Remembrancer,
James Dodson
SHEWING
That the state of the Testimony of the suffering Remnant, in the time of the persecution, and since the Revolution, to be the same, as maintained by the suffering remnant, or true non-hearers, who have owned and defended the Martyrs Testimony, and whose practice has not contradicted their profession; as it would entirely ruin the Martyrs Testimony, to account all non-hearers at this day to be maintainers of their principles.
In Two Letters, By ROBERT LAWRIE,
who lived in Park of Mauldslie.
Sleep on now, and take your rest, behold the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hand of sinners, Matth. xxvi. 45.
He that being often reproved, hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy, Prov. xxix. 1.
It is time for thee Lord to work: for they have made void thy law, Psal. cxix. 26.
DALRY:
Printed by J. Gemmill,
For John Stevenson, Bookseller Beith. 1807.
PREFACE.
Reader,
WHOEVER thou art into whose hands this Remembrancer shall come, if thou be of a Gallio disposition, thou wilt care for none of these things. But consider, that thy time may soon be at an end, and now is thy time to consider, whether thou art betraying the cause and interest of Jesus Christ into the hands of his enemies or not. Or if thou be of an Athenian disposition, and loves to hear or tell some new thing, here may be something new to thee, tho’ it may be to thy shame, and ought not to be so, to be always gadding about to change thy way, to drink the waters of Shihor, and the river. Remember, he that being often reproved hardeneth his neck shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. Or if thou be one that professeth to be a Presbyterian, and to own the covenanted reformation of the church of Scotland, contended for by the martyrs who sealed their testimony with their blood, these letters may shew thee how far the testimony is relinquished by all the sects and parties in the revolution church of Scotland at this day. As the Revolution Church, Relief, and Burghers, have relinquished it, so that none need to be deceived by them. And the Antiburghers, and Reformed Presbytery, who pretend to be the only remnant professing the testimony as the martyrs left it at the revolution. But this will shew thee that none of them have taken up, and prosecuted the testimony as these three great worthies stated and left it, viz. Mr. Richard Cameron,
PREFACE.
A2
Mr. Donald Cargill, and Mr. James Renwick, and who sealed the same with their blood. And as it has always been the lot of the church of Christ to have pretended professed friends to wrestle with, as well as open enemies, so she has often been in as great danger by professed pretended friends, as open enemies, for being either betrayed, or divided by them, as snares on Mizpeh, and nets spread on Tabor. These letters will shew thee, that it was not only the ten terms cess that the martyrs refused to pay, but every other cess that was then demanded. And as the payment of cess and other taxations, &c. evidences the owning of a government, so the refusing to pay, is the only [principal] testimony that can be given against it. It is time for thee, Lord, to work, for they have made void thy law.
But, reader, I shall detain thee no longer from the letters themselves,
Farewell.
JOHN STEVENSON.
Bathbank, May 1st 1807.
LETTER
To ARCHIBALD RAE, in Glasgow.
CHRISTIAN FRIEND,
IT seems to be our lot this day, to read and eat that roll wherein is written, lamentation, and mourning, and woe. And the saddest ingredient in our cup is, that the illuminating, enlightening, and soul refreshing influences of the Spirit of God, whereby he wont to guide, direct, comfort, animate, and refresh his people, is in a great measure with-holden from us in this generation. So that we may say it, From the daughter of Zion all her beauty is departed, and all her pleasant things laid waste, Lam. i. 6. And yet our eyes are not running down with tears, for the slain (or sleeping in a lethargy of stupidity, security, and neutrality) of the daughter of our people, Jer. ix. 1. But, in leaving this, I shall, in answer to your desire, &c. And for the vindication of truth, and of these faithful witnesses for it, viz. famous Mr. James Renwick, and the suffering remnant in the time of persecution, I shall make evident the truth of some things, which you say some people with you (yea some of your ministers also) denies. As,
1st. It is denied that Mr. Renwick did testify against the ordinary land cess, but only against the additional or ten terms cess, &c.
2d. It is denied that he refused to admit payers of the cess, and other taxations, hearers of unfaithful ministers, &c. to present their children to baptism.
5
Now both these are really but one thing: for to admit such to sealing ordinances, who were known to be guilty of these sins, which they were publicly bearing witness against, as the cess then was, and yet is circumstantiate, would have been particularly to counteract, and contradict their own public testimony at Sanquhar and Lanark.
