John Fairly on Magistracy VI.

CHAPTER VI.

Animadversions on Mr. Goodlet’s doctrine anent the Heathen magistrate, (or magistracy among the Heathens.)—His comparison of the Heathen magistrate to an heath, or barren-mountain, considered.—The bad tendency of his vague pleadings on this head detected.—His state of the question in debate examined and rejected.—The question rightly stated, &c.

---

Mr. Goodlet appears a great advocate for Heathen magistrates, page 18. He reckons it “as ridiculous to deny a Heathen magistrate to be God’s ordinance, because not chosen by Christians; as for one to deny a heath or barren mountain to be parts of God’s creation, because they have not had the same culture, nor appear with the like herbage, as a piece of valley or meadow ground.”—An insinuation and comparison strange enough. He seems to take it for granted, that the presbytery hold an exclusion of all political laws and ministers of state, (in their own kind) among the Heathen. In this odd sort of divinity, two things are to be examined. His strange reason, and zealous comparison. His reason is, “because not chosen by Christians;” a reason

[Page 91]

surprisingly ridiculous. It is not said they are all Christians in the strict acceptation of the word, (nor that it necessarily should be so,) that vote in the election of king or magistrate even in a Christian reformed land. This is an Independent notion, (or rather Anabaptist) a scheme Mr. Goodlet’s principles chime in very well with anent civil government. But to suppose that Christians would make a Pagan the object of their choice for such an important trust, would infer they must be such Christians as Mr. Goodlet and his brethren are; under some strange infatuation, acting contrary both to the laws of religion, and his own darling rule and law, the law of reason. But moreover, allow that such a foolish, and unreasonable choice should happen, could this sanctify or legitimate the person for the trust, chosen? Nay, rather instead of this, would it not seem most ridiculous and absurd; yea, and would be as monstrous a production in government, as a horse’s head on a human body would be in nature. As to his comparison, viz. that the heathen magistrate is God’s ordinance, in the same way and manner as the heath or barren mountain are parts of God’s creation. This comparison I shall be willing to allow for once; but after all the great boast and flourish with which he brings it in, I think it will contribute but little to Mr. Goodlet’s purpose; nay, he could not possibly have hit upon a comparison more unfit for his purpose, and that could have given his adversaries a more advantageous or fairer opportunity to “turn his own artillery against himself,” a second time. To this purpose it is easy to form an argument from it, thus, The Heathen magistrate is God’s ordinance in the same way that the heath or barren mountain are parts of God’s creation. But the heath or barren mountain, as such, are no way, are not at all, of God’s creation; ergo, The first proposition of which the argument is composed is granted by himself: The second, viz. that an heath or barren mountain, as such, is not of God’s creation is abundantly plain and undeniable, and what he must also grant: For God created nothing barren, useless and unprofitable. All qualities of this kind are the fruits of sin; the fruits of the curse which sin brought upon the earth and its inhabitants. An heath or barren mountain can no more be said to be parts of God’s creation, than a wicked man, as such, or than the wicked dispositions

[Page 92]

and wicked laws of apostate and rebel man can be said to be of God’s creation. The work of God is perfect and good; the Spirit of truth bears witness and testimony to the perfection of all his works, Gen. i. 31. And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good. How unhappily here has the poor Heathen magistrate lost his cause, and all claim to a being of God’s creation, by the means of his rash unskilful advocate. However, the similitude will serve well to illustrate the thing. For the truth is, the Heathen magistracy complexly taken, or magistracy as its managed among the Heathen nations, is very aptly comparable to an heath and barren mountain. The earth was created and given for the use, provision and sustenance of mankind: But what will the wild heath or barren mountain contribute (as such) to this? Just as little did this ordinance as it was perverted and abused among the Heathens, answer the ends for which it is appointed of God, as might be easily demonstrated, both from sacred and profane history. Magistracy is God’s ordinance, appointed for his own glory, and the good of men, not only as men, but as good men; for the maintenance and preservation, of peace, truth, righteousness and godliness; for the punishment of evil-doers, and the encouragement of them that do well. If the Heathen magistracy be like the heath and barren mountain, can it be supposed to answer any such valuable ends, without reformation; nay, does it not more need this in order to its serving such ends, than the heath and barren mountain in the natural wilderness needs cultivation to make it bear herbage and fruits fit for the use and sustenance of man and beast? But indeed, it is too evident, that Mr. Goodlet is such an admirer of barren and corrupt nature, that it seems, he is not only for letting waste and barren grounds remain so; but also for attempting, to turn fruitful places into a wilderness; endeavouring by this way of pleading, to reduce the church of Christ to the same condition with the Heathen world in this particular. Moreover, would not Mr. Goodlet be esteemed an enemy to the wealth and beauty of the natural world, and the kingdoms thereof, as well as the sustenance of mankind, did he set himself in opposition to agriculture and the improvement of grounds, or yet to lay waste populous countries? Much more may he be esteemed an enemy to the beauty of the moral world, as

[Page 93]

well as to the comfort, peace and safety of the church of Christ, in his opposition to the reforming and modelling of magistracy according to God’s word; and in his averring and affirming magistracy as corrupt and perverted, both in constitution and administration, &c. to be of God’s creation; or that the wild barren deserts, and mountains of Heathenish and antichristian powers, as such, are just as much of God’s creation and ordination, as those that are created according to his revealed will in his word. In all which I say, he may justly be reputed an enemy to the safety, and spiritual good of the church of Christ. That Heathen people may and will choose Heathen magistrates, really is the case, because they can do no better; but that Christians should do so also, is what they have no warrant, nor could it be done with heaven’s allowance and approbation: Thou shalt not set a stranger over thee, &c.

As we are now upon the point of Heathen magistracy, I shall subjoin here a paragraph or two taken from an anonymous writer on the subject of magistracy; he seems to have wrote seventy years ago, or perhaps upwards; and therefore, before either the Associate Presbytery, or the Reformed Presbytery existed. I do not insert his words, as expressing either my own, or the sentiments of the Reformed Presbytery; but only that Mr. Goodlet, or others, may see, what some simple, and sober thinking persons had to say by way of objection against Heathen magistracy, or magistracy as it was exercised among the Heathen, being God’s ordinance according to his preceptive will. Some of his words are these, “That the Heathen magistrate was God’s ordinance, viz. the ordinance of his providence, is owned, but not the ordinance of his precept; for there is the ordinance of God’s providence, and the ordinance of his precept; the one ordering all things that cometh to pass in the world, the other only that which is good and acceptable in his sight; and that it is not the ordinance of his precept may appear by the reasons following;

—2dly, Because the Heathen magistracy stands in direct opposition and contradiction to God’s magistracy,—the latter being appointed and ordained for a blessing to mankind in general, and to the saints in particular, bounded by wholesome equal rules, that answer the law

[Page 94]

of God, and light of nature, in the distribution of equal and impartial justice; whereas the former was appointed, or rather permitted, for a curse to mankind in general, and a scourge and plague to the saints in particular; in contradiction to the law of God, and light of nature, being from the beginning a lawless, boundless thing, that in an arbitrary tyrannous way, hath acted according to their own lusts, over both bodies and souls, for the advancement of particular persons and interests in fleshly pride, state, and glory; to the unjust peeling, oppressing and suppressing the people in general, contrary to the light of nature and law of God; and to the truth whereof, besides the sad experience that every age produceth, you have this scripture evidence, 1 Sam. viii.

