, and testifies against the admission of persons living in these practices into church communion; for all persons that owns and are complaining that the present churches are fallen into defection from the ways of truth and godliness, and covenanted principles; and owns the great need of reformation, and points out a number of corrupt practices that are among the church members, that are ruinous to a godly life or a church of Christ, and yet can sit in communion with that church that refuses to reform these practices, and counts all persons despisers of God’s ordinances, that scruples to sit with them: this must surely be very hardening to hypocrites and presumptuous church members.
And again, When members that are moral in their lives, and owns the moral obligation of a covenanted work of reformation, can sit in communion with those who are immoral in their lives, and denies the binding obligation of these covenants, such practices condemn all faithful and honest witness bearers, both for reformation principles, and the purity of church communion, with unity of her members. The popish church has been very justly condemned for selling of pardons; yet it may be questioned, if the present presumptuous dispensing of the seals of the covenant of grace, whereby all that partake are owned to be visible saints, be not as hardening of profane persons, as the popish clergy selling of pardons is; and has as greatly hardened the presumption of the present church members, for gain seems to be as much the intent of the present protestant clergy at this day, as ever it was with the popish clergy. For proof of this, ministers taking that office only for more gain than they can obtain any other way; which can be too easy proven by their fruits: and it shall be left to every one who is acquainted with the protestant clergy, if those of them who can get the bishop’s tiends [tithes] procured, how eager are they in stretching every nerve till that be done; and then
[ xxii ]
those who want this power, how impudent are they in raising of their salaries, either by seats or otherways; and even by admitting members, though very unworthy; if any gain is to be got by them; for if no gain is to be got that way, little evidence of respect is shown to them, though otherwise most worthy.
And again, The presumption is now greatly encouraged by a form of doctrine that represents men living in a course of wicked practices, that they are sinners; which is a truth every one owns. But what of all that? Do you ever hear it stated that members practising such a course of sins, should not be members with us as a faithful church; but they may practise another course of sinning, and be members with us. This will be thought to be strange doctrine, to be suffered to go on in a course of sinning, and to be members still; but it is a truth that they are taught to be members who have more than yea or nay in their habitual conversation, which is said to be a sin; and then doing to others what they would not have others do to them, by oppression, by brother going to law with brother, habitually breaking the sabbath, by profane and egregious immodest dress, by it attempting to form the body in another shape than the wise Creator has done it; with many other things. And where is it taught positively, that persons practising these sins are giving no evidence, but that they are void of the fear of God, and should not be admitted church members.
The presumption of the present church members, in thinking that they are contenders for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, by a profession of religion without a practice agreeable to the rule of God’s word; and this is supported and maintained by the present method of vindicating and defending of their own principles, and condemning the systems of other churches, for credit to themselves, without ever faithfully stating and inquiring, or yet determining, whether their own church at this day, is in any danger by corrupt and wicked practices or not. But it seems the churches at present are of opinion, that a visible church of Christ is in no danger of being ruined by reason of corrupt and fashionable practices among her
[ xxiii ]
members. The reasons of these assertions are, that the practices of her members, though very corrupt, are never explained as evidences of them not being a faithful church of Christ, or godly persons. For the truth of this, an evidence may be given, which was in a sermon preached at the Crookedholm, in summer 1808, at the sacrament, where the preacher advanced, that the church of which he was a member, had in no ways deviated from the doctrines and principles, &c. but was holding by hairs and hoofs [holding every part] what was maintained by the church of Scotland in the purest time of her reformation, from 1638, to 1649: which must be very hardening doctrine to be advanced to a set of professors who are living in a conformity to the ungodly, corrupt, and wicked fashions; and what evidence of them being crucified to the profits and pleasures of this world, which he must have been convinced of. But the minister in that church, that can advance such doctrines, seems to be of opinion, that the members of his church may be none crucified to the corrupt fashions and practices of this world more than others, and yet be none deviated from the doctrines and principles of the church of Scotland in the purest period of her reformation. (Indeed it must be granted, he meddled little or none with practices, but only with doctrines and principles; but what of all that, it is well known that the doctrine in that period was, that professors living in such practices that his members are guilty of, could not be church members, nor owned as godly men or faithful contenders.)
So the doctrines advanced in that sermon must be very dangerous; because it makes the ignorant, careless, profane, and neutral church members, to believe that they are in as good a church state at present, as the church of Scotland was in her purest period of reformation.
Again it must be observed, that the doctrines taught in that sermon, are the very same doctrines that were advanced by the public resolutioners, that they were in no articles deviated from the doctrines of the church of Scotland betwixt 1638 and 1649; which was the only doctrine for carrying on the defections in that day: and it is the only doctrine at this day, whereby both the de-
[ xxiv ]
fections from the covenanted principles, and the wicked practices of this day are maintained; because it is by such doctrines that the present time-serving, and time-complying professors, are hardened in their delusions, to think that they are as honest contenders and witness-bearers for the doctrines and principles of the church of Scotland in her purest period of reformation, as those that lived in that time.
And again, The doctrines contained in that sermon, were made up of such arguments that were used by the indulged, and these who have owned the revolution to this day.
Therefore that doctrine must be of a dangerous tendency; because the other churches have as good a right to advance that they are none deviated from the doctrines and principles of the church of Scotland in her purest period, as that church whereof the preacher was a member; for this reason, because the practices of their members, and the practices of other church members are so undistinguishable that they cannot be separate.
So this doctrine confirms all the churches, that their church state is as good as the church of Scotland, even in her purest period; and that the church of Scotland, even in her purest period, required no more of her members, to shew both the reality of their religion, and their faithfulness in contending for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, than the present churches are requiring of their members. So that preacher that could advance such doctrines in such an unlimited manner, that his church was in no hairs or hoofs deviated from the doctrines and principles maintained by the church of Scotland in her purest period, without acknowledging any defections that she is guilty of, must be of opinion that there is no need of any reformation in that church; and no more is required of her members to evidence them faithful contenders for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, but to go on, and vindicate their present principles and practice. Therefore, many thousands of their zealous, though ignorant church members, have been confirmed in their apostasy and unfaithfulness from the
[ xxv ]
obligation of the covenants, national and solemn league; and strengthened to defend corrupt, wicked, and ungodly practices, by the hearing of these very same doctrines by their ministers, that they were none deviated from the doctrines and principles, &c. held by the church of Scotland in her purest period. Therefore it is come, by such doctrines, that there is not a church in Scotland maintaining these obligations of the covenants. But this preacher need be none surprised at the little freedom that is taken with this sermon of his, seeing it is not the first time that he has been attacked for his sentiment or doctrine; or that he is worse than the rest of his brethren; for there were a number of them hearing of that sermon, and since they have given no public disapprobation of it, they must be looked on as of the same sentiment.
And again, The presumption is supported at this day, by two opinions advanced at present about the nature of the gospel offer. The first is, That none have a right to lay claim to the offer of the gospel, but those that have performed a number of pre-requisites as duties to merit a right to claim the offer of the gospel: which is the Arminian system.
The second opinion is, That God the Father has made a deed of gift and grant of Christ in the gospel to all men; and that all men, indiscriminately, have a right to lay claim to the offers of the gospel; which is plain antinomian doctrines. But the modern antinomians who pretend to qualify the ancient antinomians, who said that our Lord Jesus Christ not only died for a part of mankind, but for them all. And also suppose a man continuing in notorious sins through the whole of his life unrepented of; can any faith in Christ save him, whose works from first to last denied him? These ancient antinomians says, Yes. So the doctrines of the modern antinomians gives the profane swearer, the drunkard, oppressor, the secure and careless church member, as good a warrant to imagine that they have as truly embraced the offer of the gospel as those that are self-denied to the profits and pleasures of this world; as those that are sen-
[ xxvi ]
sible of their lost and undone state by nature; or those who are enabled to improve that grace of repentance. So it is not the scripture (maintained by our noble reformers, and their successors the honest martyrs, through the last persecuting period,) doctrine about the nature and freeness of the gospel offer that is here opposed; (though it may be said by some of whom other things might have been expected, that this point is not so fully handled as it required; yet it is plainly seen by what is said,) that it is the modern antinomian way of holding up of Christ in the offer of the gospel to sinners as such; and that all have a right to Christ, be what they will for sinning; and that God the Father hath made a free and unhampered gift and grant of him to mankind sinners as such. Now this must be as plain antinomian doctrine as was defended by Crisp, Richardson, Eaton, Saltmarsh, which was condemned by the assembly of divines 1643; and also confuted in their public writings and sermons, though it be in other words: so these unlimited explanations of the gospel offer, which neither requires of the receivers a sense of their need, nor a sense of the sufficiency of the gift, nor a sense of their own insufficiency, while destitute of that gift; neither do they require repentance, nor abstaining, nor turning from all appearance of evil; not that these duties are to be required as pre-requisites, or meritorious for the receiving of Christ in the gospel: yet there is surely something required of every one before they can say that they have any right to, or can lay claim to Christ in the gospel. For if sinners, as such, be what they will, insensible of their lost state by nature, insensible of any need of being born again, insensible of a Saviour, have a right to lay claim on such conditions; then it will never be denied but they have as good a right to continue under that same condition; which must be the grossest of presumption. It is unquestionable but the holy Spirit of God must work on elect sinners as such, and bring them to a sense of the insolvent state of themselves; and that they must take hold of Christ as he is offered in the gospel, or undoubtedly there is no union to that new covenant blessing.
[ xxvii ]
But this in no ways will admit of that antinomian tenet, that Christ is to be held up as such, without any conditions. So the author of these Grievances, and all those who believe that this antinomian doctrine is so prevailing, must be grieved that it is never from scripture stated, what life and practice it is that are evidencing who these professors are, that have believed and embraced the offer of the gospel, or those that have not.
Therefore it is not the scriptural freeness of the gospel offer that is here opposed, but the present unscriptural antinomian method of stating the nature of the gospel offer; which has greatly hardened and encouraged such great numbers in security and presumption. For if the offer of Christ in the gospel was stated and explained according to the scripture rule, it would neither encourage nor harden men in presumption and security: because the scripture requires of all that can lay claim in a warrantable manner to Christ in the gospel, must be careful to be sensible of their own insufficiency, &c. &c. and to maintain good works, to abstain from all appearance of evil, as it is said, “Let them that name the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” So it may be doubted if those who are now maintaining, in such an unlimited manner, that Christ in the gospel is offered to sinners as such, are not of opinion that there is no need for any work of the holy Spirit to convince men of their sin and misery, nor yet to renew their wills. So all those that are maintaining that Christ should be offered to sinners as such, living in wickedness, yet have a scripture warrant to claim an interest in the offer of Christ in the gospel; or they must be of opinion that sinners as such have abilities of their own to embrace Christ in the gospel. So the teachers of these doctrines seem to hold antinomian and arminian tenets to the life.
To conclude, It is really wished, that none who were once favourers of the author of these Grievances, or the cause that he is pleading for, or any of these faithful contenders who hath given a faithful testimony to that
[ xxviii ]
cause, should take any advantage of them, by gathering up any of their secret failings that were lying hid, or not known to any but yourselves, nor is doing no hurt to the public cause, nor yet was made known when they were to speak for themselves. So it is hoped, that while they are resting from their labours, while their works are following them, that you would suffer their memories to rest also, from any contempt which you may cast on them on account of the unworthiness of the publisher; or from any personal quarrel with him; or from any misconduct that you think he hath done to that faithful testimony: let the publisher’s misconduct be known by itself, and let none suffer for his sake. So I leave you with that prayer of the Psalmist, Psalm lxix. 6. “Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord God of hosts, be ashamed for my sake; let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel.”
JOHN CALDERWOOD.
CLANFIN, Mar. 27, 1809.
PETITION
AND
REPRESENTATION
OF
GRIEVANCES, &c.
OF US UNDER SUBSCRIBERS,
TO THE VERY
REVEREND MODERATOR, AND REMNANT
MEMBERS OF THE REFORMED
PRESBYTERY.
HUMBLY SHEWETH,
THAT though every thing that becomes a real ground of complaint respecting persons or things, is discouraging; yet, for a person or body of men to be in matters of truth and duty upon conscience, laid under a necessity to complain of defections, corruptions, compliances and inconsistencies, or other prevailing evils, even amongst Christ’s professed witnesses, whom we shall suppose nearest the true state of the testimony, in these backslidings, must be still a more weighty, affecting, and grievous subject; being what not only lays the complainers oft’ times under the gloom of resentment, and
[ 2 ]
greatest odium of men of contentious spirits. My mothers children were angry with me—wo is me my mother, that thou hast born me a man of strife and contention, &c. But it also lays the complained of, if the grievance be just, were it even the Lord’s own professing people, when obstinately persisted in, under the Lord’s displeasure. You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your iniquities. Nevertheless, being a commanded duty in scripture, plead with your mother; let us search and try our ways, and turn again unto the Lord. Stand ye in the way, and see and ask for the old paths, wherein is the good way, and walk therein; contend for the faith, &c. Whereunto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same things, &c. And also warranted by the approved practice of Christ’s faithful witnesses, particularly in the Reformed Church of Scotland, especially in declining and backsliding times, upon the said scriptural ground. And after their example we shall, with all due reverence and becoming respect, condescend upon the following articles, which we cannot but look upon but as matters of grievances, at least unto us: humbly craving that you would be pleased to take them under your most serious and deliberate consideration; and grant us such an answer as shall prove a reconcilement, and satisfying redress of the same; so that every stumbling-block may thereby be happily removed, and peace, truth, and unity, and righteousness, embrace each other amongst us.
[ 3 ]
GRIEVANCE I.
ARTICLE I.—Concerning Point of Testimony.
OUR late sufferers upon the scriptural footing of the testimony of the reformed covenanted church of Scotland, and their successors, the old dissenters, in prosecution of the same cause and testimony; for the same reasons (which we insist not upon) in their printed papers, declarations, and the renovation of our solemn covenants near Douglas, 1712; refuses all subjection unto the present antiscriptural, anti-covenanted erastian powers; and therefore hold the paying of taxations for their support, carry on law process before them, to be a public sin and breach of testimony. Now, it would appear we not only allow of such practices, but even avows the same; only some argues these to be no actual acknowledgment of the present powers at all; others allege they are a moral duty founded upon the principle of self defence: a third sort hold we are in a state of conquest or bondage, and pay for wrath’s sake, which is suffering, but no sin at all: supposing our late act and judicial testimony will bear men out in the last two senses. Now, as said testimony adheres to the above declarations, we humbly think there must be at least an inconsistency here. We therefore humbly crave that the present may be reconciled with the former; and these sentiments reconciled with one another, that we may know what this court judges sin, and what suffering; that it may be no longer thus cast in our teeth by opponents:—That in principle we disown the government; but in practice we support and uphold them; pursue and defend before; takes all privileges from them as well as others do. For until this be done, there is no reconcilement.
[ 4 ]
GRIEVANCE II.
ART. II.—Concerning Terms of Communion.
WE own and acknowledge the perpetual binding obligations of our covenant; and in our late act and testimony, and terms of a ministerial and christian communion; adheres unto the renovation of these covenants at Auchensaugh and Crawfordjohn, 1712, and 1745; with the acknowledgement of sins and engagement to duties sworn thereunto; wherein the above articles of supporting the present powers, and carrying on of law process, is acknowledged as a public sin, and engaged against.
Now, when we deliberately allow ourselves in the practice of these, does this not import a breach of former engagements and more; as the renovation of these covenants are made, at least read, as terms of our communion, while no due means or efforts are used to put the duty of covenanting in practice since that time. We thereupon humbly crave that this reverend court would do their endeavours to satisfy our minds in this, that so we may no longer be under the awful brand or suspicion of breach of covenant, while we are bound by our solemn league and covenant to endeavour the extirpation of popery, prelacy, &c.
GRIEVANCE III.
IN receiving the seal of the covenant of baptism to our children, we are engaged unto the Word of God, Confession of Faith, Catechisms, Sum of Saving Knowledge, Directory for Worship, Form of Church Government, the Covenants, National and Solemn League. But in
[ 5 ]
our terms of communion read before the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, these declarations, and the renovations of the covenants at Auchensaugh and Crawfordjohn above mentioned, and the presbytery’s act, declaration and testimony are added. Now as there is a liberty given in this said act and testimony, at least taken from it, for such practices as none of these declarations or renovations bears countenance to or allows, of which the said act and testimony reduplicates [repeats] upon and adheres unto. Now we want to know why the same articles are not mentioned or engaged unto, when renewing the privileges of baptism, as they are before participating of the Lord’s Supper, as sometimes persons come to be engaged in the first before they be admitted to the last: or how the act and testimony, and the practices persons take countenance from in it, can be reconciled with the scope of these papers therein reduplicated upon; or even with itself, upon this account; and for what reasons these terms now read, are altered, or differ from that act agreed by the presbytery upon, as the terms of ministerial and christian communion with the old dissenters at the Links of Kirkcaldy. If it is said, We only adhere to these, with this proviso, as they are founded upon, and agreeable unto the word of God. Answer, We cannot conceive how we can be bound unto any human composer, even the Confession of Faith itself, without the same proviso. We therefore crave that the presbytery would either shew in what article or particular, these papers are contrary or disagreeable unto the word of God, or else abide by those truths they contain: for where and while no distinction is made, we can make no just or valid exception that is intelligible to any discerning, thinking person.
[ 6 ]
GRIEVANCE IV.
AGREEABLE to the covenanted testimony of the reforming and suffering Church of Scotland, the community of old dissenters made it their study, in receiving enterents, to examine them both as to principle and practice; that is, concerning their practical knowledge, and soundness in the faith; and their love to, and zeal for the Lord’s cause and testimony: if found satisfying, they were received. In virtue of which, no person could be elected or admitted into offices, such as elders, if they allowed themselves in judgment or practice, to support the present powers, or carry on law process before them, till within these thirty years, at least before the act and testimony was emitted. Now there is little more required in the admitting persons, either into christian privilege or office in the church, in point of public testimony from some of the different parties in the day, excepting an allowance or adherence to the act and testimony.
Now we would gladly know from whence this alteration proceeds: for though it might be argued that there are some circumstantial differences since the revolution from what was before it, as to some of these things in the persecuting period: yet sure we are, there has been neither revolution nor reformation in church or state, nor alteration to the better, but still to the worse, since Mount-herik declaration was published about 1740, and the year 1760, when the presbytery’s judicial act and testimony was exhibited to the world.
[ 7 ]
GRIEVANCE V.
