John Fairly on Magistracy VIII.

[Page 177]

CHAPTER VIII.

Of the duty of praying for kings.—The Presbytery’s testimony against Seceders, on account of their corrupt and inconsistent form of prayer for the king, &c. vindicated from Mr. Goodlet’s cavils.—His exposition of 1 Tim. ii. 1. 2. 3. considered, and discovered to be forced, and contrary to the real scope and sense of the apostle.—His arguments in defence of the Associate Synod, in this particular, alleged from the practice of the primitive Christians, and of our reformers, confuted.—Some cursory observations.

---

OUR vindicator next applies himself to justify the Associate Synod’s public and established form of prayer for the king, the British and Irish parliaments, (in their present constitution), &c. A great deal of vile odious stuff he pours out against the Reformed Presbytery, on account of their most just and necessary testimony against the Synod for their unfaithfulness and corruption in this piece of the sacred worship of God. “I will not allow myself, (says he), to treat them with that just severity they deserve, for their profane way of speaking about that evangelical duty, which the Spirit of God inculcates upon us; nor shall I spend time so much as to repeat their outrageous clamours against the Presbytery for their essaying this duty. If their consciences had been more deeply impressed with the nature and design of the duty, and the authority of God interposed as to the formal reason of it, they would have had less clamour of such things, as they neither understand what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” I have not room here to insert the Presbytery’s own words, (which would indeed be the best defence that I could offer on their behalf); but that the reader may see what little reason Mr. Goodlet has to storm in such an outrageous clamorous way, I refer him to pages 153, 154, 155, 156, of the Presbytery’s Testimony, upon perusing of which, he will see on what rational and scriptural grounds their remonstrance against them on this head is founded. Mr. Goodlet

[Page 178]

let charges the Presbytery with speaking profanely about this evangelical duty of prayer. This is a charge most false and injurious. The Presbytery have indeed withstood them, and testified against them, (as they had good cause to do), for their perverting and profaning this evangelical duty, in this particular. But he gives out, and would make the world believe, that they are enemies not only to the duty of praying for lawful kings and magistrates, (which they have ever, both publicly and privately acknowledged to be a very necessary and incumbent duty), but to the very duty of prayer itself. In opposition therefore to this false notion, and chimerical fiction of his own brain, he again places himself in cathedra [teacher’s chair], reads out, and descants at large upon the apostle’s words, 1 Tim. ii. 1. 2. 3. I exhort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men; For kings, and all that are in authority: That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour. Tho’ Mr. Goodlet here puts himself in, and speaks from the chair of verity, yet he is neither ashamed nor afraid to explain the words of the inspired apostle in a most crafty and deceitful manner. He manifestly forces a sense upon them contrary to what is the scope, design, and mind of the Spirit in them. I call his exposition crafty and deceitful, because it is so in itself, and has too much of the appearance of his having designed it so, by reason of his carefully suppressing and concealing the very next words of the apostle, verses 4. and 5. which are so naturally connected with those he quotes, and so plainly determinative of the sense of the whole. As to his criticism, and critical explication of the text, page 50, I have nothing to say, as I do not want to make objections without reason. But that the above charge is not false nor fictitious, but most just, may be sufficiently evident to any discerning person, from comparing the practical explication he gives of the apostle’s words in the next page, and in page 52, with the text and context. To this purpose it may be observed, as undeniably clear and plain,

1. That the apostle enjoins and directs prayers and supplications to be made for all men, that is, for men of all sorts, ranks, and denominations, as lost sinners, standing in need of a Saviour, of grace, and of salvation. And hav-

[Page 179]

ing thus expressed himself in the general, he, in the next words more particularly explains himself, as not excluding, but including, kings and magistrates, supreme or subordinate; For kings (says he), and all that are in authority. To this agrees Mr. Gillespie’s sense of this text, (Miscell. quest. page 281.) “When the apostle bids us pray for all men, his meaning is, That we should exclude no degree nor kind of men, great or small, Jew nor Gentile, bond or free, &c. And so he doth, upon the matter explain himself in the very next words; for kings and all that are in authority: he saith not, for all kings, but he will not have us exclude kings nor queens, as such, from our prayers, nor any other subordinate rulers.”