1. You have God himself, by the Prophet Samuel, amply describing the nations government, to deter his people from taking pattern from them in their unrighteous model; wherein you have at large, the arbitrariness, tyranny, pride, covetousness and oppression of their kings, and customs declared, and what a howling curse it would prove to them, if they embraced the same*.

2. In the same case, you have Jotham in his parable (to take the people from that hankering after the nation’s government) significantly holding out the nature of that constitution, declaring it was fit for nothing but the useless, sapless, aspiring, scratching bramble to engage in it; that neither the olive, fig-tree, nor vine, that had any virtue, sweetness or savour, would meddle with it, under hazard of losing all: thereby shewing that it was fit only for the worst of men; (unmeet for any good man to intermeddle with,) and therefore, Gideon refused it, when it was offered him, Judges viii. 22. 23. Whereas God’s ordinance requires the best of men, viz. men of truth, fearing God, and hating covetousness, &c. who are under promises to be bettered by them, and to receive virtue and spirit from them. And of this sort were all the four monarchs, Dan. v. 19.

_____

*When the Israelites asked for such a king as the nations about them had, they asked for a tyrant, though they did not call him so. Sidney on government, vol. II. page 52.

[Page 95]

not only from Nimrod the first, to Nebuchadrezzar the last of Babel’s monarch’s, (who raised up, pulled down, killed, and kept alive, whom they would) but all the rest of them, whose ambitious, tyrannical and cruel natures, are therefore held forth by those apt resemblances of fierce, cruel, ravenous, unclean beasts, as lions, bears, leopards, dragons, yea, devils themselves.

3. Because, when God’s people, notwithstanding these cautions given, would imitate the nations in their Heathenish constitutions, they were said to reject God and his sovereignty, 1 Sam. viii. in rejecting that wholesome constitution that he had appointed for their good; but surely, had that Heathenish constitution been of God, it would not be a rejecting of God to embrace it; none of God’s ordinances do use to clash and interfere with each other.

4. Because, when given them by his hand of providence, it is declared to be done in wrath and judgment: and as a fruit of their great sin and rebellion, (which none of God’s ordinances were) as was testified by that great thundering and lightening, as a token of his great displeasure, and their transgression, which they also in their confession declared, 1 Sam. xii. 17, 18, 19.

5. Because it is that which is influenced by the devil, and hath stood in enmity and opposition to the Lord in his ways, worship, ordinances, and people, all along; that have improved their utmost interest to invent and establish ways of wickedness and idolatry, to the cruel slaughtering of all that refused to bow their cursed idols; who killed the prophets, the Lord Christ himself; and murdered his saints and followers ever since, and will be found warring and fighting against him, till they are subdued and utterly vanquished by him, who must break down and dash in pieces the image-government*, overcome the breast and his ten horns: But surely God

_____

*This seems to refer to Dan. ii. 31.—36, &c. where the Heathen magistracy or government, particularly that of the four monarchies, (the Chaldean, the Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman) is represented by the great image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. And where the destruction of this image-government by the stone cut out without hands, is also foretold.

[Page 96]

will never destroy his own ordinance.” Thus far this author.

There are some few other argumentative pleas, that this unfaithful advocate musters up in favours of Heathen magistracy, in order to justify the ungodly course of backsliding and apostacy from God, and from his laws, that these nations are gone into, which must also be taken notice of. The first is what we have, page 20, of his book; “If Heathens, unacquainted with divine revelation, be destitute of God’s ordinance of civil magistracy and government, what they have must be usurpation,” I reply, so it was, and ever has been, for the most part; I say, for the most part, because all Heathen nations and people were not, nor perhaps are alike in this particular; but yet generally speaking, there was and has been little else to be found among Heathen nations than tyranny and usurpation, as may sufficiently appear from what has been above observed on this head. To which purpose, see also the note below*. Another argument our advocate advances in the same cause, we have, page 59. and which gives us an excellent sketch of his judgment and accuracy. It is one of his two remarks there, (the first of which I have already animadverted upon.) The remark is this, 2. “That where a Heathen people observe the law of nature, (viz. reason and conscience, as he defines it) in setting up magistrates, their doing so is a moral duty, and the magistrates chosen by them for their order, safety, and peace,—are the ordinance of God.” Not just so fast, Sir; There is a difference between a moral duty, and a moral action, a thing may be a moral duty; but if this moral duty, be not, as I may say, morally done, i.e. in the way and manner conform to what the moral law of God, which is the rule of moral duty, requires, it cannot be called a moral action, i.e. a virtuous action, agreeable

_____

*“That the eastern nations were then, (viz. when the Israelites asked for such a king as the nations about them had, 1 Sam. viii.) and are still under the government of those which all free people call tyrants, is evident to all men.” Sidney on Government, vol. ii. page 53. “We know the power of the Cæsars was usurped,—maintain’d and exercised with the most detestable violence, injustice and cruelty.” Sidney, ubi supra, page 63.

[Page 97]

agreeable to the law of God, and tending towards our own or others good. “The law of nature, which is the law of God, is so accurate as to oblige men not only ad actum [with respect to the act], but ad modum [according to the mode];* not only that the thing or action be what God commands, but that it be done in the manner he requires, or otherwise he will utterly disclaim it, and say, as in Isa. i. 12. Who hath required this at your hands?” But with Mr. Goodlet, it is sufficient, if the thing or action be what God requires (in respect of this moral duty of setting up magistrates at least, and why not in others too) but for the manner how people conduct themselves in the performance, whether agreeable to the rule, or not, he makes no matter. This doctrine of his he applies not only to Heathen nations destitute of the light of the word and law of God in scripture, but to Christian nations and kingdoms too; for with him there is one law and rule for both. Thus, if a professing Christian man marries, or a Christian people set up magistrates over them, they do their duty, and it is no matter whom they make choice of for such a purpose; or with whom they come to be connected in such relations. But if such actions and works thus conducted, be morally good and virtuous, they must be so only according to the ungodly rule of a blinded mind, or erring conscience; for they are not so according to the rule of God’s word, (which is the rule both of godliness and righteousness,) but directly contrary unto it. See 2 Cor. vi. 14, 15, &c. I shall allow that what works and actions the Heathen did, that were conform (not to Mr. Goodlet’s law of reason and conscience, which he will have to be the law of nature, but) to the law of God, I mean his written law, (which is the very same in substance with his unwritten natural law, as has been above shewn) were morally good. And therefore, in so far as they conducted themselves agreeable hereunto, in setting up their magistrates, they were God’s ordinance, and no otherwise. And indeed, it will behoove, either themselves, if they were going to prove their magistrates to be God’s ordinance; or our author, if he is minded to appear on their behalf, to do it from the word of God, which only can distinctly point out and discover what is his ordinance, and what not. Thus the Apostle Paul,

_____

*Culverwell of the extent of the law of nature.