IN prosecuting the testimony handed down unto us by the suffering remnant, unto their successors, the community of old dissenters; they, both before and since they enjoyed a gospel ministry, constantly received enterents from different parties, in or by the door of christian fellowship societies: by which it behoved them to enquire into the judgment, practice, and moral character of such as made application unto them: and in this they still looked upon themselves to be proper judges, whether they could admit such into their fellowship as a society of praying christians, or not; which no ways prejudised the just power, or proper right of minister or session, when they come to have any to examine what degrees of knowledge or soundness in the faith of the doctrines of the true reformed christian religion they had, prior to their receiving church privileges: the society still having a friendly correspondence with the session, where time and circumstances would allow; and otherways they acquainted the minister or eldership, whereby for a long time, the greatest harmony and concord subsisted betwixt them in prosecution of which comely order, for dissenting ministers took parents without exception engaged upon their receiving the privilege of baptism to their children, to the duties of secret prayer, family worship, keeping up or attending fellowship meetings as well as attending on public ordinances; which was a mean of making people more punctual and precise in performing such a necessary part of duty in these sinning, irreligious, and backsliding times. Members of societies found themselves under a double obligation to watch over their own moral conduct,
[ 8 ]
and the character and conversation of their brethren, fellow members of fellowships and correspondencies [associated fellowship-meetings]; whereby a number of things disagreeable were happily avoided. But what ground of complaint arises with us here, for is there not persons that receives both seals of the covenant, particularly baptism to their children, time after time, who for the time they receive such, are properly in no society meeting, nor perhaps never were, nor could be properly either admitted or continued a social member in any society, according to the prescribed rules and directory for admitting members and regulating such societies; and yet these are solemnly engaged with others, to keep up or attend on fellowship meetings. Now we think this has a bad tendency. For, not to multiply particulars, it sometimes raises the dust of discord and contention betwixt ministers and meetings, if not amongst the members of meetings themselves, which is not so easily put up again. The person thus admitted, perhaps goes from year to year, no society looking upon themselves as obliged to enquire into their moral walk or practice; which oft times, in such cases, is none of the best: so that the session has still new and more work upon their hand, upon their repeated application for church privileges. Yea, what is more and worse; it must in some degree involve such persons in perjury; when both the engager and engaged may know, that in a probable way, the keeping up of such meetings is not to be performed: nay, there is nothing prophetical in it to foresee, that this method, if persisted in, must terminate in the utter abolition of such religious meetings altogether. For if the minister, or session either, wrest all power of admission out of the fellowship’s hands, then it must natively follow, that society meetings, and correspondencies, can have no dis-
[ 9 ]
cretive [discretionary] power left them to appoint their own rule as to admitting, judging, and cashiering [dismissing] their own members for their imprudent conduct, faults, or desertion from the society; they may go off one by one, and have church privileges at pleasure; society meetings can exist no more. Then farewell sweet fellowships and desirable correspondencies [associated fellowship-meetings], at which the souls of the Lord’s people, in former times, has many times been refreshed, name and thing for ever. It has been so with the established church, and it proves so with the secession in general, in respect of religious societies: and thus it was we lost our faithful general meetings, who were once famous to the reformed churches abroad; on these, and the following pretences: and we may say with them, we lost the true principle or spirit of our testimony also. We therefore want to know, upon what footing or foundation, fellowship and correspondent meetings now stand, that further evil may be avoided. If it is said, that some of these things engaged unto, are only necessary, and others absolutely necessary: then let us know what are absolutely necessary, and what not: or if a minister or session will grant one privilege who lives in the habitual neglect of secret prayer, family worship, and the attending of public ordinances, with which this is classed, and in whom there is no distinction made; for we think it is no small matter for men to play thus fast and loose with their own consciences, in involving or being involved in perjury. If it is further argued, as we know it is, that our new settled congregations, from a broken state of the church, compounds, or makes up the difference; we grant adherence to no such an allowance as this: and, by the bye, if we are so conveniently situated as sessions can know every individual circumstance, character, part and
[ 10 ]
behaviour, as those amongst whom they are daily conversant; how comes it we have so seldom been visited in many places by our ministers? or whence is it that the so necessary and laudable part of the ministerial and eldership office of the annual visitation of families, is so little attended unto. But to the point in hand, We know of no congregation yet amongst us, but what consists of people from more parishes than one; yea, some eight, ten, or twelve parishes; so that in this case, the adjacent society, if there is any, must know as much and more anent [concerning] the life and conversation of such as they can admit into their number, as any church judicatory; and this is no invasion of their proper right: for every religious society, particularly a religious fellowship, has a radical right to worship and serve that God who gave them a being, in his own appointed way; and though they must be accountable to him and their lawful superiors, for every part of their criminal conduct, yet, in virtue of that power, they may elect, admit, adjust their rule, and regulate their own members, independent of any court whatever: and this the word of God, right reason, and the laws of nations, allow. It therefore must of necessity follow, that if meetings can claim no negative over the session, in respect of admittances to church privileges, the session can claim no just positive over them, to make them receive into their christian fellowship, such as they admit over the belly or light of their own consciences, or contrary to the rules of regulating their society. It must then, be most just and agreeable, that if the meetings must admit none without previous notice to the session, the session should give church privileges to none without the knowledge of the society in the bounds, that they may have access and opportunity to object, if such in-
[ 11 ]
tends to join in membership; otherways we cannot see how either piety or unity can prosper or flourish any more amongst us; or in plain words, no peace or no meeting, unless men resolves tamely to give up with their christian liberty or freedom altogether.
We therefore humbly crave, that all these three particulars, our read terms of christian communion, admitting persons into office, and christian fellowship, may be properly adverted [considered] unto, that such inconsistencies may for the future be reconciled and happily avoided.
GRIEVANCE VI.
ART. IV.—Concerning Doctrine.
THE covenanted testimony in these covenanted isles, is a testimony for the reformation and purity of religion in the state as well as the churches. Our judicial act and testimony well exhibits it; it has also been the practice of the ministers of the church of Christ in these lands, not only judicially, but also doctrinally, to declare what was sin and what was duty, in both respects, as necessarily called for. The General Assembly 1648, sess. 26, made an act for that purpose, to censure ministers for their silence in not speaking to the sins of these times, wherein defection from the covenanted cause, plot and practices in joining with, and upholding and strengthening malignants, are specified expressly; which act and practice, our honest ministers all along, in some measure endeavour to discharge as a bound duty. And although we take not upon us to prescribe rules for ministers in this, being out of our province; yet we humbly think, that
[ 12 ]
without this, they cannot be said to declare the whole counsel of God to his people. And yet we judge there seems to be some ground of complaint arising with us here: for although the doctrines of the gospel are preached, and sin and duty respecting practice, in many respects set forth; yet there is, we think, some kind of silences concerning several things; namely, on point of public testimony: when one imposition is made upon the back of another, people many times not knowing what to choose or refuse, what is sin and what is suffering, what is a supporting, strengthening, and direct owning of these malignant enemies and usurpers of Christ’s crown, rights, and royal dignity, and what is not. Nay, we could wish that some of our ministers, members, and the presbytery, were still more explicit in their public prayers respecting the present powers, that people of different denominations might have no interpretative grounds and reasons to go away and say that they prayed for the king; surely they behoved to own his authority.
We therefore humbly crave that the presbytery would advert [consider] unto this, that we may no longer be left, in these respects, to stumble in the dark, when our eyes behold our teachers; so that happily they may be as eyes to the blind, and legs to the lame, and as he goats [leads] before the flock in the dark and cloudy day, to lead them in the ways of truth and duty; for why should we be as those who turn aside by the flocks of his companions.
GRIEVANCE VII.
WE are, both ministers and people, at least, joint church members, solemnly engaged unto the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, Sum of Saving Knowledge, &c.
[ 13 ]
that is, as we must understand it, unto all the doctrines contained in these. Now in these four standards we are taught concerning the covenant of grace, “that as a covenant of redemption, Christ the Son of God undertook and fulfilled the condition or meritorious cause of man’s justification and salvation. But by way of entertaining a covenant of grace, or reconciliation with the elect through faith in himself:—that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners, a Mediator, and life and salvation by him, requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him,” &c.* Unto which, the writings of our late Reformers, exactly corresponds. Here we cannot be fully satisfied, that although the Presbytery have in their Act and Testimony declared and maintained, that Christ’s active and passive obedience, and complete mediatory righteousness, is the only meritorious cause of a sinner’s justification, and that true and saving faith, which is also the gift of God, is the alone instrumental cause of a sinner’s justification in his sight, or evangelical condition, or internal mean by which the soul is interested in Christ: to which we agree. Yet we scarcely can find that so much is taught doctrinally, either as to the terms, covenant of redemption and grace, or the word condition, as in the above sense ascribed to faith; might we not say, in any other sense with which we cannot agree: for although we are far from putting faith, or any other grace purchased and promised in the new covenant, in place of Christ’s righteousness; yet we cannot help thinking, that according to the tenor or gospel plan of this covenant, wherever faith is mentioned in the above sense in scripture, there seems a conditionality both positively and negatively to be annexed
_____
* Sum of saving knowledge, head 2, Larger Cat. quest. 32.
[ 14 ]
unto it; for in scripture form it runs thus: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved; he that believeth not, shall be damned; he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, &c. Now, till it can be proved that mankind sinners can be saved without faith, which never will, it can never be proven that saving faith is in no sense a condition in the new covenant.
GRIEVANCE VIII.
AGAIN, the Confession of Faith, chap. 18, and Larger Catechism, quest. 81. teaches us that assurance is not of the essence of faith. Now we are both judicially, and sometimes doctrinally taught, by a distinction of objective and subjective assurance, that in both, the first of these is still assurance; or in other words, this assurance is of the essence of faith: for proof of which, the above chapter and question in our standards, are quoted or referred unto. But we can find no such distinction there; nor does the text cited prove so much: nay, the most of them are the very texts taken by our Westminster divines, to prove that assurance is not of the essence of faith. We do not intend to stand upon the terms objective or subjective, being what must be best described by experience; but we think it safer to think and say with our standards and reforming divines, as pious Mr. Flavel has it, “assurance is a fruit of justification,” says godly professor Rutherford, “who speaks from experience,” and after him the learned Witsius on the Covenant, “Assurance is rather a glorious fruit of faith, than faith itself, or the ascribed act.” To believe that God is my Lord, who from eternity
[ 15 ]
did choose me of intention and sent Christ to die for me, says he is not essential to saving faith; they believe but in the dark: they stay on Jehovah, and yet see no light, Isa. l. 10. Hear what godly Mr. Gray says, “There are a direct act and reflex act of faith: there may be a direct act of faith without assurance. A direct act is when a sinner closes with the offers of the gospel for salvation, and embraces Christ in them. A reflex act is to understand that he is in a state of grace, and believe that he is passed from death to life,” &c. The daily experience of the saints, both before and since the canon of scripture was sealed or closed up, confirms this truth, when under their various exercises, wherein some of them solemnly declare, that they had been a number of years in Christ, before ever they attained unto any satisfying grounds of belief of a saving interest in Christ. Nay, some have advanced as far as heaven’s threshold, so to speak, wrestling thro’ the dark lands of doubts and fears, and yet fairly anchored within the vail at last; which we think could hardly be the case, if this kind of assurance were in every appropriating act of saving faith: there is indeed this kind of assurance in saving faith, that the foundation stands sure, 2 Tim. ii. 19. whether the believer knows it or not for the time; but this is not the assurance we dispute: it were therefore better to hold with our Larger and Shorter Catechism, that assurance is one of the benefits accompanying or flowing from justification, adoption, and sanctification, than the essence of faith itself, though this faith in itself neither produces doubts or fears: yet, as Mr. Brown observes,* “A child of God may die without this particular act of assurance.”
_____
* [Exposition] on Rom. viii. 16. see the last page [p. 290.].
[ 16 ]
GRIEVANCE IX.
CONCERNING what is now called the Father’s deed of gift or grant of Christ in the gospel offer; we are judically, and even sometimes doctrinally taught, that God the Father, upon the footing of the infinite sufficiency of the death and sacrifice of Christ, has made a free and unhampered gift and grant of him, as an all-sufficient sacrifice to mankind sinners, as such in the word. But we would gladly know where that word is to be found; for we are of the humble opinion, that neither text cited, nor our standard referred unto for proof of the above position makes so much: we would gladly know how it can be that Christ has purchased this offer, and yet never purchased salvation to many, if not the major part of these to whom it is made: or from whence it is that God the Father has made a deed of gift or grant of Christ in the gospel offer to all mankind sinners, indiscriminately as such, and yet never actually put them in possession of what is gifted or granted them: or how it falls out that one can have a right unto that which pertaineth to his salvation, but what must be by way of promise; and if it comes by promise, then sooner or later they must be put in possession of the things promised and gifted. Indeed it must be granted, that the gospel offer is most full and free in scripture, and behoves to be so; and no gospel minister can know who it is that shall be enabled by divine grace to make faith’s application, or take hold of Christ in this offer. But here we are again more inclinable to follow the judgment of our old reformers. And that some of them has expressed thus: That although the gospel, and Christ in the gospel comes alike
[ 17 ]
near unto all, wherein it commends the love and grace of God in Christ, and warrants such as are elected to believe, whether they then knew it or not; and leaves unbelievers unexcusable. Yet the universal offer, as Mr. Shepherd observeth, “Ariseth not from Christ’s priestly office immediately, but from his kingly office, “Go and preach the gospel to every creature under heaven.” Matt. xxviii. 18. Mr. Ruther[furd], on asking the question, How it comes to such as are only visible church members? Answereth, From Christ as their surety. But 2. for the elects sake, so Paul, Acts xiii. 26. 2 Tim. ii. 10. &c.
Of the same judgment is Mr. Durham, when he says, “Christ’s death for you is not the formal ground or mark of your faith, nor yet of the offer of the gospel, but the Lord’s will warranting you to believe, and calling for it from you,”* &c.
If it is said, it is only the offer, not Christ in the gospel that is gifted; then this must be words without signification of sense, to have that granted, gifted, or put in possession, which they never would or could apply, use, or receive, while the decree of God’s election standeth sure, says the learned professor Witsius, all and every one in particular; therefore, to whom the gospel is preached, are not commanded immediately to believe that Christ died for them, for that is a falsehood, &c. which would be the same if gifted unto them in the gospel, if we understand the sense of language at all.
We therefore would humbly crave, that in respect of all these three particulars above mentioned, Faith, Assurance, and the general or universal call in the gospel,
______
* See Sincere Convert, p. 61. Ruth[erfurd]. Cov[enant]. of Life p. 341. Dur[ham]. on Isa. Ser. 33.
[ 18 ]
may be either stuck to by the Presbytery, and the people under their inspection, as they stand in our standards to which we are engaged; or else reconcile and clear up these as presently taught, to be the same in sum and substance as they are expressed in these, as we think that this is not fully yet done; that such valuable truths may be fully illustrated, our standards vindicated, and the memory of our reformers who were of that judgment, and deserves so well of the church of Christ in succeeding ages, exhonoured [exonerated], (and not a slur thus cast upon them,) that people may be more and more persuaded of, and confirmed in, the most interesting doctrine of the christian religion.
GRIEVANCE X.
ART. V.—Of Discipline.
IN terms of admission, agreeable to the divine rule, and after the laudable example of the suffering remnant during the persecuting period, when persons seceded from other parties into the community of old dissenters, they always wanted to be some way satisfied both as to their soundness in the doctrines of the christian faith, and the most distinguishing points of their testimony; and if found deficient in these, or guilty of any of the corruptions or defections of these backsliding times, they were precisely required to give an acknowledgment of the evil, and promise a forbearance and amendment for the future; and if censurable, to receive such admonition or censure, as the degrees of the offence deserved, and the church in her broken circumstances could inflict. The like order was duly execute with embodied members, when falling into
[ 19 ]
scandalous practices, or relapsing therein. But here we find ourselves again under a necessity to complain, that the rule of church discipline, in both of these respects, seems to be much deviated from; for the first, many times when people come to be received into community, at least in some places, little more is asked concerning the article of faith, or the distinguishing points of the testimony, than that they be pleased with our ministers, and say that they think our judicial testimony the best, or formest, as they may be pleased sometimes to term it; although perhaps they never read it all over, at least with any serious or close attention, which is very inconsistent with the directory lately published by the Presbytery. And for the other, their former practice or conduct, little more sometimes has been required of numbers, if they could have a line from the session with whom they were formerly connected; or failing these, from two men or so in the neighbourhood, concerning their moral character. Nay, to some of our own personal knowledge, some have been received into privileges, guilty of some of the land-defiling sins and oaths; namely, that called the mason word and oath, without any proper acknowledgement or satisfaction asked or given, by meeting, minister, or session; at least in a formal or judicative way. Others have had the seals of the covenant, who never could be said to enter in properly by the door of either session or society, upon a simple conversation with some minister or member of session. Nay, sometimes individuals have been admitted unto the Lord’s table, through the inadvertancies, or partiality of some of the eldership, without either conversation with those, or proper examination for that particular purpose; a minister will admit to baptism by the door of the session, in his own congregation, and yet sustain
[ 20 ]
the testimony of a society from another; which doubtless must be very disagreeable and inconsistent with the rules of true presbyterian discipline and church government. Nay, as things are now, it might seem impossible to be otherwise; for can a nation of professing christians be born at once? Can such shoals of people of so many different persuasions, characters, and practices, from reclaiming congregations, be thus received unto the bosom of the community of the old dissenters, if a strict adherence to rules of discipline, in point of principle, judgment, practice, character, and we may say, soundness in the faith, and knowledge of the doctrine of the christian religion, were properly attended unto. Neither can we see the propriety for ministers to go unto distant corners, where there are none of the community residing, to preach upon the mere promiscuous call or petition of people disaffected to the church secession, relief, &c. for though that text, Go and preach the gospel to every creature, &c. be used and urged in this. Yet we humbly think, that tho’ this text warrants the implantation or publishing the glad tidings of the gospel of Christ in every place, wherein it has not hitherto been published by ministers, missionaries, called or uncalled, if sent by him. Yet the case here is no way parallel as a precedent in a christian reformed land, but backslidden church and people, where the gospel is every where proclaimed, only some certain branch or word of Christ’s patience, becomes the criterion or distinguishing point of public testimony with Christ’s faithful followers, from the other parties of the time. In which case, it seems, at least to us, necessary that there be an espousing of the said testimony, in its genuine light and state, prior to any connection or participation, were it even the preaching of the gospel, or any other of its
[ 21 ]
appendages whatsoever. Neither are we fond of cringing to incumbants for their kirk a day to preach in.
Again, in respect of church discipline: though it is readily granted, that in reforming times, the church is most attentive and strict in the rule of her discipline; an honest testimony, faithful doctrine, and precise discipline, often goes hand in hand together: yet it is a plain truth, that in a declining age of the church, there is still more need for it having a threefold right with it. (1.) As an ordinance of Jesus Christ; (2.) A gaining, if not a blasting the persons and designs of the offenders; (3.) A deterring such and others from the like practices; for it is sometimes evident that a faithful discharge of censure in church discipline, produces at least an agreeable external behaviour in some, when the preaching of the gospel will not do it. Every fault does not merit open rebuke; yet nothing is more positively enjoined in scripture than this, Them that sin rebuke before all, &c. that others may fear. It is not them that sin such or such a sin, but them that sin. And here we are sorry to have it to say, that as church discipline is managed without it now, we do not know what sin is, except open uncleanness, (that almost every party notices,) will bring one to open rebuke before all; and even the most aggravated degrees of that, even incest itself will perhaps be passed with three diets of appearance; which was the number in the reforming period allotted for simple fornication; and how many things which can be easily proved a breach of the divine law, can be passed or put up on the most lenitive terms without so much as a public intimation (not to speak of rebuke,) when that satisfaction was asked or given, and censure inflicted; except some person or persons take the trouble to go to some member of session, and enquire about it; and
[ 22 ]
how does this answer the scriptural ends of church censure, that others may hear and fear, when no public intimation is given in this matter. And for what relates more properly to breach of testimony, they seem little to be regarded, paying of taxes, kirk-dues, and even sometimes proclamation of banns in this erastian church, as sustaining their line for it, similar to silver in the days of Solomon, seems to be little accounted of with dissenters now; and are there not amongst us, who avowedly and allowedly carry on law process, in pursuing and defending for themselves and others, before these antiscriptural, anticovenanted and erastian magistrates. How many are there that keep public houses, takes out licences to sell drink, which necessarily lays them under a necessity of coming under such regulations as government directs; takes out Burgess tickets, makes oath sometimes before them; joins along with others in petitioning parliament for a repeal of certain taxes; incorporate with civil trade town corporations, which subjects them to their certain rule of regulation, sometimes choosing deacons at their elections; and one will become judge of what is called the burgh taxes, take out caption or horning to apprehend debtors; sometimes brother will go to law with brother, before the unbeliever, expressly contrary to the apostolic injunction; procures a warrant to search for stolen goods, and apprehend his neighbour; nay, town officers bearing the King’s badge and livery, has been either employed or accepted of, to guard passes, or superintend for order in the passes, and otherways, at sacramental occasions; not to say how many amongst us have some way or other involved ourselves in the fashionable, but infamous practice of drinking, defrauding, cozening, changing of cash, commodities, or otherways bartering of things every way
[ 23 ]
inconsistent with, and unbecoming the testimony and character of the genuine old presbyterian covenanted dissenters.—And what is worse, and which constitutes these matters of grievances; where are any of the men of such practices, especially if persons of influence or affluence in the world, called in question to account for such piece of conduct, except some individuals raise a complaint against them; and even in such cases, the complained upon justifies his conduct; the complainer is either baffled out of his evidence, or gets little satisfaction from the decision; if not for his best of pains, he gets the epithet of a reflexious, troublesome person, who can never be at rest, and is almost satisfied with nothing: for what can a sessional rebuke or admonition avail, when the charge is never publicly acknowledged, and neither promise nor evidence of any amendment given. Hence it falls out very often, that persons thus affected is emboldened, and relapses into the same practices, or something worse, when he finds such lenity used in church discipline. Ah, tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.