That the apostle here directs and enjoins Timothy, and the Christians to whom he writes, to pray, and that particularly and chiefly, (as the word signifies), for the conversion and salvation of all men, as above explained, (and of kings, and other subordinate rulers, as well as others), as lost, guilty sinners, obnoxious to God’s wrath, and standing in absolute need of Christ and salvation through him, is plainly evident from the reasons he adds for the enforcement of his exhortation. And these are also expressed both in general, and in a more particular way. His more general reason enforcing his exhortation, is drawn from the extensive and unconfined exhibition of the grace and salvation of God now under the gospel. For this is good, and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth: q. d. “This is agreeable to the good and holy nature and will of God, whose grace and salvation, and the means thereof, are not now to be restrained and confined as formerly; but God, according to the good pleasure of his will, for the more illustrious display of the abundant riches of his grace under the gospel dispensation intends effectually to save (some of) all sorts of men, whether kings or subjects, high or low, greater or lesser sinners, Jews or Gentiles, of what rank or nation soever, there being now no difference in his account*.” And next, his more particular reason with respect to kings and all that are in authority, is expressed verse 2. That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty, i.e. That they who were now enemies to the truth,

_____

* Dr. Guise’s paraphrase on the place.

[Page 180]

and persecutors of it, and of its professors, being by the grace of God brought to the knowledge, and acknowledgement of the truth, Christians, (as the native result and effect thereof), might lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Hence it is plain, that the apostle gives uniformly the same instructions to Timothy and the believers he here writes to in this case, that he gives (in a similar or parallel case), to the believing wife, with respect to her unbelieving husband, (to whom she is supposed to have been married before her conversion to the knowledge of the truth), and vice versa, 1 Cor. vii. 10. 11. 12. 13. 16. where she is directed to abide in obedience and subjection, (and not to depart), using all sanctified means for his conversion and salvation. The apostle’s reason we have, ver. 16. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? See also 1 Pet. iii. 1. Now this same Christian woman, being loosed from such an husband, though, according to apostolical counsel and allowance, verse 39. She is at liberty to be married to whom she will, (yet not to an Heathen or idolatrous husband as before, but) only in the Lord. Though she is at liberty, yet her will and choice is to be regulated by the good will of God; and indeed, true liberty consists only in an ability to walk according to this, Psalm cxix. 40. But were we favoured with Mr. Goodlet’s paraphrase on these words, however finely he might expatiate in explaining the first clause, yet, (keeping by his own and his brethren’s plan, and rules of interpretation), he would put his thumb, or perhaps his foot upon the last clause, Only in the Lord.

2. For the further illustration of this apostolical exhortation, and the intendment of it, it may be observed, that it was then particularly needful and expedient that the apostle should mention kings, &c. particularly recommending and encouraging Christians to pray, (with submission to the will of God), for their conversion to the acknowledgment of the truth, in regard that, that sort and order of men, at that time, and afterwards, discovered themselves such enemies to Christ, and such enmity to his ways and people, reviling and blaspheming his name, James ii. 6. 7. and persecuting his followers unto the most cruel deaths, that many Christians might be in doubt whether it were even lawful to pray for their conversion or not.

[Page 181]

They might, I say, be in doubt whether God would take, and call any by his grace, from among such insolent and outrageous enemies to his name and people, or not; and therefore could not but need both direction and encouragement with respect to what was their duty. To this purpose the apostle puts them in mind of the freeness, sovereignty, and richness of the grace of God, under the gospel dispensation; that as all ranks, nations, and denominations of men, high or low, rich or poor in the world, had equal need of Christ, and salvation through him; so the way of Christ’s mediation was equally free and open to all; There is one Mediator, says he, between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.*

Thus I have represented what I hope the ingenious and candid reader will find reason to acquiesce in, as the true scope and sense of the great apostle in this text. Can any thing possibly be more plain and clear, than that when the apostle adds this as a reason of his exhortation to pray for all men, For kings, and all that are in authority, viz. That God will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth, &c. That he intends this as the thing which he wills, and encourages Timothy and the Christians to pray for on their behalf. Mr. Goodlet on this text winds and warps about it at an odd rate, in order to twist it to his purpose by an interpretation. And it would appear, from reading his comment on the text, that it has been with no little difficulty, that he has got clear of the