[Page 98]

Rom. ii. 14, 15. when judging of the actions and works of the Gentiles, as to the qualities of them, whether good or bad, he compares them not with our author’s measure and standard rule, the light of nature or reason, neither his own, nor that of others, but with the written law of God, and accordingly judged them to be good or evil, by their conformity or disagreeableness to that; For when, (says he) the Gentiles which have not the (written) law, do by nature the things contained in the (written) law, &c. And truly, it is more absurd and disgraceful for one who is provided with, and believes the divine authority of the revelation God hath given of himself, and of his will in scripture, to fly to, or use any other rule than that, in order to determine the moral or immoral qualities of things and actions, than it would be for an architect, or surveyor, to pretend to form an accurate plan, or to take the exact dimensions of a curious building, or other piece of workmanship, using his thumb only, or his foot, instead of the statute measure.

This much I have said, and shall now add nothing more, by way of reply to our author’s doctrine in vindication of Heathen magistracy. After some intermediate sentences here and there, confused enough, in his dissertation about the different societies civil and ecclesiastic, to the satisfaction, I believe, of but very few; he then comes to offer some rules of duty for the use of the body politic, (whereinto Christianity is introduced,) in the choice of their magistrates, page 22. but instead of a performance hereof by himself, he gives us the mind of the Associate Presbytery in their Defence, page 40. near time, I believe they are as good as could be expected from him, bad as they are; for he has receded very much from their principles about civil government, page 23. From the duty incumbent upon the civil state, offered by the presbytery in the defence under two general heads, Mr. Goodlet offers his two observations; the last discovers the principles of this great divine, his words are; “Every civil state must, and will, by the law of nature itself, study to have their sacred, as well as their civil privileges, protected to them by civil government, and themselves defended in the use of them, according to what they take these privileges to be: and it was a great guilt of these lands, at the Revolution, that they did not exercise this right in be-

[Page 99]

half of reformation principles and profession.” Whatever be his intention in this observation, here a self-evident contradiction obviously appears. 1. The law of nature has all ado, for the security of sacred and civil privileges, and their protection therein by civil government; only by the law of nature, they must, and will do so. 2. He hath no distinction in this matter concerning religion and liberty, whatever they are taken to be; between a people only guided by the law of nature, and a people guided by divine revelation in the scriptures of truth, especially a land reformed from the dregs of heresy and vile superstition conformable to the word of God, and reforming parliamentary deeds and acts ratifying the true religion founded on the word of God. How then, 3. Could it be the sin and guilt of these lands at the Revolution; they got all secured to them that they sought, by the civil state; this you say, was by the law of nature itself, no distinction being made between a people that look to the word of God; where then was their sin and guilt? But the truth is, they did not look upon presbytery, which they did warmly espouse, to be properly founded upon the word of God, and agreeable to it. At least it was not so viewed by the civil state, but only agreeable to the people’s inclination who sought for the establishment of presbytery. According to this view of it, they certainly got security and promised protection by the civil state at the Revolution. Their sin then was but very little in Mr. Goodlet’s light of the law of nature. But the great sin and guilt of these lands was their reception of religion and liberty under the above consideration mentioned; and their sinful silence, not remonstrating, not testifying duly against this sinful antiscriptural settlement of religion at the Revolution. This is, and should be matter of lamentation.

At the foot of page 23, Mr. Goodlet comes to what he views the question in debate;—“The question in debate between our adversaries and us, turns just upon one or other of these two points.

1. Whether the civil state, by falling from their former attainments as to civil reformation, and losing sight of their religious privileges,—did thereby lose their right to set up magistrates, and maintain themselves by civil laws and government;

[Page 100]

2. If it be granted, that their right still remained—as it certainly must, by every one that will think soberly,—then the question comes to this, as stated by the Associate Presbytery in their Defence, pages 55, 56.—As by the word of God and our covenants, we are inviolably bound, in our several capacities, to confess, oppose, and testify against all the corruptions and evils of the present civil government over these nations; where, by the reformation once established therein, has been deserted from, opposed, or overthrown: ought we not, at the same time, to acknowledge the civil authority of the said government, in the administration and commands thereof that are lawful; and to yield subjection thereunto, in these circumstances?”

It is easy for one to form a question as he would have it, if possible, to catch the unwary in his own gloss and sense of it, and then call it the question in debate. Well, what then; “Between our adversaries and us?” (N. B. he does not say adversaries to truth).

However, I heartily wish Mr. Goodlet had stuck to the question in debate; this might have been expected, especially seeing, in the same page, he charges his adversaries with departing from the question in debate. Meanwhile, he never enters upon it himself, but leaves it as soon as it is proposed. In his own words this is thoughtless inadvertency at least. But whatever the state of the question was between the Associate Presbytery, or synod, and Mr. Nairn, says nothing so much to the matter now in hand. The state of the question between Mr. Goodlet and the Reformed Presbytery is various. There are sundry very important queries that come in, and merit to be debated, before the one that he makes to be the question in debate; such as are, (though closely connected with that, yet) necessarily precedaneous in order to clear the way for debating upon it. And they are principally these three;

“1. Whether the subjective light of nature in men, in the moral dictates of right reason, can be esteemed or called the law of nature, which is the law of God, his natural and eternal law, as our author, and his brethren, will have it to be?” The absurdity and unsoundness of this has been made evident in the preceding pages.

“2. Whether magistracy be the ordinance of God instituted in his word, or only a device and invention of

[Page 101]

human prudence and wisdom, like other useful arts and professions, that serve and contribute to the benefit of human life and commerce?” Or, “Whether magistracy be founded upon, and does primarily, and originally take its rise, warrant, and being, as a divine ordinance, from the natural, divine relations, and preceptive will of God revealed in the book of nature, or in the book of scripture, both which revelations, as to all moral duty, require and speak the same thing, only the first is to us become dark and obscure, and the other is a bright and clear discovery of these), or from the subjective light of nature in man, i.e. the will, judgment, and dictates of human reason.” This question I have also already discussed, and proven magistracy to be the ordinance of God instituted in his word, against Mr. Goodlet, who, in express terms denies it.

“3. If magistracy, or the civil magistrate, (for using either of these terms, I include both the abstract and concrete, i.e. both the power or office, and the subject in which it subsists,) be granted by Mr. Goodlet, &c. to be of divine institution, or of divine right, then the question will be, “What do they view as belonging to, or as included and comprised in this?” The reason why I make this a question is, because the Associate Presbytery, or synod, seem in a sham verbal way to grant, that the civil magistrate is of divine institution; as in their Defence, page 88. “The institution of the civil magistrate is allenarly [only] by the preceptive of God, the supreme King of all the earth.” And Mr. Goodlet readily consents to this too, as he cites their words, Vindication, page 26. and says nothing against them. But what is either their or his meaning in them, cannot be so easily understood. They deny the civil magistrate, or magistracy, to be instituted in scripture: They say it is instituted (by) the preceptive will of God. Where this preceptive will of God is, that they here talk of, or what hidden mysterious game they may have conceal’d under the little word (by) instead of (in) is hard to say or determine.*

_____

*The Associate Synod, i.e. Mr. Gib, (the real author of the Defence), by this word (by) may perhaps mean near, or rather besides, or without, as the word sometimes signifies in common

[Page 102]

According to the notation of the word institution (or institute,) in the English language, it includes, or expresses sundry particular things; chiefly these two, 1. To appoint or ordain. 2. To instruct in the knowledge of, or to lay down and give wholesome and agreeable rules, instructions and directions about a thing†. I suppose the Reformed Presbytery, and every sober minded person, who

_____

[continued from page 101] and popular use. And indeed it is best for them to keep off and at a proper distance from scripture, which were they to take in, would soon overturn their anti-covenant, and anti-government scheme.