Perhaps it may be readily objected, that these things are no owning of the present powers; they are suffering, not sinning: we stand not upon answering objections here; we only say, that though it may be thus argued, as to the paying of publics, as being what the exactor can have, or its equivalent and more, whether we give it or not, that one may give a part of his own property to save the rest: which must still be at best a supporting them in their unjust usurpations.
We therefore wish and crave, that it were cleared up, and made evident from God’s word, and our covenanted testimony, that this is suffering, not sinning, as we cannot
[ 24 ]
rationally be satisfied with less, as being never yet really done. But as to the other branch of the above article, the being wholly of an active nature, we cannot yet see how persons can allow themselves in the practice of such things, but that they must acknowledge them as magistrates, whether they grant it or not. It may, we know, be further alleged, that there are several circumstantial cases we may be in holy providence reduced unto; we may fall under the awful charge of something criminal, or laid under a necessity to discover theft, murder, &c. in others, else the divine law cannot be duly execute in this respect. We grant these to be difficulting circumstances we may be in divine sovereignty reduced unto such a dilemma, that we must either sin or suffer with respect to ourselves and others, that nothing less than the Lord’s help, through the mean of a fervent application by prayer unto him, to bring us honestly and honourably through. We may indeed be called to suffer, but the Lord never laid his people under a necessity or obligation to sinning. But we presume, that none of all the above things narrated, can fall under that consideration, seeing that one may come through the world all his life honestly, and never involve himself in any of such practices. But the truth seems rather to be this, that we dissenters, like others, want to be now popular, opulent and fashionable, studying more a conformity to this world, the corrupt principles, customs and courses of the men of this world, than a conformity to the image of God, zeal and regard for religion, the cause and interest, cause and testimony of Jesus Christ, and his declarative glory in the world; for while some are almost turned mad with worldly wisdom, embarrassing themselves in business, and other folk’s affairs; others who haste to be rich, pierce themselves through with many sorrows.
[ 25 ]
We therefore desire and crave, that more due attention may be paid unto this ordinance of Christ’s church discipline: for, let ministers preach the gospel never so purely, and teach and point out sin and duty never so plainly; yet lax admission of enterents, partiality in censuring of offenders, and too much lenity in purging of scandal, will render all abortive. But like the lame man’s legs, unequal, as the wise man expresses it; or like a broken tooth, or a foot out of joint.
GRIEVANCE XI.
ART. VI.—Of Church Government.
WE solemnly adhere and engage unto the presbyterian form of church government, and calls ourselves by the name of the Old Presbyterian Covenanted Dissenters. Now, the ordinary perpetual officers in this church are, pastors, ruling elders, and deacons. The reformed church of Scotland, and even since the revolution, were very precise concerning all these three orders, until the defections of the revolution church rendered their case and situation such, that in several congregations they could neither have a competent number of ruling elders nor deacons. Now we would know where this office of officer has his, or its existence in the congregations belonging to the community of the old dissenters; and if they cannot be found, what is the reason of this omission: seeing that we have the divine appointment of deacons, as expressly declared in scripture, if not more positively expressed than ruling elders; the moral ground or necessity of the one,
[ 26 ]
being as valid respecting every church and period, as the other. By this omission, we humbly think that if the poor and afflicted be but seldom visited, they must be as sorrily provided for. If it is told us that the duties belonging to this office is now supplied by the ruling elder, we might in this reply, that it oft times falls out in a declining time of the church, that if the ruling elder supplies the office of the deacon, they have little power more than the deacon, but to collect and serve tables. But sure we are, ruling elders neither are nor can be elected and ordained unto this office of a deacon, unless the one office be confounded with the other. It may be further said, that the secession are no way punctual in this matter; but this is trivial; for the omission of this in the one, cannot constitute it a duty in another. Neither can we believe, that the secession is altogether destitute of this officer, as a noted divine from that quarter, in his system of divinity lately published, very justly observes, that no congregation can answer to Jesus Christ for droping the deacons, than for droping the ruling elders. So says Park*, even if it is said the elder is a deacon, I answer says he, albeit, the pastor includes the office of doctor, elder and deacon: yet seeing these are of divine institution, reverence is so far due, as to set up the distinct office, as nothing should be added to the divine institution upon pretence of imagined decency or order in the invention; so nothing, says he, ought to be diminished therefrom, upon pretence that somethings in the institution are needless or superfluous.
We therefore crave this omission may be adverted [considered] unto, that no ground of complaint be made to arise from this quarter.
_____
* [This is actually from Walter Steuart of Pardovan’s Collections and Observations.]
[ 27 ]
GRIEVANCE XII.
ART. VII.—Anent the duty of Fasting and Covenanting.
WE find it to have been the bound duty of the church and people of God, in almost all ages of the church, upon set diets of fasting and humiliation, to make a full enumeration and free confession, with heart and mouth, of all their sins, known, remembered, and we may say, unremembered: the word of God and practice of his people warrants this. The high priest, on the day of expiation, we presume did so, over the head of the scape goat, by the appointment of the supreme Law-giver. And thus it was with the New Testament church, particularly in our own land, both in the reforming and suffering periods; wherein the church and her representatives, in her name and mouth made an open confession, not only of all their personal, family, congregational, and national sins, as stand more directly in opposition to the moral precept of the ten commands, but even with respect to points of testimony, causing, asserting, and complying with supporting of these malignant enemies of God and his church, wherein their own sins of the ministry were particularly specified.
Now, alas, what ground of complaint arises with us here: for although our own personal, family, &c. sins be acknowledged in general alongst with the sins of others in the land, and the lands, and different parties in it, sins in departing from a covenanted work of reformation; yet where is the sins of our own ministry, either in the first constituting, or present subsisting members of the Pres-
[ 28 ]
bytery, or our own ignorance in general of reformation principles, the right manner of contending for them, want of true zeal for the cause of Christ, in faithful dealing with God in testimony bearing, comply with, and supporting these his antichristian foes, in our printed causes specified.
Now, as all these cases and many more are to be found now in our skirts, having all a deep hand in the defections of these apostate times. But until we first freely acknowledge our own sins, not only such as every professing denomination of christians does or may acknowledge, but even these things that more immediately refers unto the distinguishing points of our testimony, we can never be thought to mourn thoroughly for sin, either in ourselves or in others. This was the practice of the church, even in reforming times; and shall we have no cause or occasion for it in such declining times as these, when every one is carried down the current stream of defection. This, alas, argues, that we have either gained a large stock of imagined perfection in point of testimony bearing, or else we are fallen under a thick cloud of supine security and insensibility; out of which neither judgment nor mercy (with others,) can arouse us.
And further, it is not without some feeling of mind, that we are obliged to complain that so little respect or regard is by many paid unto such a necessary, a called for duty, at this time. Even as to the observation of these set days of fasting and humiliation, (for not to mention personal or family fasting, which alas, it is to be feared, is become rare to be found with either ministers or private christians,) how little regard is paid even unto these public fast days, appointed by the presbytery, to whom some will pay no attention, if the time do not ex-
[ 29 ]
actly chime in, or quadrate with their own external conveniences. Yea, some, for a very trivial thing, the attendance on some petty fair, market, or tryst on business, must have themselves excused; and even sometimes before sacramental occasions: while in the mean time, when ever one of these national mock erastian fasts occur, all necessary, at least outward business, must be suspended. We contend not, that people should, out of an air of contempt, rush out upon work or business beyond their daily ordinary employment on church fasts; namely before sacramental occasions: this being no suitable part of the conduct or character of the inoffensive followers of the meek and lowly Jesus. But to refrain or abandon our ordinary employment in its proper season, or appoint meetings on these national fasts, surely must either admit of an interpretive subjection to such iniquitous laws, or else evidence a cowardly submission to their enactors; which is every way unworthy of a faithful testimony against Christ’s antichristian foes upon such occasions offered, while the fear of men bringeth a snare.
And likewise allow us to complain, that sometimes these diets of fasting or thanksgiving, appointed by the presbytery, are by consent sometimes deserted on occasion of some petty fair, or public market day, for particular persons business, or shifted unto the parish fast day, or a fast day in the adjacent neighbourhood; no objection can plausibly be made, when such falls out without foresight occasionally: but we cannot think that this of fasting and meeting, or any other appointment of such necessary duties, can lawfully be referred unto an after time; the time may be anticipated, but not delayed, for external convenience: for no person has such a lease of life, or
[ 30 ]
soundness in body or mind, that he can assure himself either life or capacity to keep it, even were it on the morrow after.
We therefore here move, that these particulars respecting fasting, may be taken under this Presbytery’s consideration; for if the church ought to appoint diets of fasting, and thereupon make a full and free enumeration of their own and the land’s sins, then sure they have a just power to see that their own laws, in this respect, be duly observed and executed. Neither can a dispensing power be lawfully exercised, in granting a liberty for persons or congregations to run the diet of this duty beyond the time appointed.
GRIEVANCE XIII.
THE duty of public, as well as private covenanting, is what is fully warranted in scripture, both by precept, prophesy, promise, and example; which proofs we need not recite unto those by whom they are not denied. In this practice, the church and people of God has oft’ times been engaged, particularly on the back of a general decline to apostasy, when they began to look back again unto the Lord, in which they have been remarkably blessed and countenanced of him, by a plentiful effusing, and down-pouring of his holy Spirit, for their confirmation therein; accomplishing of these, and other gracious promises, Isa. xliv. 2. Psal. cx. 3. &c. And none more than our own land has been remarkably blessed, honoured, and countenanced in the practice of this duty. Our reforming ancestors were no less than ten times, in the space of an hundred years, from 1556 to 1650, en-
[ 31 ]
gaged therein; until by several laudable acts, both of church and state, covenanting became the very test or term of communion, christian and ministerial, in these covenanted isles of the seas. In virtue of which, these covenants were renewed at Lanark, by a small handful, 1666, upon the back of the general overthrow of that glorious covenanted work of reformation; and afterwards by a part of the suffering remnant, 1689, when it was almost laid in its dismal grave by another popish tyrant; in both of which they were countenanced of the Lord. Their successors, the old Dissenters, renewed the same, 1712, when not only sinful oaths were imposed on churchmen, an almost boundless tolleration in favours of episcopacy was granted, but even the lands were threatened with the ascending of a popish pretender to the British throne. They entered upon the same exercise 1745, upon the back of some more advanced steps of defection, and the eye of a threatened invasion by another popish pretender: which renovations are not only made terms of communion with us, but we are doctrinally taught by the several members of this Presbytery, the duty of covenanting.
Now we would know from what reasons, and from whence it is, that no due means has been used, nor proper efforts made by the Reformed Presbytery since that time, for engaging themselves, and the people under their inspection, in such a laudable and necessary called duty; and more, when the matter has been by the people once and again brought before this judicatory for this end or purpose.
And sure we are, whether we consider it as a stated or occasional duty, there was never more occasion for it than now, when the streams of apostasy and defection run so high; and these covenants, and a covenanted work of
[ 32 ]
reformation is become so low: Popery itself is now making wide strides unto these nations; and Christ’s crown rights, and the liberties of his church, are more and more invaded. And what civil subjects but what are entering or entered unto some corporation or association for carrying on their intended political schemes. Nay, Satan’s subjects now parties themselves in clubs and combinations, and by error or immoralities, endeavours the propagation of their master’s kingdom. And shall we be behind in entering into these religious bonds of association, by engaging to comply with the gospel and gospel retinue, the perpetual obligation of God’s word, in endeavouring the suppression, by every warrantable method, of our idolatry, superstition, profanity, with every wicked course of self-seeking men, and every thing contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness.
There might be other motives noticed which invite unto the practice of covenanting; such as the palpable breach of covenant, state opposition to them, a neglect of the duties engaged unto in them. Will a revival of true and practical religion, which oft’ times accompanies covenanting. Nay, these covenants themselves seem to cry aloud to us, saying in effect unto us, we are now repelled by almost every denomination of men in these lands; and will ye who make us terms of communion, and are called by our name, the Old Covenanted Dissenters, by such a total neglect, forsake us also. Perhaps it is objected, that covenanting times are reforming times; we are not called thereunto in such declining times as this; we cannot stand on answering objections here; but we think that though this is no proper duty for any nation, party or person, who does not resolve to break off their sins by repentance, turn unto God, and endeavour, through his
[ 33 ]
strength, a thorough reformation in life, heart, and practice: and this we cannot do, but in virtue of the Lord first looking upon us; but we should resolve in the Lord’s strength to do so. Is it not high time to reform; is our defections not high enough yet; or was there ever a time when there was more need of a reformation than now; and every reformation has had a beginning; it was just at such a crisis of time, that the saints, both under the Old and New Testament dispensation, set about covenanting: Satan, a corrupt heart, and wicked world, are never wanting to raise up barrs and lets [barriers and hindrances] in the way of commanded duty; but let us come over these, and thro’ the Lord’s strength and assistance, set about it: duty is ours, the success is his; only let us be hearty and courageous in it, and let the Lord do what seemeth him good.
If there are any so gross in sentiment amongst us, as to allege that they cannot be renewed but by the majority, or in a national way; to such we shall only reply, that this not only flies in the face of scripture, precepts, and prophesy, but even the practice of Christ’s faithful witnesses in different periods of the church; for scripture precept, it enforces the duty, “thou shalt avouch the Lord thy God, vow and pay;” but the number is not specified. National covenanting indeed, has been an honour and privilege that the Israelitish church of old, and the reformed church in our own land, by the good hand of God, in a general reformation, has attained. But this has not been the peculiar honour of every church or body of Christ’s faithful followers. No, when the major part of a nation declines, the minor, yea, every small number ought to stand their ground, and renew their covenant. For if a kingdom may do so, why not a province, congregation, &c. nothing being wanting but the sanction of
[ 34 ]
human authority. It is prophesied, that five cities in the land of Egypt should do it: the church of Macedonia, if we allow they covenanted, had no such sanction for it. And for practice, how many religious covenants, leagues and bonds, do we find recorded, of cities and provinces in the history of the reformed churches abroad, and in our own land, there were four such bonds entered before they became national; the general assembly, some synods and presbyteries, renewed the national covenant, 1596; and some presbyteries and parishes, 1604; and what were the handfuls of Christ’s faithful witnesses that renewed them at Lanark, Lismahagow, Auchensaugh, and Crawfordjohn, to united kingdoms, or a majority in them. With what conscience or face of confidence then, can these who pretend to be their successors, beg their excuse upon such a whimsical [fanciful] foundation or pretence, to free themselves the burden, or rather desirable duty of a renovation of these covenants or testimonies, which the Lord Christ has entered as protestations to preserve his rights in the out-most [remotest] parts of the earth, as given unto him by promise, and now long ago in possession, and which has been sealed by the blood of so many of his martyrs. Nay more, these kingdoms, Scotland and England, were made bloody theatres on their behalf, and Christ’s interest; and so became national martyrs for the covenants.
We therefore crave that somewhat preparative may be set about, both judicially and doctrinally, for a renewing or revival of these covenants. For to preach up the duty of our forefathers, and to plead a covenant relation to God thereupon, will never inculcate this duty in practice on ourselves; seems somewhat similar to what the apostle James says, in another case, anent [concerning] the distressed brother, “be thou warmed and filled,” and yet gives him not
[ 35 ]
these things he needeth. Even so, faith without works is dead. We need not again repeat the seasonableness of it at this time; we think it may suffice to say with one of the first constituent members of this Presbytery, before he tendered the covenants at Auchensaugh, “that the way we cannot see with what ground of faith, or confidence of assurance, we can pray in public or private for the revival of a covenanted work of reformation in these lands, while we make no practical endeavour for that purpose; the principal means of which, both under the Old and New Testament dispensation, in person or church, being a mourning over, and turning from sin engagements, to duty in covenanting.” The time is come to such a crisis now, that those who would keep the word of Christ’s patience, cannot do it now, in a distinguishing way, but by renewing these solemn covenants.
GRIEVANCE XIV.
ART. VIII.—Of Redress of Grievances.
Lastly, WITHOUT multiplying more articles of grievance, we need scarcely observe to this reverend body, that it has been the practice of Christ’s faithful ambassadors, in imitation of their condescending Lord and Master, to hear the complaints, solve the doubts, and redress the grievances of the meanest individual of these under their inspection; and that not only as to souls cases of conscience, but even in what more immediately respects the more public concerns of his declarative glory in the world; and that both doctrinally and judicially. A defect in this has procured a very loud cry, but just charge,
[ 36 ]
against the judicatories of the established church; and of late against the seceding judicatories, that they could not be plead with petitions and representations for redressing of grievance; and yet we are loath to insinuate a ground of complaint here with us, upon the self same footing, that when representations, containing some of the above articles, in way of petition for a redress, has been at different times laid before this Presbytery, that they have either been refused a public hearing, cast by, or dismissed without any satisfying decision, though craved in due order, and with much entreaty; which is still more discouraging to all true contenders for the truth, when they cannot so much as have a testimony for it transmitted through the minutes of the inferior and superior judicatories of Christ’s professed witnessing remnant in these degenerate isles of the sea; but the comfort is, the truth is a daughter of time, and buried truth, like Christ, will rise again. How many truths has been thus laid in their grave, never to rise again, by the judicatory of the established church, and in some respects by the secession too; and yet how do we see some of them beginning to rise and revive again; nay, they cannot lie, for bury them never so deep, they must be up, for the Lord has arisen indeed, and has appeared to Simeon. But shall it be supposed or argued, that we have here exceeded the true bounds of our christian freedom, from our warrant specified, either in matter or manner; we sincerely declare, that nothing is more remote from our design or intention. As for the intended scope of these grievances, we had a fair and well stated testimony, both as to church and state, doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, handed down to us by our worthy reforming and suffering ancestors; and we want to know what is become of this:
[ 37 ]
and we crave no more, and can be satisfied with no less, than an attachment unto the truths contained therein, or the practice of what we profess, and are in our own persons, and the time of our forefathers, solemnly engaged unto. As for the manner, we presume, we have not exceeded the apostolic injunction, Col. iv. 17. “And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.” Which, as sound annotators expounds it, we had fallen remiss. And it is people’s duty, say they, to have their eyes upon their minister, and they may lawfully put their teachers in mind of their faults or escapes, as they ought to encourage them in the faithful discharge of their duty.
And, although we are sensible, that by the above particulars we have encroached upon time and patience of this judicatory too long by far already; yet we must beg your indulgence yet a little, while you allow us the freedom to subjoin two or three general observations, by way of queries, in order to be taken into your more deliberate and serious consideration. And,
1st, We observe that both the Established Church, the Relief, Secession, and other religious classes in these lands, professes to own the word of God, our standards, and some of them the Covenants; they likewise acknowledge Christ’s headship over the church, and notwithstanding of so much corruption; yet by some of them the gospel is preached with some degree of purity, cases of conscience is stated and solved, errors, especially in doctrinal points, disclaimed, and sin and duty, in many respects, laid open, and church discipline, in its complex or general rule, observed. But what then? They acknowledge the lawfulness of the present malignant powers, or persons in power, whose supreme head is cloathed with
[ 38 ]
King Christ’s royal prerogative, supports it, and pray for success to them as such. Well, where lies the distinguishing part of our testimony from theirs? Why, is it not in this, that theirs, at highest, is only half a testimony for the purity of the church only; ours extends to both church and state, as the reforming period left it. And there are no powers in being, in or over these nations, but what are constitute and settled upon the ruins of the covenanted cause and interest; in consequence of which, we can acknowledge no magistrate, supreme or subordinate, in and over these lands, while destitute of scripture and covenant qualifications, while wearing Christ’s crown on their heads, and opposing and bearing down a covenanted work of reformation, supports, pray for, or appear before them as such.