_____

* “Though Moses, and the high-priests under the law, were a sort of Mediators between God and the people of Israel, and them only, yet now there is one and the same, and only one Mediator of reconciliation and intercession between God and men of all nations, who were at variance with him by reason of sin; even the great and glorious, yea divine man, Jesus Christ, who assumed human nature into personal union with himself as the Son of God, and so was thereby completely fitted for the office of an interposing Saviour between both the offended and offending parties, God and man, the nature and interest of both being united in him: It is therefore highly proper that prayers and praises should be offered up to God for all sorts of men, through him in whom all nations shall be blessed.” Guise’s Paraphrase on the text.

[Page 182]

natural and genuine sense of the words; however, clear of it he gets altogether at last.

For first, In his explication of the apostle’s exhortation to pray for all men; he does not so much as mention converting grace at all; but brings a huddle of equivocal ambiguous, and general requests, as the import of the text, which though they have a specious appearance and look well, yet are not the fair and plain meaning of the apostle’s words. “We are (says he, page 51.) to perform this duty for all men, i.e. for men of all rank and denominations, Heathen, as well as Christian. 1. We are to plead with God in prayer, that he may pardon their sin, open their eyes, and bring them to an acquaintance with their privileges and duties. 2. We are not only to plead with God in fervent prayer, for conferring special and spiritual blessings upon them, but also for the temporal good things of this life, &c. 3. We are to praise God on their behalf for all the good he hath bestowed upon them, and given them ground to look for.” &c.

From this superficial and unfaithful form of prayer of his, no man can certainly know whether they are Heathens or Christians, believers or unbelievers he prays for; but from the tenor of it, and the petitions he uses, it would seem he views all in a state of conversion, and acceptance with God; in regard his prayer is most, and only suited to such as are in that state. He mentions not converting grace at all as a blessing to be prayed for. It is true, he mentions the pardon of sin as one, and the first thing to be prayed for, and then, that “their eyes may be opened.” But it is as true, that believers have need to pray, and daily pray for these things, both by themselves, and by others on their behalf. Thus David prays for the pardon of sin, Psal. xxv. 11. For thy name sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity, for it is great. And thus also he prays, Psal. cxix. 18. Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. See also Psal. xiii. 3. His last request in behalf of all men, is, That “God may bring them to an acquaintance with their privileges and duties.” Here, one would think, he is turned Arminian altogether, esteeming the objective revelation of duties and privileges, with a few persuasive arguments, sufficient, without the effectual subjective grace of God at all. In short,

[Page 183]

he either considers these all men as eminently gracious, and endowed with a spiritual power both to will and to do, or otherwise his prayers for them are remarkably lame, imperfect, and unsound.

Secondly, In his explication of this text, with reference to kings, &c. he goes directly cross to the apostle in two particulars,

1. He makes a distinction where the apostle makes none, nor allows of any: The apostle considers kings and all that are in authority, as to their persons, and personal natural state and condition, being a state of ignorance, opposition, and enmity to Christ, his gospel, his kingdom, and people; and directs Timothy, and the Christians to whom he writes, (as a testimony of their love, both to their persons and to the church of God), to pray for them, that they may be saved from this state of darkness and enmity, and brought unto the knowledge and acknowledgment of the truth; that so, says he, we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty, without disturbance from their persecuting fury and enmity. But, says Mr. Goodlet, “Kings and rulers are here to be considered particularly as to their office;” and, in this view, “we are to lament over their sin, failings, and faults, in not discharging, or in contradicting the duties of their office, and so deprecating the wrath of God from them on that account.” And again, page 52. “And while we pray for them in authority, we are bound to pray for wisdom, conduct, and guidance from God, to enable them to discharge their duty to those who are committed to their care and government; and, in a special manner, for grace to perform all acceptably in the sight of God.” In this, therefore, he directly contradicts the apostle’s sense; and moreover, the reader may observe, that altho’ Mr. Goodlet here considers the persons to be prayed for, as kings and rulers, yet he makes, nor expresses no manner of distinction or limitation, but explains the apostle’s words according to his own vague, confused, and anarchical scheme. There is no authority, that hath an actual existence in the world, but with him it is lawful authority. His venerable friend, (the truly worthy) Mr. Gillespie was not of his disorderly opinion and sentiment in this particular; Miscel. Quest. chap. 22. “When the apostle saith, All that are in authority, he means, (says he) any kind

