John Fairly on Magistracy IX.

CHAPTER IX.

Mr. Goodlet’s further instances in vindication of Seceders, alleged from the practice of our reformers,—and testimonies of the martyrs under Charles II. and James VII. examined.——Proven, that the sufferers and martyrs under Charles II. rejected his authority, not so much on account of his civil, as on account of his spiritual usurpation and tyranny.—The Rev. Mr. Cargill’s testimony rescued from Mr. Goodlet’s perversion and abuse of it.—The civil magistrate’s power circa sacra vindicated, &c.

---

THE last particular we were upon was that article of the Presbytery’s Testimony, page 196, where the Presbytery condemns that principle, That the—people of God ought to give an explicit acknowledgment of, implicit obedience and subjection unto, whatever powers, or rulers the Lord may, for the trial and punishment of his church, permit a backsliding people to set up, in opposition to the precept of his word. Mr. Goodlet, page 79, says, “He supposes that that article is the article of their Testimony, which they intend to strike against the main point which the Associate Presbytery hold; in their de-

[Page 242]

claration of their principles anent civil government.—The best shape, (says he,) which their foregoing principle will bear, must be this,—That a Christian people ought not to give obedience or subjection to the lawful commands of every civil authority, whom the Lord, in his holy providence, may permit a backsliding people to set up.——This very article, (says he,) is at once a flat contradiction to, and condemnation of the doctrine and practice of the church.”——Both of the primitive, and the reformed churches. To fetch his proof for this, he launches out again into a particular, long, and needless historical account of the acknowledgment and subjection our Reformers yielded to the authority of James VI. and Charles I. about which there is no manner of controversy, and all which I have answered already. But his distempered eye looks upon, and views the Reformed Presbytery, and their doctrine, as opposite to the doctrine of the whole church of God hitherto, whereas they are only opposite to that of the Associate Presbytery on this head; whose scheme of principles, with respect to civil magistrates, is so wide, ambiguous, and Proteus-like, that it will never oblige its espousers and professors to suffer on the grounds and footing that our confessors and martyrs suffered on, in the reigns of James VI. Charles I. and his two succeeding sons, but will still afford them some back-door for their escape, when brought into a strait. With respect to King James VI. his son,—and grandson Charles II. he very rightly observes, “That they were permitted of God to be great and singular trials to his church.”——And hence he determines, that the doctrine of the Reformed Presbytery is antipodes to the doctrine and practice of our honoured and worthy ancestors of those times, because they condemn that doctrine as vague, wild, and erroneous, that teaches an explicit acknowledgment, and subjection for conscience sake, unto every ruler, or person, as the ordinance of God, whom the Lord, in his holy providence, may, for the trial and punishment of his church, permit a backsliding people to set up. He founds much of the strength of his reasoning from these instances, on this consideration, “That James VI. Charles I. and II. were permitted of God to be great and singular trials to his church.” And that they were so permitted to be, is a certain truth. But it seems, his

[Page 243]

dull head does not serve him, so as to advert or perceive, that these three above-mentioned rulers were not sinfully set up and constitute in a corrupt way, but corrupted themselves, Deut. xxxii. 5. and turned into corrupt ways after their erection, directly contrary to their constitution.——But now, (as in Psal. ix. 16.) We are snared in the work of our own hands. He cannot, it seems, perceive the importance of this circumstance, though himself acknowledges the truth of it in express words: “For though James VI. (says he, page 80.) had solemnly sworn, with uplifted hands to heaven, to maintain the discipline of the kirk, at his coronation, and subscribed the same oath with his queen in the years 1581 and 1590, he had scarce been nine months at London, after his accession to the English government, when he renounced all.”——The same he as freely acknowledges, with respect to Charles II. page 92.——“Though Charles II, (says he,) had sworn and subscribed the national covenant together with the solemn league—at Spey, June 23. 1650, and at Scoon, January 1. 1651, thereby professing the whole of our covenanted Presbyterian principles.”——Thus the goodness and lawfulness of the constitution, (as I have above hinted,) was the true and real foundation of their then honourable and dutiful acknowledgment of the authority of the persons above named, and of all their pleadings with them; (the truth of which Mr. Goodlet well knows, though his pertinacy [stubbornness] will not suffer him to acknowledge it.) These, like some of the kings of Judah of old, (of whom we read in sacred history,) did personally apostatize, contrary to their profession, and obligations, as kings, from their constitution, into the ways of idolatry, and wickedness; and then, as a native fruit hereof, into tyranny and oppression; but all this was wholly contrary to their constitution, and the law of it.—Their idolatry was never included and engrossed in their constitution, as it is now with us.——Nay, as soon as that came to be the case with our forefathers, as it did in the reign of Charles II. they then came to be determined and clear to reject and deny the lawfulness of his authority, which before they had not done, and generally demurred the doing of it, though he had given them abundant cause to do so. All these particulars I have already touched at, in the former chapter, in reply to our author’s first proofs brought

[Page 244]

from the practice of our Reformers and martyrs. And as what I have now, and formerly observed may, (if attentively considered,) be plentifully sufficient to sap and overturn his whole pretended proof drawn from these instances, I shall pursue him no further through his long winded ambages, and idle circumlocutions, which, (I can, without breach of charity tell him,) serve for no purpose, but to cheat the ignorant, and impose upon the credulous. What I shall further say on this head, shall be comprised in these two things, which I shall also dispatch with all possible brevity. First, I shall bring an instance or two, both of the sound principles of our Reformers anent civil government and governours; and of their faithfulness and zeal in testifying against the spiritual supremacy, and dignities of Christ usurped by the then rulers, all directly opposite to, and in condemnation of those of Seceders. And to this purpose, the first instance I shall bring forward shall be of the famous Mr. John Knox, who has been by some called the Scots apostle. In his discourse against the government of women, (called, The first Blast of the Trumpet,) printed with his history, he says, “Wherefore, let men who receive of women authority, honour or office, be most surely persuaded, that in so maintaining that usurped power, they declare themselves enemies to God. If any think, that because the realm, and estates thereof have given their consent unto a woman, and have established her, and her authority, and therefore it is lawful and acceptable to God. Let the same man remember what I said before, viz. That man cannot approve the doing, nor consent of any multitude, concluding any thing against his word, and ordinance; and therefore, they must have a more assured defence against God’s wrath, (viz. than the consent and choice of the states of the realm,) else they shall not be able to stand in the presence of the consuming fire.”——What then can we think, would this reverend and venerable divine have judged of our Seceders doctrine on this head; who make the consent and choice of the primores regni, or body politic, the all in all, in the constitution of kings and rulers? Let them choose whomsoever they will, their election sanctifies the person, and makes him God’s ordinance, even though it should, not only without, but directly contrary to his precept and ordinance. And some of

[Page 245]

of them have publicly told the world, that they believe “civil authority may subsist in the person of a man, (i.e. any man no doubt,) a woman, or a child.” I may further observe concerning this eminent Reformer, that he knew, nor yielded no other subjection to that mischievous creature Queen Mary, than faithfulness to God, and zeal for his truth. For, being challenged for offending her, she offered him her promise, that if he would confess his offence, all the punishment that should be put upon him should be only to go within the castle of Edinburgh, and immediately return to his own house; which he positively refused to do. See Knox’s History, page 294.—But if he had been as acute in distinction as Seceders are, he might have confessed his offending the Queen, and got a pardon, and not wounded his conscience neither.——But, it seems, he was short of their wit here. His further mind about civil government and rulers, and in opposition to our author and his brethren’s modern scheme, may be seen in his admonition to Scotland and England; particularly in the contents of his second Blast, written by himself. “It is not, (says he,) birth only, or propinquity of blood, that maketh a king lawfully to reign over a people professing Christ Jesus; but in his election, the ordinances which God hath established in the election of inferior judges must be observed:——That no manifest idolater, or notorious transgressor of God’s holy precepts, ought to be promoted to any public regiment, honour, or dignity in any realm, that hath subjected themselves to Christ, and his blessed evangel.—Neither can oath nor promise bind a people to any such, who fight against God’s known truths; but if rashly they have promoted any manifest wicked person, or yet ignorantly have chosen such an one, as after declareth him unworthy of regiment above the people of God, most justly may the same men depose and punish him.”——All which was verified in the case of both the queens, the mother and the daughter,—and fully vindicated by the Earl of Morton, in his defence made to the queen of England, as Buchanan relates it, lib. xx. page 746.

Mr. Knox’s opinion is neither foreign nor remote to the purpose; he had written a book against the government of women, though not particularly against Mary of Scotland, yet did nullify her authority, as well as other women’s.

[Page 246]

This book he owns, and maintains in his conference with her, and consequently, could not own her authority as the moral ordinance of God.——Though he gave her the title of majesty, yet when she urged him, “You think, (says she,) that I have no just authority,” he would not answer in the affirmative, but shifted it, telling her, “That learned men, in all ages had their judgments free.”

Again, what faithful zeal against the very first appearances of the usurpation of the spiritual supremacy, do we find among the godly in King James VI.’s time. When the Earl of Arran then, and his wicked confederates moved the king, contrary both to the word and oath of God, to break the covenant sworn by him, and his household, and also to usurp the Redeemer’s prerogative, by assuming a blasphemous supremacy over all persons, and in all causes civil and ecclesiastic, the same was not done without a faithful testimony in opposition thereunto in its first embryo. A good number of godly ministers, anno 1582, gave in the articles of their grievance to the king on this account: Upon which, it is said, the Earl of Arran, with a frowning countenance, asked, “Who dare subscribe these treasonable articles?” Mr. Andrew Melvin answered, “We dare, and will subscribe, and render our lives in the cause.——When the parliament 1584, had enacted the supremacy act to be subscribed by all ministers, Mr. James Melvin very pertinently wrote against the subscribers, proving, that they had not only set up a new Pope, and so become traitors to Christ, and gone in with the chief error of Papistry;—but, in so doing, they had granted more to the king, than ever the Pope of Rome peaceably obtained, &c.” To counteract these vile encroachments, a faithful assembly met at Aberdeen, anno 1605, but were forced to dissolve: and being cited before the council, they decline their authority. When a plot was conspiring with Spain, by the king’s indulgence, Mr. Andrew Melvin went in (uncalled) to a hotch-potch-convention met for that purpose; and coming up to the king, said, “Sir, I have a call to come here from Christ and his church.——I charge you, and your estates, in the name of Christ, that you favour not his enemies whom he hateth.” He called the king, God’s silly vassal, and taking him by the sleeve, told him, “Sir, we must discharge

[Page 247]

discharge our duty, or else be enemies to Christ.——Therefore I must tell you, there are two kings, and two kingdoms: there is Christ, and his kingdom, whose subject King James the VI. is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, head, nor lord, but a member; and Sir, when you were in your swaddling cloths, Christ reigned freely in this land, in spite of all his enemies, but now the wisdom of your counsel, which is devilish, is that you may be served of all sorts of men, to your purpose and grandeur.——But Sir, let God’s wisdom be the only wisdom.”