† See Johnston’s and Baillie’s dictionaries on the word. In the second sense of the word institution above noticed, we have, in divinity, Calvin’s Institutions; in law, Justinian’s Institutions; (where, by the way, I may observe, that this Christian emperor begins his institutions, In nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi [In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ], which, with Mr. Goodlet must surely be vile Erastian stuff); and a number of others that I could name, such as M‘Kenzie’s, Stair’s, Erskine’s, &c. among ourselves. One might have thought that our author might have well allow’d the institution of civil magistrates in scripture in this sense, though he had deny’d it in the other; in regard that I know not where he will find such full, clear, wholesome, and excellent rules and instructions, anent government, as we have there. Moses tells the Israelitish tribes, that nothing like, or equal to these rules and instructions, he, according to God’s commandment, had given them concerning their civil policy and government, were to be found among all the nations. Deut. iv. 5, 6, 7, 8. Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me:—Keep therefore, and do them; for this is your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and shall say, Surely this nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is unto us in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous, as all this law which I set before you this day? Before our author, therefore, had rejected the scripture institution of magistracy, in this sense, he should at least have shewn where it was better instituted or directed unto. Perhaps he may prefer Plato de Republica, Aristotle’s Politics, Cicero, or his favourite author Locke on Government, to the scriptures in this particular.

[Page 103]

thinks and speaks of things as they are, take in these two particulars into their meaning, when they say, that magistracy is God’s ordinance instituted in his word. 1. That God hath expressly appointed, ordain’d, and commanded it there; as I have already proved above. And, 2. That there he hath given such excellent and suitable instructions, rules and directions anent this ordinance, both to the people, or civil society, in using the right and privilege that they have, and hold from him, for constituting and setting up of magistrates over them; and to magistrates in the discharge and execution of their office; such, I say, the observance of which, the very voice of nature and reason itself will proclaim to be essential to the constitution of God’s ordinance. So that the difference between the Associate Presbytery, or synod, and the Reformed Presbytery, must stand in these two particulars; (1.) The Reformed Presbytery say, That the institution of the civil magistrate is (in) the preceptive will of God, declared or revealed in his word. The Associate Presbytery they say, That the institution of the civil magistrate is (by) the preceptive will of God, revealed, nobody knows where. Or, if by the preceptive will of God, they mean his preceptive will declared in his word, (which yet is unknown whether they do or not,) then the difference between these two will ly just in this, (2.) That the Reformed Presbytery hold and maintain, That not only the erection of civil government is commanded in scripture, in some form or other, as a moral duty; but that also God therein gives such instructions, rules, and directions to regulate men’s conduct in this matter, all so highly reasonable, and directly conducive to the good, peace, and happiness of man, as a sociable creature, that the observance of them is essentially and indispensably necessary to the constitution of such magistracy, or magistrate, as is the ordinance of God. Or, in short, thus, That God doth not only in scripture allow and command the thing, but also gives rules and directions, according to which men are to act and proceed in doing the thing; and without the observance of which, what they do is not, nor cannot be the thing he hath commanded and approves of. He not only commands to set up magistrates, &c. but he defines and points out who, i.e. what sort of men they are, that men have any right to choose and set up as rulers over them, and under him.

[Page 104]

See Exod. xviii. 21. Deut. i. 13, 15. 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3. 1 Cor. vi. 1, 6. And where no regard is paid to his command and authority as to this, we may read his verdict concerning such conduct and actions, Hosea viii. 4. And indeed, to deny this, is to deny that power and prerogative to God the supreme Lord and King of all the earth, which every petty earthly king or prince claims as belonging to him, with reference to those that judge, rule, or enjoy places of trust under them. On the other hand, it seems the Associate Presbytery, or synod, affirm and hold, That God, by his preceptive will, chiefly and principally, and I may add only, indispensably requires “the erecting and maintaining of civil government,” that is, of the thing itself, “as a moral duty.” And though they cannot deny but that God in his word lays down rules, directions, and instructions for the regulating of men’s conduct in this matter, and prescribes the qualifications, &c. of magistrates; yet the non-observance and want of these he will dispense with, if the thing itself be done. If they set magistrates over them, (of whatever moral, I should rather say, immoral character, dispositions, or qualifications they may be,) they have done their duty, and such magistrates are God’s ordinance, pleasing and acceptable to him, (as all his ordinances certainly are.) This seems to be the turning point in controversy between Seceders and the Reformed Presbytery. Now, how the quid, the thing, i.e. any thing, can be indispensably commanded by the preceptive will of God as duty, and yet the quomodo, the manner of performance, and the observance of the rules according to which the work is to be done, not alike indispensably required, in order to make that work or duty to be the work that God required, I believe few or none will understand. But as I have already spoken something of this third, or last of these controverted questions I mentioned above, (as well as of the first and second,) and will have occasion afterwards to insist more largely on some particulars belonging unto it, I shall now leave it, and come to

[Page 105]

make some more circumstantial remarks upon Mr. Goodlet’s method of stating the question in debate, as I have transcribed it above, page 99. This he divides into two queries. The first of which is,

“Whether the civil state, by falling from their former attainments in civil reformation, and losing sight of their religious privileges, did thereby lose their right to set up magistrates, &c.”

Here the reader may observe how smoothly, slightly, and diminutively our author speaks of the great and aggravated guilt of these lands, and of all ranks therein, our national apostacy, perjury, and crucifying of Christ, in the persecuting and slaying of his members; especially that of our great men, and statesmen, who, though they were more than others bound to subjection and obedience to God, from the liberal bounty of divine providence towards them, and from the places they occupy’d in the commonwealth, yet were as he-goats before the flock, in the way of defection and rebellion against God and his Son Jesus Christ; and whose example has been, first and last, of such mischievous and direful influence; he calls it all just a falling away from former attainments in civil reformation, and losing sight of their religious privileges. By what means came they to lose sight of these? Were they deprived of objective light, the ordinary medium of vision? This is sometimes the cause of our losing sight of things. Did God remove and take away the light of his gospel or word? No; rather, Did they not shut and put out their own eyes? Was not their going into the far country of apostacy, and perjury, and their making themselves drunk with the blood of the saints, the cause of their losing sight of these things? Well, what of all this? “Could they hereby lose right to set up magistrates over them, and to maintain themselves by civil laws and government.” According to our author’s and his brethren’s principles, they did not, nor could. Rights of this kind, with him, are indefeasible, and what “by no wickedness” of any company or society of men, “they can forfeit or lose.” This, I think, is as far as any thorough-paced royalist ever yet said. There must surely be such wickedness as do, both according to the laws of God and man, make void men’s right, not only to vote in the choice of, and be active in setting up of magistrates,