Now, when we tamely uphold such, and submits to every imposition, supplicate the British parliament, lords spiritual and temporal, makes oath before them, and takes all the benefits of their laws that others do: the query is, How will we reconcile this practice with our profession, (though we should never pray for them,) or with the words ‘extirpate popery and prelacy,’ as in our covenants, unless we take the secession’s explication of it, ‘Pray against that constitution and religion, whose head we uphold or support; or where lies the real difference betwixt them and us, though we should never take offices under them? or what do we more in point of testimony than others, if it is not in this, that we practise only what they profess; and many times seem to practise one thing and profess another; while they seem to profess and practise accordingly; and pray, Who then has the most ingenuity? Alas, then, what will the loosing, vain, and nominal name of Old Covenanted Presbyterian Dissenter
[ 39 ]
avail us, while the true character and practice of Christ’s faithful witnesses, was covenanting. “Thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, that is, my cause, interest, and every truth; and because thou hast thus kept the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of temptation,” &c. The character the Spirit of God gives backsliding Ephraim of old, being too truly applicable to the most part of witness-bearers of this day, “Ephraim compasseth me about with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit, but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth.” But the character of the true witness follows, “Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints.”
2dly, The suffering remnant, now called the Old Dissenters, before, and a considerable time after the revolution, while they made any spirited efforts against the currant of prevailing defection, and proper endeavours to live up unto their profession, notwithstanding of faults and failings, yet they were in a great measure helped and honoured of the Lord, to act an agreeable part in what respected a public testimony, and to live with an agreeable and inoffensive conversation in the world; and the Lord in some degree blessed and countenanced his own ordinances unto them; and what small portion of a preached gospel they came then to enjoy; and very seldom any out-breaking in practice, or remarkable instances of immorality, was to be heard of among them. But, alas, how is the gold become dim here, and the most fine gold changed with dissenters as well as others. Ephraim, like strangers, have devoured his strength, and the grey hairs of defection are here and there upon him, and he knoweth it not. We have made such visible declensions in point of public testimony bearing, that he that runs
[ 40 ]
may read them: one out-breaking traces the steps of, and hits upon the heels of another; and for true piety or religion, its face is scarcely discernable amongst us, either in daily conversation, sitting in the place of judgment, or attending upon our most solemn solemnities. We presume every true and genuine son of Zion may now perceive and experience this; and if it is not so, what means the bleeting of Christ’s sheep, and the chirming of the birds that now echoes forth from almost every different and distant quarter.
Now, the query is, What can be the true and proper cause or reason for all this? Why may it not in general be said of us as well as others, we have in a great measure forsaken the Lord God of our fathers, and forgotten his mighty acts; yea his strange acts done for his church and people in former times, for which he threatens to leave us, and go unto his place, until we return and acknowledge our iniquities; which should call forth every true mourner in our Zion, to wrestle with him on account of a departing God, and a departing glory. But more particularly, We have now taken a freedom in point of principle, and lax sentiment oft’ times begets loose practices: hence we are justly left of the Lord to fall into one piece of disorderly conduct after another; so that partiality in societies and church judicatories, oft’ times prevail and takes place; wherein, many times, plain simple honesty is borne down, and the irregular acquitted or emboldened in their corrupt courses. A light frothy spirit seems rampant amongst us in general; for while some pretend to know almost every thing, and seems to glory more in the name, dissenter and external church privileges, than to know Christ, and him crucified in the heart; others, notwithstanding all the means of know-
[ 41 ]
ledge and instruction, yet, in regard of either heart-practice, or point of testimony, remain ignorant, neither enquires or wants to know: but with the young Ninivite, cannot discern the right hand, or distinguishing parts of their own testimony and profession, from the left. Numbers separate from the corrupt church, as to hearing and receiving privileges; but never separate from the fashions and practices of those with whom they were formerly connected; makes no proper distinction from the conversation of the wide world around them: and while some are mostly abroad, carping upon the faults and failings of others, never perceiving the mote in their own eye; the most part, alas, ly always at home, groveling on the earth, minding of earthly things; so that almost every one are minding their own things, but few the things of Jesus Christ. And what is worse, where is he that is sensibly affected with these things, or mourning over the prevailing evils of these times, for which the Lord most justly withholds the light of his countenance, and the gracious manifestations of his presence, (and even in a great measure from his own people and children,) so that the down-pouring of the Spirit is restrained, both in the closet, the family, society, and the public ordinances; the angel comes not down to trouble the water, and the diseased steps not into the pool to be healed.
Many other reasons might be added, but we shall only notice one more, which we take to be a prevalent one with dissenters, at this juncture of time. And that is, Both ministers and people seem to be more intense on pursuing methods, and measures tending to their own external ease and convenience, and the increase of their number, than God’s glory, the good of Christ’s cause and kingdom, the advancement of true piety and religion, and the
[ 42 ]
purity of its professors. From hence it is, that almost every quarter must have a minister settled, and a meeting house built; the expences of which behoves to be furnished similar to Israel of old, when they said to the judging prophet, ‘Make us a king, that we may be like the nations around us.’ Whence it natively follows, that when persons from the different denominations of backsliders of this day, accedes by application unto us, the terms of admittance are reduced as low as possible; and when persons fall into faults, they must be dealt with and reponed, if censured at all, in the most easy and indulgent manner, least they go and leave us, and the cause be weakened, as they would have it, but rather the congregation diminished or unaugmented, and the plan become abortive. We are so far from despising a faithful standing gospel ministry, the increase of the gospel, and gospel ordinances, or contemning outward accommodations, if rightly obtained, that we count these to be one of the greatest blessings or privileges, next to Christ himself, that a people can here enjoy upon earth, if they can be attained in a way agreeable unto his own revealed will in his word: but if these cannot be gained but at the expence of truth, purity of religion, and its professors or ministers, men that is muzzled upon such motives, we would rather choose to wait his own appointed time, and rest in hope; as the goodness of metal cannot be rightly judged by the bulk, so the increase of a party will not make it good. The Spirit of God, by the prophet, assures us to the contrary, “As they increased, (says he,) so they sinned against me; therefore will I change their glory into shame,” &c. Let us then rather act an honest and faithful part in respect of religion, and our profession and testimony; and trust his own word of pro-
[ 43 ]
mise (and not our own rule, management, and policy,) for the success; it has always been and will be so, till the last period of the church militant, that the last member of Christ’s mystical body is brought in, that the Lord has, and will still add unto the church, such as shall be saved.
3dly, Unity and uniformity in spirit, judgment and practice, has been one of the principal means whereby Christ’s interest and kingdom has been propagated, promoted and beautified in his church, Jer. xxxii. 39. It is promised to turning Israel, that they shall be of one heart and one way that they may fear me for ever. Nothing is more frequently enjoined in scripture than this, be of one mind, of one spirit, stand fast in one spirit; that ye all speak the same thing; that there be no divisions amongst you, (says the apostle,) but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, &c. And indeed, no sooner did the morning blush of our reformation dawn, than our reformers made this their assiduous care, study, and endeavour, and never ceased until the cope-stone of that beautiful uniformity in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, were all one, not only in Scotland, but even the united kingdoms: our honourable sufferers kept the maxim all along in their eye, notwithstanding all the opposition they met with, from persecuting enemies, professed friends, and false brethren, on right and left hand extremes; and were remarkably blessed and countenanced of the Lord therein. Their successors, the old dissenters, exactly copied after the same pattern, both as to the doctrine of the gospel, and points of public testimony, for a considerable time, until learning, self-interest, and worldly wisdom conceived, and brought forth a world of limitations,
[ 44 ]
provisos, and distinctions, whereby another scene of affairs presents itself amongst dissenters: we are with declining Israel of old, broken in judgment, our heart is divided, therefore we shall with them be found faulty. Is there not some amongst us yet, although the fewest in number, who still adheres precisely to the doctrines of the gospel, as they are expressed in our standards; while others contend for the new scheme of our modern divinity, in its full extent and utmost latitude, and thinks there is no difference. A third class seems to take almost every thing taught upon trust, without acting the Baræan part, to search the scriptures and our standards, whether these things are so. And with respect to points of public testimony, some, though the minor party, contend against all paying of taxes or tithes to church or state, appearing before them, pursuing or defending, petitioning, &c. or any other thing that imports a promulgation, or coroborating of their pretended authority; while others, the greater part, make no bones of these, under pretence that such pieces of conduct are no acknowledgment of their authority at all; some proclaim in the church, and pay the dues deliberately; others proclaim not, but pay the dues for wrath’s sake. [Nay, certain persons have received marriage upon the church lines of proclamation, without being proclaimed in our congregation prior to their being joined in community.] Some pay the registrating dues of their children, and what is called the new christening tax, upon the foresaid account; and some pays the first, but not the last. In some places enterents in the community are, or has been received in, first by the door of the society or correspondence; in other places, nay sometimes in the same congregation, others enter by the door of the session, and some have
[ 45 ]
privileges who enter properly neither way. In some congregations, censure has been inflicted for non-attendance on society meeting; again, others as culpable, participate in the same congregation, at least in others, has had no censure or check at all; some has been admonished for proclaiming in the church; and others been publicly rebuked for what is called the mason oath, with other things; while other persons guilty of the same, to the same degree, has received, though known, no censure at all; some has been censured for carrying on law process in their judicatories; others persons guilty of the same, perhaps with higher aggravations, has received no censure at all, but has been rather countenanced; if there was no complaint raised by some members; the infamous practice of smuggling has been condemned by other ministers and leading men, the same practice has been excused, if not justified, in same congregation: there seems a design to receive every enterent into church privileges, at least the supper, while it is evident they will or can not be admitted by others in any of those ways above mentioned.
So that it becomes almost rare to a wonder to find one that tenaciously adheres to all and every article of reformation principles, in point of testimony, doctrine, discipline, practice, and conversation.
Now the query is, From whence accrue such an immense disparity in point of discipline, judgment, and practice; whether are we become wiser than our forefathers testimony bearers; or does all this proceed from sinister ends, mistaken views, or a false stating of the testimony from the first? It cannot; for sure we are none reformed, or better than these faithful witnesses gone before us; so that it must natively flow from the last in cause and effect. How then can true religion or practi-
[ 46 ]
cal piety prosper or flourish in the heart, house, fellowship or conversation any more amongst us; where there is so few endeavours to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. Indeed it must be granted, that war or division is sometimes better than universal peace and concord without truth. And it must yet be one hopeful evidence that the Lord has not a mind to give up with us finally and altogether, that there are still some yet to contend for apparent truth, to see and ask for the old paths, wherein is the good old way; though these alas, oft’ times are accounted troublers in Israel: yet when we consider contention and division in religious matters to be one of the Lord’s spiritual judgments upon a backslidden sinning people, then we find it always a bad neighbour or companion to true religion, animosities and wrangling; divisions, like a canker, eats out its very vital; nothing being more unbecoming and unseemly the professed friends and followers, and subjects of the King of Salem, Prince of Peace. Nay, it breaks families, perturbs societies, has dislocked congregations, communities, and sometimes rent churches, and kingdoms, and commonwealths all to pieces; it has often proved sore shocks to the church of Scotland; the Secession has found it so to their experience; the Reformed Presbytery has also felt its shock; notwithstanding things bid so fair for success and prosperity with us at present; perhaps it may yet do our turn more effectually at last, if the Lord in mercy prevent not: for we have no promise of peace or success either, but by walking in the way of truth and righteousness. But,
Lastly, If our principles, now reduced unto practice, be founded upon, and fully agreeable unto the unerring rule of God’s word, then our honourable sufferers, not
[ 47 ]
only before, but also after the revolution (as no alteration to the better, but worse, has transpired since that,) must have been in a dreadful mistake or delusion, for contending and suffering so many things in vain, if they be yet in vain, (as says the apostle,) “But that they were in a delusion,” and their suffering in vain we cannot grant, while we have so many incontestible and irrefragable evidences to the contrary; not only from what they have advanced on that head in their public papers, proven from God’s word, our covenanted constitution, and reforming acts and laws, which none of their opposers, we humbly think, have been hitherto fully able to invalidate in defence of these their principles and practices: But also has been sealed by the blood of so many martyrs; nay, confirmed by a number of our old dissenters, in their own dying testimonies, who lived and died a considerable time after the Revolution; wherein they testify, and solemnly declare, that this was the cause of Christ, and these were the truths they had all along contended for; and though they had their christian course to begin anew, they would, through divine grace, retract nothing, but would be more circumspect in these points; and that they had great peace of conscience in it, and would advise all unto the same practices: in the faith of which, under the light and refreshing gales of the Lord’s blessed countenance and presence, they went joyfully off the stage of time, into an eternal world, under the full assurance of the enjoyment of God, and a glorious resurrection. Now, let these on the contrary side, viz. compliers [accommodationists], but produce one single similar instance for confirmation on their side of the question.
After all, perhaps some may think or say, that all or the most part of what is here specifically complained of,
[ 48 ]
are only circumstantial, and to them no substantial matter of consequence at all. We only answer, that all grievances are not alike weighty in themselves; and that every matter of grievance does not ground a just separation, where church terms of communion are not sinful; but sure we are, that the terms here noticed, are at best inconsistent; and these things above narrated, are matters of faith, conscience, and practice. And though some truths are more weighty than others; yet sure no truth in itself can be accounted little or small, so that we cannot take one and leave another, else we might circumstance [qualify away] this, that, and the other thing, until we dwindle the whole of our profession unto a mere non-entity. Said Moses unto Pharaoh, “Our cattle shall also go with us, there shall not one hoof be left behind us; for therewith must we serve the Lord our God.”
But, Right Reverend, to conclude, We expect and entreat you not to be offended at what little freedom we have here taken; seeing our principle ends therein, is God’s glory, and to have all these differences, and seeming contradictions happily adjusted and removed; and for that purpose, once for all, again allow us humbly to beseech and intreat you, to take the whole of the foregoing premises under your serious consideration; hoping that you will use such means, and take such measures, as the Lord in his infinite wisdom and mercy shall direct, that the end may be obtained. And further, We crave liberty to add, prove, or explain hereunto, either by word or write, as necessity shall require; and to prosecute this our Representation and Petition, by all lawful means and legal measures, before this Judicatory, in order to the obtaining a satisfying answer.
[ 49 ]
May the God of all grace, the wisdom of the Father, one of whose titles is the Wonderful Counsellor, and the Spirit of all truth guide and direct you in this and every other weighty business that may come before you, into such a decision as shall be for his own glory, the good of the church, your own credit, honour, and reputation therein; and your petitioners shall ever pray.
(Signed)
JOHN HOWIE,
ROBERT RAMSAY,
WILLIAM KENNEDY,
JAMES HAIKNEY,
JOHN HAIKNEY,
ROBERT SPEIR,
JOHN GEMMEL,
WILLIAM MONTGOMRY,
ROBERT LINDSAY,
JAMES WYLIE,
MATTHEW FLEMING,
JOHN CALDERWOOD,
MATTHEW YOUNG,
[ 50 ]
THOMAS BROWN,
JOHN WILSON,
MICHAEL YOUNG,
JAMES HOWIE,
HUGH SHIELDS.
A LETTER TO A FRIEND
CONTAINING,
I. On what is called Punitive Justice.
II. Some Queries concerning Christ’s Power, as he is Mediator.
III. An Answer to some of the many Reflections that are cast upon Contenders against Defection, by lukewarm Laodicean Compliers.
BY JOHN HOWIE, IN LOCHGOIN.
Jer. ix. 4.—Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every one will walk with slanders.
Dear and much respected Friend,
FROM what little you have signified to some of us at different times, we are apt to conclude, that you desire to be somewhat satisfied, at least informed, anent [concerning] our judgment, or opinion, concerning that doctrinal point, called, Punitive Justice; about which some noise has been made (and more than was needful,) some time ago; and no question you may, or has already heard various and
[ 52 ]
different accounts: and we must allow you so much charity as to suppose, that your zeal for the orthodox doctrines, prompts you up to this: especially at such a time as this, when every one in their several stations, are called forth to stretch every nerve in opposition to the prevalence of error, as well as the profane practices, of these profligate and irreligious times. Besides, we have either been badly understood, or maliciously represented, (to say no worse,) in this matter; which renders it necessary and requisite, that things should be set forth in their genuine and true proper light; especially after we had in our minds, altogether laid the quarrel aside; yet these points must be insisted still upon, time after time, no ways to our advantage:—upon these reasons, and more, we cannot stay to mention here; we have attempted the few following short strictures, in which we intend, 1st, To premise a few things anent [concerning] the rise, spring, and progress of this small controversy. Then, 2d, Touch a little at the point, or state of the difference, if there are any real difference. Lastly, Notice a few things in way of Remarks upon some of these Objections, or rather Reflections, that are cast in our teeth, for some time on account of our weak, though well meaning contendings with our brethren, namely in this congregation; and, as you are reputed a sensible thinking man, we do the more chearfully answer for ourselves. And,
1st. As to the rise, spring, and progress of this contest, it breathed an existance, and took air in the following manner: Some time ago, a member of the presbytery, at two different sacramental occasions, treating upon this point, let some expressions fall, not very much to the honour of some of the most eminent of our Reformers, (for we shall speak in as soft terms as the nature of the thing will admit.) This was little noticed, so far as we know, except by some individuals, who had been conversant with the writings of some few of these great lights in the church, till sometime afterwards, our own minister came to speak upon the point, reasoning from different considerations, that Punitive Justice, viz. God’s punishing of sin, behoved to be essential to his na-
[ 53 ]
ture; but in the end said, that he did not say that it was so essentially necessary to his nature as fire burns, &c. to this we had no objection: but coming afterward, in imitation perhaps, of the other member of the presbytery, to treat on the point, seemed to argue that it was just as natural to God to punish sin, as fire burns, mentioning our Reformers in the same strain or tone, as had been done by his brother. With this conduct, (though we never charged either of them with error in the least,) we could not be altogether just so well satisfied, for reasons, that in their own proper place, by and by comes to be observed.
A meeting being appointed at Glenfin, about the end of February 1790, to treat of some differences in the society meeting of Finwick, upon which diet of meeting, Mr. Steven, and some of his elders attended; after several other things were reasoned upon, he came to enquire, or challenge, if any in the society had found fault with any thing in his doctrines; guessing that, from information perhaps, he knew whom he intended to point at: we found ourselves under an absolute necessity to speak for ourselves upon the principles of self-defence. So coming to our turn, we answered, We never charged him, or any, for error on this account; but there were some expressions dropt lately, anent [concerning] Christ’s power as Mediator, and this point of Punitive Justice, that we were not so clear, or well satisfied about. The first point being reasoned somewhat on, we came to the second; our reasons were chiefly two, 1st, We thought there was no need of introduce our Reformers into this controversy, when arguing against Arminian and Socinian heretics, as none of these had ever introduced our Reformers judgment in defence of their erroneous opinions, and we hoped would never be permitted so to do; it was time enough to condemn their doctrines, after a solid examination and answers thereunto, &c. 2d. That in course of our reading, we had fallen upon no author, either ancient or modern, that had gone so far upon the point, as to affirm that God punished sin of such a necessity of nature, as fire burns; they had contented themselves with a moral rational necessity,
[ 54 ]
What occurred in support of these reasons, were in substance as follows: For the
1st, We argued that Socinians deny that either justice or mercy are essential properties of God;—that justice, or anger, as they call it, is only a voluntary effect of his will;—that he can pardon sin without a satisfaction;—that Christ died not to satisfy for sin by way of substitution; but to procure a liberty for God to pardon sin, or reconcile us unto him, and thereby obtain a power for us to satisfy, by our own works, faith, and obedience;—or that Christ only died for the infirmities of our nature which he assumed;—that he was only a great, good, and eminent man, &c.