When Charles I. succeeded to the crown, ’tis certain he was violent enough in grasping at the whole plan of supremacy assumed by his father; but it is also known what zeal, work, and contendings our ancestors had with him, for the demolition of Popery, Prelacy, heresy, superstition, and idolatry, and how much zeal and contendings they had to get the church of God brought to one uniformity of doctrine, worship, and government, one Confession of faith and Catechisms, the agreement between the kingdoms, was mutual in defence of one true religion, commissioners being sent from England to Scotland, craving their assistance in defence of the common cause, which was readily granted, and the Solemn League and Covenant being agreed unto, sworn and subscribed by both houses of parliament, thence must be viewed upon one covenanted footing, in defence of religion, against the king and his party, now on the field of war with them; yet the assembly’s faithfulness against his bloody and arbitrary methods, ordinarily ran in another strain than commonly Seceders warnings do, particularly, when the king’s party was defeat at Philiphaugh, anno 1645.—The assembly met the same year, and, in their humble remonstrance to the king,—bearing date, February 13. began their address to him thus; “As our record is on high, and our consciences within us bear witness, to the many former supplications and remonstrances to your Majesty from this kirk and kingdom, our solemn covenants, and the whole course of our proceedings from time to time, in the prosecution of this cause, do make known to the world, and we trust also to your own conscience, our loyalty and faithful subjection, and how far our intentions are from the diminution of your Majesty’s just

[Page 248]

power and greatness.”——After some intermediate sentences they proceed.——“So when we call to mind, that God accepteth not the persons of men, and that the greatest are not to be winked at in their sins; we assure ourselves, that the best and most real testimony which we can give at this present, of the tenderness and uprightness of our affection to your Majesty’s true happiness is this our humble and faithful representation of your Majesty’s great and growing dangers, and the causes thereof.——Therefore, we, the servants of the most high God, and your Majesty’s most loyal subjects, in the humility and grief of our hearts, fall down before your throne, and in the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, who shall judge the world in righteousness, both great and small, and in the name of this whole national kirk, which we represent, we make bold to warn your Majesty freely, that the guilt which cleaveth fast to your Majesty, and to your throne, is such, as, whatsoever flattering preachers, or unfaithful counsellors may say to the contrary, if not timely repented of, cannot but involve yourself, and your posterity under the wrath of the everlasting God; for your being guilty of the shedding of the blood of many thousands of your Majesty’s best subjects; for your permitting the mass, and other idolatry, both in your own family, and in your dominions; and for your authorising—the profanation of the Lord’s day; for your not punishing of public scandals, and much profaneness in and about your court; For—your embracing the counsels of those who have not set God, nor your good, before their eyes; for your—opposing this cause which so much concerns the glory of God, your own honour and happiness, and the peace and safety of your kingdoms.——For all which, it is high time for your Majesty to fall down at the footstool of the king of glory, to acknowledge, to repent timeously, to make your peace with God thro’ Jesus Christ;—and to be no longer unwilling that the Son of God should reign over you and your kingdoms, in his pure ordinances of church government and worship. These things if your Majesty do, it shall be no grief of heart unto you afterwards; a blessing is reserved for you, and you shall find favour with God, and with your people, and with all the churches of

[Page 249]

Christ.——But if your Majesty refuse to hearken to this wholesome counsel, (which the Lord forbid), we have discharged our own consciences; we take God and men to witness, that we are blameless of the sad consequences which may follow.——In the mean while, beseeching your Majesty to take notice that we are not staggering,—through diffidence of the success of this cause and covenant of the three kingdoms, unto which, as God hath already given manifold testimonies of his favour and blessing, so it is our steadfast and unshaken confidence, that this is the work and cause of God, which shall gloriously prevail against all opposition; and from which, with the assistance of the grace of God, we shall never suffer ourselves to be divided nor withdrawn.”—Such was the purport and substance of the assembly’s solemn and faithful warning to the king at that time, (besides their solemn and seasonable warning, at the same time, to all inferior ranks.) When shall we hear or see the like of it from our modern new-fangled reformers?

But here, there meets us a most invidious insinuation of our author’s, who goes about to vindicate himself and his brethren, in the way of endeavouring to fix a most odious slander on the Presbytery. He most injuriously represents them of the same principles with Cromwell, and the sectaries who villainously took the king’s life.——These, with design to cast the greater slur upon the Reformed Presbytery, he calls by the same name, wherewith he, and his brethren have honoured them and their people, viz. An anti-government party. Thus having told us, page 87, (for I cannot take room to cite his words distinctly,) of some of Cromwell’s sentiments, and those of that party, he adds; “This is the darling doctrine of the Reformed Presbytery at present, though they must acknowledge, That Cromwell was the contriver of it.”—And so putting off his usual mask, he puts on the face and confidence of a royalist, and charges the Presbytery in the same sense, with King Charles’s death, as they do the whole race of Presbyterians. For their vindication, I shall answer, first in the words of Mr. Bennet, and then in the words of Mr. Shields. (Memorial of the Reformation, page 222.) “But it is pretended they, (viz. the Presbyterians,) are of the same principles. I know not but they may, in the main, i.e. They believe, if any flatter kings into

[Page 250]

an opinion of their own absoluteness, and Dr.aw them to rule arbitrarily,—that such are enemies to the nation, and ought to be proceeded against accordingly: That it is lawful, and a duty, to defend—the laws, liberties, and religion, against such as illegally invade them. This is the principle—was exerted at the—Revolution, or we had been bond-men and slaves without remedy. But if they mean by the same principles, the principles of those that cut off the king’s head, principles levelled at the ruin of the king’s person, and the destruction of the monarchy, I dare be bold to say, their successors renounce them, as they do the extravagant principles of those, who make no difference between kings and tyrants; and, by their fulsome flatteries, preach good kings into tyrants, to the ruin of themselves and their subjects.”

The next answer I shall make, shall be in the words of Mr. Shiels, Hind let loose, page 68. His words are these, “Because, by the covenant, they were not obliged to defend him, but only in defence of religion and liberty, which he had been destroying, and they defending; because, in this war, he did directly oppose and oppugn these conditions under which they were to defend, and therefore, they had all alongst carried towards him as an enemy, as he had to them: and because, by the covenant, they were obliged to discover, and render to condign punishment, all malignants and incendiaries, of whom he was the chief; and to retain the peace and union of the kingdoms, which could not be retained in maintaining their destroyer; and to assist mutually all entered into that covenant, which he was fighting against, he was delivered up unto the English, and kept under restraint in the isle of Wight, until he received his just demerit, for all his oppression, murder, treachery, and tyranny; being condemned, and execute January 30, 1648-9; which fact, though it was protested against, both before and after, by the assembly of the church of Scotland, out of zeal against the Sectarians, the executioners of that extraordinary act of justice, yet it was more for the manner than for the matter, and more for the motives and ends of it, than for the grounds of it, that they opposed themselves to it, and resented it. For they acknowledged and remon-

[Page 251]

strated to himself, the truth of all these things, upon which that sentence, and the execution of justice was founded:——And when a wicked association, and unlawful engagements, were on foot to rescue him, they opposed it with all their might, shewing, in their answers to the estates that year 1648 9, and declarations, and remonstrances, the sinfulness of that engagement; that it was a breach of the commandment of God, and of all the articles of the covenant; declaring withal, they would never consent to the king’s restitution to the exercise of his power, without previous assurance, by solemn oath under his hand and seal, for settling of religion according to the covenant; by which it appears, they were not so stupidly loyal as some would make them;”——among whom Seceders may be reckoned.

Nay, these great men, whom Mr. Shields here speaks in vindication of, could well distinguish, (as they had the most rational grounds so to do,) between the king’s just and lawful authority, or his authority according to the constitution, and his unjust and usurped authority, contrary to the constitution.—They could distinguish between authority, and the person abusing it.——Our Vindicator, however, and his brethren, their pretending now to imitate them in this, is just like one going about to build without a foundation, (as I have above shewn,) or, at least, like the foolish man in the parable, Matth. vii. 26. that built his house upon the sand. And yet, nothing will please them, unless they are accounted the only genuine children of our renowned covenanting ancestors, (walking faithfully in their footsteps,) and the only assisters and maintainers of the covenanted reformation principles, exclusive of all others whatever.

This much may suffice to be said on the above first particular. To the instances I have brought from the principles and practice of our Reformers in those earlier times, I might go on to add a number of instances of the zeal and faithfulness of our ancestors in the same cause, before, at, and after the restoration of Charles II. all contrary to, and condemning the principles and practice of Seceders in these particulars controverted between them and the Presbytery. I will not, however, follow Mr. Goodlet’s example in entering upon such a needless and tedious transcription from that part of the history of the church and nation, in

[Page 252]

opposition to the one that he gives us;—but shall directly proceed to the next thing that I had in my view, as necessary to be illustrated, (and which is the second particular with relation to the first I mentioned, and have already shortly dispatched,) and that is, To bring some proofs from the testimonies of our sufferers and martyrs towards the end of the reign of Charles II. evincing, that their casting off, and disowning his authority was not so much on account of his civil tyranny and mal-administrations, as on account of his usurping and arrogantly assuming to himself a spiritual supremacy, that power which is the sole prerogative of Jesus Christ. This Mr. Goodlet denies, in express words more than once; and so casts a most odious reproach on the memory and character of these venerable martyrs, as if they had been seeking, and suffering for their own things, and not the things of Jesus Christ. This indeed seems very evidently to be the genius and very spirit of his, and of the principles, profession, and plan of the Associate Presbytery, who ordinarily speak, (as any body may witness that is acquainted with their public prints,) as persons that are so passionately in love with, and set such a superlative value upon their natural and civil rights, their temporal, worldly liberties and privileges, that, if they can get these things secured to them by the government, they can easily overlook other things, though of far higher and greater importance: but to insinuate, that our worthy martyrs of those times were of any such spirit or principles, is a most vile reproach; and it is the more surprising, that Mr. Goodlet should have the assurance to represent them as stating their testimony on the footing he does, because it is so glaringly contrary to the plain and obvious words, sense, and meaning of all the public dying testimonies of those martyrs, after their public rejection of the then authority: Yea, what any reader, of the most ordinary capacity, from reading their testimonies in the Cloud of Witnesses, or the history of that period, will see, and take to be the ground of their rejection of the authority of Charles II. viz. his aspiring unto, and sacrilegiously usurping the power, crown, and dignity of Christ, in the spiritual supremacy. His usurping this was the very razing of the constitution, which had so strongly guarded and provided against any such usurpation; and can any body have the face to deny that it was the not acknow-

[Page 253]

ledging of him in the acts and exercise of this unlawful power, (viz. in overturning the true religion, worship, and government of Christ’s institution, and setting up Prelacy, &c.) that was the occasion of all the prosecution, persecution, and bodily sufferings, that the faithful underwent from the very beginning of these twenty-eight years of trouble? (excepting perhaps, a very few individuals at the first, who, from a particular pique he had at them, were pretended to be proceeded against and condemned on another footing.)

