John Fairly on Magistracy I
James Dodson
[Page 1]
An HUMBLE ATTEMPT in Defence of REFORMATION PRINCIPLES on the Head of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE.
CHAPTER I.
Introduction. Some of the odious characters Mr. Goodlet assigns to the Reformed Presbytery.—Reasons of undertaking and publishing this reply.
The faith of our Lord Jesus Christ once delivered to the saints, Jude verse 3d, is to be considered as the matter and substance of the cause and testimony, which the Reformed Presbytery have been all along endeavouring to contend for. In Old Testament language, it is called the old paths, the good way: In the gospel, a new and living way, a way consecrated through the veil of the flesh of the Son of God, Heb. x. 20. Their contending for this faith has been through much weakness in themselves, attended with manifold difficulties; and not without both civil and ecclesiastic opposition. They have been made the world’s spectacle; Men wondered at; A sect every where spoken against; Sorely grieved by the archers who have shot at them, and hated them. Notwithstanding of all which, they yet found themselves obliged, in duty both to God and truth, to the present and succeeding generation, to emit a Testimony to the world in favour of our covenanted reformation principles and doctrines, and against the many errors and defections therefrom, still prevailing and growing in these three covenanted nations. This published testimony, tho’ it appears to have been very tormenting, and sensibly galling to Seceders, particularly the Antiburgher party, yet was permitted, for a considerable space of time, to pass unmolested; none of them making any public attack upon it, other than their pulpit declamations, of which indeed, they were generally very liberal. At length a gentleman
[Page 2]
gentleman of that brotherhood, who, it seems, was more forwardly zealous than the rest, starts up an antagonist, and appears in public print against both it and its authors. In his title page, he designs himself Mr. John Goodlet, minister of the associate congregation at Sanquhar. What this gentleman is really master of, I know not; but he seems to think himself master of his tongue, to speak as many foolish and reproachful things against his neighbours as himself pleases. Influenced by an unnatural zeal, exceeding the due bounds of Christian moderation and charity, he seems pitifully to expose himself, in defaming truth, much every way to the discredit of his own and brethren’s character; and which is worse than all, to the dishonour of the Christian profession, and of its great Author. His defamation of the Presbytery, whom he makes the object of his satyr, is so liberal, so gross, and so extravagant, that few among the more candid and unprejudiced part of mankind can credit his attestation of them; nay, none who are not at any rate disposed to imbibe an implicit faith, and subscribe to his ipse dixit. But however unjustly they are represented, however bad; the worst of usage is nothing strange: the genuine disciples of the meek Jesus, must learn to digest with sweet patience, even the bitter juice of malice and reproach itself; the scornings of them that are at ease, and the contempt of the proud.
I shall here take the freedom to trouble the reader with a summary view of some of the reproachful epithets and odious characters Mr. Goodlet has been pleased to give out and cast upon the Reformed Presbytery throughout his performance; the very mention of which, will, I think, be a sufficient confutation of them; tho’, no doubt, he judges they will be most successful to proclaim them infamous before the world. Some of the opprobrious characters and ignoble titles he gives them, are as follow, viz. There is nothing lovely, nor of good report, nothing praise-worthy or commendable, Mr. Goodlet can observe about the presbytery, or their testimony; nothing, it seems, but a contrast of all these; and therefore he considers them as naked of all claim, either to ministerial or presbyterial authority, calling them in his title page, (and alibi) “The pretended Reformed Presbytery;” And every now and then, thro’ his book, pointing at them as with his finger; in the way of mock and scornful disdain, he calls
[Page 3]
them, “This Reformed Presbytery;” and “The little Reformed Presbytery, with their little party;” and “This Reformed Testimony;” and “This is strange reformation indeed, &c.” He gives them the character of “gross calumniators;” supposes them to have “a strong inclination to calumny; but of a poor genius, and mean invention for it; yet, before they fail in this point, they will assert and maintain what they know to be a falsehood.” He would have the world to believe that “The testimony published by them is full of glaring falsehoods and contradictions;” and calls their doctrine anent the qualifications of magistrates, and their distinction between such magistrates as are so, according to the preceptive will of God, and such as are so according to his providential will only, “The slimy wreathings of the poisonous serpent.” That they are men “of no probity, candour, nor truth; whose mouths are filled with virulent speeches and scurrilous language; set on purpose to defame our Reformers and noble martyrs for truth.” He is pleased to assert, that they are “men truly of a contracted judgment, of a narrow and perverted education; under the influence of the smallest discernment, and set to do others injury.” He insinuates, that they are “Men without understanding an argument, set on purpose to misapply scripture; that they are men of no connection in writing and transcription; under the power of thoughtless inadvertency, and wandering in the giddy mazes of imaginary self-conceit.” He views them as “stated open enemies to reason, common sense, and divine revelation; and set to proclaim war even against the Bible itself; as men of shameless sophistry, and uncommon ignorance, joined with the greatest audacity and impudence:” And that therefore, to render truth odious, “they wrap up their sentiments in various uncouth, and unintelligible expressions: That all these things they do, either ignorantly, or artfully devised, on purpose that they may wound truth the deeper: That their principles and doctrine about civil government is antipodes to the doctrine of our honour’d ancestors.” Calls it “vile papal erastian stuff.” Says that “Erastus is their patron.” He gives forth, that all “their sentiments about magistracy are just a mire of absurd unscriptural imaginations.” He thinks “their principles about magistracy are such as cannot belong to God’s world, but only to a world of their own fancies.”