As for the first, altho’ it be true, that this wickedly imposed cess, declaredly and explicitly enacted for suppressing of the gospel in the fields, which was enacted by the corrupt convention of estates in the year 1678 was most explicit and expressly witnessed and testified against, by the martyrs testimonies, Mr. Renwick’s Sermons, and the Hind let loose, as being the most universal trial of great and small; and altho’ it be true likewise, that the paying of cess was not testified against until that time, as likewise, the disowning of the authority was not seen to be a duty till then (and the one natively followed upon the other) yet it is clear, that their testimony was equally extended against all cess taxations that tended to strengthen the hands of the enemies, or to homologate or corroborate their pretended authority, either civil or ecclesiastic, as in Mr. Renwick’s Sermons is evident. For making this undeniably clear, I shall here transcribe a paragraph from Mr. Renwick’s testimony written and subscribed with his own hand, which he left in the hands of Mr. Robert Hamilton, when he entered to the work of the ministry, wherein he says, “4thly. As I bear witness against all that own the tyrant, or any of his acts or laws—in their profession; so I bear witness against all that own him any way in their practice, by subjecting themselves to him, and his demands, particularly paying that dreadful cess—that sinful locality—especially what they call their town local-
6
lity, viz. money for soldiers beds, because some men from self-love pleads for it; but let them pretend what they will, they do evil that good may come.—Against the paying that annuity, whereby they pay tithes to Baal’s priests; against the paying of feu-duties, and every thing that contributes to the upholding of a throne of iniquity, in the paying of any of which things they destroy the Lord’s cause, and walk contrary to his word, Isa. viii. 12. Jer. xxv. 36, 37. and xxiii. 14.—As also I bear witness and testify against furnishing of soldiers with meat or drink, or provision to their horses, as destructive to the cause, and contrary to the will of the Lord, Isa. lxv. 13, 14. I do not mean here what they rob violently, but what is given them, and furnished to them.—I bear witness against compearing before their courts, thereby strengthening them in their wickedness, and homologating their robbing of God; against all bonding, tampering, or complying with them, directly or indirectly: I say, indirectly, because some men cheat themselves out of the truth by conniving at the compliance and bargaining of others with the enemies on their account: a practice which condemns the Lord’s cause, and is disapproved by himself, Jer. xxv. 36, 37. and xxiii. 14. Psal. l. 18—21.”
This is also clear from the general meeting’s Register, written by Michael Shields their clerk’s hand, in the general meeting at Tala-linn, June 15. 1688. The question was much agitate about paying customs at ports and bridges, and tho’ it was not concluded to make the payment of it a cause of separation or suspension, as being appointed for other ends, and employed for other uses than the cess, yet in regard of the persons uplifters, they reckoned such customs amongst their grievances, which necessity sometimes forced them into
7
Now it is clear that among all their debates about it at that meeting, and afterwards betwixt James Renwick and James Russel, of which Mr. Renwick gives a particular account in a letter to Earlston (this letter, as also another, is not printed with the rest, whether suppressed designedly or not I cannot tell) and whereas the said James Russel and some others separate from them, upon this, and some other accounts; yet there is not the least hint of making the least distinction betwixt the ten terms cess, and the ordinary land cess, nor any charge by James Russel of paying the land cess, which he would not yield to do if it had been partial. As also it is undeniably evident from Mr. Renwick’s indictment (see the account of his life page 133) which expressly says—“And that he thought it not lawful to pay cess to the king, because imposed for maintaining forces to suppress the gospel, and that all persons who made payment of any cess were involved in that guilt.” And (page 137) he owned all that was in this indictment, except where it is said, He had cast off all fear of God; which is as plain as any thing can be. As for the second, viz. the admitting of compliers to the sacrament of baptism to their children, I need not, and therefore shall not, add any other evidence than Mr. Renwick’s own hand in vindication of himself, in a letter to Mr. Hamilton, as yet extant, of the date October 23d. 1686. when speaking of the foresaid testimony, he says “As to what ye write about my testimony, I am refreshed yet, when I look upon the frame I was in then, and I have much peace in my ingenuity, and altho’ weakly, yet I think it hath the right state of the cause in it, and I hope never to resile from it; and when I write (which I have hitherto been diverted from) it will be but an enlargement upon, and
8