[Page 184]

of lawful authority; for we may not pray for those who are in any unlawful and usurped authority in the church, archbishops, bishops, &c. which prayer were an approbation of their unlawful callings (or power) in the church. I do not say, that we may not pray for the persons of any archbishops, bishops, &c. but we may not pray for them as clothed with such an office and authority; as we are there bid pray for kings, quatenus [insofar as] kings, that we may live under them a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty: so that a king or emperor as he is clothed with such authority, may not be excluded from our prayers: But if we look upon all kings and emperors personally, individually, or numerically, it cannot hold true, that we are to pray for all that are in authority, otherwise the antient church had been bound to pray for Julian the Apostate;” But again,

The apostle directs Timothy, and the Christians, to pray for converting grace to kings and all in authority, first of all; as if he had said, Whatever other good thing you may pray for on their behalf, or of any other man, or men in a state of darkness and enmity against God, and obnoxious to his dreadful wrath, begin with this; pray for the converting Spirit and grace of God, which is the first and best blessing which Christ bestows in and with himself. The blessing of Abraham, which comes upon sinners of the Gentiles through faith, Gal. iii. 14. The Mediator’s blessing, which he was sent to give, Acts iii. 26. He, (viz. God), hath sent him, viz. his Son Jesus Christ), to bless you, in turning you from your iniquities. I exhort therefore that, first of all, supplications, prayers and intercessions be made for all men; For kings and all that are in authority. Here it may be obvious, that there are a number of instances in which Mr. Goodlet, in the explication he puts upon the words, contradicts and goes cross to the apostle’s sense and meaning.

(1.) The apostle is in this place exhorting and directing to pray for Heathens, and such as are in a state of ignorance and wickedness. Mr. Goodlet affirms, that he here teaches and exhorts to pray, “both for Heathens and Christians; those that are without, and those that are within the church,” page 51. Whereas indeed, the apostle speaks not one word here of praying for Christians

[Page 185]

or the church of God; but speaks of those all men, &c. for whom he here teaches to pray, as without, and in the way of contradistinction from the church. This is evident from the reason the apostle subjoins in the fourth verse. There was no need to pray that Christians, and believers who were already converted and brought to the acknowledgment of the truth, might be so. Besides, that Christians then were in no doubt nor hesitation about their duty of praying for one another, 1 Thess. iv. 9. tho’ they might be in doubt about the duty of praying for the conversion of the Heathen, and particularly of their wicked kings and rulers, who were mostly then, instead of being the ministers of God, practically and actively the ministers of the devil; and under his influence and instigation, set in opposition to God and to Christ. Hence,

(2.) When the apostle directs and teaches to pray for converting grace to them first of all, Mr. Goodlet, in his explicatory form, either prays not for this at all, or else directly cross to the apostle’s order, he puts it last of all. His prayer for all men is remarkably confused, “We are to plead with God in prayer, (says he), that he may pardon their sin, open their eyes.” Does God pardon men’s sins, before he opens their eyes to see both their sin and their Saviour? No;—here then he inverts both the order of the apostle, and of the Spirit of God, as a Spirit of grace; for when God means to pardon men’s sins, he first opens their eyes, and turns them from darkness unto light, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, Acts xxvi. 18. When he comes to pray for kings, &c. in particular, he hath a great variety of things that he will have us understand the apostle enjoining to be prayed for on their behalf; and grace, (which should have been first, he puts) last of all. “We are, (says he,) to deprecate judgments and punishments due to them; are bound to pray for wisdom, conduct, and guidance from God, to enable them to discharge their duty; and, in a special manner for grace to perform all acceptably.” The grace, however, that he prays for here, is not converting grace, but assisting grace, which always supposes converting grace. After this manner, and according to this form of his, he will have us to believe the apostle enjoined Timothy, and the Christians, to pray for the Heathen Roman magistrates (though the reader, I hope, will find reason sufficient to