Our author, page 99, alleges a most false inference and insinuation against the Presbytery; viz. “That they mean to set forth these witnesses, as having some testimony of a different kind from that of those witnesses who went before them, particularly under the reigns of James VI. and Charles I.”——They mean no such thing; they look upon both their testimonies as really one and the same. And what was the ground, “for which the zealous and faithful ministers, &c. suffered such hardships in James VI.’s time, and afterwards?” Was it not their opposing his usurped spiritual supremacy over the church? The same was the ground of the sufferings of the later martyrs.——Had they all pleased him, gone in, and complied peaceably with him in this, they had met with no manner of harm nor hardship from him. But I must bring forward some more particular proof of this point against Mr. Goodlet, who so shamelessly denies it. I have said, that any reader—will take this to be the truth from reading the testimonies of these martyrs, in the Cloud of Witnesses, or from perusing the historical accounts we have of that period: and I may here observe, that this is the very view, that Mr. Crookshanks, who writes the history of the sufferings of the church of Scotland during that period, hath of the ground of their sufferings, and the reason of their renouncing the authority of the two brothers. This he expresses in the preface to his history, wherein he honourably vindicates these martyrs from a number of vile accusations cast upon them by their enemies. Some of his words concerning them are;——“They—looked upon the ecclesiastical supremacy as an usurpation of Christ’s throne and dignity, especially as it was asserted,——Act 1. sess. 2. parl. 1. Charles II.——Their non-

[Page 254]

compliance with these things was the cause of their suffering in the manner related in the following work.”

“It is true, many of them took arms in their own defence, being constrained thereto by horrid oppression, and dismal tyranny, and at last some renounced the authority of the two tyrants.——And if this was rebellion, so was the Revolution.

“Little regard, I conceive, is to paid to what others have alleged, viz. That many of them threw away their lives, and that they suffered only for trifles.——But was it a trifling matter to act against their consciences, to renounce their principles, to own the authority of a prince who had usurped the authority of Christ over his church, and that in the very exercise of his usurpation?”

Thus we see this was the sense and view of the writer of the history, and which he supposes every one will clearly perceive the truth of, who reads his history. But as the public declarations, and dying testimonies of these witnesses will clearliest [most clearly] discover the true grounds and reasons of their renouncing or disowning the authority of Charles II. I shall refer to them, and shall point out a few among many proofs that I could bring, from their own publicly declared, and dying professions, of the notorious injustice that our author has done them, and the truth in representing them as he does. Of their public declarations, I shall only refer to, and recite a part of that one, (and which was the first wherein they disclaimed the authority of Charles Stuart,) published at Sanquhar, June 22. 1680. In this they give an ample declaration of their principles; state the grounds and heads of their testimony;—declare their rejecting of the authority of Charles II. and their reasons for so doing. It is owned, they were of differing sentiments about owning and disowning him, till the publication of this declaration, which became, and was afterwards unanimously acknowledged by those who adhered to the Rev. Mr. Cargil, &c. as the public state of the testimony; (the which was so much the more necessary to be settled, considering the unhappy jars about it at Bothwell the year before;)——And yet even then, Mr. Goodlet will have him, and those who with him then disowned him, to do it rather on account of his civil tyranny, and bodily prosecution and persecution of them, than on account of

[Page 255]

his blasphemous usurpation of the spiritual supremacy.——But proof will be the evidence of fact. In that declaration above-mentioned, some of their words are,——“We account it among the Lord’s great controversies against us, that we have not disowned him, (viz. Charles II.) and the men of his practices, whether inferior magistrates, or any other, as enemies to our Lord Jesus Christ, and his crown.——Therefore, although we be for government, and governors, such as the word of God, and our covenants allow;——yet we, for ourselves, and all who will adhere to us, (they needed not expect Mr. Goodlet would,) do, by this presents, disown Charles Stuart,—as having any right, title, or interest to, or in the said crown of Scotland, or government, as forfeited several years since, by his perjury, and breach of covenant with God, and his church, usurpation of his crown, and royal prerogatives, and many other branches in matters ecclesiastic; and by his tyranny, and breaches in the very rules of government, in matters civil; for which reasons, we declare, that several years since, he should have been denuded of being king, ruler, or magistrate, or of having any power to act, or to be obeyed as such.”

A great deal more is contained in this declaration, than (for brevity) I can insert.——Their other declarations that followed this, were substantially only repeated adherences to this, together with some reasons, and things added more at large in their own vindication;—viz. the Lanerk declaration, January 12. 1682.—The apologetic declaration the 28th of October 1684.——Let us next see how firmly they stood to this testimony, emitted in their public declarations, when called to answer for the same before their adversaries,) in not loving their lives unto their death, that they might overcome by the blood of the Lamb.

I shall insert only some part of a few of their dying testimonies.——And the first shall be that of Mr. David Hackston of Rathillet,—who was the first that suffered after the publication of the declaration above said.

“David Hackston was, (June 26. 1680.) brought before the privy council, and was asked, If he would own the king’s authority? Answered, That authority that disowns the interest of God, and states itself in opposi-

[Page 256]

tion to Jesus Christ, is no more to be owned: but so it is, the king’s authority is now such, therefore it ought not to be owned.”——In his third letter during his imprisonment, he says, “I declined the king’s authority, as an usurper of the prerogatives of the Son of God; I declined them exercising under him the supreme power over the church, usurped from Jesus Christ.”——In another letter, “The whole land is become guilty of idolatry,—by the acts of supremacy, especially the act explanatory, wherein the glory and prerogatives of Christ are given to the king, which is fearful idolatry.” See also Crookshank’s History, vol. ii. page 64.

2dly, Mr. James Boig student, in his testimony, July 17. 1681, he says, “His indictment did run upon three heads; first, I had disowned the king’s authority which we could not own, unless we should own the supremacy also, which the king hath usurped over the church.—By doing this, we should rob Christ of that which is his right, and give unto a man that which is due unto no mortal; the reason is, because the supremacy is declared in their acts of parliament, to be essential to the crown, and that which is essential to any thing, is the same with the thing itself; so that in owning the authority, we are, of necessity, obliged to justify them in their usurpation also.”——This will sound harsh in Mr. Goodlet’s ears, that in owning the present authority, he owns the usurpation of Christ’s headship also.

3dly, That excellent gentleman Mr. James Skeen, is very particular about the supremacy, in his testimony; he says, “His, (viz. the king’s) usurpation in ecclesiastic matters, and his wicked burning of the covenant, and the causes of God’s wrath, is cause enough to me to disown his authority, which is so maintained by perjury.”

To which I shall add the testimony of Archibald Stewart, December 1. 1680. “I leave my testimony against those tyrants, that have forfeited all the rights that they now claim to,—and all their unjust laws, but especially that accursed supremacy, by which they have set up a miserable wretched man in Christ’s room, who thinks to wrong our Lord, and carry his crown; but it will be too heavy for him, though all the wicked Lords, Prelates, malignants, and indulged, be joining hand in hand to hold it on, down it shall come, and whosoever

[Page 257]

it wears his crown: and it is because he wears my Lord’s crown I disown him and them, and declare them rebels to God, and his Christ.”

4thly, The joint testimony of four martyrs eminent for truth, who suffered at the Grass-market of Edinburgh, March 11. 1680. Their testimony is directed to the shire of Stirling.——They anticipate an objection, “That it is not a Presbyterian principle to cast off magistrates.”——They say, “We grant with you; but where are the magistrates? they were once such; but they cast out themselves, when they brake the covenant, and set up cursed supremacy over the Lord’s inheritance; and when they have done that, we think they are no more to be owned as magistrates by Presbyterians, but cast off.”——They add, “Would we own his authority any longer, when he held it not of God: he would have no homage upon account of the covenant; and would ye not count him a distracted man, that would cleave to him upon that account?” (I am afraid they would count the Seceders distracted then, for the king will have no homage by the covenant.)

To the above, I subjoin some of the words of Patrick Norman, who in his last testimony, October 10. 1681, says, “If that word be true, There is no power but of God, then certainly, Charles Stuart’s power must not be of God.——Those who call him a magistrate, they say, that God is the author of sin, which is horrid blasphemy.”

5thly, This point is fully cleared in the testimony of James Robertson, a pious witness for truth, December 15. 1682. “His authority in civil matters, so much pleaded by the generation, as matters now stand, cannot be given, neither will they have it without the other; for by their acts of parliament, they have made them essential to the crown; there cannot be an authority without a foundation.—If any shall say, he hath it from the terms of the coronation-oath; I answer, He hath rescinded that in and by that act rescissory in his first parliament:—for when he rescinded that from which he had his power and authority, he rescinded his own authority also; so that he hath no power, having often than once burnt the covenants, which were his coronation-oath, without which he could not enter the govern-

[Page 258]

ment.”——A little after, he removes an objection thrown up to the sufferers, that they were guilty of self murder, and so of a breach of the sixth commandment, (as Mr. Goodlet does page 24.) which, says the martyr, is false; “For self-preservation must stoop to truth’s preservation.——He, (viz. the tyrant,) is set up in Christ’s room, and exerciseth authority in and by that abominable arrogate supremacy, having intermixed things civil with ecclesiastic, and, by their acts of parliament, making them both alike inherent to the crown, and so cannot be owned in this neither;” which is exactly the case yet, according to the English constitution now adopted, viz. that the present rulers cannot be owned, without the owners being stained with sacrilegious idolatry, and this is a breach of the divine commandment. Further, he says, “The land hath departed from God,—and have homologate that broken and despised idol’s sins,—by their owning of him now, when he hath taken the whole privileges of Christ’s crown and kingdom to himself.—And then, “he leaves his testimony against the public resolutions for taking in that malignant interest; (this takes in Seceders also), for which this poor church is this day smarting, and feeling the weight of the tyrant’s hand, for such eager lusting after a king. I leave my testimony against the Hamilton declaration, which is one and the same with the resolutions, (and with the principles of Seceders), for taking in the foresaid interest, contrary to the land’s engagements in the covenant.” (Which may be the reason, why the Seceders have changed the covenants to the circumstance of times.)