confirmation of the foresaid testimony, with reasons, together with some additions as to what has fallen out since; and as for my changing my method in dealing with parents of children to be baptized, I declare them to be misinformers who have so said unto you; for, these persons who have complied with one thing or other, I do not admit them to present their children, unless they have evidenced a right sense and practical reformation unto these things they have been chargeable with, and their engagement to give due satisfaction when lawfully called for; or else the attestation of some acquainted with their case, that in the judgment of charity, they appear to be convinced of, and humbled for their sin, and their engagement to forbear their sin, and give satisfaction in manner foresaid. But when compliers and persons guilty of defection come, who have not as yet desisted from their offensive courses, I do not let them present their children; neither will nor do I let others present their children, lest the parents should be hardened in their sin thereby, unless they engage to forbear, and give satisfaction as said is; and some prove true and some prove false.—But, dear Sir, my difficulty upon this head is often times very great, the different cases of persons puts me sometimes to a nonplus.” And in another letter to the same Gentleman, dated January 11th 1687, giving him an account of the way they joined with Mr. David Houston, and speaking of the testimonies he brought from Ireland, says, “One of them bearing that they had been greatly refreshed and edified with his preaching of the gospel among them; but that he had denied them other privileges for reasons satisfying to himself; by which he declared, they understood his refusing to baptize their children, because of their paying of exactions to
9
the enemy, and this we looked upon as the greater testimony.” By this it is clear, that it was not the additional ten terms cess only they testified against, for that was not their trial in Ireland, nor ever doubted of, but that the faithful witnessing remnant, who rejected the authority of the then tyrant, testified against paying of the crown revenues whatsoever, that implied an owning of his authority: and I wish people would beware of speaking falsely of, or slandering, either through ignorance or otherwise, any of the faithful witnesses, as practical contradictors of their own testimony. But to what purpose is all this said to prove a clear truth? I must say, it is very astonishing that such as have publicly acknowledged before God and man, the sin of strengthening, supporting, and corroborating the present unlawful powers, by paying of cess, or other taxations (they had not learned the new, nice, whimsical distinction, between voluntary and involuntary) in the acknowledgment of sins, at Auchensaugh, and at Crawfordjohn, and solemnly engaged against it in the engagement to duties (see Auchensaugh work pages 42 and 61) and yet now should make it a doubtful question whether it be a sin or not, or whether Mr. Renwick allowed it or not, or what cess it was which he witnessed against; or whether he in his office practised agreeably or not? to doubt is too much, but to deny is more. I heartily wish that such men would consider, that the cess and other publics, are the same now that they were then, when they acknowledged before God and men, that it was a breach of covenant, and solemnly engaged, and subscribed with the hand against them; and it is well known that it was concluded and appointed by the general meeting at Crawfordjohn May 1st 1714. that for the
10
future entrants into societies should subscribe the covenants with the acknowledgment of sins, and engagement to duties, as it was renewed two years before, with additions and accommodations to the present times; and altho’ some do not, who desire church privileges, yet ministers are bound to stand to their own engagements, and not to partake of other men’s sins, 1 Tim. v. 22. And altho’ (as I am informed) they have now substituted their new testimony in the place of the covenants, &c. as the terms of admission into their communion, yet this will not absolve them from their former solemn engagements before God, altho’ indeed it may be a witness that they have inverted and perverted the cause and testimony, that they profess to own, as well as the terms of their communion. But how people shall practically contradict their own public acknowledgments and engagements by pleading for, or practising the paying of the present cess, &c. either by themselves or others, and yet in doing of it be free of scandal, or deserving church censure, is what I see not, except they will say with Erastus and his followers, that all that profess the faith in Christ, ought to be admitted to the seals of the covenant. But this is so fully answered by famous Mr. Gillespie, in his Aaron’s Rod, and elsewhere, that it deserves no answer now; only such would do well to remember that the Scripture, our Confession of Faith and catechisms, requires faith evidenced by obedience, Matth. iii. 8. and not a profession of it only, for many profess that they know God, and believe in him, who in works deny him.—It will not be denied by any who hold Presbyterian principles, that being under scandal doth justly deprive any man of an actual immediate right to the seals of the covenant: and if pleading and practising
11
contrary to solemn public acknowledgments and engagements be not a scandal, what is? Now none need think I go out of my station to determine of scandal and censure, since I speak according to the unerring word of God, 2 Tim. iii. 3, 5; From such turn away, and Matth. iii. 7, 8. Rom. xvi. 17. and also according to the constitution and practice of this church in the like cases. I mean with respect to these who abetted and assisted malignant persons and causes, viz. James Graham, Charles Stewart, Duke Hamilton, &c. 1643 and 1648. If any allege, that since no church judicatory in the present period hath determined that paying of cess and other subsidies, compearing before and pursuing at courts, &c. is a sin therefore we are not to account it scandal; I answer, this supposes church judicatories to be possessed of a pope-like power to dispense with oaths and public engagements, and that the lawfulness or sinfulness of actions or things depend upon the determinations of church judicatories, or according as they have or want a faithful church judicatory: or else if they will acquiesce in the determinations of such judicatories as have been in Scotland for more than eighty years bygone, they make no scruple at these things, and many more. Moreover, if the argument be good, it could not be bad formerly, when it was made use of by their predecessor compliers for exculpating themselves from scandal, in hearing of curates, paying of stipends to them, hearing the indulged and tolerate ministers, paying the cess, swearing the test, oath of abjuration, &c. and if it was ill argued in that time, it cannot be good now. And whereas it is argued further by some, I need not tell whom, that they do pay cess, taxes, &c. unwillingly, but are under a necessity to pay to avoid