We can scarcely do justice to our Reformers, in the limits of a missive; but they held and maintained on this point, that justice was essential to the nature of God, and one of his properties, or divine attributes; but that the egress or goings out of it were free;—that he did not punish sin by a simple natural necessity as fire burns;—that God’s will and nature are one, yet he from no necessity of nature, entered into a covenant of works, or gave out a positive law to Adam, he might have decreed and determined, that man nor angel should never have fallen, and so there would have been no sin, and so could have been no punishment; but having decreed the punishment of sin, then his justice or holiness requires him to hate and punish it; and so there was a hypothetical necessity for Christ’s satisfaction, God having so willed and decreed from eternity, that salvation should be obtained this way; yet in respect of his absolute power and sovereignty, and not upon a supposition of his will and decree, whereby he hath foreordained whatsoever cometh to pass, he was at no loss to have found out another way: though this way that he hath fallen upon, is his own way, and wherein his divine attributes are most gloriously displayed: and so upon this account, his own Son behoved to stand, do, and die in the place and room of elect sinners.
As to the second reason, several things were said on both sides; we alleged that even such as argued God
[ 55 ]
punishes sin from a necessity of nature, to satisfy that attribute of justice; yet they did not argue, a simple natural necessity as fire burns: they used not this philosophical kind of construction, for which we instanced the learned Witsius. It was answered, we knew what Fisher’s Catechism said:—we replied, we knew that, but he held no such things as this. It was replied, It was the Apostle’s words; (meaning the Apostle’s words, Heb. xii. 29. if we understood right,) we asked, If that and similar texts, were not rather to be understood as metaphorical or figurative terms used, (as that where it is said, I am the door,—I am the vine,—I am the way,—the chief corner stone,) to set forth God’s hatred, anger, and the sudden destruction of sin and sinners; that in scripture they were mostly pointed forth, when treating on these fearful and sudden temporal judgments, threatened against obstinate sinners. It was replied, That did not hinder its being applied to God’s punishing sin as fire burns. We said, Few or none of the annotators, we had access to consult, argued or explained these texts so. Divines had argued, that such a natural necessity could admit of no moderation; every soul that sinneth must be punished, and to the uttermost degree too; no surety could be admitted. To this it was answered, Though he punished by necessity of nature as fire burns, yet he did it sovereignly, when and on whom he pleased.
That he did it sovereignly, non refuses; and it is well for poor lost insolvent sinners of Adam’s race, that it was so; that ever an egress of free mercy was vented towards them.
But the question, or difficulty arising here was, How this sovereign choice could admit of a simple natural physical necessity as fire burns, or the sun casteth forth heat: for natural agents work to the utmost they can admit of no choice, which necessarily excludes all freedom, both in the principle of action, and the action itself.
What reason in the world then for charging us, either in public or private, with holding Socinian doctrines? Much less to say or write, that we maintained at this meeting, that God could pardon sin without a satisfac-
[ 56 ]
tion. We maintained no such thing, nor any thing properly as our own judgment on the point;—we only hinted what was the mind of some eminent divines, ancient and modern on it: such as, Augustine, Calvin, Binning, Rutherford, Dr. Twiss, moderator to the Westminster Assembly, &c. without saying what we maintained; nor did our arguing import so much: and why are we thus faulted for mentioning their words? We could not endure to hear the doctrines of our Reformers condemned, and their memories sullied, or so tarnished with error, before they were candidly examined, and condemned by a lawful church judicatory: so that a condemning or flouting at us, could be little less than a stabbing or wounding of these great men, through our weak and feeble sides. It was indeed asked if God (with reverence so to speak,) could have saved sinners no other way, in respect of his absolute power, abstracting from his eternal decree. It was answered, No. It was again asked, If he could not have caused man to have been born without sin, as our Lord’s human body was? It was replied, No. To this we replied, Mr. Binning had said otherways. And what reason to calumniate and defame our characters for this? However, that it may more readily appear, that this opinion is both primitive (ancient we mean) and Calvinist; and that we have not spoke at random without book, we must here beg leave to add or subjoin, just as many of their own words, for a specimen, as will support the evidences. Listen then unto their own words.
AUGUSTINE.—God could have done all things, had he so willed, &c. The method of delivering us by a Mediator, the man Christ Jesus, is perfectly good, and for the glory of God. But let us also acknowledge, that God was at no loss for another possible method, as all things are subject to his power equally; yet none was more adapted to deliver us from our misery, neither was any other necessary.
Mr. CALVIN.—God might, by a pure word of command, have redeemed us; but he took this way through his Son, that his love might be made more manifest.
[ 57 ]
Mr. GRAY.—There is a sweet harmony betwixt the unchangeableness of God and his freedom, in all his dispensations; he not knowing what it is to do any thing by compulsion, or necessity of nature.
BEZA.—The Spirit of God, to make known the riches of his glory, upon the vassals of his mercy, and his excellent power, the better by comparison, lifteth us up to that high mystery, which in order goeth before all causes of their damnation; of which secret, doubtless there is no other cause known to men, besides his righteous will, which we ought to receive as coming from him who is just naturally, and can be no otherways conceived of by men.
Dr. TWISS.—It is untrue, that compassion comes naturally from God; it comes freely; so doth punishment also, not naturally, much less unnaturally, but freely; for he could pardon sin in all, had he decreed to do so.
Mr. BINNING.—He that brought a holy one and undefiled, out of a virgin who was defiled, could have brought all others out of unclean parents. There was no simple natural necessity to expose his own Son to suffering. No question he might have enabled the creature to have destroyed the work of the devil, and saved man upon some other way; he needed not for any necessity lying upon him, gone such a round, as the Father to give to the Son, and the Son to receive; as God to send, and the Son to be sent; nay, he might have spared all pains, and without any messenger, pardoned man’s sin, and adopted him unto the place of sons: thus he had done the business without his Son, or any other travel, or labour in blood or suffering. The truth is, it was not simply the indispensable necessity of satisfying justice, that put him on such hard and unpleasant work, of bruising his own Son; for no doubt he might have as well dispensed with all satisfaction, as with the personal satisfaction of the sinner. But the strait lay here, and here was the urgency of the case, he had a purpose to declare his justice, and there-
[ 58 ]
fore a satisfaction must be had, not simply to satisfy righteousness, but rather to declare his righteousness. Rom. iii. 25.
Mr. BURGESS.—I incline to the opinion, that holdeth corrective or vindictive justice, to be natural or essential to God, providing it be taken from nature, not of a mere necessity flowing from nature, as the fire burneth naturally, and the stone descendeth naturally; natural agents work to the utmost they can; but this is subjected to his wisdom and liberty.
Mr. RUTHERFOORD.—I love not to dispute here, but if we speak of his absolute power, without respect to his free decree, God could have pardoned sin without a ransom; for he neither punishes sin, nor tendereth heaven to man or angels by necessity of nature as fire burns, and casteth out heat, and the sun light, but freely.
Dr. OWEN.—The foundation of the assertion seems false, that God could not have pardoned sin without a satisfaction were made by his Son. It is true, supposing the decree, purpose, and constitution of God, that so it should be, that so he should manifest his glory, by way of vindictive justice, it was impossible it should be otherways; but to assert it positively, absolutely, and antecedently, according to his constitution he could not have done it, is to me an unwritten tradition. The scripture affirms no such thing, neither can it be gathered from thence in any good consequence. If any man will deny this, we will try what the Lord will enable to say to it, in the mean time rest contented with that of Augustine, &c. God may, by virtue of his supreme dominion, omit any punishment without wrong, or prejudice to his justice; it is a great thing to impute sin where it is not, and to inflict punishment upon that imputation, as not to impute sin where it is, and to remove or not inflict punishment upon the non-imputation. Now the first of these God did towards Christ, and therefore he may do the latter.—Moreover, the wrong or injustice of not punishing any sin
[ 59 ]
as sin, doth not arise from any natural obligation, but the consideration of an affirmative positive act of God’s will, whereby he hath purposed, he will do it.
Mr. GILLESPIE.—Supposing that justice, punitive justice, be natural to God amongst his properties, it will not necessarily follow (upon the supposition of the being of sin,) that God punishes sin by necessity of nature, more than it will follow, that it is natural to man to speak, laugh, &c. from necessity of nature; for he doth these things most freely, notwithstanding he doth these things naturally, might never laugh or speak as pleaseth him; for so justice would carry him to punish sin without any moderation, for natural agents work to the utmost they can; for supposing justice to be essential to God, yet he doth not punish as fire burns, by necessity of nature as fire burns, seeing the exercise of justice, yea the choice of objects, upon whom he executes it, are subject to his free will and sovereignty, as is manifest from Rom. ix. 18. whereas natural necessity excludes all freedom, both in the principle of action, and action itself.
Mr. BROWN.—If we look upon God in respect of his absolute power, that is, his power not limited by the determination of his own will, he might have passed by sinners, and not have punished them; so that he punisheth not by any necessity antecedent to his own free determination, seeing by no natural necessity he imposed a penal law, there being no natural necessary connection betwixt his dominion over the creature, and his imposing of penal laws; for he set forth Christ as a propitiation, that sinners may go free; and so substituted him in their room to suffer for them, which he could not do, if he punished sin by any natural necessity, as the fire burns; and hereby, as by punishing the wicked in his own person, he intends the demonstration of the glory of his justice, which he might, had it so seemed good in his eyes, never have intended to shew forth,
[ 60 ]
Mr. BALL.—The bounty of God to reward obedience is essential, as well as justice to punish iniquity; and if God punish iniquity by absolute and natural necessity, of necessity he must reward obedience. If he punish iniquity without divine constitution, he must reward obedience in the same manner. It is most true that God doth not only hate, but punish all sin; but he doth it not by natural necessity, but by natural congruity, which may stand with the most free will of God, determining to manifest his justice, for the manifestation whereof, the punishment of sin is necessary.
Mr. M‘KELL. Use. Against the Arminians, who make the punishment of sin to flow from a natural necessity in God; and Christ’s death only to redeem God from this necessity, as if it had not been free to God to punish, or not to punish. I grant, lay down this ground, that God decreed to satisfy his justice, he was necessitate in this respect to punish sin: but there was nothing to necessitate God, either to manifest his justice or mercy. Whatever God does, he does it freely, willingly, not by constraint, co-action, or necessity. Things are not first just and right, and then willed of God; but they are just and right because he willed them.
We might have added a number more to the same purpose, had it been needful: but as there are more here than ever we asserted upon their head, specified in their own words, we need not recite any more; only from these recited, we may observe and infer, that it is somewhat strange, that the doctrine of our Reformers should be charged with Socinianism, and themselves to be charged as Socinians now, to such a degree, that those who would mention their judgments on this point, must be cried out against as such; even by those very men who have made a profession before the world, that they adhere to the doctrine of the Reformed Church of Scotland; yea, sworn to abide by it: and, in a satyrical or railing way, to insinuate that it sounds harsh with some to compare God to fire; whereas he is every where in
[ 61 ]
scripture compared to fire, &c. The application here is easy; but let Mr. Steven, the author of this sarcasm, rail upon us as he pleases, for denying that it is just as natural for God to punish sin, as for the fire to burn combustibles, the sun to shine, when not clouded, and a stone to gravitate downward, when it is thrown up in the air;—it affects us nothing, but must retort back, and is an Italian stab at our noble Reformers. We deny or refuse no scripture truth, but cordially assent to every truth contained therein. But we cannot help thinking, that this is mentioned metaphorically, as other figurative terms, and that he is no otherways compared to fire, than to point out his purity, terribleness, and ready to destroy such as oppose him; so Christ is compared to fire, he tries the children of men, in like manner (as was already observed,) he is said to be a rock, the way, the door, &c. If it be just as natural to God to punish sin as fire to burn, then how could he shew mercy to any of the fallen, and sinning posterity of Adam? The fire can shew no mercy, but as soon as combustible is put unto it, it hastily destroys it, it works to the utmost of its power. But God is a free agent, and can do whatever pleases him, and does not punish sin that very moment that it is committed, or else Adam had been destroyed that very instant he eat the forbidden fruit. And are not all the posterity of Adam instances of the sovereignty and long forbearance of God, in not cutting them off the face of the earth, upon the account of sin? But O! the wonder of matchless free grace, and rich undeserving mercy, that is displayed in Christ saving the chief of sinners, by laying down his life a ransom for them, while they were dead in trespasses and sins as well as others, and thereby making them fit for the inheritance, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth.
2dly, We come in the second place to notice some things anent [concerning] the point (shall we define it in the merit of the cause?) wherein you desire to know, what we hold on the point, when you ask us; Whether we hold God punishes sin by a necessity of nature, or from his will and
[ 62 ]
decree? Here we might once for all answer, the will of God, is God himself willing, and so his will contains his essential properties; so God, by virtue of the freedom of his will, never acts contradictory to his nature; in constituting a law, his will cannot act contrary to his essential properties of justness, holiness, &c. which are essential to his will and decree: or, in other words, he cannot will or decree any thing, that is contrary to his holiness and justness. But you think, if we hold by his will or decree, we are as bad, or the same with Dr. M‘Gill;—too fast: what Dr. M‘Gill holds on this point, is not the state of the question here. But were we as captious as represented, we might first ask you without indiscretion, where it is that God in his word founds it? or if any thing comes to pass, but what was decreed (even the permission and punishment of sin) from eternity? To speak with becoming reverence, Was God under any necessity of nature to enter into a covenant of works with man; or giving a positive law to him under this penalty, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die? Now if there had been no sin, there could have been no transgression, and so no penalty; else what means the apostle, when he repeats this twice over; when he says, ‘Sin is not imputed when there is no law; and where no law is, there is no transgression?’ We have observed so much as God’s will, nature, and decree, are undivided; and we have desired to know if he can do any thing but what he has willed and decreed; and where scripture has founded it. You shall hear then the judgment of our standards from scripture. Eph. i 11. “Who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” God willing more abundantly to shew the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath.” Heb. vi. 17. “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” Rom. ix. 15—18. “The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever,” Psal. xxxii. 11. Geneva Confession, sect. 1. “God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, hath not only of nothing created heaven, earth and all things
[ 63 ]
therein contained, but also by his providence, governeth, maintaineth, and preserveth the same, according to the purpose of his will.” Westminster Confession, chap. iii. sect. 1. “God, from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.” Larger Catechism, quest. 12. “God’s decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby from all eternity, he hath for his own glory, unchangeably fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass in time, especially concerning angels and men.” Shorter Catechism, quest. 7. “The decrees of God are his eternal purposes, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass.”
Now, from what you have heard, we might ask, What is the reason that any event whatsoever comes to pass? It is because God has willed or decreed it. If you doubt the assertion, here is the authority you will approve of, viz. that which is called by some, the Seceders Catechism, or rather an explanation of our Shorter Catechism, by Messrs. Erskine and Fisher. Quest. Doth any thing pass in time but what was decreed from eternity? A. No. For the very reasons why they come to pass, is because God decreed it. Eph. i. 11. Acts xv. 18.
But to the point. To satisfy you further, we want to be as plain as pleasant; we think this point ought not to be treated on, but with the utmost reverence, caution, and candour; it is not a random point: and it is to be feared, that there has been more arguments produced on both sides of the dispute, both amongst divines, and of late, than what was truly sanctioned from God’s revealed word; and therefore we would want to speak soberly upon it. Only hear from what light scripture affords, and those accounted sound divines, annotators, and others, has said upon it, we may venture to say, that although God was under no necessity of nature, to create either angels or men, or to enter upon any term with them whatsoever; he might have freely determined in his own infinite mind, that one of them should never have been
[ 64 ]
created; and upon supposition of their existence, one of them should never fall; and supposing their fall, one of them should never be saved, as is the case with fallen angels. But God, out of his infinite wisdom, for higher and more glorious ends, in displaying his own divine attributes, having created man, left him to the freedom of his own will, having thus decreed the permission of sin, to enter into the world, by the breach of that covenant, and positive law under such a penalty, behoves from his justice, the holiness and purity of his nature, as the Governor of his own laws, to see sin, which is a want of conformity and transgression of his holy law, punished. But then it does not yet appear after all this, that either his justice, or goodness, obliges him, from a simple natural or physical necessity, either to save, reward, or punish, in such a way as the sun shines, and fire burns. No: It is a moral rational necessity:—he punishes sin because of his righteous nature, but not in such a way as these, who must act without any influence of a free agent, or a free rational principle: but God is a free agent, and so determines every thing according to his sovereign will and pleasure.
With respect unto his absolute power, or exercise of that power, upon which we can set no limits, he has said, “Is there any thing too hard for me?” It is true he can do nothing that implies weakness or imperfection, inconsistent, or repugnant to his nature, or glorious perfections; though God can do whatsoever he pleaseth, he is not pleased to do whatsoever he can:—he hath a power in his nature to do, what he will never do:—the exercise of his power is subordinate to his will and decree, which hath put a bar, and set bounds to it, so that he cannot morally put forth his power beyond what he willed and decreed from eternity. But whether he could have punished sin, or saved sinners in any other way, equally glorifying to his divine nature or perfections, we need not say, seeing (as some judicious divines has said,) he has declared in his revealed word, what he has done, and will do, concerning the punishment of sin, and salvation of sinners: and that is, he will by no means clear the guilty without a
[ 65 ]
satisfaction to his justice. That there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved, but by the name and merit of Jesus Christ, who himself had said, “I lay down my life for the sheep, and without shedding of blood, there is no remission,” &c. And indeed, a more glorious display of God’s glorious attributes, never appeared than this, in the death of his own Son for the salvation of sinners. In support of what we have said upon the point, we might produce almost, the whole suffrage of those now accounted orthodox. But to save paper and pains, we shall just subjoin a few words of two modern professors of divinity, a Dutch and a Scots, which we think breathes out the voice of the whole.
Pro. WITSIUS.—In like manner God was at liberty to permit sin, but then having permitted it, his essential justice required that it be punished; he was also at liberty to save some: yet having declared his will with respect to this, there was a necessity for a suitable satisfaction to intervene; for though we do not think that God inflicts punishment from his nature, in such a manner as fire burns, (though in this respect he compares himself to fire,) yet his nature is a strong reason why he inflicts punishment.
Pro. WISHART.—The exercise of God’s power is subordinate to his decree and will; so that he cannot morally put forth his power beyond what he hath willed from eternity: though he be necessary holy, yet he is not so by a simple necessity, as the sun shines, and fire burns; but by a free necessity. For though vindictive justice be essential to the nature of God, yet it is not so natural to him as heat is to the fire; for though it be necessary that God should punish sin, because of his righteous nature; yet, not by a natural or physical necessity. The fire burns without any influence of a free and rational principle: but God is a free agent, and determines mode, season, and degree, and other circumstances of punishment, by his sovereign will and pleasure.
[ 66 ]
Before we leave this article, we must crave the liberty of making two or three simple observations. And,
1st, We might notice that perhaps some may think, there is some difference, or variance, betwixt our Reformers’ judgment on this point, and what we have suggested for orthodoxy. To which we might reply, That our Reformers (so far as we know) never claimed an infallibility, or craved an implicite faith of their doctrines. No:—They took themselves for men liable to imperfection; nor did they certainly know, what use or constructions were to be put afterwards upon their mode of expression. No human writer can claim an adherence any further, than human testimony is founded on divine revelation; and supposing some terms of words or sentences, not so properly expressed as divines of our day could wish; What of that? If we believe a further gradation of gospel light, which we must; who knows but succeeding divines in future times, may find some things as unguardedly expressed, if not worse, in the well jointed productions of the learned Rabbies of this day.