6thly, I shall just add only one or two more. John Nisbet in the parish of Loudon, is full and clear in his testimony, April 11. 1683. and gives the same reason for disowning his authority;——he says, “We must either quit Christ or Charles; indeed there are some folks pretend to keep both, but I defy any, if they be called to a public testimony, but they must either quit Christ or Charles.——Having seated himself in the Mediator’s chair of state,—is enough to denude him of authority, even in civil matters.——If it be said, the land hath given him that supremacy, (that is, the body politic, as Seceders say,) I answer, Every individual person in the land hath not given him that, and therefore is free to

[Page 259]

reject him upon that head.” (This will not digest with Seceders, for individuals must not oppose the body politic.)

I shall add no more than a few words from the testimony of that eminent martyr Mr. John Wilson writer in Lanerk, dated May 16. 1683. “I think no man can acknowledge the king’s authority simply, (considering he is clothed with one of the royal prerogatives of Jesus Christ, viz. the headship of the church, wherein to intrude is blasphemy for man or angel,) unless they be guilty of giving him that usurped title.”

From these excerpts brought from the declarations and dying testimonies of our worthy martyrs, and venerable witnesses for the truth, it may be seen whether the Presbytery do not speak the truth, and real matter of fact concerning them, when they say, Testimony, page 130: “That Mr. Cargil, and that poor distressed and persecuted people that adhered to him—disclaimed the then authority, not so much because of their tyranny and mal administrations, as on account of the unlawfulness of the constitution; namely, because the king—sacrilegiously assumed that power which was the sole and glorious prerogative of JESUS CHRIST.”——And whether Mr. Goodlet does not really and greatly injure them, and the truth, by representing them in the direct contrary light. And moreover, as these proofs I have brought in vindication of those brave martyrs for Christ’s headship and supremacy in and over his church, in opposition to Popery, Prelacy, Erastianism, &c. and of the Presbytery’s representation of the grounds and state of their testimony, are but a sample, in comparison of what I could have produced to the same purpose*; how comes Mr. Goodlet to say,

_____

* I could have brought many more instances of the same kind from the testimonies of the sufferers, both in the reign of Charles II. and his brother that followed;—but did not judge it necessary. I have gone as far through the suffering period as Mr. Goodlet hath done.——One thing is wanting in his performance which he promised, viz. to reconcile Seceders principles with those of the martyrs in the reign of James VII. in whose whole reign, he hath not given us one instance. They that reprehend others for lying, would do well to take care to speak truth themselves—but it is like his proof has failed him? he has been able to do no more.

[Page 260]

that the Presbytery had singled out Mr. Cargill’s testimony; just as if there had not been another of the martyrs then, who spoke the same language and sentiments with him. The testimony of this eminent martyr, and faithful minister, is indeed a famous evidence of the truth of the representation the Presbytery gives of the public state of the testimony, and the grounds of their casting off the authority of Charles Stuart at that time; for which purpose I must also here insert it, and have reserved the consideration of it by itself, because of the great abuse Mr. Goodlet has offered upon the sense and meaning of Mr. Cargill’s words, to the perverting the very design of his testimony.

The words of his testimony the Presbytery had quoted are these; “As to the cause of my suffering, the main is not the acknowledging the present authority, as (now) established.——This is the magistracy I have rejected, that was invested with Christ’s power; and seeing that power taken from Christ, which is his glory, and made the essential of the crown, I thought it was, as if I had seen one wearing my husband’s cloths, after he had killed him. And seeing it is made the essential of the crown, there is no distinction of the acknowledger, from being a partaker of this sacrilegious robbing of God. And it is but to cheat our consciences to acknowledge the civil power; for it is not the civil power only that is made the essential of the crown. And seeing they are so express, we must be plain, for otherwise it is to deny our testimony, and consent to his robbery.”

Mr. Goodlet, (pages 94. 95.) falls most furiously a quarrelling with the Presbytery, upon the sentiments of the honest man; a great deal of sophistry he uses, and some manifest falsehoods to support his sophistry.——Upon the words quoted from Mr. Cargill’s testimony, the Reformed Presbytery make three remarks or observations. Upon their three remarks, Mr. Goodlet makes two.

The first of the Presbytery’s remarks is, “That Mr. Cargill was no Seceder, or of their mind in this particular;” (viz. distinguishing between the civil and ecclesiastic power subsisting in the same person.)

Mr. Goodlet’s first remark is, “They have the assurance (says he) to say, that they who distinguished between the king’s civil and ecclesiastic authority, did cheat, and impose upon their own consciences.”——Now, this is

[Page 261]

a most unfair, yea false representation of the Presbytery’s words.——Their words are, (and it is their second remark upon Mr. Cargill’s words, the first of which I have mentioned above, and therefore I shall give them verbatim,) “It is evident,—that, at that time, there were some who did cheat and impose upon their consciences, by distinguishing, (where there was no room to distinguish,) between the king’s civil and ecclesiastic authority; which distinction was condemned and testified against by all who were truly faithful to Christ, and their own consciences, and tender of his honour and glory.”——Here the reader may see with his own eyes, the difference between the Presbytery’s words and Mr. Goodlet’s, and how invidiously he hath charged them. There can no inference be more natural than that which they Dr.aw from Mr. Cargill’s words, viz. That there were some then that distinguished between the civil and ecclesiastic authority, (otherwise what need was there for him mentioning it in the way of testifying against it,) and he himself calls it a cheating of the conscience; so that, if Mr. Goodlet had set the saddle upon the right horse, he had charged this upon Mr. Cargill, (and really does so, though he pretends otherwise,) and not upon the Reformed Presbytery.

His second remark is, “They have the assurance to say,——That the reverend Mr. Cargill, and all who adhered to him, rejected the authority of Charles II. not so much on account of his tyranny and mal-administration, as because he arrogantly assumed to himself the power which is the sole prerogative of Jesus Christ.”——Here are not the Presbytery’s words verbatim; but as it is the substance of what they have asserted in their third remark, (and, as I have already related their words, and established the truth of the observation against Mr. Goodlet, from the martyr’s own words,) I have nothing further to say; only it may be observed, that he puts a great deal of professed honour and respect upon Mr. Cargill, (more than the Reformed Presbytery have done, but no more, I own, than he richly deserves); he calls him the reverend Mr. Cargill.——Just like his forefathers the Pharisees, of whom our Lord says, Matth. xxiii. 29.——Ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous; and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

[Page 262]

I reply just in our Saviour’s next words, verse 31. Wherefore, ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets; for Luke xi. 48.) they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.

But I must yet more particularly unravel some of our author’s sophistry and false reasoning on this head; (for I believe, there was never any man, or set of men known, that cried up right reason at such a rate, as he, and the Associate Synod do, and yet use so much false reason.

1. He insinuates, that Mr. Cargill, and the martyrs then, used the distinction that Seceders do. For, (says he,)——“They, (viz. the Reformed Presbytery,) have the assurance to say, that they who distinguished between the king’s civil and ecclesiastic authority,” &c.——Here, by the (they) he plainly means the martyrs and witnesses at that time; whereas, that they used any such distinction is evidently false,—(witness Mr. Cargill himself, and those whose words I have also before quoted, who entirely disown it, and testify against it.) Nay, had they made use of this distinction, whatever they might have suffered otherwise, it would, at least, have kept them free from capital punishment. In all the history of that persecuting period, I read of none of the sufferers that did expressly plead and use it, but one, viz. Quintin Dick, (who seems to have been pretty straight upon the seceding plan: See Crookshank’s History, vol. i. page 398. edit. Edin. 1762.) and he got free, having, in course of law, the favour of only being fined, (for some of the ordinary misdemeanours of that time no doubt,) and laid under a sentence of banishment, which yet, so far as I know, was never put in execution*.

_____

* “October—1684. Quintin Dick, a feuar [landholder paying feu-duty] of Darnelhington.—being required to swear upon the common ensnaring questions, answered, That rising in arms in self-defence, and entering into leagues and covenants, without the consent of the magistrate, were controverted points, and he could not give his oath upon them: Then they urged him to take the oath of allegiance; unto which he declared, that he owned the king’s authority in things civil, and was ready to swear it: but supremacy in things ecclesiastical, was such an usurpation on Christ’s kingdom, that he was a better friend to the king

[Page 263]

than to wish him it. Whereupon he was fined in L. 1000 sterling, and ordered to be banished to the plantations.——He disowned the societies declaration of war before the council, (viz. the Apologetic Declaration, 28th October, 1684.) for he thought these zealous people carried matters too far. He remained in prison till he was sent with some others to Dunnottar.” Crookshank’s History, edition 1762. vol. ii. page 244.

2. “This assertion of theirs,” says he, (viz. what he supposes the Presbytery to have said, namely, That they who distinguished between the king’s civil and ecclesiastic authority, did cheat their own consciences,) “makes the whole testimonies, by the church of Scotland emitted, against James VI. and Charles I. for their usurpation of Christ’s prerogatives,—to be mere cheats upon the consciences of those who emitted them. For all—of them acknowledged the civil authority, and rejected, as—sinful, the—supremacy.” This would be sad work indeed, were this the case.——But the reader may perceive here, that the vail is still upon our author’s eyes; he labours under great “thoughtless inadvertency.” He not only sees no difference between the situation and circumstances of things now, and then, viz. in the two reigns he mentions; but, which is still more surprising, he is so blind, that he can see no difference between the situation, case, and duty of the witnesses for Christ, in the times of James VI. and Charles I. when the constitution remained entire and good, and their case and duty in the reign of Charles II. when it was wholly violated, sapped, and overturned to the very foundations. The ecclesiastic supremacy was now made an essential inherent right to the crown, which it never had been before. And this being the case, what he here charges the Presbytery with is a mere ignorant cavil, if not a designed pernicious forgery.