[Page 186]

esteem it rather Mr. Goodlet’s prayer, than the apostle’s.) “I need not spend time, (says he,) in proving, that the kings, and those in authority, mentioned by the apostle, for whom he would have Timothy and the Christians to pray, were the Roman magistrates.” That the apostle here allows, and directs Timothy, and the Christians, to pray for the Heathen Roman magistrates, that God might be pleased, if consistent with his secret will and purpose, to visit them with his enlightening and converting grace, bringing them from their enmity to the truth, to an acknowledgment of it, I make no doubt nor question; but that he enjoined them to pray for them, according to the tenor of that vague confused form which Mr. Goodlet gives us, and most injuriously imposes as an explication of the apostle’s words, I not only doubt, but deny; and require him to prove that they did so, if he can. Nay, contrary to this, Tertullian, an eminent Christian writer, who lived and flourished in the second century, in his famous Apology for the Christian Religion, (as referred to by Mr. Sidney, vol. ii. page 67.) tells us, That the Christians then prayed for the emperors, “from no other reasons than that they were commanded to love their enemies, and to pray for those who persecuted them.” But how remote and different this way of praying for them is from the form and way Mr. Goodlet would have us to believe they prayed, and were directed to pray for them, I may leave to any man’s consideration.

I have just only one particular more, or two at most, to observe in this explication of the apostle’s words, he presents us with. Among the benefits he teaches are to be sought from God in prayer for kings, are “Wisdom, conduct, guidance, and grace.” Upon which I would be glad to know, what difference he makes between wisdom, conduct, &c. and grace? Whether wisdom, conduct, &c. be not grace, and of grace? I find the saints in scripture have always judged them to be of grace, and the gifts thereof. I would be particularly desirous to know whether Mr. Goodlet, when he prays for “wisdom, conduct, and guidance,” to kings, and those in authority, addresses himself to God as the God of nature, or as the God of grace; It cannot surely be to God, as the God of nature, or to an absolute God, in regard I know of no way of access he can have to God so considered. It must therefore

[Page 187]

fore be to God, as the God of grace, i.e. as in Christ, that he applies when he asks those blessings, as well as when he deprecates sin, and the justly deserved punishment thereof, from kings and rulers; and also when he gives thanks to God for “what acts of justice, wisdom, equity, and prudence they have been helped to perform;” and, if so, I hope he will freely consent with me, and grant that the qualifications for government, and all common gifts and benefits, as well as special saving grace, are put into the hand of Christ, as Mediator, and dispensed by him for the glory of God, and good of his church in this world: surely; otherwise what means his going to a God in Christ to ask them? At least, though he should be so dogmatical as not to acknowledge this in his doctrine, yet I see, he must and will acknowledge it in his prayers.

I thought now to have passed from this particular; and by referring the reader, as in page 170, to consult the Presbytery’s Testimony itself, to have saved myself the trouble of transcribing any thing from thence for their vindication. But when I reconsider in what a supercilious way Mr. Goodlet drags over the many just reasons and objections offered by the Presbytery against their anti-evangelic, undutiful, and unfaithful form of prayer for the present state, government, and rulers of these lands, taking no more notice of them, than if they had not been there, nor offering any defence, but some such scurrilous and disdainful speeches as I have hinted above, I think it may not be amiss to give their own words, both that they may be near at hand to the reader, and also under the vindicator’s eye, if he shall have any thing further to offer in defence of the Associate Synod.

This self-inconsistent public form of prayer, which the Presbytery instance in, and which they testify against, is taken from A solemn Warning by the (Antiburgher) Associate Synod, published an. 1758. wherein, among other things, they exhort their followers, “To pour out earnest and incessant supplications before the Lord, in dependance upon the merit and intercession of our great High priest, that he may bring about a revival of our covenanted reformation,—removing all the mountains which stand in the way; that he may abundantly bless our sovereign King George, and the apparent heir of the Crown;—blasting all the plots or efforts of whatever enemies open

[Page 188]

or secret,—against the Protestant succession to the throne of these kingdoms in the family of Hanover;—that he may be gracious to the high courts of parliament in this and the neighbouring island,—leading to proper measures for the honour of Christ; that he may hasten the enlargement of the Mediator’s kingdom.”