[Page 106]

but even to act in the capacity of the meanest member of the commonwealth; or otherwise, the execution of public justice upon malefactors, even to the taking away of life itself, must be unlawful. And moreover, it may be observed, that companies of thieves, robbers, and pirates, do actually maintain themselves by laws and government, (yea, the devils themselves have government among them;) I would be glad to know what right they have to do so. Surely whatever government or rule any of these sorts of beings have among themselves, or whatever kind of right they have to it, yet because of their enmity both to God and men, they have no right to rule over others. As to the civil state in Scotland at the Revolution, whatever right they had to act according to the bonds and obligations they were under, both civil and sacred, to God and men, (according to the word of God) they had no right nor power to act contrary to all these; quia nil possumus, nisi quod jure possumus [because we can do nothing except what we can do lawfully]. And moreover, I can assure our author, upon the credit of very good authority, that it was the judgment of one of our Scots Peers, a member of the Revolution parliament, and doubtless of sundry others who bore part with him, That those who (contrary to all these obligations) had been active ministers in the service of the preceding violent, impious, and tyrannical government, had forfeited their right to sit in parliament, and of having any part or share in the government ever after. “A bill was brought into the parliament, and presented by the Earl of Morton, incapacitating all those who had had employments in the late civil government from ever having any again.*”

These things observed, may serve a little to unwrap the fallacious and artfully devised sophistry of Mr. Goodlet’s first state of the question, wherein he speaks like one taking a free and full liberty to dispense with all covenanted principles and duty. He is confident, however, that his first question, or state of the question, must be sustained in cumulo [taken together], and his doctrine therein granted and approven of, by all that are sober, and not frantic or distracted; and so he pretends to resolve it at length into that stated by the

_____

*Earl of Balcarras’s account of the affairs of Scotland, anno 1688 and 1689.

[Page 107]

Associate Presbytery in their defence against Mr. Nairn, “If any one (says he) will be so frantic as to say, that they lost their right, (viz. To maintain themselves by civil government), then he must say, they hoc ipso were liberated from their obedience to the sixth commandment, which requires all lawful endeavours to preserve their own lives, and the means of their living?” And to fortify his arguments, brings in a quotation from Rutherfoord to no purpose.

2. If it be granted, that their right still remained, as it certainly must,—then the question comes to this, as stated by the Associate Presbytery in their Defence, pages 55, 56. As by the word of God and our covenants, &c.” (as recited at length above, page 100.) In reply to this I shall make these remarks.

1. However unfair and contrary to the truth our author’s state of the question is, I am glad he is come at length to settle it upon the unshaken basis of the moral law. This is the first time, it would appear, that in handling this controversy, he hath with difficulty got, some how or other, upon a scripture moral precept. No more the dark obscure law of nature, in the sense formerly maintained, i.e. “the light of nature in the moral dictates of right reason,” in place of the word of God. Can any Heathen shew us the original credentials of the moral law written in his heart, as Adam had in innocency? That they do endeavour to defend themselves by civil laws and government from some natural principles pushing them under necessity hereto, is, I suppose granted; notwithstanding, still these (as has been above demonstrated) are just but gleanings of the same light and law which is clearly exhibited to the church by divine revelation, as hath been already proven.

2. I am glad to find him so sound and orthodox in the sense he gives of this sixth precept of the moral law, as to understand it only of “lawful endeavours (and methods) to preserve our own lives and means of living.” That the erection of civil government and magistracy, is a lawful mean and method to this end, I deny not, nor dispute. But I would ask our author, Whether he believes that the erection of magistrates in such a way, as involves in the guilt of apostacy, perjury, and “rebellion against God,” and such as is hurtful and ruining to their most precious

[Page 108]

interests and concerns, is a lawful or likely mean for the preservation of a people’s lives, or means of living?

3. I remark, That the supreme magistrate, or authority which, according to the state of the question in the Associate Presbytery’s Defence, our author and his brethren profess to acknowledge and submit unto, is a mere non-entity, a creature of their own brain and fancy. We have at present, and according to the present constitution, no king in Britain in civil things only, or invested with a civil power only. The ecclesiastical power and headship* is made an equally essential, and inherent right in the crown of these kingdoms, as the civil power is, and is what cannot be separated nor divided from it, without destroying the constitution as to its present form and being. According to this plan of testimony-bearing, our honour’d and honest ancestors, when the king took some of their Presbyterian ministers, and made them bishops (which was no more than adding a civil power and dignity, to the ecclesi-

______

*It may not, perhaps be amiss to subjoin a short account of what has been and still is included in this ecclesiastical headship. And to this purpose may suffice, what we have in the preamble to the king’s declaration, prefixed to the articles of the church of England, inserted in the book of Common Prayer. “Being by God’s ordinance, according to our just title Defender of the faith, and supreme governor of the church within these our dominions, we hold it most agreeable to this our kingly office, and our religious zeal to conserve and maintain the church committed to our charge in the unity of true religion, and in the bond of peace; and not to suffer unnecessary disputations, altercations, or questions to be raised, which may nourish faction both in the church and commonwealth; we have therefore, upon mature deliberation, and with the advice of so many of our bishops as might be conveniently called together, thought fit to make this declaration following; &c.—Also, GEORGE R. [i.e., King George] “Our will and pleasure is, that this form of prayer, with thanksgiving, for the twenty second day of June be—used yearly on the said day,—in all catheDr.al and collegiate churches,—and in all parish churches within our kingdom of England, dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick upon Tweed.—Given at our court at Kensington the eight day of October 1751. By his Majesty’s special command,” &c. &c.

[Page 109]

astic power they had before, and enlarging the bounds of their charge a little) I say, they might just have continued still to own them in their ecclesiastic power, with a testimony against their civil power. There was and is just as much room and reason for distinguishing in the one case, as in the other; but they knew not, nor approv’d of any such unfair and undutiful methods of dealing, either with God or man.

But in place of Mr. Goodlet’s spurious and counterfeit state of the question, which he brings from the Associate Presbytery’s defence, I say it is and should have been precisely thus; “Whether the primores regni, or body politic, in these lands, vilely and treacherously departing from the principles of our religious and civil reformation, and setting up magistrates on a footing directly contrary to the word of God, their own, and the whole nation’s public and solemn vows to God, whereby all ranks were and are inviolably bound, and contrary to the laws of the land, agreeable to the said word of God, including moreover, in their deed of constitution, the overthrow and ruin of the true religion, and interests of Christ, and the perpetual establishment of the abjured prelatical hierarchy and superstition in the lands, whether, or not, in this case, it is the duty of individuals of the people of God, faithfully adhering to their covenant-obligations to him, his work and cause, to testify against such a settlement and constitution as not at all of God, i.e. not his ordinance according to his precept, which we are called to receive, honour and yield subjection to for conscience sake, in subordination to him who is the supreme King and Lord of all.”