12
more hurt by suffering it to be taken by force, (which I believe is the case) and that it is as good, or better, to give it unwillingly, as suffer it to be taken by force, with more loss to themselves.—Truly I think this is like Pilate’s logic, who condemned Christ unwillingly for fear of skaith to himself, and then absolved himself as free of his blood, whereas in him, and them also, it was, and is, a great aggravation of its sinfulness, to do it, not only with a doubting, but a reclaiming conscience; if it be not sinful why are they unwilling? If it be sinful, will their fear of suffering be a valid excuse before God, or man? Or will their professed unwillingness (for we must take their word anent the reality of it, but will it) be as great a testimony against the domination of the present occupant, as their actual paying it is a practical witness and testimony to the contrary? According to this way of arguing, we cannot say that Saul sinned in offering a sacrifice since he forced himself, and did it unwillingly; nor was he guilty of the sin of self-murder by falling on his sword, since he saw the Philistines would soon kill him, and abuse him if he did it not; and he might as well plead, that it was as good, or better, for him to do it himself unwillingly, as suffer them to do it, with more shame and loss to himself: or Zimri who when he saw that the city was taken, and he no doubt feared a cruel and ignominious death, and therefore since he must die however, he went into the palace of the king’s house, and burnt both it and himself. None need doubt but he did this unwillingly; even as unwillingly as they pay cess; and was he therefore free of self-murder? And also Peter was certainly unwilling to forswear his master, if it had not been for fear of hurt or loss to himself. Finally, was Naaman the leper not
13
guilty of idolatry, when going into the house of Rimmon with his master, leaning on his hand, he bowed himself unwillingly to preserve, or for fear of losing his post. If the faithful witnesses in the time of persecution had argued at this rate, or walked by this rule, they would not, nor needed not have suffered so much upon this account; nor yet the suffering remnant since the Revolution for 18 years; it is sure the equivalent of the hearth money, and poll money could be had from any of them, yet they suffered any thing rather than pay it. If this way of arguing be good, I must say they were ignorant fools who suffered so much upon such an account; but I know they had much peace and joy therein, both while living and dying. As for the pretended necessity now urged, it would seem to infer, that there is a necessity for them to be rich, proprietors of lands, houses, &c. Much might be said of this corrupt logic that favours strongly of the love of the world, and peace and ease; but because I am almost already beyond the limits of a missive, I shall add no more at the time, but wishing all our controversies may be in due time decided, truth vindicated, and Zion’s breaches healed, I am,
Your friend and well-wisher,
ROBERT LAWRIE.
Dalpatrick, July 7th 1760.
A LETTER
To JAMES HOWIE, in answer to some Questions upon his Remarks anent owning the present Authority.
Park of Mauldslie, September 18th 1775.
Dear Friend,
I received yours long ago, but could not answer it for throng, and I thought it better to delay it for a time, than to write it in a hurry. I am glad old James Howie has yet some to succeed him, who favours or regards his testimony: I wish his mantle may be left to you, I mean, that you may imitate his faith, love, patience, zeal and steadfast owning and contending for Christ, his cause, crown, truths and interest; and against the opposers and deserters of the same.
You say you are unwilling to enter into controversy, therefore you will only ask some questions.
I would you had rather answered some things proposed in the remarks by way of interrogation; for you know it is often easier to ask questions, than to answer them; or else that you had, as I desire in the last page in the remarks, shewed wherein I have erred, or advanced, or pled for any thing, in principle or practice, contrary to, or differing from the testimony as stated and carried on by the witnessing remnant both before, and for 18 years after the Revolution.
However, you are pleased to ask 7 questions, I shall endeavour to answer them with as much in-
15
genuity, freedom, plainness and brevity, as I can, and hope you will not take it in ill part, nor expect that I should give you a full answer, with arguments to prove what I say, which would require more time and room than my employment at present, or the limits of a missive will allow.
First, You ask, If I think paying of the crown dues—by such as are necessitate to live under their territory, is a direct contradiction of any of our covenanted reformation attainments in this land at this day?