On all which let it suffice to observe,

“1st, That as in no part of this prayer they make any exceptions against, so they must be understood therein as approving the constitution of the king, the establishment and limitation of the throne of these kingdoms in the Hanoverian family, as presently by law established; and also approving of the British and Irish parliaments in their constitution as by law established, though both of them grossly Erastian, and necessarily connected with maintaining English-Popish ceremonies, the whole English hierarchy, and civil places and power of churchmen, in opposition to the word of God, reforming laws, and covenanted constitution of the nations.

—3d, This prayer seems to suppose a consistency betwixt the preservation of all these, and the ‘revival of a covenanted reformation’ in these lands; and also, that a parliament, antichristian in its constitution, according to their present situation and capacity are proper instruments for promoting the honour and declarative glory of Christ; although the prelates, constituent members therein, are a generation of men that were never yet known to have a vote for Christ’s kingdom and interest. And therefore,

4th, This prayer consists of flat contradictions; 1. In regard the revival of a covenanted reformation, and the flourishing of Christ’s mediatory kingdom nationally, must be attended with the overthrow of all constitutions, civil and ecclesiastic, that hinder and oppose the same, Hag. ii. 6. 7. and with the down-bringing of all the enemies thereof, from the height of their excellency. 2. It is a contradiction for them to pray, that the Lord would remove all the mountains that stand in the way of the revival of our reformation and yet, at the same time, pray for the preservation and continuance of a constitution, under which, (as themselves acknowledge, Defence of their Principles, page 51.)

[Page 189]

there is a mighty bar thrust into the way of our covenanted reformation, both in church and state; yea, a grave stone is laid, and established upon the same. 3. It is a sinful and glaring contradiction, for Seceders, to rank an approbation of the English hierarchy among our public national sins and steps of defection; (as they do, page 53. of their Warning), and yet themselves to persist and continue in the same sin and guilt, homologating and approving the antichristian constitution of the British and Irish parliaments, by praying, (like their forefathers, in their Fulsome Address to James the Papist), for divine illumination and conduct to the prelates in their civil places and power, as necessary members there, and as they do in this prayer of theirs; can such ever be supposed to be either truly sensible of sin, or humbled for it, who, notwithstanding all their confessions, still continue in the love and practice of it? but with such mock acknowledgments, (of which a variety of other instances might be given), have they hitherto imposed on the generation. Their prayer, in several parts, (for the civil powers), has no scripture-warrant, no foundation in the promises of God. Particularly, on what scripture-warrant, what promise, can Seceders build their prayers for, or expectation of the Lord’s answering them, by blessing an Erastian government, to themselves or others, which being, in its constitution, contrary to the word of God, is such, that under it, (as they grant), a people cannot truly prosper in their civil concerns, nor be enriched with the blessings of the gospel? From what scripture-promise are they warranted to pray, that God may perpetuate the succession to the throne in any one family, and especially, when that succession is circumscribed and limited in a way opposite to the laws of God, and mediatory kingdom of Christ, and therefore, a prayer, that cannot be made in faith, and so cannot be acceptable to God in its complex form? No person can have faith in the merit and intercession of Christ, for obtaining any thing in prayer but what Christ has priorly merited, and does actually intercede for: but it would savour too much of blasphemy to apply some of the particulars already noticed in this form of prayer, to the merit and intercession of our great High-Priest. Sure, it cannot be thought, that he

[Page 190]

makes intercession for the prosperity and success of his enemies, in their stated opposition to his kingdom and interest in the world; neither can it be consistent with fidelity to Christ, as a king, for his professed subjects to pray for it. What a fearful trifling with God in the duty of prayer, is it, to pray, That the Lord may bring down Popery and Prelacy, and next breath to pray, That the Lord may continue, prosper, and preserve the Erastian head, and great bulwark of Prelacy?” Testimony, pages 154, 155, 156. Et supra.