But all this cannot be a sufficient ground of persuasion, that our Reformers maintained, or defended error on this point, either designedly, or inadvertently; and that for a variety of cogent and concluding reasons, a very few of which we can but name here. And, 1. They indeed denied a necessity of punishing sin, in the sense as above expressed; but where do they deny a moral necessity of punishing it? Nay, they have declared such a satisfaction to justice, as there could be no abrogation of the holy law of God. Nay, no divine in any age, (namely, pious and godly Mr. Rutherfoord, who is blamed for going farthest this way,) ever more beautifully, more fervently, and more nervously taught and asserted the divinity, glorious attributes, divine perfections, excellencies, and most excruciating sufferings, of our once suffering, but now exalted Redeemer, in opposition to Arminian and Socinian heretics, and all others of that black group and kidney. 2. They not only taught it themselves, went to heaven in that belief, for any evidences we have to the contrary, but many thousands (might we not say millions,) beho-
[ 67 ]
ved to go there, if they went there at all, who were thus taught, and died in the same persuasion. And 3. Need we observe here, that it appears to have been the received opinion in that age, and so behoves to be a branch of the doctrines sworn to be adhered unto in our covenants, and sealed by the blood of so many of Christ’s faithful witnesses, confessors, and martyrs, in the last century, who were faithful unto the death, that they might receive a crown of life. But,
2dly, For these and the like reasons, we cannot hear patiently, these great mens’ opinion on the point brought forth on truth’s opposite side; we think that this is too much expence in truth’s vindication, against the modern heresy, and more as it comes most awkwardly from such, or off the hands of such who profess to have served themselves heirs to these great men, in an adherence to the worship, doctrine, discipline, and government of the once famous reformed church of Scotland; neither can we believe that it will be sustained as a piece of service, or generation work to after ages, being what the Lord never requires, to the prejudice of the contendings, and memory of his now dead, but living witnesses. And,
3dly. It comes not very well off the hands of such, who profess to the world, to maintain the self-same principles with those maintained by our noble Reformers, and yet charge our Reformers with bad doctrine:—mistaken views of God’s covenant;—their doctrine little less than blasphemy, &c. How ungrateful a character to give their renowned forefathers! And who were signally countenanced and assisted of the Lord in their works. Condemn them who will, the Lord will yet plead their cause, in opposition to his enemies, and make their memories savoury to the ages to come, for their faithfulness in his cause: and how strange is it for any to blame them for being unfaithful, and yet themselves never to come up to their footsteps for faithfulness, and are far deficient from them both in respect of doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, as may appear to any impartial and disinterested enquirer into present and former times, they
[ 68 ]
will find the gold become dim, the most fine gold changed, and the glory departed from Israel. And,
Lastly. We cannot but take it ill to hear our Reformers mentioned in the present contest, against modern Arminians and Socinians; and yet, notwithstanding of all that is said, the names of these mongral heterogenous beasts, teeming out upon the western sea shores, they are never so much as named; which shews, it is easier to charge the dead witnesses of Christ, who are not to answer for themselves; than to charge the living enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ, who are alive to answer if wronged; but it is easy to call in the court, (as we commonly say,) when there is none to call again. And indeed it can be no great compliment to the memories of these eminent lights, who deserved so well in the church of Christ, in after ages to tell us, for a memorandum of them, that they taught bad doctrines, and that from mistaken views of the very nature of God too. Possible! Teach bad doctrines, have mistaken views of God’s nature, live and die in that persuasion, and go to heaven too! Surely an error here must be very dangerous! Great need for caution, circumspection, and dependence upon the Lord, in this and all respects, for his guidance, counsel and direction, that so he may direct our paths. For oh! we poor mortals at best know but little, while here, of his supreme Deity, infinite glory, and incomprehensible divine perfections, and incommunicable attributes! How little do our thoughts correspond to the immensity of his admirable essence, and God-head, three in one, and one in three distinct persons, of one undivided essence, equal in being, power, glory, and eternity! What mortal creature can take upon them, to unfold or circumscribe within their own limits what he can do, or what he can not do, where he himself does not lead their way in his word? But the truth is, the most enlightened godly person, while in this embodied state, can know but little of God’s divine power and glorious perfections; but in a future state shall come to know more, yea ten thousand times more than they can conceive; so that we must just conclude in
[ 69 ]
this, with one, who had as good a right to correct the doctrines of past ages, and saw as far into these divine mysteries, as any in our days; and yet behoved after all to say, for now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face;—now I know in part, but then shall I know as also I am known. May the glory of the Lord cover the earth, as the waters cover the sea. Amen.
SOME QUERIES CONCERNING CHRIST’S POWER AS MEDIATOR.
AS for this other point by us hesitated upon, viz. Christ’s laying aside the exercise, or suspending the exercise of his essential kingdom, as God equal with the Father, and blessed Spirit; and that it was by him as Mediator that kings reign, and princes decree justice; even all the judges of the earth, Prov. viii. 15, 16. We could not see how this would reconcile or comport with the judgment and doctrines of the reformed and covenanted church of Scotland; to which doctrines we were all by covenant solemnly engaged: only, as this has been a point variously understood, on account of the different glosses put upon these texts of scripture, to which it has been referred. We do not, nor did we formerly advance our own sentiments, but the sentiments of our Reformers upon it. The substance of what was, and is to be noticed by us, shall be comprized in the following two premises, and a few queries thereupon. And,
1st. We premise that it seems to have been the received and appointed judgment of the reformed and suffering church of Scotland, with respect to the kingly government of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he has a two-fold kingdom. 1. One essential with the Father and the Holy Ghost, by which absolute supreme power, and dominion over all creatures in heaven and earth, essentially and naturally, equally with the Father. Psalm ciii. 19.
[ 70 ]
His kingdom ruleth over all, as the sole monarch, the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords. 1 Tim. vi. 15. Wherein he rules and presides over the whole extent of creation (from which no being can possibly revolt,) governing along with the Father, and holy Spirit, by an immense multiplicity of various laws, wisely adapted to the different natures, and resulting from their various and different relations to him; over which kingdom he shall remain an uncontrollable Sovereign, through the revolving ages of eternity. This power, or essential kingdom, being common to all the three persons in the God-head, none of them can possibly be divested of it. And to use the Presbytery’s own words, ‘As the supreme and incomprehensible maker of all things, God essentially has, from the absolute infinity of his power, communicated existence to a boundless number of beings, of different natures, ranks, and orders, for the brighter displays of his own glorious and essential perfections; so he must needs have, and exercise a sovereign and uncontrollable authority, and sway an universal sceptre over all the extensive regions of heaven and earth, with their respective inhabitants. And thus, as Creator, Christ may be justly called God over all, blessed for ever.’* 2. He hath a donative kingdom as Mediator, by which mediatorial kingdom as God-man, he is constituted King by divine appointment, upon his holy hill of Zion; by which he not only rules in the hearts of his people, the subjects of his kingdom the church, by his grace; but also by right of conquest, he hath power of controul, to influence the management of all things in heaven and in earth, for the good and benefit of his church; having a sword, or iron rod committed unto him, by which he restrains, conquers, defends, and subdues all his, and his church’s enemies. This is by those who distinguish his mediatory kingdom, into that of his power, grace, and glory, called the kingdom of his power, wherein he manageth in appointing, and making angels, men, &c. to work together for the good of his church; sometimes permitting them
_____
* See Serious Examination, &c. page 209.
[ 71 ]
to molest and persecute his church; at other times restraining it, making all the evils and harrassments of his church, turn out to his glory, and their good; in punishing all his and their enemies;—rewarding such as has been friendly to his church, people, and interest;—in making most honourable use of angels at the last day;—and renewing gloriously the decayed face of this our lower world, &c. Rom. viii. 21. 2 Pet. iii. 13. For proof of this we might produce the suffrage of the most part of all our reforming divines, at home and abroad, who has touched upon the point: we only shall refer to the Confession of Faith, the 44th proposition of the 111 propositions by the General Assembly 16[47]. Mr. Henderson’s sermon before the House of Lords, May 28, 1643; Mr. Black’s 2d Declinature, approved by the General Assembly; the London Ministers’ divine right of Church Government; and their Vindication of Presbyterial Government; Informatory Vindication; Mr. Gil[l]espie’s Answer to Coleman’s Sermon; Annotators and Expositors on the Texts, and different Catechisms, and Systems of Divinity upon Christ’s kingly office; with the Presbytery’s Serious Examination, &c.
2d. We may further premise, that from what is above noticed, both as the judgment of our Reformers, and those most reputed for orthodoxy since the Revolution; yea, from the Presbytery’s own words on the point: we do not understand how that Christ the Mediator has either laid aside the exercises of his essential kingdom; or that, that text, Prov. viii. 15. By me kings reign, and princes decree justice, is to be understood of Christ as Mediator. If thus hold, then Christ as Mediator must be the head of all moral government in the world, and under him in that character, all lawful magistrates must discharge their office; and there could be no lawful authority, Heathen or Christian, but what flowed, or was derived from this fountain. If otherwise, we would be much obliged to those who maintain the contrary, to grant us a solution to the few following simple queries, the substance of them being those objections raised or proposed upon us, by some very judicious knowing men, who stands tenaciously
[ 72 ]
unto the received doctrines of our Reformers, on that point; that so thereby we may be enabled to give an answer, or reasons to such, in a plausible or rational way, with meekness and fear.
Query 1. The Presbytery, in their Serious Examinations, &c. of the true state, has justly said as has been above noticed, that, ‘As the supreme and incomprehensible maker of all things, God essentially has communicated existence to a boundless number of beings; so he must needs have, and exercise a sovereign and uncontroulable authority, and sway an universal sceptre over all the extensive regions of heaven and earth, with their respective inhabitants; and thus, as Creator, Christ may be justly called, God over all, blessed for ever.’ Now, the strength of the query lies in this: If God essentially, and Christ as Creator, the second person of the ever blessed Trinity, has made and exercises a sovereign authority over all things made, in heaven and earth, and their inhabitants; how will it knit, correspond, or agree together to say, that God, or Christ either in his essential character has laid aside or suspended the exercises of that power and authority, to be exercised by a delegate power by him as man-mediator? Might it not be mysterious, how he who is the Creator of heaven and earth, and still ruleth it as such, God blessed for ever, should rule all by a delegate power only, and yet be the eternal God, as well as man-mediator?
Query 2. We would want to know whether the three mediatorial offices of our Redeemer be of equal extent; and if his mediatorial power as a king, can be with propriety said, to extend farther than his purchase, or merit as a priest. And if not, can it be any mystery how Christ can judge the world at the last day; if the government of the whole world, Heathen as well as Christian, be not now committed unto him, it might be as great a paradox how he can be said to be the head of all rule or dominion, to those who never heard of his name. Some very eminent divines has adventured to say, that he did not merit this power; he should have had power as God equal with the Father and Holy Spirit, to judge
[ 73 ]
those who had sinned against, or without the law, though he had never been Mediator. But the gordian knot is more excellently loosed by not a few judicious divines, who think that a three one God is Judge, in respect of justiciary, authority, power and dominion. But Christ as God, man-mediator, will be visible Judge in respect of dispensation and exercise of that power, that he shall judge every one by that light and law that they enjoyed; those who sinned without the written law, should be judged by the law and light of nature; and those who sinned under the law, shall be judged by the written law; and here one formidable objection will be solved.
Query 3. If the word all in scripture cannot be sustained universally as to Christ’s purchase or satisfaction as a priest; must the word—all power in heaven and earth,—all things put under his feet, &c. be understood of universal extent? Though our reforming divines granted fairly, that Christ as Mediator, had a power of restraining, and subduing of his enemies, and defending his church, and illustrated it by David’s headship over the heathen nations which he conquered; as it must be typical of this, when it is said he subdivided them; but he reigned over all Israel, and executed justice and judgment to all his people. Yet they mostly have (at least such as we have access to consult,) confined these texts, more properly to a restricted sense, to his body and subjects the church And if this is refused, how will it reconcile with the Presbytery’s words in the above cited print, that the word all—all the world, is not to be understood universally, except Rom. iii. 19. that all the world may become guilty before God.
Query 4. As for that text, 1 Cor. xv. 7. For he hath put all things under his feet; Mr. Gilespie, Dr. Collins, (who continues Pool’s Annotations on this place,) and other eminent lights of the church, from the following 28th verse, where it is said, and when all things shall be subdued, or subjected, (as the Dutch translate it,) incline to think that this putting under his feet as Mediator, is but partly fulfilled, and will be more fully accomplished at the last day. Nay, the English annotators, and Pool’s, excepts
[ 74 ]
the exercise of God’s essential dominion over all created beings, from this all. And indeed if it is to be understood in the universal tone, or utmost extent, this query will natively fall in, if all persons and things are thus put under his feet as Mediator. Where do we read in all the book of divine revelation, that ever it is said, that the church, which is his kingdom, is put under his feet: but we have it said and represented there, that he, as a tender nursing father, cherishes her, and carries the lambs in his bosom. As for Prov. viii. 15. The most judicious annotators that we have seen, (namely the Dutch,) takes it to be spoken in the name of the eternal, essential wisdom of the Father; the Son of God in a personal capacity, did not in his mediatorial character: and of this mind seem our Westminster divines to have been, who recommend that translation; though Mr. Baxter, Messrs. Strong, Hussy, Coleman, and others, has thought otherways.
Query 5. Providence is frequently called God’s providence; we have it no where called Christ’s providence as man-mediator. It is said, God is the King of all the earth; and his kingdom ruleth over all. Psalm xlvii. 7. and ciii. 19. Nay, it is said, Psalm lxxv. 7. God is Judge, he putteth down one, and setteth up another. The righteous Judge, and supreme Lord and Governor over all the world, giving them to whomsoever he pleaseth, as Mr. Pool annotates. Nay, Christ himself, the best judge of his own power as Mediator, when he says, Two sparrows cannot fall to the ground without your Father;—the Father is greater than me. Now as one special act of the exercise of the kingdom of Providence, is the pulling down of one, and setting up of another. Now, if the management of the kingdom, or whole wheels of Providence, be committed to him as Mediator, must it not then necessarily and natively follow, (whatever pretensions are made to the contrary,) that magistrates as such have their office, power, and authority from him? or at least are managed, ruled, ordered, and governed by him as Mediator: yea, all the tyrants and usurpers which ever have been, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzer, and Nero not excepted, must have been raised up by him; even the vilest of men, Dan. iv. 17.
[ 75 ]
seeing it is by Providence they bear rule; for without this, nothing can exist in the world otherways.
The 6th Query may be, What becomes of that noble part of Christ’s priestly office, his intercession? For how is it imaginable, that Christ as Mediator, can make intercession to himself? For, to whom can he intercede, having all power to give or withhold in his hand as Mediator? Nay, even in temporal enjoying of the bounty of Providence, what avails it to say, it were a thing quite absurd or inconsistent, for persons to have to go to Christ as Mediator, for their salvation; and to God as Creator, for such common mercies: seeing a civil or common right is one thing, and a covenant right or blessing upon these, is another; the last is the fruits of Christ’s purchase; but the former, according to the judgment of many judicious divines from scripture, is what heathen and wicked men enjoy. And even in these two points just now mentioned, there is no need for such a difference or distinction; for going to God the Father, or the Son separately, would be highly absurd; seeing a whole trinity of persons, three in one, and one in three, both in creating, upholding, and redeeming, are concerned and interested. As for that distinction used by some moderns, between the fruits of Christ’s purchase, and the consequences of his death, we could wish it better ascertained.
Upon the whole, and after all, no doubt some well meaning persons may be ready to think, that these sentiments of our most eminent Reformers, are derogatory to the glory and dignity of Christ as Mediator; (for our own sentiments on the point we no ways abstractly insist upon,) but let such know, that as for these eminent lights of the church, reformers and sufferers, their judgment on this point, no doubt are amongst the doctrines adhered unto, sworn, and sealed by the blood of so many martyrs, who witnessed for Christ’s royal prerogatives, as king and head of his church, set upon his holy hill of Zion, in opposition to all his antichristian enemies, and erastian foes, and who are now made to triumph before
[ 76 ]
the throne of God and the Lamb, with crowns of dignity on their heads, and palms of victory in their hands, singing the song of Moses and the Lamb; for he hath washed away all their sins in his own blood, and made them unto God, to be kings and priests, and they shall reign with him for ever and ever.
As for ourselves, we can safely and cheerfully say, let them be anathema maranatha, accursed, who goes about to maintain any opinion that is diminutive, either of the essential dignity, or honorary employment of this most glorious God-man-Mediator, in his person or characters. And whatever power he has in his own word of divine revelation, ascribed and attributed to him as God, and as God-man-Mediator; yea, that can possibly be ascribed to him, in heaven, earth, or hell, by any person, upon this warrant of the divine rule, we most willingly and cheerfully grant, and ascribe unto that glorious and august person, who is God-man-Mediator, in his person, offices, and relations, &c. And we are of the mind, and do most humbly think, that any man, minister, or divine, whether ancient or modern, who steers a course in a line, either above or below this point, or well-warranted rule, (whatever be their real pretence or design,) they can have little approbation, or thanks from him, (so to speak,) for their labour and arduous zeal, be of what denomination, profession, or station in the church they will. Hierom’s rule was, Bonus præter mandatum est de deus. God is dishonoured, by that honour which is ascribed to him, beyond his own prescription. And we design (whatever others do,) to abide by the most perfect rule of the unchangeable God, the true object of adoration, and who is worthy of blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, which ought to be ascribed to a three one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
[ 77 ]
AN ANSWER TO SOME REFLECTIONS.
HAVING said so much anent [concerning] the doctrinal points; we shall notice a few of the many objections, or rather reflections, cast in our teeth, on account of our faint, but well-meant contendings; and make a few remarks by way of answer to each of them, as arranged in the following order of repetition for perspicuity.
Reflection I.—You have sustained yourselves judges of doctrine, right or wrong as you determine, or sanction it; no wonder you be troublesome to ministers.
On which we remark, 1st. That this must be a false accusation; as all that has hitherto been produced on this article, can never support the charge: and therefore, we might in place of any other reasons, absolutely refuse it. But, for the satisfaction of such as desire to be informed, we refuse in strongest terms, that either we ourselves, or any man or minister either, are to be sustained as proper judges of doctrine; we hold with our Westminster divines, that the Spirit of God speaking in scripture, is the supreme and infallible Judge of all controversies; and that his word is the only and alone rule for faith and manners, by which every doctrine whatsoever, right or wrong, must be tried; and by which a lawful church judicatory are to determine every controversy of this kind, in religion; and to such we are willing, most willing to submit it;—to the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to the word, it is because there is no light in them. And whosoever speaks not according to this word, comes under the definition of those prophets, of whom it is said, They follow their own spirit, and has seen nothing. But,
2d. Every Christian gospel hearer, has a descriptive right to try what doctrine they hear or read;—try the spirits, (says the apostle,) whether these doctrines be founded upon, consistent with, or deducible from this divine rule; and this the word of God, and all judicious expositors from it, maintain and allow; the import or substance
[ 78 ]
of whose words, on this point, may be again in short hinted.
As God has given his ministers gifts for interpreting obscure places in scripture, so he hath given his people so much of the spirit of discerning, as to examine whether what they hear or read, be consonant to that rule, to judge for themselves with discretion of the meaning of scripture; the exercise of which is both commended and commanded of God; nor could they profit without it, 1 Cor. xii. 10. The Bereans were commended for this, tho’ they had Paul and Sillas for teachers, Acts xvii. 11. Yea Christ sends the Pharasees to try his own doctrine by this rule. John v. 40. And John the apostle says, Try the spirits, &c. To deny us this liberty, were to refuse the most scriptural terms of reason. Now we demand no higher terms than this, nor can any lower be sustained; and otherways we never intend to trouble man nor minister; and if they will hazard the troubling themselves, and us both, to their own master they must stand and fall: only we have one remark more in the last place, and that is, If we must be denied this christian freedom, why teach it any more, except we are to deal it about to others, and except ourselves. And in this case, implicite faith must reign triumphant; and though it may be worse taken than said, what further claim have we to make, until we be again posted within the horrid fangs of popery, where ignorance (and implicite faith, which is the same stamp,) is accounted the mother of devotion. In effect, whatever may be pretended to the contrary, it must be on the same principle, and tend to the same ends.
Reflexion II.—It is dangerous to meddle with ministers, or be troublesome to church judicatories,—touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.