3. He next falls to explain this martyr’s words, (altho’ they stand in no manner of need of explication, being abundantly plain in themselves); and, in order to make them speak the language of seceding principles, he puts a sense upon them contrary to all sense and reason, and to the plain and natural sense of the words themselves. When Mr. Cargill says, “This is the magistracy that I have “rejected,

[Page 264]

rejected, that was invested with Christ’s power.——This, (says Mr. Goodlet,) amounts to no more than a refusal to acknowledge the supremacy given to Charles II. by the explanatory act.”——But how will this agree with Mr. Cargill’s own words? He does not say, This is the supremacy I have rejected, that is given to Charles II. by that act; (though this, to be sure, is included); but, “This is the magistracy that I have rejected, that is invested with Christ’s power.” It may be obvious to any, that these last words, “invested with Christ’s power,” express the reason of his rejection of such a magistracy, and that, because the same was made, by the explanatory act, an essential inherent right of the crown, both to him, (viz. Charles II.) and his successors; (the which, by the united constitution, is also evidently the case with the present reigning powers.) “This (says he) is a taking the power from Christ, which is his glory.”——If this supremacy had not been made an essential inherent right of the crown;—if it had been only particular personal usurpations, invasions, and encroachments upon the kingdom of Christ, that he had meant, or been complaining of, (as was the case in the reigns of James VI. and Charles I.)—then he would have said, This is the magistrate that I have rejected, not the magistracy. But this great and good man knew better divinity, than to reject and disown a magistrate lawfully constitute, for some single personal instances of tyranny, or even of idolatrous usurpation, where the idolatry was not engrossed in the constitution. Well, but when Mr. Cargill says, “That it is but to cheat our consciences to acknowledge the civil power,” and gives this reason for it;——“It is not the civil power only that is made of the essence of the crown,”——Mr. Goodlet, in his explication, tells us, “That, by these expressions, “he (only) cautions against the snare that was in the expression civil authority, as it was then used by the persecuting judges.”——Can there be a more injurious and unfair way of dealing with this great man than this is, to the manifest abusing the sense of his words?——He says expressly, “There is no distinction that we can make, that can free the conscience of the acknowledger from being a partaker of this sacrilegious robbing of God.”——And as for these words, civil authority, in which our author says the snare lay, that Mr. Cargill cautioned against,

[Page 265]

—I say, this expression civil authority, was never used by the then persecuting judges. How he came to allege such a falsehood as that, (and what he cannot but surely know to be one,) is very strange. The common expression used then in the interrogations put to the martyrs, (as Mr. Goodlet himself, a little downward, rightly observes,) was, Do you own the authority? Do you acknowledge the king’s authority? Will you not pray for the king?——Not a word of civil authority. The persecutors making no distinction, left no room for the sufferers to make one. Hence there was no more a snare in the word authority, than there was in the word king; the authority they enquired about, and called the king’s authority, being essential to him as king, according to the then constitution, and this authority was both a civil and ecclesiastic authority. And hence also, were the Vindicator questioned, (as these martyrs were,) concerning the present king’s authority, and asked, Do you acknowledge the king’s authority?——His authority according to the constitution being both a civil and spiritual authority, our author’s answering in the affirmative, (as no doubt he would), would be a real acknowledgment of his spiritual supremacy; and his praying for him, a praying for him in the exercise of that supremacy; and, (to use some of Mr. Cargill’s words,) “there is no distinction that he can make, that can free his conscience from being a partaker of this sacrilegious robbing of God.”

I shall now appeal to the impartial reader, whether I have not sufficiently cleared and established the truth of those remarks the Presbytery made from Mr. Cargill’s words, and rescued the testimony of this honourable martyr from the Vindicator’s perversion and abuse of it.

Upon the whole; it may be evident, that Mr. Goodlet has offered nothing in defence of himself and his brethren, but a bundle of odious contradictions, falsehoods, and reproachful misrepresentations of this good and worthy man; for, according to Mr. Goodlet, Mr. Cargill was only a mercenary martyr, rejecting the authority of Charles II. merely for his cruelty against the people of God, and his state mal-administrations.——And thus with him, he was more of a martyr for the state, for the civil and natural liberties of the subject, and the good of the commonwealth, than for the Redeemer’s glory, when he saw him robbed of his

[Page 266]

kingly power and royal prerogative. And truly, if this be all his kindness to Mr. Cargill, it is no more than Joab’s to Amasa, when he kissed him, (in hypocrisy), and yet smote him with the hand of revenge under the fifth rib. As to his long invective of boasting and blustering language, against the Presbytery, on account of the words now established, being put inadvertently, or for brevity’s sake, in Mr. Cargill’s testimony, as quoted by them, instead of “established in the supremacy and explanatory act,”——I do not judge it worth my pains to take the least notice of it.

Page 110. Mr. Goodlet next falls a quarrelling with the Presbytery’s first and third articles of testimony, anent magistracy and magistrates, pages 195, 196, where, says he, “I shall confront them with the doctrines of our covenanters, and all Protestant divines.”——All a mere farce. It may be observed, that before he confronts the Presbytery’s words, he first curtails them; after which, he calls the rest of the paragraph, vile papal Erastian stuff. I own, it takes courage, even to stand before the mouth of an empty cannon, when it sounds like one able for execution. With this blast he seems to lose his strength and patience in gross, and withal, we seem to get the rear of his arguments afterwards in a hurry, mixed with fury. The Presbytery’s words are, “They reject and condemn, that antiscriptural principle and opinion, that the divine ordinance of magistracy hath not its foundation in the moral preceptive law of God, (wherein alone his will is revealed and declared unto his people, concerning the nature, use and ends of all his ordinances,) but in the mere light and law of nature, (even as corrupted,) so confused and dark in its discoveries, so gross and selfish in its principles, motives, and ends, that neither the true nature of this, nor any other of the ordinances of Jehovah, as revealed in his word, can hereby be known, or the true use and ends thereof discovered and obtained; which corrupt notion obligeth its defenders to find the nature of man lapsed, still capable, and fit to discover the eternal law of God, respecting his moral duty both to God and man, which is impossible; and hence, such manifestations of the fixed and unalterable law of heaven, discovering the divine institution of this ordinance, cannot now be obtained from the dark book of

[Page 267]

nature, but is only to be found in the sacred volume of divine inspiration.”

To these words carefully suppressed, Mr. Goodlet offers not the least reply; however, the reason is very conspicuous, he has been already desired to explain himself upon the law of nature, and his meaning of it; and if he does, time may produce him a further answer: But, for the present, I offer him the rest of Mr. Gillespie’s words, carefully concealed also. Page 245. The words added, which give light to the whole of his arguments are, “Wherefore, though there be huge and vast differences between the Christian magistrate and the Heathen magistrate, the former excelling the latter, as much as light doth darkness;—yet, in this point of the derivation and tenure of magistracy, they both are equally interested, and the scripture sheweth no difference as to that point.”——This is materially all, which is either expressed or understood, yea, all that is pled for, is the excelling of the former above the latter, as light excels darkness; whereas, Mr. Goodlet is ay standing up to be an advocate for the darkness, instead of light; and consequently, he must be reckoned Mr. Gillespie’s opponent, and an advocate only for Heathen darkness: but if he hear not his words, let him hear Christ, a greater than all, who says, This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil; and I add, because some men’s principles cannot stand the light of the word. This is all that I shall say at present, in reply to what he throws out in opposition to these two articles; having already, in the first part of these answers vindicated the Presbytery on the heads contained in them.

Page 108. taken from a latter clause of the Testimony, page 190. unjustly transcribed thus, “The magistrate is, by his civil sanction, to corroborate all the laws and ordinances of Christ’s house.” Mr. Goodlet, I should think, upon a second reflection, can’t but see his conduct, with respect to this particular, not very imitable; nay, to be a striking instance of singular disingenuity. Will not the impartial reader judge it very unchristian, ungenerous, and unjust, for Mr. Goodlet to quote about twelve or thirteen words in the heart of a long paragraph, without connection either with the antecedent or the consequent, and fall a fighting against it? This way of transcribing broken

[Page 268]

broken sentences may wrong and hurt the exactest critic that ever took a pen. Had he but added what follows, it might have been a salve to the whole of what he quarrels at:——the words are, “That magistrates are to exert their power, for defence of the church of God, against all her external enemies; purging out of their dominions all blaspheming idolaters, false worshippers, heretics, and all openly malignant enemies of truth and godliness, with all avowed contemners of the worship and discipline of the house of God; and, by his civil sanction to, corroborate all the laws and ordinances of Christ’s house, providing, and enjoining, that every thing in the house of the God of heaven, be done according to the law of the God of heaven.”——Such language, says he, “is common in the church of Rome; if the magistrate is to corroborate the laws and ordinances of Christ’s house, he must be an ecclesiastic officer.”——No such a thing, nor is there any necessity why he should, from the doctrine here maintained.——“How, in any sense, (says he,) he can corroborate Christ’s ordinances and institutions is not easy to conceive.” Here he basely adulterates the Presbytery’s words. Their words are, “The laws and ordinances of Christ’s house;”——whereby they meant no more than what all sound divines of the Reformation intend when treating on this head, viz. the synodical sentences, acts, and determinations of the church, which is the house of God, 1 Tim. iii. 15. and of Christ, Heb. iii. 6. gathered together in her representatives.——“That it is the magistrate’s duty to aid, assist, or corroborate these.” (N. B. These are the very words of Mr. Gillespie, which he uses with relation to church government and discipline, an immediate and direct divine institution, Aaron’s Rod, page 182.)——But this author, instead of the Presbytery’s words, puts in,——“Christ’s ordinances and institutions;”——words of quite another signification than those the Presbytery use. And, it would appear, he makes this exchange with design to make the world believe, that the Presbytery mean, and teach that divine ordinances have not an intrinsical corroboration from the church’s Head himself, independent of the kings of the earth.——Whether the Presbytery has given any ground for such abusive calumny, may be evident from their own Testimony.——Give him all his own will,

[Page 269]

what does he quarrel at? only the word corroborate; perhaps it would not chagrin him so much, had they used the word ratify, which is very common to our Confession of Faith, acts of parliament and assembly; and, if it may serve to pacify him, and calm his rankled humour, the Presbytery, without hurt to truth, can very easily exchange the word corroborate, for the word ratify, the sense will be the same; but it is plain, by the scheme he drives at, neither of them would satisfy him. The only thing, I suppose, would have done it, is,—if the Presbytery had used the word corrode† for corroborate.——Now the sample has produced what the stock is; he appears in his own colours at last, to be a down-right Independent, and to confirm it, he flies in under their wings for a screen here; to support his weak arguments he quotes Dr. Owen. For Presbyterian divines, I believe it will straiten him to find one of his own opinion: Rutherfoord and Gillespie that have been crutches so long to him, have now left him in the lurch to shift for himself; they must be excused from attending him any more, because he has taken a bye-road.