To these different inconsistencies, which the Presbytery had so plainly and particularly pointed out, in their way of praying for their civil Sovereign, (as they call him), Mr. Goodlet behooved to have made some scriptural and rational reply, in defence of the Synod, which surely had been the likeliest way to reach conviction to the judicious, of the injurious treatment they had got, of which he so loudly complains. All that he does to this purpose, besides his foresaid explication of the apostle’s words, 1 Tim. ii. 1. 2. 3. is to give us some more of his supercilious sneers, and diminutive language, together with some such foolish talking and jestings as are not convenient. And afterwards bringing in two instances, which he thinks plead strongly in his favours; the first is, of some of the Roman emperors who affected, and assumed to preside in their Heathenish, idolatrous worship, took, and used the title of Pontifex Maximus, or chief priest, &c. The other is pretended to be drawn from the practice of our reformers in the reigns of James VI. Charles I. and II. He highly resents that the Presbytery should implead a contradiction in their prayers for Prelatic powers, and charge it upon them, as homologating an Erastian constitution. “Our adversaries, (says he), make a mighty noise and outcry against the Synod, for praying for the King, because he is an Episcopalian, and bound to maintain and defend the church of England; and because, according to the constitution of that church, he hath the supreme authority over it. For this end they call him a Prelatic king; and reckon it a flat contradiction to testify against Prelacy, and pray for a Prelatic king, and a Prelatic constitution.” To this I reply two things,

1. These terms, “Prelatic, Episcopalian, and Prelatic king;” and these words, “reckon it a flat contradicti-

[Page 191]

on, to testify against Prelacy, and yet pray for a prelatic king, and prelatic constitution,” which he pretends to be the words of the Reformed Presbytery, are his own, and none of theirs. They use no such words, as Episcopalian, or Prelatic king, through all their Testimony that I have seen; at least, not in that part of it which Mr. Goodlet is now supposed to have under his eye and consideration. But what although they had called him an Episcopalian, or Prelatic king? What impropriety or falsehood would there have been in the terms or expression? Is not his being of the Episcopalian or Prelatic communion, an essential and fundamental requisite to his being king? Is it not a condition sine qua non; without which he cannot be even a civil sovereign? So that, (according to the present constitution, and limitations of the succession), not being of such communion, or ceasing to be so, he cannot be, or ceases to be king.

2. I may appeal to common sense itself, whether it be not a contradiction, to testify against Prelacy, and yet either to pray for, or swear allegiance to a Prelatic king? I say, either pray for, or swear allegiance; for though Seceders pretend to make a difference here, yet it is evident and plain, from the nature of the things themselves, that where ever the one is due, and duty, the other is and must equally be so too. To clear this, let it be considered, that those that swear to a king, do, and must be supposed to swear to maintain and defend him in the execution and performance of all that he is bound to by the constitution and laws, and by his coronation oath, &c. But as human help and power, without the divine aid and favour, could contribute little, or rather nothing, towards this, Psal. xliv. 3. and xx. 6. therefore, hereupon it natively becomes the duty of faithful and loyal subjects, to implore the help and countenance of heaven in behalf of their king; and so vice versa, if it is our duty to pray, it must be our duty to swear. To pray for God’s help to his Lieutenant needing it, and refuse our own, would be very absurd. And to grant our help and aid to such actually or ordinarily, without scruple, and yet to refuse to promise and engage to continue to do so, would look very subdolous [deceitful] and designing like. Thus, when Mr. Goodlet prays for the divine blessing, protection and preservation to the present supreme power, or king, in these lands, his lawful sovereign or, to use his own words, “for wisdom, conduct, and

[Page 192]