This ought to have been the state of the question in debate, if Mr. Goodlet in forming of it had acted ingenuously, and like one under the influence of a tender conscience, set for the defence of our religious and civil reformation. It may be obvious to every one, that if Mr. Goodlet’s state of the question be true, and, as he says, the cardinal point on which the controversy turns; then he must grant, that the civil state had a power of receding from former attainments in reformation, yea, of resiling and going back piece by piece, till by degrees they slide and sink into old Popery, or ancient Heathenism again, while yet his scheme will still infer, (which is horrid) that we must

[Page 110]

yield and go along with them in all this, and give obedience for conscience sake to their constitution, decrees and commands, as unto the moral ordinance of God. In all, or any of these real hypotheses, contain’d in his state of the question, for good reason it is denied and opposed; and that with the strongest evidence, both from divine, or scripture authority, and from the authority of the law of nature and nations, and from our national deeds of civil constitution in times of reformation. And,

1. From scripture authority. Would Mr. Goodlet please to consult his Bible, I would desire him to cast his eye upon these four memorable texts of scripture, Exod. x. 26. Our cattle also shall go with us, there shall not an hoof be left behind, (all being God’s, and devoted to his service.) Phil. iii. 16. Nevertheless, whereunto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule; Let us mind the same thing. Rev. iii. 11. Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. 1 Tim. iv. 6. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ. These scriptures are self-evident proofs of the truth here pleaded for. Nothing needs be added to cast light on the words; the only objection in contempt of these inviolable precepts and examples, is this, that they only point out the church’s true zeal and faithfulness in an earnest contending for the faith once delivered to the saints, the which is her incumbent duty so to do. But perhaps, Mr. Goodlet does not think the divine ordinance of magistracy is any point of the church’s faith, so is called to contend for, because he cannot see any connection or place it hath in the word of God; but the church, or that people who are such, have surely as much to do with magistracy, as the church of Israel had with their cattle, with their flocks and with their herds. And what gives still further satisfaction to me in this particular, is, that the saints do not see so as he does in this particular. Magistracy, (i.e. such as is God’s ordinance) is a promised blessing from heaven to the church (as I have already hinted above) she looks for it, prays for it, hopes for it, and believes she shall obtain it, as promised; and when blessed with it in agreeableness to the promise, is a part of her ornament and crown, she must hold fast that no man take it from her.

[Page 111]

2. The above state of the question and testimony is denied, with the strongest evidence, from the law of nature and nations. Perjury, or the violation of oaths, contracts and covenants (though even but human, or between man and man) is contrary to the law of nature, and of all nations, (and so of consequence, every work, practice and scheme that involves in such guilt;) apostacy from true religion, “disobedience, and rebellion against God” are alike contrary to the same; and are detestable both in the light of nature and scripture, (vide Cicero de Officiis, lib. 3.) The reader may also consult those texts, Josh. ii. 12. compared with Josh. vi. 22. Ezek. xvii. 13, 15, 16, 18. Exod. xx. 7. Mal. iii. 5. Zech. v. 3, 4. and Jer. ii. 10, 11. Pass ye into the isles of Chittim, and see;—hath a nation changed their gods, which yet are no gods; but my people have changed their glory, &c. See also Micah iv. 5. But it has been proven above, that our author’s scheme and state of the question and testimony, includes and involves all these; ergo,—

3. This is, with like evidence, denied from our national deeds of civil constitution in times of reformation, agreeable to the foresaid word of God, and the law of nature and nations. Particularly, act 3. parl. 1. James VI. This act the Seceders themselves have made use of in defence of reformation principles. But when pinched with it, can either lay it aside for a little, or then superciliously use it to a vicious end and vile purpose,—which is truly lamentable. Notwithstanding the church’s settlement of religion and reformation by this act, a black scene of defection soon did prevail, till a more happy turn for religion and reformation did take place, between the years 1638 and 1649. This was a solemn covenanting time throughout the three kingdoms; particularly in Scotland, considerable advances were made in the work of God, till by some very memorable acts in the civil state, the nation’s deed of civil constitution was advantaged and better reformed than ever before, by act 15. of the second session of parliament, anno 1649. By this act the state ratifies the manifold acts of parliament, and fundamental constitutions of this kingdom.—It ratifies the king’s oath at his coronation;—it ordains, that the prince and the people be of one true religion; it provides that all kings and princes over this realm, at their coronation, solemnly swear to maintain the true re-

[Page 112]

ligion, and observe it in their own person.—It ordains, that before the king’s majesty who now is, or any of his successors, shall be admitted to the exercise of royal power, he shall by and attour his coronation, declare by solemn oath, under his hand and seal, his allowance of the national covenant, the solemn league and covenant, and his obligation to prosecute the ends thereof, in his station and calling. It provides, that himself and successor’s consent, and agree to acts of parliament enjoining the solemn league and covenant, and the establishment of Presbyterian government, the directory for worship, the Confessions of Faith and catechisms, as they are approven by the general assembly of this kirk, and parliaments of this kingdom in all his dominions.—It ratifies, that the king shall observe these things in his own practice and family; and that he never shall oppose, or endeavour to change them. Farther, this act secures, before his admission to regal power, that he shall renounce evil counsels and counsellors, prejudicial to religion, or the national covenant, and the solemn league and covenant, and give satisfaction to the parliament of this kingdom, as now constitute, in what further shall be found necessary for the settling of peace, union and harmony between the kingdoms. This act provides, that all matters civil be determined by the parliament of this kingdom, and all matters ecclesiastic by the general assembly of this kirk. By this act the estates of parliament discharge all the subjects of this kingdom, of any commissions from his Majesty’s patents, favours, offices or gifts, till his Majesty give satisfaction under the pain of being censured in their persons and estates as the parliament shall judge fit. Further, this act ordains, that if any commissions, patents, honours, offices, or gifts be received before satisfaction had, the parliament declares them void and null. According to this deed of constitution, King Charles II. was crowned at Scoon, January 1st, 1650. Here the reader will see the happy attainments of Scotland, England and Ireland, in reformation principles, by the deed of civil constitution, in opposition to what Seceders are satisfied with now, and bless themselves so much in, at the expence of selling all that is dear to us, in these covenants ratified in the above act. A dispensation cannot be given in this matter; for it would reach a mortal wound to the essence of our covenants, and cut the

[Page 113]

sinews of their moral obligation. If the matter of our covenants be morally binding, so must the act ratifying them formally be. The covenants, i.e. the confession and profession of the true religion, became the very terms of admission to offices, power and authority—to kings, princes and magistrates supreme and subordinate.—Either the representatives and estates of the nation went beyond the line of their duty; or then we are fallen from what they judged a necessary, and an essential qualification of the crown.—Let any seriously disposed, consider the above acts in their worth, excellency and morality; as most consonant with our covenanted constitution, in agreeableness to the doctrine of faith in the scriptures of truth, and then let them judge, if we can with safety make a secession from our ancient civil reformation, so inseparably connected with religion and liberty, and the church’s attainments in her doctrine, worship, discipline and government. The question then in debate, I should think, is resolved to the satisfaction of the impartial world; tho’ Mr. Goodlet thinks it cannot be done, without liberation from obedience to the sixth commandment: Just as if religion laid people under a necessity to break one commandment in order to preserve another. An argument with equal reason, and as much strength, might be drawn thus, That none could be excommunicated from the table of the Lord, for ignorance, and immorality, but they, hoc ipso [by that very fact], were liberated from obedience, to shew forth his death, &c. and do it in remembrance of him. This moral positive precept to show forth his death, in remembrance of him, &c. is founded in the moral law; as well as the defence of our lives in the sixth commandment; an inference of this nature, in a consistency with Mr. Goodlet’s principles, would border too near a diabolical connection with the enemies of the apostolic doctrine, who slanderously affirmed, that he said, Let us do evil that good may come; whose damnation is just.