——That Dr.. Owen was a divine of the first rank among many, in the truths of the gospel, I believe will be readily acknowledged; but his notions about church discipline can’t be so easily digested by any true Presbyterian.——Yet I’m afraid, was he alive, he would reject Mr. Goodlet as an advocate for his plan. Mr. Goodlet’s scheme would chime better in with the Sandimonian [Sandemanian]* notions about the civil magistrate, than Dr.. Owen’s, whose words he evidently misapplies, (as I shall afterwards make appear.) This doctrine of his, as it really is, and will be found not according (but contrary) to godliness; so it ought to be held odious, being repugnant to the word of God, the standards of our church, and many eminent divines; while, at the same time, the doctrine here maintained by the Presbytery, exactly agrees with the doctrine of all the reformed churches in their confessions, &c.—Vide the Geneva Confession, article fourth; “As Moses, Hezekiah, Josias, and other godly rulers, purged the church of God from superstition and idolatry, so the defence of Christ’s church appertaineth to the Christian magistrate, against all idolaters and heretics, as Papists, Anabaptists, with

_____

† i.e. To gnaw, waste, or eat away.

* [Sandemanian means one who reduces saving faith to bare intellectual assent to the truth of the gospel, without properly including fiducial trust, evangelical consent, cordial reception, or the renewed will and affections. One summary puts the distinctive error as equating faith with “mere intellectual assent” or “simple/bare faith.” They taught that Christ’s kingdom is spiritual, and therefore the civil magistrate, as magistrate, has no proper function in the church. Hence they rejected the idea of a national church, rejected national covenants as binding church/state instruments, and denied that the Reformation could be carried on by civil or political weapons.

[Page 270]

such like.”——Scots Confession, article twenty-fourth, quoted above, pages 76. and 85.——The Westminster Confession, chap. 23. sect. 3. also above quoted, ibidem.——See also the second book of discipline, chap. I. “The magistrate ought to assist, maintain, and (N. B.) fortify the jurisdiction of the kirk.” Chap. 10. “Christian princes are to advance the kingdom of Jesus Christ;—for they are called in Scripture, Nourishers of the kirk, and by them it is to be maintained: they ought to assist and fortify, (I desire to know the difference between fortify and corroborate,) the godly proceedings of the kirk, in all behalfs;—to see that the kirk be not invaded nor hurt by false teachers and hirelings, &c.——They are to assist and maintain the discipline of the kirk, and punish them civilly, that will not obey the censure of the same, &c. They are to make laws agreeable to God’s word, for advancement of the kirk, and policy thereof, without usurping any thing that pertaineth not to the civil sword.”

This hath always been frequently the request of all reforming assemblies, that the civil powers would concur with their sanction, to what the church did in an ecclesiastical capacity, which was frequently granted, particularly November 15. 1600. James VI. parl. 16. chap. 11.

The assembly at Edinburgh, August 30. 1639. did supplicate his Majesty’s high commissioner, and the lords of his Majesty’s honourable privy council, for the ratification of the Confession of Faith, and covenant, which accordingly was granted; and also, by act of parliament, Edinburgh, June 11. 1640. Charles I. parl. 2. act. 5.

At the desire of the assembly, we have another act ratifying the Solemn League and Covenant, Charles I. parl. 3. session 1. June 4th, 1644. where it is said, “The estates of parliament, ratifies and confirms” (words as strong and nervous, as corroborate) “the foresaid mutual league and covenant concerning reformation, and defence of religion;—together with the acts of the kirk, authorising the same league and covenant;——and the said estates ordains the same acts, with the league and covenant above specified, to have the full force and strength of perfect laws, and acts of parliament, &c.

I may further remind, Mr. Goodlet, he has the judgment of many eminent divines against this sectarian notion

[Page 271]

of his. See Mr. Gillespie’s Aaron’s Rod, book ii. page 181. in his concession to Hussey. “It is far from our meaning, that the Christian magistrate should not meddle with matters of religion, or things and causes ecclesiastical; and that he is to take care of the commonwealth, but not of the church: Certainly there is much power, and authority, which, by the word of God, and by the confessions of faith of the reformed churches, doth belong to the Christian magistrate in matters of religion.” Page 184. he is clear that “magistracy strengthens the ministry, and the ministry strengthens magistracy.” Page 191. in answer to an objection, he says, “I grant, that magistrates are appointed, not only for civil policy, but for the conservation, and purgation of religion, as is expressed in the Confession of Faith of the church of Scotland.” Farther, in answer to a query proposed, pages 252, 253. he grants, that “if a synod should connive at some error, the magistrate may command the resuming that case in another synod, (though the magistrate is not to give any authoritative decision in matters of faith.)” He grants, “though in a case merely spiritual, the Christian magistrate may examine the sentence of an ecclesiastical court, and when he seeth cause, interpose by letters and sharp admonitions to the presbytery or synod; who in that case are bound in conscience, with all respect and honour to the magistrate, to give him a reason, of what they have done, and to declare the grounds of their proceedings;” (it were not amiss that he should enquire for the grounds of so many excommunications pronounced by Seceders against their brethren, and others.) From p. 260. to 265. he is very clear and particular concerning the magistrate’s duty, power and authority about the church. He allows, “That he may convocate synods, pro re nata, (though he is not to preside in synodical debates, and determinations) but—that he ought to take special care of the conservation of the reformed religion, and of the reformation of it, when, and wherein it needeth to be reformed, imperative not illicitive [i.e., commanding politically, not performing ecclesiastically].* He is to take care, that church officers, do these things which ex officio [], they are bound to do; and when they do so, he aideth, assisteth, strengtheneth, ratifieth, and, in his way, maketh effectual what they do.”

_____

* [The magistrate has an imperative power circa sacra—about sacred things—but not an elicitive power in sacris—in sacred things.]

[Page 272]

Mr. Rutherfoord is a correlate brother with Gillespie on this point: Divine Right, page 593. in his concessions, he says, “We do not exclude the magistrate, who is a keeper of both tables of the law, from a care of matters of religion: And from page 543. to 573. he is large and clear on the magistrate’s duty, as a magistrate; he says, “The magistrate, as a magistrate, is to procure that there be preachers, and church officers, to dispense word, sacraments and discipline. The magistrate was to take care of old, that there were Levites who bare the ark, and priests who should burn incense before the Lord, and sacrifice,” (though it was unlawful for him to bear the ark on his shoulders, or yet in his own person to burn incense or sacrifice,) further he adds, “Magistrates, as magistrates, are to extend their power for Christ, that is, that not only there be justice, and peace among men, but also, that there be religion in the land; yea, that the gospel be preached; so all our divines make the king to be custos et vindex utriusque tabulae [the guardian and vindicator of both tables of the law].” (If he was alive, he behooved to except Mr. Goodlet) “yea, I think, he is a keeper and preserver of the gospel also, and is to command men to serve Christ, and profess the gospel, and to punish the blaspheming of Jesus Christ, and this is royal and magistratical service that the king as king performeth to God, and to Jesus Christ.” See Mr. Rutherfoord’s mind on this more largely, Due Right, p. 393. (above quoted page 81.) He says, p. 410. “That kings have a power, to confirm and add their civil sanction to church constitutions, (but no power to make church laws) and if the church decree things good, lawful, and necessary, the prince hath a power given of God to ratify, confirm, and approve these by his civil sanction.” (Great Rutherfoord is speaking language now common to the church of Rome;) “But no power to infringe, or evert, what they have decreed.”

These were the express and declared sentiments of those great men, who were among the most acute, intelligent and judicious of our own reforming divines; nay, they were the declared and public doctrines of the reformed church of Scotland, yea, of the whole reformed churches both at home and abroad, with respect to the civil magi-

[Page 273]

strate’s power circa sacra, as well as of the Reformed Presbytery.

I shall here, on the other hand, give the reader an abbreviate of the doctrine this famous divine advances on this subject, in opposition to that of the Reformed Presbytery. He begins thus, “It must be owned, it is not without necessity, that the Reformed Presbytery plead for this right to their scriptural magistrate.” (N. B. These terms scriptural magistrate, he uses in the way of ridicule and mockery.) “For altho’ such a power be altogether useless for the laws, institutions and ordinances of Christ’s appointment.” (The reader will here observe, how artfully he alters the presbytery’s words; their words are, “The laws and ordinances of Christ’s house,” as has been already observed and explained) “They being all corroborated by his authority, who is set up by the Father, as his king upon his holy hill of Zion. I am certain, there are few serious thinking people can digest or believe these doctrines, as they come from them. This doctrine of theirs seems obvious enough as to the real design of it. It is plain now, that their Christian magistrate whom they would have set over a Christian people, is a sort of ecclesiastic officer; nay, and must be the chief officer over the house of God too: for it seems, without his sanction their laws and ordinances cannot be corroborated: or of proper validity. It is the duty of the supreme civil magistrate, who is a Christian, not only to observe all the laws and ordinances, (N. B.) of Christ’s appointment in his house, but also to excite all his subjects to the same, by proper encouragements on the one hand, and discouragements on the other.” (What these proper encouragements, and discouragements are, is a mystery which this doctor has not been yet pleased to unveil to the world.) “——But how in any sense he can be said to corroborate, (N. B.) Christ’s ordinances and institutions, is not easy to conceive. Such language is current in the church of Rome. I can understand what the Roman Catholic means, when he tells us, that (N. B. here he changes his dialect again,) the acts of such and such a council were—corroborated by his holiness; because it is a prevalent notion in that church, that the Pope is perfectly qualified to be—the infallible head.” (N. B. By this he paves the way for his after

[Page 274]

diminutive taunting language about the magistrate’s qualifications.)——“But it is certainly a truth which will not admit of dispute,—that all (N. B) Christ’s ordinances and laws, are sufficiently corroborated by his sole authority.——If this then be admitted, I hope they will see cause,—to own that this magistrate they are seeking, must be an infallible head officer in the church, alias a Pope; and if so, when I take a back-look upon their urgency for his qualifications, I see that there will be need for them all, even as a condition sine qua non.”

This is a true abstract of this author’s reasoning; I have been at the pains to write it out, that every reader might see and compare it, both with the remarks I have made upon it, and with the Presbytery’s words and doctrine, which he treats with so much contempt and disdain.——And, upon the whole, I may appeal to the judgment of any intelligent and impartial reader whether their doctrine on this head deserved such treatment at his hands. The whole of this invective is designed, no doubt, to make the Reformed Presbytery, and their doctrine, appear odious to the world.——But, by this abuse wherewith he designs to load them and their doctrine does he not openly, and shamelessly lampoon the doctrine of the whole reformed churches?