On this we remark, that this, at first glare, has some plausibility in it, being the only objection used against us, that has been sanctioned from scripture. But stay a little, and we shall, on a second view, find that this needs be no bug-bear to intimidate or frighten honest hearted contenders: we do not run the parallel in degrees, but we have no doubt but all the parties, and subdivided
[ 79 ]
parties of the day, sects and sectaries not excepted, will in some respect or other, meet contenders against their defections in each party, with the same weapons, arms, or accoutrements. But here it is, the rule of God’s word, the testimony of Jesus, and the principle upon which such contending’s are founded, that must cast the balance, or scale, and determine the matter. If any person, upon what pretence they will, oppose ministers on account of their character, as the servants of Christ, whose badge and livery they wear, or maltreat them on account of their office, or because they belong to his household or family, as that miscreant, who struck one of our eminent Scots worthies, Mr. Davidson, saying, ‘Take that for the sake of thy master;’ or ridicule them on account of their faithfulness, in testifying against their sins, and telling them their duties; or even wrangle with them for contention’s sake, to keep them uneasy; which is most wicked and atrocious; such aspiring Dathans, persecuting Doegs, profane Esaus, and daring Alexanders, cannot miss to meet with some mark of divine displeasure, and sometimes even visibly punished in this life. But what does all this militate against honest hearted contenders? On account of the cause of Christ or his truths, were they never so little esteemed, if they be truths, and contended for out of true zeal and love for God’s declarative glory in the world, it makes no matter who they contend with; for the more eminent the complier, or justly complained of be, they had the more need to be witnessed against, being in a capacity to lead the more after them: and to except ministers or church officers here, would exalt them to the Pope’s infallibility. We find one eminent apostle withstanding another;—and another saying, ‘Say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry thou hast received.’ The very practice of the church in all ages confirms this; namely, our own reformed church. Go through both Old and New Testament times, look on the history of the church, and you will find, whenever defection took place in a church, churchmen, prophets, priests, and ministers, &c. were almost, if not always charged as the first in the trespass.
[ 80 ]
Our own land, and even since the Revolution, affords us with recent instances of this, and affords us famous examples of honest contenders, who all along were no way afraid, in behalf of Christ’s despised and neglected truths, to contend with ministers. Yea, were it needful, we could instance some of the most singular, religious, honest, and faithful, namely amongst dissenters, who had a continued series of contending with ministers, on account of their defections and compliances, for the most and best part of their time; and has made it evident, upon solid scriptural grounds, the justness of their quarrel, and the Lord’s countenancing them in it, under the strongest assurance of his love, and well-being for time and eternity. Yea, it could be scarcely believed, that men in an embodied state, could enjoy so much of heaven upon earth, as some of them enjoyed; although they were also branded in their time, as the case now is, for being hypocrites, or troublesome seditious persons.
For the other part of the objection, touching the Lord’s anointed, little more needs be said; the matter as above determines it. We only say, that for our own part, we intend to meddle or trouble no minister whatsoever, and much less him who claims the inspection at present over us, (though we intend not to say amen to his defections,) we can say honestly, we bear him no ill-will; nay, we wish him well in his civil and religious concerns, and willing to sympathize with him in all his difficulties, would it be acceptable; and not only so; but with all that we can perceive any thing of the image of God in, notwithstanding our freedom in testifying against what we take to be wrong in their conduct: and we allow them the same freedom with us, in whatever we are justly chargeable with; only mind that it is not men, but mens’ manners that we are to keep our eye upon; not persons, but the things that persons are guilty of, that become the ground of our contendings, or that which we would contend against these persons for.
Reflection III.—You contend and pick quarrels with, and put the church to trouble about things trifling, which
[ 81 ]
must be as needless and idle in point of redress, as one threshing the foam upon the water.
Rem. 1 This and the former, has indeed deceived many a simple, but well meaning person; they see things to be wrong, they would desire to sue for a redress, but are afraid to offend churchmen; and more when they see so little to be obtained this way; and so they must either just go off, or remain and take things as they get them, and be silent.
2d. That the giving in complaints in way of grievances to the church for a considerable time, has in effect been needless, idle, &c. no better than threshing the foam on the water, seems a truth that stares us so grimly in the face, in legible characters, that he that runs may read them. The Established Church, very soon after the Revolution, first treated complainers of this kind very uncivilly; then they came to persecute or censure the petitioners; last of all, refused to table their complaints, mark their protests, &c. and then they got clear of their trouble. The different parties of dissenters that filed off their camp from time to time, seeing the effect answer the end and expectation of the practitioners so well, have seemed not a little fond of following this example; and it seems the old dissenters must try the same experiment. But that any thing we have hitherto contended for, or against, are trifles, will take another assertion for proof; nay, so far against it, that we have again and again appealed to the worst of our opposers, if they could point out one particular that we contended for or against, that did not stand approved of, or condemned in God’s word, and reforming acts and laws; and how can they either be trifling, or deserve such treatment? For every truth, be it accounted never so small, in a declining time, yet it belongs to the veracity of him, who is truth itself:—I am the way, the truth, and the life;—the faithful and true witness. Ought we then to purchase peace, or the enjoyment of ordinances either, at such an expence? The one belongs to the honour, dignity, and veracity of God; and the other is only our own privilege, which must never be preferred to the other, however much to be
[ 82 ]
esteemed and desired, when they can be got with a clear conscience. But,
3d. We observe further, that even supposing some of these things we contend for, to be of little moment; nay, as indifferent as the eating a bit of meat; does religion admit of no other methods to deal with a weak or offended brother, but to tell him in plain terms, If ye be not pleased with our practices, or cannot put up peaceably with them, ye must even go your ways, and give us no further molestation? If this is the case, what made an apostle say concerning eating of flesh;—But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ:—Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth. But here must rather hazard the sinning against Christ, than the humoring of stupid, giddy-headed persons, as they are termed; grant or yield them this, they must be humoured in every thing, and will so go to extremes; for so we are told, curb them, and hold them down, this is the way to make them submissive to every imposition; and thus the commandments of God must be made of none effect by our traditions, or to please the ambition of men.
Reflection IV.—We never like such as make pretensions to strictness; they seldom miss to turn worse than others, and which, for so much noise, stands fair to be your case or all be over.
This seems to be the last conclusion, resource, or reserve of all; a dust that has never missed to be blown in the face of contenders, better men than we can justly pretend to be:—yet, as we would wish to tread in the same steps, however far short of these noble contenders gone before us; what we intend for a reply at present, the following few remarks will declare. And,
1st, We observe, that for what the objectors call strictness here, if they knew what strictness really is, we hesitate not to say, that they might blush at the expression. Strictness! The best and strictest of us all, has nothing to glory in of strictness; we have rather ground to fear and conclude, that were these venerable reformers, highly re-
[ 83 ]
nowned sufferers and martyrs, zealous, plain, and honest hearted old dissenters since the revolution, to return into an embodied state, and take a view of the whole scene or series of our conduct and management, with respect to principle and practice; it is scarcely imaginable, that they could know, or acknowledge us for their successors; nay, it is more than conjecture, they will rise up in judgment and condemn us, for letting such a well stated testimony, purchased at the expense of so much blood and treasure, sworn unto, and sealed by the blood of so many eminent martyrs, thus drop through our fingers; which must of necessity, ere long, fall to the ground; so that if we be thus left in holy sovereignty to apostatize, it cannot be on account of our strictness, seeing we have not got the length of strictness itself, it must come from some other quarter, and that is from what has been already specified; neither can strictness of any kind, if well founded, and from right motives, ever be productive of such dismal effects and consequences But,
2d. That there are really such rotten hearted professors amongst us, as well as all other parties, is a truth; and has been the case in the church in all ages, who make a bustle or fair bloom for a little, like the stony-ground hearers, or the seed sown by the way side, whose principle is not rightly founded, and so they lose root, and soon fall away, is a truth not less evident, than it ought to be lamented that there are so many such; but for one that pretends strictness, and apostatizes, we might instance two of your booted and spured professors, we mean such, whatever be their opulency in the world, evidences by their conduct, garb, &c. that they are not only ready to chime in with almost every custom, practice, and fashionable diversion and entertainment, but justifies their conduct, or the conduct of others with whom they are connected, that apostatizes; some of whom would be a reproach, and a disgrace to any religious denomination whatsoever; and from what strictness does this proceed? Again, if we be allowed examples, we could turn out one to one (bad as matters are with us,) who, even amongst dissenters all along since the revolution, contended
[ 84 ]
against defections, even in our own community; and the nearer death, they were the more and more confirmed, that an apostasy, or leaven of defection, was a working, or taking place. They were not only enabled by divine grace, to a sober, religious, tender conversation in the world, even the most amiable characters in the age that they lived, but also, as they dropped off the stage from time to time, gave their testimony against that which we are contending against amongst other defections; and can it be rationally thought, that all other parties or denominations, are going down the stream of defection, and that we yet stand entire; surely not. Possible! Does not all the present evils, as rivulets, proceed from the same source; are they not a part of the same stream with these formerly complained of by former faithful witnesses? only the stream of defection is widening and increasing in force, as it continually bears head and rolls on with great rapidity. And,
3d, We might also observe, that it is a kind of judging of our brother, that all his motives are bad and hypocritical; and therefore he shall soon make defection. This surely is unchristian, (to say no worse,) we might say, unscriptural, seeing it is said, Judge not, lest ye be judged. God is as able to give the true principle, and right motives, and to keep from falling away such as contend, as those who make the objection; else the apostle needed not given the caveat, Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant, to his own master he standeth or falleth, for God is able to make him stand.
But not to insist on such reflections, we only notice one thing more of this kind. And that is, If ye contend for, and against such things as these, ye must go out of the world and live by yourselves.
All that we have to remark upon this, is,
1st, We know not where that place is out of the world, that we in an embodied state can go to live in; or, as Job says in another case, concerning the saints,—Into which of the planetary worlds will ye turn; or where the avenues opens, for pass or repass to this spacious immensity. But let us be serious,
[ 85 ]
2d. We have, as has been said, contended for nothing but what has been contended for by Christ’s faithful witnesses gone before us; nay, we are five to one degrees, it is to be feared, behind them; and they lived and died, (at least the most part of them,) in once famous covenanted, but now degenerate Scotland, and in as dangerous times, and never needed to seek another world to dwell in, (though some of them was of necessity driven to another part of this world,) they indeed, like the worthies mentioned in Heb. xi. were seeking another country, one heavenly, until they were transported thither. But now they desire a better country, that is one heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he hath prepared for them a city.
Lastly. We remark, that if we remember right, that it is only such that must needs go out of the world, who refuse all civil converse, or commerce with their brethren of mankind without the church at large, 1 Cor. v. 10. But where have we ever refused this, either as a point of principle, or in practice? Nay, on the contrary, we are in more danger of falling into too much familiarity, with the men of these abominations in this respect: There is an over righteousness, but we are naturally inclined to the other side; a dying hour, it may be concluded, will try all our preciseness, and precious time now slides away.
Upon the whole, whatever way be taken, it appears that contenders must (as the proverb has it) get both the skaith and the scorn, the sore stroke and the loud cry. For if persons, on account of such defections, and such treatment, without hopes of redress, are obliged to go off in a peaceable way, looking upon it as needless to give in any thing as the grounds of their conduct; then this is improved to their disadvantage, and crying out, O! such and such persons went off from us, but could give no reasons for their so doing: and thus they are triumphed over.
Upon the other hand, If any person shall think to have things made better, or exhonour [exonerate] their own conscience, by
[ 86 ]
first giving in their grievances, at least condescending upon them, then are their reasons not only rejected, but are themselves branded, for being seditious persons,—of a restless spirit,—imprudent,—officious,—hypocrites, and what not.
Upon these, and the like considerations, we shall shut up these few remarks with a few particulars applicatory to what we have in brief terms expressed, or observed.
And, 1st. If any shall suppose that whatever we have done or said, in the course of this affair, proceeds from a restless spirit and disposition, this we refuse with contempt: we should by this time, or long ere now, have been silent, had the quarrel on the other side been dropped; but while a running fire is continued, this and the other thing alleged against us; yea, we may say, scriptures were drawn against us, then we must stand forth in our own defence, which is surely lawful; and yet we do not intend properly a vindication of ourselves here, but a vindication of all such as contend for these and the like truths, in a christian and prudent way and manner; and if we can not lay in our claim for a share, why, let us bear the blame. We can do nothing, that is, we mean to do nothing against the truth, but for it. And,
2d. If any are so daring as to say, we have here fought with a man of straw, made objections, and then answered them; this we deny: for all this, and much more of the same stuff, has been thrown in our teeth, in one form or other; the placing them in order, and the form of words, will never invalidate the matter, whatever formality of words may be used for connexion’s sake. And,
3d. As we have judged or condemned no man, one of our concluding petitions is, that any person, man or minister, into whose hands these premises shall come, will be so discreet and manly, either to refrain us, altogether in public, or private behind our back, where we cannot answer for ourselves; or in presence, where we are not on an equal footing, and have the convenience to answer for ourselves; or else give us a fair and candid hearing, where the proceedings on both sides may be deliberately and judiciously canvassed and investigate, for we never
[ 87 ]
refused a scrutiny; and if we shall be found guilty of any misdemeanour, as to the way and manner of our managing the contest; for we pretend to no perfection, but are compassed about with a body of sin, and many failings and infirmities; we refuse not to retract: for a good cause may have bad or unskilful advocates; nay, we had almost said, be almost lost in the management. So that if we misgive, we ought rather to be pitied and prayed for, than exposed, preached and prayed against; sure this would be more christian like.
Lastly, Under all this hard usage, we have this comfort, that we are not alone in the matter; for (not to speak of divine assistance, lest it should be accounted immodesty and hypocrisy,) we have men of the most amiable characters in the community of old dissenters, whose lives and conversation is above the impotent attacks of all their opposers, in the same predicament with ourselves, this and the other thing said anent [concerning] them, and scripture armour drawn forth against them, for their plain and honest dealing, in witnessing against the defections of their brethren. This is no desirable or agreeable work amongst such as profess to be presbyterian covenanted dissenters; such would do well to take care, perhaps death, and the other world, will cast a quite different light, or views upon the matter; for good men has differed upon earth; and two apostles went asunder, and we never read that they met together again in the militant church. It may indeed be a paradox, but it will be found true, that even such, whose dispositions (otherwise the friends and followers of Jesus,) could not agree on the earth; and yet, has to spend an eternity in the greatest harmony together. This ought to make men, or ministers, beware of judging, and drawing forth such uncharitable reflections, or entertain such jealous thoughts of such as would design honesty, whatever apprehensions they may entertain of prejudice to their persons; for sure the wrath of man will never work the righteousness of God.
[ 88 ]
And to conclude, Whatever our escapes, faults, and failings have been, if our treacherous hearts deceive us not, we have designed honestly in this; and not without some trembling confidence from God’s word, that he will yet bring forth our righteousness as the light, and our judgment as the noon-tide of the day.
And more, condemn us who will, for what feeble attempts we have been enabled unto in way of witness-bearing, against the current defection; we would yet hope, in God’s word of promise, that the Lord will not condemn us when he stands in judgment.
P O S T S C R I P T.
THE reasons for publishing this piece of the author’s Contendings or Grievances, are these, Though the author, in his former publications, has pointed out many of the defections and corruptions of this day; yet these are applied to the other sects and parties in the land. But these Grievances point out the defections and corruptions of that church he was a member of; which shews still more of his honesty and faithfulness with his former publications.
And again, Because these Grievances state and point out what these corrupt principles, defections and immoral practices are, that must be redress’d before any reformation of the defections and wicked practices of the present Churches can be obtained; and as long as the grievances
[ 89 ]
complained of in this paper is not redressed, all the present debating about principles, and all the present complaints about the wicked practices of the day, and all the present owning and acknowledging of the present great decline of true godliness, and of great defections; yet all is become like sounding brass, or a tingling symbol: because there is no love shown either to the purity of church communion, nor yet to preserve the scriptural dignity and authority of God’s ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper; nor yet the true character of a faithful contender for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom; nor yet of a faithful maintainer of the martyrs’ testimony in Scotland ever since the reformation. That this is a truth, may be clear to every one who takes a view of the life and practice of those persons that the present churches are dispensing the seals of the covenant of grace unto; and are vindicating the present method of admitting immoral persons into church communion to be a duty. But all the contending of churches at present, either for maintaining the scriptural method of church communion, or yet reformation principles, consist solely in owning defections, and confessing in public that there is a decline of religion, and a prevailing of corrupt practices. But all that is said is again confuted by the present method of judging all persons worthy church members and faithful contenders for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom: for nothing has ruined the church of Christ more at this day, than this practice of a promiscuous admission of unworthy persons into church communion*.
_____
* The sentiment of Mr. Strong may be here added, because it is so agreeable to all that is said in this pamphlet against admission of members unworthy into churches.
Strong on the Covenants, page 230 “And it is that which we must look upon as the great sin of this nation, that we will entitle the whole nation to a church state, and every particular person a church member, and yet no care is taken, that either they walk as does become members, or else that they be excluded from such a pretended right: and the reformation of this nation will never be thorough according to the rules of the gospel, till this be done in all privileges, ordinances, one as well as another.”
[ 90 ]
And another reason is, because the author, and all persons that complained to that church, that it was guilty of defections from the principles and practices of the church of Scotland betwixt 1638 and 1649, and craved any redress of these defections, have been greatly blamed for troublers and pests to christian societies by that church; and that they troubled the church with many articles that were trifling, or without any scripture warrant or foundation. So the publishing of these Grievances will let it be known what those articles are, that all persons are now held up as troublers of churches, and pests to society is for; and it is for stating and craving a redress of these grievances. For these Grievances contain in them, all the articles that ever the author, or any that continued honest and faithful with him, ever troubled that church with; which makes the publishing of them to be unanswerably necessary; because there is no other way left to let it be known what the true state of the difference between the presbytery and the author, and all those that joined him, was.
Therefore, the publishing of these Grievances cannot miss of discovering something about the honesty and concernedness of the present church members about the defections and corruptions of this day. For if there are any who are grieved for the present defections from truth and godliness, and the corrupt practices of professors; these persons will be glad to see those defections and corrupt practices pointed out and testified against, that has ruined the covenanted testimony at this day in Scotland. Therefore, all those who are well pleased with the present church’s constitutions, rules, plans, and methods that they have adopted to maintain truth, and are opposing any reformation, and are none grieved for the defections and corrupt practices of church members, will be greatly offended, and rage, when they see the means and methods whereby the present great defections from reformation principles, and covenanted obligations, is maintained and carried on by the professors who are professing to maintain covenanted obligations, clearly pointed out. Again, all those persons who esteem these Grievances
[ 91 ]
unworthy of their notice or regard, will be discovered that they are either enemies to the covenanted work of reformation in Scotland, and the binding obligation of covenants upon posterity; or they are esteeming the reformation attained to in Scotland from 1638 to 1649, and that testimony maintained by the martyrs from 1661 to 1688 in Scotland, unworthy of their notice and regard. Also, because it is only the maintaining of that testimony that these martyrs suffered for, that these Grievances are pleading for.
And again, If any member of the reformed presbytery, (because these Grievances affects that presbytery most,) either minister or private member, attempt to confute the publishing of these Grievances, in a public manner; and be either encouraged or not testified against for doing so, because they have not the formalities that the present churches are now requiring, and far more set upon having maintained than any reformation of defections or corrupt practices of this time: then it will discover that that church is not owning the articles stated in that paper as grievances, to be any grievance to that church at all. So, if any of that church oppose the publishing of these Grievances, they must prove that the want of church formalities is a sufficient reason to hinder any man from publishing a testimony against the corruptions of any church; and also prove that the articles stated in that paper, are no grounds of grievance; or, that the articles there complained of, are not to be found in that church.