The second part of the question being much of a piece with the first, is therefore materially answered; only it may be observed, that the question stated by the Associate Presbytery in their Defence, is fearfully mangled, confused and curtailed. They indeed introduce the word of God, and our covenants (which looks well) as the formal reason and ground of obedience to the magistrate; but then

[Page 114]

they vilely build a superstructure, “only by the word of God and our covenants, (they say?) we were and are bound to oppose and testify against the corruptions and evils of the present civil government.” There are no such words in our covenants, as “oppose, and confess or testify*.” But this is to reconcile their subjection with the magistrate’s defection from our reformation principles. With this show of zeal, according to the circumstances of the times; they work much by circumstances, and according to them, they can bring all our reformation to certain cir-

_____

*The words of our covenants are these, (National Covenant.) “That we shall defend (the king’s majesty’s) person and authority, with our goods, bodies and lives, in the defence of Christ, his evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice, and punishment of iniquity.” (Solemn League and Covenant,) “We shall with the same sincerity—and constancy, in our several vocations, endeavour, with our estates and lives,—to preserve and defend the king’s majesty’s person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion, and liberties of the kingdoms.” If we are to own, defend, and preserve the king’s majesty’s person and authority, “according to the word of God and our covenants;” and if our covenants be (as certainly they are) agreeable to, and founded upon the word of God, it will be remarkably difficult to conceive how Seceders will, or can reconcile their way of stating and maintaining “the Reformation Testimony,” either with the word of God, with our covenants, or with itself. We are bound by our covenants, (according to the word of God) to the preservation and defence, &c. of the king, his person and authority (only) in the preservation and defence of Christ, his evangel, i.e. of the true religion, &c. (as express above.) They publicly avow and profess that the present civil state and government have, (even in Scotland) established and do defend a false religion. In consequence whereof, they have disown’d the constitution of the present established church of Scotland, “and have not solemnly testified against it as very corrupt, by their declinature in the face of the General Assembly.” How therefore they can own, preserve and defend the present civil state and government, in the preservation and defence of a professedly false religion, and yet be doing “according as they are bound by the word of God and our covenants,” is a contradiction, which I shall leave to Mr. Goodlet and his brethren to reconcile.

[Page 115]

circumstances, and reduce them all in agreeableness with Prelacy.—Lamentable! what strange reformation is this? Do not the Seceders know, that by this way of reasoning, they give up the cause to all the adversaries of our reformation principles. If the substance and matter of the covenants be not moral, then they cannot be binding upon any man’s conscience. But if it be granted that they are materially moral, we should not dare to change or alter any one part of them. None who profess Christianity, can deny the binding obligation of the moral law; will Seceders then mutilate the covenants to circumstances; why not the moral law also?—Is it not admirably strange, that time, and circumstances of time, should be a sufficient reason, to overlap and overlook our whole plan and model of ancient civil reformation? Hath not the body politic, in the present civil settlement, given free consent to the establishing of Prelacy, and all the hierarchical ceremonies and superstition of the church of England, as an essential article and fundamental claim to the crown of England, and this further secured by the union parliament? Can this civil settlement be owned, without owning the essential basis thereof, which is Prelacy, with all its ceremonies, abjured by our covenant, and condemned by the word of God; and without, at the same time, overlooking and pouring contempt upon all the legal securities given to this church from 1638, to 1650. Nay, with the same breath homologating the wicked law, anno 1661, condemning, razing, and rescinding our covenanted reformation, and saying amen to all the tyranny, cruelty and bloodshed,—fruits of these wicked laws; for 28 years persecution?—Hath not the kingdom of England at the Revolution, and since, still maintained this apostacy, in keeping their government settled firmly, in favours of abjured Prelacy, exactly according to the wicked law, which had been made, and enacted against England’s reformation? Did not the kingdom of Scotland the same at the Revolution, in their offer of the crown to William and Mary, according to the terms of which, they freely made a vile and wicked secession from all our civil reformation attained to betwixt the years 1638 and 1650, while the impious law rescinding and razing the same, was left untouched, and in full force against our reforming laws and reformation purity? Did the Scottish body politic then endeavour any

[Page 116]

revival of reformation in admitting their magistrates on covenant obligations, or terms consistent with them, as was done at distant reforming periods, particularly according to the coronation oath, annis 1567 and 1649? So far from this, that their deed of civil constitution, is in opposition to and destructive of reformation, to the great hurt and prejudice of truth and real religion in the church of God. And is not this kingdom subjected to a parliament whereof English bishops are constituent members, which prevents all access of address, or hopes of redress of any kind to be received by the higher house of parliament, unless such appeals bear the unhallowed direction, To the lords spiritual and temporal, which renders the case of these nations truly singular, and no less deplorable; beyond any instance or example of the like circumstances, from the church’s case in her advancing times for reformation. Now, I hope, Mr. Goodlet shall have no ground to use a repeated charge against the Reformed Presbytery, anent not entering into the merits of the cause in debates, after this reply is made to the state of the question.

After easing himself a little, by vomiting up some vile, odious stuff he has had lying on his stomach, and throwing it in the very face of the presbytery, with a design, to bespatter them, or rather, I suppose, to blindfold them in the encounter, he comes next to offer an examination of the four several articles of charge, (which he calls fictitious articles) plainly deduced from their principles of civil government, set forth by the Associate Presbytery in their Defence. Whether his examination be just or unjust, true or false; or the charge real or fictitious, will appear, when his gloss is considered and set in its proper light.

Page 25. taken from page 110. in the Testimony. The first article of charge runs thus, “They (viz. the Seceders) maintain the people to be the ultimate fountain of magistracy; and that, as they have a right to choose whomsoever they please to the exercise of civil government over them, so their inclinations, whether good or bad, constitute a lawful magistrate, without regard had to the divine law.”

At first he seems to storm mightily, as if passion had got the better of reason; thence in the height of his humour he judges, “It is hard to determine, whether it be

[Page 117]

more difficult to find out the sense of the words, as they are laid; or the place from which they have collected them.”