[Page 4]
He speaks with a scoffing sneer at (what he calls) “their scripture magistrate,” which, he says, they plead for, and spend the whole strength of their zeal about; calls it “a Chimera, an imagined idol, that the Presbytery are set to defend, at the expence of throwing off all regard to every thing that is God’s ordinance.” He represents them as industriously dragging over every thing good and excellent, “religiousness, seriousness, scripture and Christian zeal, all to the side of contending for this idol.” In a word, that they have no ingenuity to profess and speak the truth as it is in Jesus, but their “language” in this matter, is what “is current and common in the church of Rome.” The sum of all comes to this; He would have it pass for current among the world of mankind, that their disposition is like that of the wasps, truly fitted to collect bitters out of sweet perfume, and to extract poison out of the best of flowers. In brief; he insinuates that they are Roman advocates for the man of sin; and that all their professions of love and zeal for our reformation principles and doctrines are mere dissimulation and deep hypocrisy.
The above are some of the lineaments of the hideous effigy, and monstrous picture Mr. Goodlet is pleased to Dr.aw of the Reform’d Presbytery. Odious enough indeed, were the impartial world to become the credulous disciples of this Rabbi. He concludes the whole with a very charitable prayer in behalf of the Reformed Presbytery, “That they may be recovered from their errors and delusions, in being convinced of the guilt they have brought upon themselves, by a most false and foul reproaching of the reformation testimony in the hands of the associate synod, and by a new slaying, through their sides, the former witnesses for our covenanted reformation.” Surprising confidence! not to be exceeded even by that of the church of Rome, who, tho’ she be the mother of harlots, yet calls herself “the holy Catholic Church.” I sincerely wish the author a greater measure of these two excellent and ornamental graces, humble modesty, and Christian charity.
In this imperfect collection I have made of Mr. Goodlet’s random strokes of extravagant language, and vagrant speeches against the presbytery, I have not referred to the particular places or pages of his book wherein they are to be found; nor do I think it at all necessary, they are so
[Page 5]
frequently interspersed thro’ the whole of his performance. But might not one seriously enquire at the author, what was his design in all these, and others that I could have instanced in, of his scornful and contemptuous speeches? What inducement could lead him to give way to such wild exorbitant sallies of unbridled fury and swelling rage, as if the Reformed Presbytery had declared for the worst of principles, the most pernicious doctrines, and for the encouragement of the vilest of men? Nay, though this had been really the case, surely it could not have excused him in this matter. Did Mr. Goodlet think such a method was the best and fittest to convince and reclaim those that were led away with error and delusion, as he supposes the presbytery and their people to be? If he did, sure he is far from the great Apostle’s mind, and wide from his direction, 2 Tim. ii. 2, 5. No; soft words and hard arguments have ever yet done more execution in the cause of Christ, than hard names and reviling language. Had he any such provocation from the testimony? No, he had not; or if he had, one might have expected Mr. Goodlet to have been better acquainted, and more in love with his bible, than to render railing for railing: Nay, rather does not such language evidently discover much of the disdainful spirit of the self-conceited Pharisee, whose character the inspired evangelist, Luke xviii. 9. most briefly and yet most fully describes: They trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others. Despised, i.e. set them at nought, as the word properly signifies. But Mr. Goodlet goes beyond these in his treatment of the presbytery: He not only sets them at nought, but worse than nothing; esteems them not worthy to be set with the dogs of his flock, and therefore ranks them up with Papists, Anabaptists and Erastians *. Nay further, Do not such opprobrious
_____
* Seeing Mr. Goodlet is pleased to give the presbytery a place among the Erastians, Anabaptists, and other Sectaries; it will be necessary to hint what are the principles and opinions of these parties mentioned, and let the impartial world judge, if the presbytery’s interest be so necessarily connected, as to stand and fall with them; or how far the presbytery’s principles are reducible to the sameness of principle with Erastians and Anabaptists.