But our author brings in Dr. Owen to support his notions, and, in so doing, greatly wrongs him: I will willingly spend a page or two in vindicating this grave and learned divine from his abuse of him. He evidently wrongs the doctor, whose words he quotes, in two respects.

1. The doctor speaks of Christ’s own immediate, spiritual, and divine institutions and ordinances in his church, such as, the word, sacraments, prayer, &c. all which depend upon, and are made effectual by his sole power and blessing, unto the accomplishment of the great ends of these appointments, which are, the conversion of sinners, and Christ’s ruling in and over their hearts and consciences. Concerning this he says very truly, that “Christ will not borrow the assistance of human authority to rule in and over the consciences of men, with respect unto their living unto God, and coming to the enjoyment of himself.”——He speaks also against the constitution and settlement of such a government in the church,—the maintaining and supporting of such worship and of-

[Page 275]

ficers as are not of Christ’s appointment, and therefore have nothing to bear them up, but human, or magistratical authority alone; in all which, he evidently points to the church of England, (as well as that of Rome,) to which all these characters agree; and concerning all which he very justly observes that—“That church state which is either constitute by human authority, or cannot subsist without it,” (i.e. having no intrinsical characters of divine institution,) “is not from him.”——But what relation, I pray, hath either of these to what the Presbytery were speaking of, as the civil magistrate’s duty? viz. to corroborate the laws and ordinances of Christ’s house, by interposing his sanction, authority, and command, that the ordinances, decrees, and determinations of the church, founded upon, and agreeable to the word of God, should be outwardly observed; and that regard and subjection should be yielded to them, (yea, and to all the commands of God, and every one of his institutions and ordinances, even such as are in their own nature divine,) in mens external deportment and behaviour, which is due and becoming. Such sanction, or command, adds nothing to the intrinsic power and virtue of these, making them any way better able to accomplish their proper spiritual ends above mentioned; but “it fortifies them” against the insult, open contempt, and violent outrage of wicked and unruly men. The doctor indeed speaks of this power being perverted, and much abused in the earlier times of the church, (as it hath often been since,) and regrets it; but this gentleman will have him to be an utter enemy to it altogether, by which he does him great wrong. The best and most useful duties and ordinances have been abused,—what then? are we to deny and reject them altogether on that account? What would be the consequence of this?——Not only the magistrate’s power circa sacra, but even all methods for order and government among men in civil things, must be discarded,—because this has been perverted and abused to tyranny and oppression.

2. Our author does injury to Dr.. Owen, in quoting his words.——The doctor’s words are, “The Lord Christ hath ordained no power nor order in his church, no office nor duty that should stand in need of civil authority, sanction, or force to preserve it, &c.”——He lets down his words,——“The Lord Christ hath ordained no

[Page 276]

power nor order in his church, no officer, nor duty, &c.”——Just as if this judicious and learned divine had dreamed, or thought, that the ministers of Christ’s church militant were, (like the angels, the ministers of his providence,) made spirits, without bodies, Psal. civ. 4. standing in need of neither bodily protection, nor provision, (from magistrates or people,) in the discharge of their function and duty; and can we think, that it was his opinion, (with the Quakers,) that all God’s worship and the duties of his appointment, were purely and only spiritual, and inward altogether? I could not have believed, tho’ any had affirmed it, that our author, &c. had been of such an opinion and sentiment on this head of the magistrate’s power circa sacra, or the things and worship of God, as he here appears to be, from the application and use he makes of Dr.. Owen’s words. I thought there had been no controversy between him and the Reformed Presbytery about this particular. I suppose the case with him and his brethren, with reference to the civil magistrate’s countenance, will have fallen out to be the same with that of the fox in the fable, who, having several times leapt up to catch a bunch of ripe grapes, but not being able, at last he went off, saying, they were so sour they could not be eaten.

But in opposition to these wild notions of our author’s on this head, and for the vindication of Dr.. Owen from his abusive representation of him, and application of his words, I shall quote a paragraph or two from his own writings.

I observe, that in the very page before that our author quotes, he seems particularly to cross his scheme, viz. in these words;——“All nations are his, (viz. Christ’s) inheritance; all people are in his absolute disposal, and it is his pleasure to set up his kingdom in the earth, without which the earth would not be continued; he could not deal more gently with the righteous rulers of this world, (and he did it because righteous rule is the ordinance of God,) than to order all things so, that (by the erection of his kingdom,) nothing should be done in opposition to them, or their rule.”——Upon this I would just ask, If righteous rule and rulers be the ordinance of God, whose ordinance is wicked and unrighteous rule and rulers?

[Page 277]

But again, (Sermons, page 433. fol. edit.) he says,——“Even judges and rulers, as such, must kiss the Son, and own his sceptre, and advance his ways: Some think, if you, (speaking to the parliament,) were well settled, you ought not, in any thing, as rulers of the nations, to put forth your power for the interest of Christ: the good Lord keep your hearts from that apprehension.”

Again, page 444.——“Magistrates are the ministers of God for the good, universal good of them to whom they are given, Rom. xiii. 14. and they are to watch and apply themselves to this very thing, verse 6. And the reason the apostle gives to stir up the saints of God to pray for all sorts of men, in special for kings, and those that are in authority, to wit, that they may in general come to the knowledge of the faith,—is, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty, 1 Tim. ii. 1. 2.——They are to feed the people committed to their charge,—unto universal peace and welfare.”

Again, page 445. “Although the institutions and examples of the Old Testament, of the duty of magistrates in the things, and about the worship of God, are not, in their whole latitude and extent, to be drawn into rules that should be obligatory on all magistrates now under the gospel; and that because the magistrate was then custos, vindex, et administrator legis judicialis, et politiae Mosaicae [guardian, vindicator, and administrator of the judicial law and of the Mosaic polity], from which, as most think, we are freed; yet doubtless there is something moral in these institutions, which, being unclothed of their judicial form, is still binding to all in the like kind. Subduct from these administrations, what was proper to, and lies upon the account of the church and nation of the Jews, and what remains upon the general notion of a church and nation, must be everlastingly binding; and this amounts this far at least, that judges, rulers, and magistrates, which are promised under the New Testament to be given in mercy, and to be of singular usefulness, as the judges were under the Old, are to take care that the gospel church may,—as such, be supported and promoted, and the truth propagated, wherewith they are entrusted; as the others took care that it might be well with the judicial church, as such.——(3.) For the rules,—I shall but name them.

[Page 278]

(1.) Labour to be fully persuaded in your own mind, that you be not carried up and down with every wind of doctrine, as though you had received no truth.——

(2.) Know that error and falsehood have no right nor title, either from God or man, unto any privilege, protection, advantage, liberty, or any good you are entrusted withal. To dispose that unto a lie, which is the right of, and due to truth, is to deal treacherously with him by whom you are employed.” Sermon before the parliament, entitled Christ’s Kingdom and the Magistrate’s Power.

But because he speaks still more plainly and expressly in his discourse of toleration, and the magistrate’s duty about religion; I shall transcribe a few sentences from that.

Sermon, page 406. “Magistrates, even as such, are bound to know the mind and will of God, in the things which concern his honour and worship.——This obligation lies upon all creatures capable of knowing the Creator, answerable to that light which of him they have; and the means of revelation which they do enjoy.——2 Sam. xxiii. 3. He that ruleth over men, must be just, ruling in the fear of God.

“It belongs to the duty of the supreme magistrate or shepherd of the people in any nation, being acquainted with the mind of God, to take care that the truth of the gospel be preached to all the people of that nation, according to the way appointed.——

As he is to take care that it be declared unto others, even all committed to his governing charge,——so he is to protect it from all violence whatever. Jesus Christ, is the great King of nations, as well as the holy King of saints. His gospel hath a right to be preached in every nation, and to every creature under heaven; whoever forbids or hinders the free passage of it, is not only sinful and impious towards God, but also injurious towards men. Certainly, the magistrate is to protect every one in their own rights from the violence and injury of unruly men. In the preaching and receiving the gospel, there is a right acted superior to all earthly privileges whatever; in this then the magistrate is to protect it, that under him the professors thereof may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty; and—for this cause, they to whom the sword is committed, may with the sword lawfully defend the truth, as the un-

[Page 279]

doubted right of those who do enjoy it, and of which they cannot be deprived without the greatest injury.”——

—Page 307. “The gospel being preached,—as of right it ought to be, it is the duty of the magistrate, by the power wherewith he is entrusted, to protect and defend it against all or any persons, that by force or violence shall seek to hinder the progress of it,—under what pretence soever.” And downwards in the same page; “Seeing Christ Jesus—requireth of them, (viz. his disciples) such kind of worship as cannot be performed without them meeting together, συναγωγη, in one place;” It is the magistrate’s duty to “provide or grant being provided, the use of such places under his protection, as may in all or in any kind be suited—for that end.”

Page 308.——“Whereas the preachers of the gospel are now to be maintained in an ordinary way;—and seeing that many to whom we have proved that the gospel is to be declared,—will not, or cannot make such provision for them as is needful, it is incumbent on these nursing fathers, (viz. magistrates) to provide for them, who because of their continual labours in the work of the Lord are disenabled to make provision for themselves.”——Hence from all this, it is or may be plain, that this divine is express and clear for the magistrate’s countenancing, establishing, defending, and by all means in his power, supporting true religion, the ministers and professors of it, in their professions of it. And equally express in declaring the contrary to be the ruler’s duty, with respect to idolaters, false worshippers, &c. Page 310. “It is the duty of the magistrate,—To demolish all outward appearances—of such superstitious, idolatrous and unacceptable service.—The command of God for the demolishing all monuments of idolatry, Deut. xii. 1. 2. 3. with the commendation of those kings of Judah, who accordingly performed this duty, 2 Chron. xvii. 6. and xxx. 14. are enough to confirm it.”——And with respect to open opposers, and blasphemers of the truth, and true worship of God, he is very plain in the next page; such as—“In the pursuit of their design of opposing truth, shall publicly use such expressions, or perform such acts, as are fit to pour contempt and scorn upon the truth they oppose, reviling it.——If the question be put, whether in this case the magistrate be not obliged

[Page 280]

to vindicate the honour of God, by corporal restraints, in some degree at least, upon the persons of those men; truly, for my part, I incline to the affirmative.”——

So that, upon the whole, this author has done Dr. Owen an evident and great injury in quoting him, as if he had been an absolute enemy, and opposite to the doctrine of the reformed churches anent the civil magistrate’s power and concern about religion, and the worship, and the church of God.