Answ. Yea, see I have written so in my remarks: and I do not allow myself to think one thing and write another: I know it were requisite I should prove this, if I were not writing to a man who owned the covenants at Auchensaugh and Crawfordjohn, and the martyrs testimonies, before and since the Revolution, the non-payment of cess and other subsidies, being the native and necessary consequence of disowning the authority and right of pretenders thereto, and the payment thereof is an open and practical acknowledgment thereof. But,
1st. This question is of the same import as to ask, if I own the testimony transmitted to us by the faithful witnesses who have gone before us in this land since the year 1680, as would be easy to evince; to which I cheerfully answer yes.
2dly. It presupposeth that Scotland is a part of the lawful territory of the present dominator, which I deny, the contrary being proven by far more learned pens; particularly by Mr Hugh Cl[a]rk, in his Dialogue betwixt the preaches and the elders, page 13, &c. and also Messrs Fairlie and Thorburn has made this pretty evident, contra Goodlet and Thomson.
3dly. This question seems to imply, that you do not own, nor approve of the renewal of the cove-
16
nant at Auchensaugh, &c. where cess paying, &c. was acknowledged a breach of covenant, and engaged against in the engagement to duties; indeed if you are a Seceder this way of arguing is impertinent, and I should have gone upon other grounds. Your
Second Question is, Do you think cess-paying is just grounds to withdraw communion and fellowship—when these dues is not required, or used for the same ends as they were in the time of persecution?
Answ. If persisting and pleading in the behalf of the violation of foresaid covenant engagements be not a just ground of withdrawing from the collective fellowship in society, or public gospel ordinances administered by them, I know not what will. But as this question appears, what I have said above. For,
1st. If I should think or say otherwise, I should relinquish and condemn the testimony, by your [honest great grandfather and his contemporaries—printed text here is partly crossed/obscured], as is evident many ways, particularly by the queries for purging and rectifying of societies, concluded and agreed upon by the general meeting at Friermining, June 15th 1692, and by several general meetings thereafter, and revised and enlarged and explained at Crawfordjohn April 18th 1705, one or two of which I have transcribed. Query 1st. “Is there any in your societies, that owns the present unlawful magistrates, by paying them whatsoever public taxes they please to impose upon the land, either directly, or indirectly, by carrying it to them or their collectors, such as cess, supply, hearth money, poll money, locality, &c. while they are in opposition to the covenanted work of reformation?” Query 3d. “Is there any in your societies that hears or owns the present Erastian mi-
17
nisters, or has subjected to them by marriage, baptism, or by paying them stipends, without resentment (or repentance)?” Query 10th. “Is there any in your societies, who joins in fellowship with any who are guilty of these or the like practices, while continuing such?” And all who could not answer in the negative were secluded from their meeting, by this and by the declaration published 1692, 1695, 1703. You see that if I should think or say otherwise, I should not be a genuine successor to, not an owner of the same cause and testimony with the honest old dissenters. But
2dly. As for what you say, “of these dues not being required, nor used, for the same end as formerly,” I am necessitate for brevity’s sake, to refer to Mr Clerk’s foresaid Dialogue, page 51. “The acts of their pretended Parliament for augmentation of cess and imposition of taxes shews very plainly, that it is for the service of one year, or to supply the deficiency of the former, a great part of which is employed in bribery and pensions to the obsequious disciples of erroneous courts, and to uphold a throne of iniquity, and the sacrilegious supremacy, to maintain and encourage idolatry, superstition and will-worship; yea more, bound by solemn oath thereunto, to protect blasphemy, error, and heresy, to cherish ungodliness, to oppose the coming of Christ’s kingdom, and enslave the nation, and to carry on a war in America, because they would not be slaves, nor submit to the legal establishment of Popery in Quebec, &c.” It is not secret nor hid, that the present exorbitant cess and taxations is applied to all these and more wicked ends. All which we in these lands are by solemn oaths bound in our several places and stations to the utmost of our power to oppose and extirpate. So that upon due consideration the difference will
18
not appear so great as you and many others suppose, betwixt the former and the present cess; the former being employed (I may say) to crucify Christ, and the present to keep him in his grave lest he should rise again; the former to banish him out of the land, and the present to keep him from returning again. Your
Third Question is, Do you think when an inferior party cannot put themselves in a capacity to defend themselves from the power of a superior—when there is no seeming probability to relieve themselves, what kind of subjection is then due, and how far is due to be given, or not given?
I hope altho’ I abridge your words, I retain the sense and scope.