It is ordinary for children to say, they do not understand a question, when they cannot answer it. What may be Mr. Goodlet’s difficulty, can’t well be accounted for; it is true, he complains the presbytery have curtailed and mangled their words as collected from the Defence. This pretence, no doubt, will afford an easy answer to the credulous; nothing is more ungenerous than to feign such groundless allegations. The Presbytery have cited the pages, quoted the words, and given them verbatim, excepting page 50, by a mistake, which should have been page 80. This, I shall freely grant, for gratifying Mr. Goodlet, was so far unjust, and a wronging of them, as it was a mistake; but I should have thought it out of Mr. Goodlet’s way, to take notice of so frivolous an escape; his acquaintance with the book, I suppose, might supply this defect. “Mangling and curtailing their words,” (if so), is certainly still worse, and more unjust usage than the former. It is easily granted, they are not quoted as Mr. Goodlet would have had them; but they are just as the book affords them. Give a man all his own will, he may soon triumph, let his cause be good or bad.

After all, Mr. Goodlet falls a guessing what may be the meaning of the Presbytery’s words. This is to supply want of judgment, with fortuitous wit. The reader is not to think, this is the last time he comes to guessing work; ’tis just his last refuge, when ever he comes to a labyrinth and difficulty, whence he cannot extricate himself with ease and at pleasure; after all, by his guess, he comes to a fixed stand, page 26. That the Reformed Presbytery “would have the world believe, that the Associate Presbytery maintain for a fixed principle, That men, without having any moral dependance upon God as rational creatures, have an absolute and essential right, in and of themselves, to set up magistrates over them, without being in the least accountable to him for what they do this way.”

His reason for this assertion is twofold; 1st, “Because they maintain, the people to be the ultimate fountain of magistracy. 2dly, Their inclinations, whether good or bad, constitute a lawful magistrate, without regard

[Page 118]

had to the divine law.” Mr. Goodlet is so very subtle, he makes no denial, nor gives any acquiescence to this article; only he expatiates broad enough on the Presbytery’s words, and then makes a conclusion as it pleases himself. ’Tis certain and evident that the charge is just, for the reasons following.

First, From the Associate Presbytery’s Defence, page 57, where they put the question thus, “What sort of kings are the people to fear? They answer, “Only such as are acknowledged by the kingdom they are in.” In the next place, they are commanded to fear any whom that kingdom acknowledges as kings, page 70. “All these who are in the possession and exercise of magistracy, by the will and consent of the civil society, these only do properly fall under the denomination of magistrates.” Here is no specified rule to imitate, but only the choice and will of the people; no precept moral or positive; where then is the moral dependance on God and his word, for direction in this case, but what nature suggests to every one of the most brutal kind. The Presbytery never meant or said, That the people have no dependance on God, as all his creatures: But, if they are in possession, if they are in the exercise of power, by the will and consent of the civil society, they are lawful powers, by Seceders principles: If the people’s will and consent be had, ’tis a perfect rule, and gives the force of a valid deed; how are they then accountable to a supreme power in this matter?

Secondly, From Seceders their vicious destruction of a necessary and clear distinction between the precept and providence of God in this case: Mr. Goodlet ridicules with derision all positive rules; he cannot admit of the unalterable laws, just as if there was none in the moral law unalterable. Express scripture precepts he must also refuse, because, says he, page 59. “Where hath God given any such laws or precepts to a heathen people, who never saw or heard of a bible?” But how does he know that? He is not sure but they have both seen and heard of it; it were no great difficulty to prove they had. But what then? Does this say, there is no scripture precept, or direction for the choice of magistrates, because the Heathen have no true and distinct knowledge of the scriptures, but comparatively walk in darkness, as to their duty herein: Are therefore people professing the Christian faith to

[Page 119]

do so also? a dangerous conclusion! If the people have a right to choose whomsoever they please, to the exercise of civil government over them; yet by no express rule, precept, or instruction from the divine law; of necessity then, their inclination, whether good or bad, according to the Seceders scheme, must be the rule of constitution in the choice of their magistrates.

Thirdly, When all rules, laws, precepts, and instructions from the word of God, are denied, as not essentially necessary to the constitution of lawful magistrates, from whence then come such necessary previous instructions? Or, are there no necessary directions at all, for regulation and order in this important matter? If there are, and yet not to be found in the book of God, arising from his will revealed therein, then certainly they must spring from the will and lusts of men: Now, this necessarily puts them upon an equal level with heathen nations that know not the law of God, and therefore are left to be a law unto themselves; nature, however bad, is all that they have instead of divine revelation.

It is possible, if the Presbytery had not added these words; “without regard to the divine law,” Mr. Goodlet would not have been so greatly disgusted: But this, he thinks, looks very odious like, as so it does; but to evade the force of this, he skulks into the Defence, page 88. “The institution of civil magistracy is allenarly [only] by the preceptive will of God.” This is a screen for a little; (and but a very thin one, as I have already shown,) and then below, he acts the comedy on the law of nature again. Meanwhile he must be sensible the cause is yielded and given up: for if the institution of civil magistrates is only by the preceptive will of God, (if here they mean the preceptive will of God in scripture, which is yet doubtful) so also must the constitution be. Is it not a contradiction in terms, that the will of God should concur in the institution, and not in the constitution of lawful magistrates? Seceders are very juggling here. Well, but, says he, “They have not spoke obscurely on this point, or given occasion to charge them with such an odious tenet. This will appear, when the passages they condescend upon, as the ground of their charge are considered.” When he considers them in their place, I shall answer them in their place also.

[Page 120]

He passes this article with three remarks; I shall pass it with one. Mr. Goodlet very highly resents the Presbytery’s moderation towards the Associate Synod; he thinks “they have not been in the ordinary exercise of their usual zeal;” (he should have said, the zeal of the Associate Synod.) He is also highly enraged at their clemency, and smooth language; he thinks such heretical doctrine as they are charged with, should have been called Atheism rather than Deism. The Presbytery had no design to impeach them with Deism, more than Atheism, further than as a just consequence of the doctrine broached and maintained by them; and if the shoe had not fitted him, he need not have put it on. But I would seriously ask him, if he thinks Deism can stand alone, without being supported by Atheism? Or, if there is not some Atheism in the very bosom of Deism? Let him call it Atheism, as ugly as he will, the greater pity it is, that any of it should cleave to the saints of God. This, I think, he should not deny, as may be seen in Job’s and Jonah’s cases, Job xxxiii. 10, 11. Jonah iv. 9.

He judges their charity too extensive for the authors of such a doctrine. The Presbytery is free of all personal prejudice against any of the Seceders; It is a piece of common justice to call no man worse than he is; and charity should go as far as it can be admitted, in a case of truth and duty. The Presbytery was freely disposed to do justice, in the controversy between them and Seceders; rejoicing in what they had done; with a mixture of grief and bitter lamentation over what they have not done: But it would appear they are disposed to screw matters of difference to the greatest distance possible. If the Presbytery had changed their clemency into a bitter contrast, it seems it would have pleased him well: But in this, Mr. Goodlet shall frankly have the pre-eminence for me, without giving railing for railing, unless it was an ornament to the Christian, and useful to the Christian life.

Thus much I have said in vindication of the truth of the first article of charge exhibited against Seceders by the Presbytery. The examination of Mr. Goodlet’s defensive remarks on the other three, I must refer to the next section.