[Page 6]
names and characters as our author gives to his adversaries, as he designs the presbytery, betray something of the enraged, furious spirit of the idolater? A designation he not obscurely assigns as the character of those he contends with.
To conclude this chapter, which is designed but as a preamble to the rest, I would only further premise, That considering Mr. Goodlet’s invective strains of language, the inveterate malevolence, and unchristian spirit he breathes through the whole course of his satiric performance, some instances of which have been hinted above; considering his mocking taunts, and biting sarcasm,
_____
[continued from page 5] According to the best historians, the principles of Anabaptists are odious enough. I will not say, but historians may have exceeded proper bounds in the relation they have made of the Anabaptists. This is very frequent in party disputes. Monsieur Bayle’s dictionary, upon the word Anabaptist, says, that they sprang up soon after the rise of Lutheranism. Among some excellent things he relates of them, their vices are, that they commit infinite disorders, preached up a doctrine destructive of all society. Another historian says, they sprang from one Muncer about the year 1532. They chose a king, with a design that their king should go forth with an army, subdue the world, and kill the kings of it, for not doing justice; Knox and Sleiden’s commentaries. Many of them hold Christ shall have a kingdom a thousand years on earth. This sect of Anabaptists is like many others, subdivided into different sects, some more rigid, and others more moderate; some of them are zealous Universalists, others no less Particularists; some fly so high, that they excommunicate all but themselves (like the Seceders) and by excommunication dissolve the marriage-bond: (as is said to have been the opinion of some Seceders.) Spanheim avouches this in his Elenchus Controversiarum, page 82. Mr. Neal’s history of the Puritans says; the Particularist Anabaptists in England set up for themselves in the year 1638, renewed their baptism, and were re-baptised, by dipping over head and ears. The author of the New English dictionary says; They deny baptism to children, and maintain that none should be baptised till they are capable to account for their faith in Christ. He adds also, that they vented very many erroneous opinions, such as, That there is no original sin; that men have a free will in spiritual things; that goods should be common; and that they can be righteous
[Page 7]
unworthy either of the man of learning, or the man of grace, SILENCE had been both the most becoming and most expressive answer to his book: nevertheless, as truth is more precious, and more to be regarded than all our own interests, reputation or ease; and seeing Mr. Goodlet hath set himself to utter, publish and vindicate tenets and opinions, that are both unreasonable and unscriptural, and contrary to that testimony for truth, which, with so much assurance, he would monopolize in his own and brethren’s hands: Lest the weak should be stumbled, or the simple and unwary deceived, and turned aside by his bold assertions,
______
[continued from page 6] by their own merit and sufferings. In the history of Popery, published in the year 1736. we are told, that those who appeared soon after Luther, many of them were an unsettled, giddy, enthusiastic crew; many of them evidently distracted, if not possessed, and many of them pretending to inspiration amongst whom, many were Photinians, Arians, and Pelagians.
The above is a detection of the Anabaptists, concerning some of their dangerous tenets. Next Mr. Goodlet classes the presbytery with the Erastians. Different historical accounts might be offered concerning them; the sum of all which is said of them, is this, That as their original patron, was from one Erastus a physician in Switzerland, so their common received principle, besides Arminianism, is, that they appropriate all government of both kinds, ecclesiastic as well as civil, to the magistrate: That the power of church discipline and excommunication are solely in the hands of the civil magistrate, and not in the church, &c. And now, let justice, candour and equity, (charity assisting each) give a decision in this matter. Let the impartial reader, give his judgment, nay, and all the united world, who have had any access to hear the ministers of the Reformed Presbytery, Christian hearer, was any of the recited tenets, the matter of your entertainment? Do you see any of these errors in the body of their testimony? If they are private sentiments, (which is flatly denied) how comes Mr. Goodlet to judge any man before the time?
What Mr. Goodlet alleges as a foundation to ground these unjust accusations upon, are considered in their own proper places through the course of the performance. At present I shall only say, that this is a species of persecution, not unlike that I have read of, used against the primitive Christians, clothing or wrapping them in skins of wild beasts, that the dogs to which their persecutors cast them to be worried, might fall more fiercely and furiously upon them.
[Page 8]
fair pretences, and quirkish sophistry, and so caught in the snare prepared for them: On such accounts as these, it is presumed, an answer may not be improper.
An impartial examination of the author’s book, and trial of his sentiments at the bar of an unerring rule, about the matter in debate is designed as an answer. The which I shall essay in dependance on divine wisdom, strength and grace, and in love and meekness, knowing that the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.