Answ. This is the very substance of the objection made by the indulged low ministers, such as Mr Hepburn and his people, against the rejecting of the authority of the two tyrants, Charles and James: so that the query equally militates against the suffering remnant both before, and since the Revolution, since they were not in a capacity to relieve themselves, and yet denied that any kind of subjection was due, altho’ they had a special regard to that divine command, Render to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute, &c. yet they reckoned it a case of confession, and a part of their testimony, and of the word of Christ’s patience, which was given them to contend for, rather to undergo distress of sufferings, than actually to pay any crown revenues or taxations to these illegal dominators and grassators, because the paying thereof was and is a homologation and recognizing of the authority by which it was imposed, and of the right of those to whom it was paid. See [Hugh] Cl[a]rk’s foresaid Dialogue. And if you please let us put the above question, or one like it, at honest old
19
Mordecai, and let his practice be taken for an answer. Mordecai, you are an inferior party, the king and Haman are far superior, you are not able to force nor defend yourself; the honour and reverence required being only common civil honour, given in the place to the king’s favourite, and the danger of refusing it being very great, both to yourself and the whole people of the Jews, the only church of God on earth; and altho’ Haman be an Agagite or Amalekite with whom the Lord had said, he would have war for ever, and charged Israel not to seek their peace nor wealth for ever; yet that is long since, and Israel is not now in the state of a free and politic corporation, and not in a capacity to contend with Haman; therefore since no law forbids you to give civil honour and reverence to such as are in honour and authority, and you are living in their territory, therefore were it not better to submit unwillingly, than to risk yourself and the whole people of the Jews? No, no; says Mordecai, not one beck or cap to Haman, come on me and the Jews what will; for with such with whom the Lord hath declared war, I shall never have peace, nor yield subjection to them. Here you see the Jews were under obligation of a command, but we are under the additional obligation of an oath and solemn covenant to endeavour to the utmost of our power to the extirpation of prelacy, idolatry and superstition, &c. and the present occupant is sworn to defend these.
Question—Fourth. What do you mean by saying—they seem easily to yield to their antagonists, the Seceders assertion, viz. that disowning the civil authority in the way now pled for; that is, refusing to pay the ordinary land cess did not so much as came under the consideration of the suffering rem-
20
nant, in the time of the persecution, the contrary I have evinced from authentic records in a letter &c. there is some difference from this in yours, whether owing to you or me I shall not say, as that you have was a first draught.
Answ. As the Seceders have a sentence of this import in their declaration of principles, or answers to Mr Nairn, therefore I pointed at this to avoid a personal attack of Mr M’Millan who had affirmed and pled for this to severals, particularly to Archibald Rae, to whom I wrote a letter at his desire proving that Mr Renwick and the suffering remnant testified against cess paying any way, either of the ten terms cess or other locality, &c. and of this I gave a variety of proofs in that letter; and I might add others, if needful; I shall only at present refer you to Mr Renwick’s 8th Sermon, vol. 1st. preached at Newcastle in England, where the ten terms cess had no place; and also that there none of the martyrs in the cloud of witnesses who make any distinction of cess, except John Wilson of Lanark, who was not clear to disown the civil authority of the then tyrant, nor to refuse payment of the ordinary cess, locality, &c. the reason he gives is want of capacity to exauctorate him; now these two must necessarily depend upon one another, the last being evident of the first, upon which account his testimony was very dissatisfying to the rest of the witnesses at that time, as is evident from two letters of Mr Renwick’s, the autographs of which is in my custody; as they are placed in the printed volume they are the 20th and 23d, the postscript to the former and a paragraph in the last being very unfairly expunged and suppressed, in appearance from a design, that this should not be known, and retaining in the 19th letter what the worthy author had by misinformation
21
concerning David M’Millan and John Wilson’s testimonies, which misinformation he shews in a letter 23d he challenges Mrs Binning upon, and she said, she had not then seen his testimony, but was sorry when she saw it, that she had written so. There is likewise amongst others, a letter to Earlston, which I had made use of in my letter to Archibald Rae, wholly omitted in the printed copy, which is not fair dealing. Your
Fifth and Sixth questions being of similar possible cases, that may happen, and this letter swelling beyond my design already, I am necessitate to abbreviate, and also my answer to them, the scope of both I think may be comprised in this, viz. If in urgent cases when the danger is great of refusing to compear before, or to give oath as a witness unto any of the pretended magistrates, whether I would comply or run the hazard of what might ensue? If you had pleased you might have added a third, in case a man had murdered a father or nearest friend, whether I would pursue him, or let the criminal pass unpunished? which would be as great a trial as any of these you suggest.