And again, The opposers of publishing of these Grievances, must prove, that when a number of persons agree about some articles of truth and duty, and subscribes to these articles, that when the greatest number comes to change their minds about these articles, then the fewest number are bound by scripture authority to change their opinion also. This is an article must be cleared in a scriptural manner; because it is a great argument made use of now for maintaining the present defections; and also opposing the binding obligation of covenants. And whoever opposes the publishing of these papers, are of the same opinion.
[ 92 ]
Grievance X.—It is there said, “Neither are we fond of cringing to incumbents for their kirk a day to preach in.” From this it appears, that the author and those who signed these Grievances, were of opinion, that petitioning for incumbents kirks, was in some respects, a homologating with them; and the arguments that are taken with compliers to vindicate this practice, will prove it to be so. And,
I. They argue that it is no worse to take their kirk, than it is to take their coat. But this is so general an argument in the mouths of all compliers, that it shews the readiness to comply with all as a matter of indifference. 1. The incumbent hath his coat, or the materials of it, from the merchant, and made to him by the tailor, as a man: but he hath his kirk from the general assembly, and delegated to him by the presbytery. 2. He hath his coat at his own cost; but the kirk he hath not so. 3. He hath his coat, be what principle he will; but he hath his kirk as he is a member of the church of Scotland. 4. You may have his coat without owning any religious constitution; but you cannot have his kirk without homologating his religious constitution; which contradicts your own testimony. And,
II. It is argued that they ask it from him only as a man, or a good neighbour; not as a minister. To this it may be answered; 1. As a man or good neighbour he may give you his coat; but as a minister, he must give you his kirk. 2. It hath been heard that some have spoke or petitioned to an elder or beadle for the kirk a day to their minister to preach in. To which it was answered, They none doubted but that would be got; but the minister must be first consulted: which all (with many more, if your patience would allow,) shows that that constitution must be homologated by such petitioning or acceptance, which you pretend to testify against.
A III. Argument that is taken with the time-compliers is, That the materials, such as stones and timber, would not file their clothes. To this it may be answered, That such unscriptural arguments must come from those who are not much taken with a fear that they may step
[ 93 ]
either to the right hand or left; or that they may give a wrong touch to the ark. He that stayed the ark when the oxen stumbled, had as much reason on his side as the time-compliers have for this practice. And we have it also spoken of, “Touch not, taste not, handle not,” which undoubtedly must determine who is honest in that which is least, as well as in that which is greatest. 2. Who would have thought that such scoffing carnal reasoning would have been brought in to support such a momentous duty, as they must acknowledge it to be; seeing that it seems that some cannot get clearness to comply with that practice; and yet the compliers hath no more to support them in it, but these carnal reasonings. But there is no evidence that these reasoners are any way afraid that they offend a weak brother; or that they will sacrifice some of their own liberty before that they have any associating with compliers. For surely it must, in less or more, be an acknowledging of that constitution, that they have lifted a testimony against: and if the accepting of the house, cloathed with that constitution, sullying your garments none; no more will the constitution of the man, sullying your conscience, by hearing of the great truths of the gospel from his mouth; and if your conscience be clear for owning the constitution of the house, it cannot be thought it will be affected much for owning the constitution of the man.
Therefore, let these critics, that are so nice in their logic, prove from scripture, the constitution of the house to be no sin, (or their owning of it no sin,) and the constitution of the man to be as great a sin as they assert it to be, since they come both from one constitution. And if there be no more in the owning of a constitution but the filing of garments, what self-destroyers must they be, to travel ten, twelve, and twenty miles on the sabbath morning, when the garments may be as clean, and only one mile’s travel.
What is asserted in these Grievances, against law processes, is fully made good by an elder in the community. But it would go beyond the limits of such a piece as this, to mention all the times, with their circumstances, that
[ 94 ]
this ruling elder has taken to procure some less or more of his effects, or defend his character. And also, the ways that he takes to support the government, even by auctioning of his cattle, for which he must apply to an auctioneer established by law: and so much off every pound of the auctioned cattle, that is not reared in his own possession, goes to government. But whether his design in such conduct, is to support the government, by giving them a sum of money off these auctioned cattle, or to intoxicate the purchasers with liquor or pride, and get more than the value for his cattle; and then, by private bargain, purchase equally as good cheaper; or to be singular from the rest of the neighbourhood, is best known to God and himself: but sure it is, that government is supported by his conduct.
But this elder needs be none offended at this freedom with him here, since his conduct in these articles is so well known to the public: and his brethren in religion are giving no evidences that they are any ways dissatisfied at it: but on the contrary, even vindicating such things; and is even as a congregation meeting together and consulting, and appointing a committee of their number to defend a property, that it is questioned if they, as a congregation, have got very honourably. And also promised sums of money to that committee to carry on that law process.
But this community need not think that they are here charged for being worse in pursuing of law processes than the rest of the churches: No. But surely those who profess to bear witness against the antiscripturalness of the present government, should rather suffer wrong, than cause the testimony and truths of Christ to be evil spoken of, by following the same practice of those who are neither professing nor yet testifying against these things.
But how irreligious, absurd, and contradictory, is the practice of all those who sees no need to observe the scripture rule for edification in faith and love, even in this article of law process; but can suffer, nay justify and vindicate their members for entering into law pro-
[ 95 ]
cesses with one another. Therefore all persons that are not making that scripture doctrine an article in their profession, and maintaining it in their practice, that things may be lawful that are not expedient, because of bringing the testimony or gospel of Jesus to contempt, are contending little or none for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom: though it appears that the present churches are of opinion, that all things that are now esteemed to be lawful in this time of general defection from truth, are thought to be expedient. But all persons that are none afraid of bringing the gospel of Christ to reproach, by using the utmost of their christian liberty; and also all professors, who are now distressing one another with law process, rather than give up with any of their worldly property, are no contenders for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom; nor yet giving evidence of true godliness.
So the amount of all this is only intended to prove, that the Reformed Presbytery is giving as much liberty to her members for law process, and to support government, as any church in the nation, pretend what they will.
And though you may be longing to come to a conclusion, yet your patience must be exercised a little, till a few objections (why these Grievances should not be published,) may be answered: and they shall be but a few; because they are answered, in a great measure, in the third part of the letter.
OBJECTION I.—It is said every one of the signers had an equal right to that paper, and it should not have been published without the consent of the whole; therefore the signers are greatly wronged.
ANSWER—It is true the signers have a right, but it must be to stand to the articles they sign; for if it be truth and duty that is signed unto, then no man has a right to oppose its publication: but if it be neither truth nor duty that is signed, then the signers may plead that they were wronged. But if these Grievances contain truths and duties, all honest men would be ashamed to
[ 96 ]
oppose their being published; and if these Grievances do not contain both truth and duty, then it might make any honest man ashamed to make them public: and if these Grievances contain truths and duties, it would be a depriving of the public of their right not to publish them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear; for both the Grievances, and also the Letter, are only a vindication of the two capital doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession, and maintained by the martyrs to 1688, which was the scripture nature of both civil and church government; but that government maintained in the Westminster Confession, and sworn to in the covenants, was first overturned by the public resolutioners in 1650; and then that defection was maintained and defended by those who accepted of the indulgences in the time of persecution; and that form of government sworn to in the covenants was never revived since.
And again, Ever since the contest (near the end of the year 1600,) began between those called antinomians and neonomians, the doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, about the nature of the covenant of grace, the nature of faith, and the nature of the gospel offer, has been overturned; for both parties have attempted to bring the scripture doctrine about these articles, to their sentiments, and not their sentiments to the scripture doctrine; for it is asserted, Shorter Catechism, quest. 3. that “the scripture principally teaches, what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man,” but the arminians are only teaching what duty God requires of man; and the antinomians are only teaching what man is to believe concerning God; and the doctrines of the antinomians seems to be the only doctrine of this day. And though there is great boasting of being arrived to more clearness about the nature of gospel doctrine, yet it is neither stated nor cleared in a scriptural manner, what life and practice it is, that is an evidence of those persons that are either believing the gospel, or yet performing the duties which God requires of man; for all the doctrine that is maintained at this day about government, is only what was maintained by
[ 97 ]
the resolutioners and indulged; and the doctrine now maintained is the same that was maintained by the arminians and antinomians.
The sentiment of Mr. Rutherford, that great enemy to the antinomian doctrine, which doth not require good works as evidences of an interest in Christ, shall here be given:—Rutherford’s Sermon before the House of Commons, Jan. 31, 1643, page 36.
“If works of sanctification be no sure marks of my interest in Christ, because sin adhereth to them, and the sin adhering to them involveth me in condemnation; then neither can faith in Christ be a sure mark of my interest in Christ, because faith is always mixed with sinful doubting: for I do not think that antinomians believe with all their heart—In exalting Christ’s righteousness one way, by making Christ all, they make Christ nothing another way, by vilifying the glory of sanctifying grace; for we are not by good works to make our calling and election sure to ourselves; and in the evidences of our consciences, if our good works be no signs of our interest in Christ.—If men are to labour for faith, and the raptures, impressions and immediate and personal influence of a spirit from heaven, without any conscience of holy living; and this is the path-way for men void of all sanctification and inherent qualifications, to believe they are in Christ. So the devil putteth upon holiness, inherent and constant walking with God, the foul scandal of fair white civility, and market morality, that so men may walk after the flesh, and believe the testimony of the broad seal of an immediate working of the holy Spirit. Objec. But what be these which go before faith in Christ? Ans. Sense of sin.” So this doctrine of Rutherford’s confutes a great part of the doctrine of this day, that admits that men may believe their interest in Christ, though void of good works. All those who are now preaching against all conditions in order to a saving embracing of the offer of Christ in the gospel, such as a sense of sin, or their own lost state by nature, and repentance, because it is called legal doctrine; and what no man since the fall of Adam can perform. But these preachers may as well deny the
[ 98 ]
necessity of faith in order to the embracing of Christ in the gospel in a saving way; because it is as impossible for any man to act faith, as to repent of sin.
Quest. “Now I know it will be demanded what comfort this doctrine of ours can afford to wicked and ungodly men, that are living in sin, and do not yet repent. But if any one shall here say, this can be no comfort at all to such as are not willing; nor have any desire at all to leave their sins;
“To such an one I say, Let Mr. D. and his novelists, if they list, comfort such; and tell them they are to believe that their sins are forgiven them, and that they are justified and reconciled to God by the death of Christ. If (I say,) they have a mind thus to comfort them, let them take this to themselves, and rejoice in it as a peculiar prerogative of their own; for surely those that are faithful to Christ, dare not comfort such, knowing that the terrors, not the comforts of God’s word do appertain and belong as unto them: and yet, least such carnal minded men should presumptuously hope for mercy, while they continue in their sins, and have no purpose to reform their lives, I must tell them, that the comfort which Mr. D. and such others do reach out unto them with the one hand, they dash and overthrow with the other *.”
OBJEC. II.—That these Grievances should not have been printed, because they were not laid before the Presbytery; that it was like a taking of the advantage of them so to do before they were tried; for it could not be known whether any redress would have been granted, when never put to the trial.
ANS.—This may look like a plausible objection at first view: but if these few following particulars be taken into consideration, it is hoped it will lose much of its strength, if not altogether, at least to those who are wishing to know the truth of these Grievances. In the
1st place, Although it had been the author’s intention to have laid these Grievances before the Presbytery; yet
_____
* The Refinement of Zion.
[ 99 ]
no doubt it was some time after they were drawn up before the signers all signed them; and the little evidence of any redress, it was retarded for some time; and then a weak constitution, with bodily trouble, and death itself, (which prevented this as well as several other things,) which put an end to all his contendings, which were very disagreeable to him, if he could have got faithfulness carried on in an honest way without it. But,
2d. This being the case with the author, these Grievances must have lain in a dormant state and condition for him; and as for the subscribers, there was no appearance that they were designing to lay them before the Presbytery: for those of them that are in communion with them would not do it, for reasons known to themselves: and those of them that are not in communion with them, (and even some of them are not hearers of them,) need not present any such thing to that Presbytery; for they know that they would not take any such articles off their hand; so that they must still have lain by, because one part of them would not do it, and the other part could not, for the reasons aforesaid. But those of the signers that object against the publishing of them, cannot say that any advantage was taken of them, or that they did not know of the publishing of them, for they were acquainted eighteen or twenty months before it took place, and none of them signified that they would lay them before that presbytery. But
3d, As it may be seen by what hath been said, that there is no other way left to let the presbytery or public (in a more plain way,) know of these Grievances, but by making them public in this manner, that every faithful one may know, in as far as these grievances go, what is a faithful testimony, and be in some measure supported by them to crave a redress; and the author’s honesty will be more seen by them than by his other writings; for his other writings were against the different denominations of backsliding professors that he could not join with; but these Grievances point out some of the defections also of those he was a member with: yet their degeneracy from their former principles, proven by their practice, could
[ 100 ]
allow him to bear no longer with them; but in the holy providence of God, was spirited to draw them up, and such a number of professed dissatisfied members, by their signing of them, has shown that he had just grounds for his so doing. So his faithful mind (or heart,) wishing to have these Grievances redressed, after that he had spoke to some of the members of that presbytery different times about these articles to have them redressed, and could not prevail; (yet he testified a little before his death, that they would testify to the following generations, that all were not going down the stream or current of defection,) yet they will keep in remembrance a number of articles of a faithful testimony, that is now denied, and appears to be lost; therefore they ought not to have lain so long by as they have done. “Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light to all that are in the house,” Matt. v. 15.
4th, As for taking advantage of the presbytery, no such thing ever was designed: for who would but think, if the presbytery be honest for a covenanted work of reformation, but that they would take it as an honour to be informed of so great a degeneracy as some of the community hath fallen into, and attested by so many witnesses too; and say with the Psalmist in that prayer of his, “Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness; and let them reprove me, it shall be an excellent oil which shall not break my head, for yet my prayer shall be in their calamity,” Psal. cxli. 5. But it could be wished they will not count it a taking advantage of them, or a wounding of their heads, though some of their defections and strayings from the covenanted laws, are held forth to them; and if the publishing of them has any effect to bring about a redress, the publisher’s trouble will be greatly rewarded; and no doubt every honest hearted mourner will rejoice at the sound of such a redress; and if no notice is taken of them, they will stand as a witness what piece of faithful work the author hath done. And
5th, No doubt it will be an honour to the public, or at least to every one who wishes to see a testimony carried on for the covenanted cause, (when they see that testi-
[ 101 ]
mony no further minded than to get, time after time, parts or articles torn out of it, for to answer their modish [fashionable] practices,) for they will rejoice at any thing, though it should be counted by its enemies, or enemies to that cause, but small, or even not so masterly handled as they could have wished: yet if it be honest and faithful, it will rejoice the inward man, and warm the very heart.
OBJEC. III.—It is thrown out by some why these Grievances should not be published, viz. That some of the signers are not much to the honour of those who are owning them.
ANS. 1st. If the cause be not an honour to us, we fear that none of us shall be so much to the honour of it as we should be.
2d, It must be granted that there are some of the signers who have none of the best of characters at present, but as there was nothing of immoral or scandal laid to the charge of any of them when they signed them; so the falling into these since, will make very little to their objections, (for there is no society of men, either religious or civil, that can keep their members from falling into immoral or criminal actions, although they have a right to censure or cast them out of their society if they will not walk according to their rules,) nor will it cast any great odium, either upon these Grievances, or the author, nor upon any who stand faithful to that cause, he could not discern who would stand, and who would not; for greater men than he have been deceived with apostates and deceivers, and perhaps by some, of whom other things were expected. It could have been wished that some of those who signed these Grievances, had not made themselves so much to appear in this way, in their opposing the publishing of them, (although the truth contained in them be the very same as when they signed them, for they have not lost one grain of their weight since.) Therefore all those who deny the binding obligations of the covenants, have as good a right to oppose their being published to the world as the signers have. And if they had got their wills, they had been altered
[ 102 ]
from the original state, less or more, or been annihilate; and no other reasons can be given, but because their double dealing will be made more to appear by them than hath hitherto appeared, for they will not get their names denied, but they will stand that it may be seen what they once owned, (or at least pretended to do so,) and therefore it is right that their names should stand to see if they will be ashamed, and break off their apostasy by timeous repentance; and as for those who are still continuing faithful and honest, they need not be ashamed though their names be standing among those that are not so: but on the contrary, a warning to them to take heed lest they fall; for none standeth so sure but they may fall, and it is asserted that their falling maketh the cause no worse; for if they have truth on their side, they need not be ashamed of them, though some hath fallen and made shipwreck of their faith, as it is said of Alexander and Hymeneus, 1 Tim. i. 19, 20. and down all the periods of the church there hath still been a falling away; and yet we never hear tell that the children or people of God, or yet the truths of God, were thought the less of, because such apostates and hypocrites, and lovers of the world made their appearance, though their names were standing among theirs.
OBJEC. IV.—It is by some said, that the author was not aware enough in examining those whom he suffered to subscribe these Grievances.
ANS. This objection as much confutes the signers as the author, that did not regard who they signed with. It is well known that he suffered none to sign them who were not willing of themselves, and saw the articles contained in them to be matter of grievance to them. But though it may be alleged by some of the signers, that they never read, nor heard them all read, either before or since they signed them: but this is so weak and so unmanly, that it is unworthy of any notice, if it were not to let the reason be seen if it be true, and to free any from thinking that the author imposed upon any. And, 1. The author declares in his Memoirs, or Life, page 183, that he never
[ 103 ]
imposed or essayed to palm his judgment upon any, or even bade them do this or that, or contend for the truths for which he was contending: for if they did not see the necessity for so doing, whether he said so or not: and if the author’s writings are to be believed, as we see no reason to the contrary, then there could be no imposition; for as he allowed none to own or contend for truths because he did it, so far less would he allow or impose on any person to sign these Grievances, without so much as knowing what they were signing: or would any person have been so foolish as to have signed to the truth of that which they knew nothing about? this would surely be very little to the credit of the signer; for it would have evidenced his little concern about articles of so much weight. But,
2d, It may be further observed, to free the author of imposition, that though some of the signers (and perhaps they are those who make the most ado about them,) had never read nor got them read unto them, yet as they were so often about the dwelling of the author, and took every opportunity to meet and converse with him, (which can be attested by not a few yet alive,) and were so often complaining about these articles, that without all doubt they had these articles verbally from each other; that if honesty had been both to the author and cause, as was professed, there would have been little need for them read over. And,
2dly, Their complaints of the defections of that Presbytery, and the grievances were so open and offensive to the leading men of the congregation to which some of them belonged, that one of them was bound by their session before he got the privilege of baptism to his child, to these three articles:—
1, That he was to be satisfied with the minister’s doctrine.
2, That he was to have no hand in these wrangling divisions.
3, That he must join their meeting.
(O! what strange terms of communion.)
But it may be further observed: as he gave no evidence
[ 104 ]
of imposing upon any who were not willing to sign, so likewise none were suffered to sign them who were not in communion with the Reformed Presbytery, or at least hearers of them; for none of any other principle, though ever so religious, were suffered to sign them. But if it be alleged by any of the subscribers, that they did not know if all the articles be committed which are in these Grievances, or that they cannot be proven, therefore they would not seek redress. To this it shall be answered. That as they are standing in this order in the original copy, they behoved so to appear; and as there was such a distance among them, of 80 or 100 miles, and all these articles was not committed in one place; therefore, will it be unlawful to seek a redress of these he knoweth, though he doth not know of these his friend knoweth of? certainly no. He will be ready to seek a redress of these he knoweth of, and though the presbytery should not be so ready to acknowledge all these articles, this hinders them not to satisfy their complainers of these they acknowledge. and if the complainers cannot make these that are refused in some measure valid, after these that are owned is redressed, then they must be thankful for the reformation that have taken place, and be verily persuaded, that some of those that have not lived to see this reformation, hath known of such grievances, and would have proven them if they had been challenged when they were alive.
But may the happy time soon come, when those that would wish to maintain the covenanted work of reformation, and the doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms Larger and Shorter, and Sum of Saving Knowledge, may not be reproached and calumniated as they now are.
FINIS.
H. & S. Crawford, Printers, Kilmarnock.