To what of the sentiments of this divine, I have quoted on this head, I shall just subjoin those of that learned and religious knight, Sir Richard Blackmore, in his Essays, “As the chief ministers of kings and potentates—are bound to promote the honour of their princes; to maintain the people’s esteem of their persons and government; to discountenance and punish the turbulent and seditious, and protect the loyal and well disposed subject; so it is the duty of potentates, who are ministers, judges, and delegates of state, in the divine monarchy, to take care of their master’s honour, to manage with industry, and fidelity his interests; to promote and preserve in the minds of the people the most honourable opinion; and the highest veneration of his person, and the greatest esteem and affection to his government; to discourage and deter profane and flagitious persons; to suppress and exterminate the Atheist and blasphemer, the impious scoffer and petulant derider of religion, as the declared enemies of heaven, and—opposers of divine authority. On the other hand, it is their duty to defend and reward the good and virtuous, who reverence and honour their supreme Lord, are well affected to his government, and express a sincere and warm zeal for his service*.”——This much may suffice at present on this point. What now remains, I shall endeavour shortly to dispatch.

The next and last thing now that occurs is in page 110 of our author’s performance. Mr. Goodlet there, and in the three following pages, gives us his remarks upon the presbytery’s sense of article 4th, chap. xxiii. of our Confession of Faith. This he calls “a new explication.” If it be new and right too, where is the harm? But yet, I say, it is false to call it a new one: the presbytery’s sense

_____

* Essay on the origin of civil power, page 11.

[Page 281]

of that article is the same with that in which it has ever been understood by our honoured ancestors, who have since the compiling of the Confession, wrestled and contended for the truths, kingdom, and cause of Christ.——The same with the sense of the martyrs under the late persecution, who all understood it of a people or land where the true religion had not been generally received and professed, (or to use Dr. Owen’s words) “owned and established,” as the right, property and possession of that people, whereas theirs is just the same with that of the persecutors. “The last gloss, (says our author) they put upon it, served indeed for a considerable time, and might have done for a while longer, if the Associate Presbytery had let it alone.”——All that I shall say to this is, that the Associate Presbytery, and the Associate Synod too, if he pleases, never neither were, are, nor will be able to overturn the Presbytery’s sense and explication of this article. All their invidious efforts, and virulent language thrown out against it, are no more able to overthrow it, than a handful of dirt is able to batter down a stone-wall. Mr. Goodlet treats on this particular in such an unserious, sportive, ironical manner, (as if he had designed his descant upon it, more for his reader’s diversion and recreation than benefit; and indeed, it can be of no benefit to any reader,) that I think him absolutely unworthy of the least reply.

He comes at last to conclude:——“Upon the whole, what is it that this Reformed Presbytery would be at?”——Some, (as the proverb says,) that have sharp teeth, have yet smooth tongues: and David tells us of one, Psal. lv. 21. Whose words were smoother than butter, and softer than oil, while yet, war was in his heart. Our author, however, wants this accomplishment, (if it is one,) of a soft tongue; for his tongue and his teeth are both alike sharp. Many a supercilious jibe the poor Reformed Presbytery have got, through the course of this author’s performance, on account of this designation they took to themselves at their constitution, in consequence of their designedly and professedly settling upon the principles and doctrines of the reformed churches, and particularly, of the reformed covenanted church of Scotland. He scarce gives them this name, but his words are clothed with an air of contempt, and lofty disdain. There is not, however, any thing strange or new herein: the like has always been the lot of such as have endeavoured faithfully to ad-

[Page 282]

here to divine truth, and divine ordinances, from false brethren. Mr. Leigh tells us, (Body of Divinity, epistle dedicatory) “That the Socinians made sport, in their books, with the Protestant authors, because they called themselves the orthodox.”——“But, (says he,) they think it not enough to be Christians, and to assume the character of gospel ministers; but they must needs be politicians too.”——I might here answer him in the words of Mr. Baxter, who gives it as his judgment*, “That much more of the doctrine of politics, and civil government, belongeth to theology, than those men understand, who, (like our author and his brethren) make kings and laws to be mere human creatures.” But if Seceders had not first troubled the world with their wild unsanctified scheme of politics, and publicly loaded the old dissenters with the odious epithets of anti-government men, men of dangerous and bloody principles, &c. I suppose the world had never been troubled with any thing of this kind from the Reformed Presbytery. Their political principles I have shewn to be agreeable to the word of God, right reason, (and so conducive to the perfection, peace, good, and happiness of human society,) and to the principles and practice of our reformers, and martyrs for the covenanted cause and work of reformation, (and am still ready to demonstrate this more clearly;) but I may defy our author, or any other, to demonstrate his to be such, because they are not capable of it.

Last of all, p. 115. he is pleased to shut up his performance, with an invidious insinuation against the original and constitution of the Reformed Presbytery; as if “they had but naked and discreditable pretences to that character: But this, says he, I wave, as not being material to the cause in hand; and as it is not persons, but their erroneous principles, which I choose to expose.” There is no doubt but such subdolous [deceitful] language may have a great deal of influence upon the weak, the ignorant, and the unwary part of mankind; as if there were something very odious about the constitution of the Reformed Presbytery; or as if they were upon some other constitution than that of the reformed covenanted church of Scotland; but if there was ground for any such allegation, why but he speaks out? He says, “’Tis not persons, but erroneous principles, he chooses to expose.” He is surely in a great mistake, if he thinks an evil antiscriptural constitution be no error.——The worst evil is in the first concoction, if there be an evil at all. He should mind what he had said before, When the foundation falls, the fabric must go of course; but now, according to his own concession, he has never hit the foundation at all; therefore the fabric remains entire

_____

* Christian Directory, part iv. page 4.

[Page 283]

and untouched, after all he pretends to have done against the Reformed Presbytery: But he surely hath not adverted to this material mistake, or then he would never have so unhappily in the close, cut the sinews of his own performance. Thus, like an unskillful musketeer, he has spent his time, strength and ammunition to no purpose.

I shall conclude these answers with some part of a private letter from a brother residing in a distant part of the world*, wherein having (it seems) just read Mr. Goodlet’s performance, he occasionally and shortly lays down his sentiments upon the matter in debate. What he says, I take to be a very just summary of the principles of the Reformed Presbytery on this head, and of the sentiments expressed in the foregoing answers; the which, I hope, will be some excuse for my inserting it without the author’s knowledge. His words are these; “Magistracy hath its original institution in the law of creation, as hath all relative duties, man being created both a reasonable and social creature. Every society have a right unto it, whether Heathen or Christian. (See Lex Rex.) In the formation of a civil society, all men are equals, individuals, independents, none having a right to rule his neighbour magistratically without a constitution; whereby I understand the whole individuals acquiescing in, and agreeing upon laws, in the best manner they are capable of, adapted unto the great, moral, natural ends of their preservation, mutual benefit, common good, order, &c. according to the best light they have attained: Then one or more is to be chosen to put foresaid laws in execution, appearing most fit and suitably qualified for this office:——He or they being thus chosen by the society (ut dicitur [as it is said]) agreeing and consenting to rule them by and according to said laws:——then, both the intended rulers, and to be ruled, solemnly and mutually engaging to rule, and to be ruled, conform unto said laws:——Thus a constitution obtains, which each are to defend, &c.——Thus only, ’tis presumed, can any have a lawful, moral, limited power or authority, justly and legally answering the divine institution, and ends thereof, viz. God’s glory and the public good. Westminster Confession, chap. xxiii. Deut. xvii. Rom. xiii.

Again, all men being under this natural moral law, are obliged in duty to God, to observe and conform unto the same, as the perpetual rule of all their actions: But mankind universally by the fall, being almost entirely blind and dark in all moral actions; and also, darkness and blindness, as to all spiritual or supernatural good in any thing; hence the necessity of divine revelation, and man’s obligation, by the law of his creation, to receive and submit thereunto in all things.——Hence also, any nation, commonwealth or empire, attaining more light, or coming forward, by acquaintance with divine revelation, to become an infant church, their ruler, or rulers, remaining in

_____

* The Rev. Mr. Cuthbertson in America.

[Page 284]

forementioned darkness that all were in when the relation was fixed; this his or their infidelity (continuing to rule according to their constitutional laws, not repugnant unto the divine law) does not make void his or their just and legal authority, art. 4. chap. xxiii. Confession of Faith. But when the throne becomes vacant,—such nation, &c. is bound as above, to extend their constitutional laws to the engrossing of all virtue and true piety;—to the preservation and maintenance of the true religion, and the suppressing of all error, heresy and vice, eversive thereof.——Again, the last supposed relation between reformed rulers and ruled, being afterwards dissolved as before, and such nation, &c. arriving at still further light and edifying knowledge, ought to proceed again ut prius [as previously]: But it is never warrantable for any society to abandon what they had mercifully attained unto,—because contrary both to the law of their creation, and to the law revealed. Whereunto ye have already attained, walk by the same rule, mind the same thing.——If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. Thus, we see how awful national apostasy from God is! national perjury, what?——Hence will appear a threefold bond we are under unto God, as reasonable creatures;—as solemnly bound, both rulers and ruled, to the highest advances in reformation purity, these isles of the sea have ever arrived at, as being most agreeable to God’s holy word,—and as solemnly and voluntarily, nationally, and personally bound unto the maintenance and preservation of the whole reformation by our solemn covenants. Thus, the pure light of nature directing and obliging unto divine revelation; and that warranting our solemn national vowing, concur in shewing our duty of witness-bearing against the flood of national apostasy in our day. To break all these bonds, and to acquiesce in the contrary, as appears to be the case in complying with the present constitutions, civil or ecclesiastic, cannot fail of involving in the awful and complicated guilt of rebellion, perjury, apostasy, and horrid ingratitude!——For a Christian nation to choose a Heathen, or visibly wicked person to reign, would be unlawful, irreligious and unreasonable.”

I shut up the whole, with my sincere wishes in behalf of the author of the performance I have been examining, That he may enjoy a larger share of the principles of Christian sympathy and charity;——May no longer rejoice in iniquity, under the influence of a persecuting spirit; but in the truths of Jesus the King of martyrs, sealed by the witness of the Spirit, and the sufferings of those who overcame by the blood of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony: with abhorrence rejecting the Dagon of Prelacy, (so solemnly abjured both in our national and baptismal vows,) with all the stuff that hangs upon it; and saying (with Ephraim, Hosea xiv. 8.) What have I any more to do with idols?

F I N I S.