That I may the more pertinently answer to this, I desire to know whether you judge, that owning, acknowledging and recognizing the authority of the present pretended magistrates, higher or lower, is sinful or not? If it be sinful, as the acknowledgment of sins at Auchensaugh says, then I cannot believe that the holy Lord ever did, or will reduce any of his people to a necessity of sinning; but he often puts them to a necessity either to sin or suffer: and sometimes puts their faithfulness, and steadfastness, in adhering to him, his cause and testimony, to a very searching trial, by making the word of his patience and a testimony for him, or case of confession, to be drawn to very small and
22
indifferent like things; as is the case of Mordecai, of which before; Daniel and the three children; but alas! few of us now would stand upon such things; many if they were in Daniel’s case would judge it both lawful and prudent to shut their windows and pray beneath their breath, or only in the night while others slept; especially, as there was no command of God to pray with open windows, or a loud voice. Or if they were in the case of the three children perhaps they would invent some evasion or shift, to shun the burning fiery furnace, and think it lawful to fall involuntarily and to worship the true God, and others would not know what God they worshipped. Or if in the case of Moses, they would not stand to leave many hoofs behind, as the danger in all cases was great, and apparently inevitable without compliance. I advise you to read Mr Durham’s Sermons on self, especially the 7th or last, and also Mr Renwick’s Sermon vol. 1st page 51, and the Queries agreed on by the general meeting at Panbreck, March 20th 1684, which were made use of long after for purging and rectifying societies, the 7th of which is this query, “Are ye and they with whom ye are in fellowship, free of answering to enemies their courts?” But especially read what our blessed Lord saith, If any man will be my disciple, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me—and whosoever he be of you, who forsaketh not all he hath, he cannot be my disciple, and he that loveth any thing better than me, is not worthy of me—he that seeketh to save his life, &c. and hold fast till I come—hold fast that which thou hast, let no man take thy crown, he that overcometh, &c. All which intimateth that there would be danger, and difficulties, and sufferings, attending the keeping the word of his patience, and an hour of tempta-
23
tion to try them that dwell upon the face of the earth. Read also what the apostle saith, Therefore come out from amongst them and be separate, &c. My friend, these queries indicate and say a propension towards compliance; for it cannot be denied, that answering summons unto, or giving oath before a judge or judicatory, whether it be in defence or pursuit, is an homologating and recognizing of their authority as such: and if this be yielded in one case which is pressing and hazardous, why not in another which is as much so? and if in two cases, why not in ten, yea in all cases which are pressing and hazardous? Complying in a thing little, makes way for compliance in greater things, the beginning of compliance, as the wise man saith of strife, is as one that letteth out water, therefore it is good to leave it off before it be meddled with. But I fear the reason why many, like Naaman the Syrian, take and give a dispensation for compliance in such cases, is for one of these two reasons, either the want of faith and love to Christ in exercise, or else unclearness that it is the cause of Christ and a part of the word of his patience, to bear witness and testimony against the owning the right or authority of the pretended magistrates, or else no hazardous case would make us relinquish it: but if it be not Christ’s cause and testimony wherein his glory is concerned, to refuse to yield subjection or obedience to the sworn enemies of Christ and to the coming of his kingdom, then let us quit or not profess it.
You ask—Seventh, Do you think that there is none of the spirit of Elijah resting on Elisha? Ah sad! if our Israel be left without a double portion of the Spirit in a more visible way.
Answ. I suppose you have your eye on what I
24
said in my Remarks concerning Mr Renwick’s faithfulness, distinctness, and zealous prosecuting a testimony for his Lord and master, and against all the sinful compliances and connivance in his time, and conclude thus, “But ah! with whom is this Elijah’s mantle left?” Surely, my friend, I would be very glad, if you would or could shew me where or who he is, endowed with one half of that measure of steadfastness, faithfulness, magnanimity, and plain peremptoriness upon all hazards, in testifying to the cause and concerns of his dear Lord and master, and against all manner of compliance or connivance at the betrayers thereof, whether open enemies or professed friends; which was eminently conspicuous in the life and death of that most worthy servant of Jesus Christ, Mr James Renwick. I cannot but wonder who it is, or how it can possibly be, that any man in his circumstance or station, hath, or ever had, a double portion of his spirit, in a more visible way, as you speak, and who and where is he, that dare say with Elijah, I have been very jealous, or zealous, as the word is rendered by good interpreters, for the Lord God of hosts; because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant. Alas! tho’ it be sad, yet it is true, that love to, and zeal for the Lord is far gone, evidences of it being invisible. Thus for an answer to your questions.
You say, “I can in no ways see according to your way of remarking; but you must disown the present government both directly and indirectly, the possibility of which I have not yet seen, especially by farmers.”
Answ. 1st. You have rightly judged: and I suppose you will have read the quotation, in my Remarks, from Mr Renwick’s testimony, where he hath these words, directly and indirectly; and
25
shews what he means by indirectly, and also the above quotation from Friermining Queries, and other public papers have the same; but buying or using meat, drink, or other necessaries of life was never reckoned an indirect owning of authority, but belonging to commutative justice betwixt a man and his merchant, without being concerned what use the seller makes of the money: Whatsoever is sold in the shambles eat, asking no question for conscience sake, is very well applied to this, by Mr Cargill in his letter to the Gibbites. See also Mr Clark’s Dialogue, and Mr Renwick’s Sermons, vol. 1st. 334, 435.
2dly. Whereas you say, “the possibility of which I have not yet seen by farmers,” if you had added, without suffering loss and many inconveniences, I grant it is true. And I suppose no man can conscientiously own the testimony as it was stated both before and since the Revolution without suffering loss and difficulties, and it is so much the more like to the cause and testimony of Christ, who ordinarily, especially in backsliding times, puts his followers and the owners of his cause to the trial, whether they will love, and will obey him, and whether they will own his cause avowedly, or will deny him, and hath said, He that denieth me before men, &c. and he that is ashamed of me and my words, &c. how hardly shall they that have riches, enter into the kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, &c.
But, my friend, the time is fast approaching, when we will all be ashamed to have it told, how little we have suffered for Christ’s sake in giving a testimony for him, and against the iniquities done against him and his cause, in this sad sinning time. But truly there can be no honest nor acceptable suffering without a vital union with Christ by
26
faith, and a true love to him as the moving cause, and altho’ clearness and confidence that the cause is his for which we suffer, and that wherein his glory is concerned, if it proceed from any other motive it is in vain, and this no man hath of himself, it is the gift of God, and is a distinct gift from the gift of faith, and is in some respect beyond it, so says the apostle, To you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe, but also to suffer for his name. By which it is clear, no man hath any thing to boast of, or glory in, of his own, since life, light, stability, zeal, patience, humility, self-denial, are not our own, but the gifts of God, for which he must be sought and depended upon, and without this courageous Peter will prove the greater coward. I desire heartily to concur with you, “wishing that the Lord may hasten the time that these covenanted lands may get a healing time, and that they may grow as the corn, and as the vine, and that there may not be any thing to hurt or destroy in all his holy mountain, and also that all who are the Lord’s people would use more tenderness in what concerns his glory,” and towards one another, in so far as is consistent with truth, and the honour of his name; and I think all Zion’s children should pray for this. But truly, when I consider the long course of backsliding and apostacy, that all ranks of the land are involved in, and the Lord’s dispensation towards all ranks of men in the land for a long time past, the many spiritual judgments, the carnality, neutrality, and untenderness of professors, &c. and compare our case with scripture examples, scripture threatenings, and scripture promises, I have no hope that many of this generation will be partakers to see good things; or ever that the Lord will return again to this land, until he appear in vengeance, and plead
27
the quarrel of his covenant. And I think that he will spare whom he will, lukewarm professors, formal professors, will not be spared. Also I think when the Lord builds his new temple, he will take new timber and new stones, and shovel away the rotten rubbish. I think fit, for all the length I have made the letter, to tell you a passage in a Sermon of famous William Guthrie, when speaking of the mysterious ways of the Lord’s delivering of his church and people, he says, “Ye know not but it may be working in America, and come in by France and Germany that may do our turn yet.”
This, my friend, with cordial wishes, that the Shepherd of Israel, who guided his people with a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night, may guide you, and all the Lord’s people, in the way that shall be approved by himself: and rests your,
Real Friend,
and well-wisher,
ROBERT LAWRIE.
FINIS.
[28]
BOOKS SOLD,
At the House of JOHN STEVENSON, Beith.
Confessions of Faith — 3
Collins Cordial for a fainting Soul — 5
A Hind let loose — 5
Christ’s dying and drawing Sinners — 5
Faithful Contendings — 5
Collection of Sermons — 5
Ark of the Testament opened — 2 9
Ark of the Covenant opened — 2 9
Durham on the Ten Commandments — 4
Renwick’s Sermons — 5 6
Cloud of Witnesses — 3 6
Dying Testimonies — 3 4
M’Ward’s Earnest Contendings — 2 6
Tracts, consisting of Banders Disbanded, Cup of Cold Water &c. — 2
Wilsons Spiritual Songs — 9
Lawrie’s Remarks on Act & Testimony — 6
Muir’s Observations on Marshall &c. — 2
Protestation against Patronage — 2
Banders Disbanded examplified — 3
A Representation and Declaration — 4
A Monitor for Tabernacles — 4
With a number of other Books and Tracts on different subjects, either separately or bound together.
Dalry: Printed by J. Gemmill. 1807.