guidance from God to him,” it is in order to “enable him to discharge his duty to those who are committed to his care and government;” according as he is bound by the present law, and by his coronation oath, one principal and fundamental article of which is, That he maintain and support Prelacy, with all its ignorance, profaneness, and idolatry, in England and Ireland; now, how any can pretend to testify against Prelacy, and pray for the overthrow and abolishing of that idol, and yet thus pray for such as, in the place and character they bear, are the great bulwark and defence of Prelacy, without being chargeable with a “flat contradiction” in so doing I believe will be found hard for any to conceive; nay, how they can pray for the preservation and continuation of such, and of such a constitution, settlement, and succession, so intimately joined and connected with this idol, and the maintenance thereof, (as Seceders do), and yet not really and interpretatively pray for the maintenance and preservation of Prelacy itself, will not be easy to understand. This, however, Mr. Goodlet’s superior abilities makes no matter of difficulty of; for, says he, (to speak of a contradiction here), “I am ready to think, is such a thin device, that they cannot mention it to one another, without laughing at the trick among themselves.” It would seem they might laugh, if they were as merrily disposed as the author of the jest. But, I believe, the church’s reformation from Popery and Prelacy was not promoted by such mirth and diversion. Had our reformers looked with as indifferent an eye upon Prelatic powers, and the Prelatic heresy, in opposition to which they had to force their way; it is probable they had not been so zealous and ready to give their oath of fidelity to Christ, against both Popery and Prelacy, and all the inventions of human superstition incorporate therewith. Well; but (says he), “It might be a scarecrow to a man in a delirium, to tell him that a Prelatical physician is come to cure him, or a Sectarian nurse to take care of him; but every person in his right senses must see the jest, and laugh at it.” Surprising! What connection, I pray, hath such burlesque, ludicrous language, with the Presbytery’s argument! Or what purpose does it serve for, unless infallibly to prove, that the person that uses it is delirious, and under the powers of lunacy? which some have been ready to think is

[Page 193]

the case from such childish reasoning. The Presbytery hath all along been proving against Seceders, that magistracy is an ordinance of divine institution; that the persons called thereto ought to be men fearing God, and hating covetousness, clothed with such necessary qualifications as prove them to be moral powers, and fit them for the performance of their duty. Here we have a plain confession and discovery of Mr. Goodlet’s sentiments, as directly opposite to all this. Here he speaks plainly out, and owns the truth of what I charged him with before; (for Ridentem dicere verum, quid vetat? [What forbids speaking truth with a smile?]—Hor.) viz. That the civil magistrate hath no more divine institution than physicians, nurses, tailors, and other tradesmen have; and that those qualifications which the word of God, and the very light of nature require, as essentially belonging to magistrates, are no more necessary to them than to those.

I shall here oppose him with the words and sentiments of a divine, that, however unorthodox he was in some theological points, yet may justly be reckoned as great a master of reason as perhaps ever Britain produced, and that is Mr. Richard Baxter; his words are these; “A bad man may be a good tailor, or shoemaker, or carpenter, or seaman, because there is no moral virtue necessary to the well-doing of their work: but a bad man cannot simply be a good magistrate, or minister, husband, or parent; because there is much moral virtue necessary to their duties*.” The truth is, without these moral qualifications and abilities, a man may be the image or carcass of a king, or magistrate, Ezek. xliii. 9. or of a husband, parent, &c. but can perform the duties of these relations, no otherwise, nor better than the beasts that perish, Psal. xlix. 20.

I shall next consider the two exculpatory evidences he produces, (as I have above hinted), in favours of the Associate Synod’s form of prayer.

The first is drawn from the instance of the kind of supremacy that some of the Cæsar’s assumed in their Heathenish idolatrous worship, and built upon a most false, injurious, and impious hypothesis, to wit, That the apostles themselves prayed, and commanded all Christians throughout the empire, to pray for “wisdom, conduct, and guidance”

_____

* Practical works, vol. i. page 485.

[Page 194]

ance” from God to them; and to deprecate the judgments and wrath of God due to them; and for assisting grace to enable them to perform their duty. Let him but give us one instance, or example, of any of the apostles or Christians then, praying in such a (base and vile) strain. This would go further for the proof of his doctrine, than his bare assertion. His argument runs thus; “These very rulers whom the apostle exhorts Timothy, and the Christian church, to pray for, were Heathen idolaters; and the emperor himself was the chief priest. Festus’s definition of this great priest is, Judex atque arbiter, rerum humanarum divinarumque; The judge and arbiter of divine and human affairs,—having the supreme judgment of all things civil and religious; but did ever any person to this day dream, there was an inconsistency between testifying against idolatry, and praying for the Roman emperor as their civil sovereign;—or that such a prayer could homologate their vile idolatry and devilish worship.”—Ergo: Here we have a great piece of fine sophistry, or rather specious nonsense; for such it will be only found to be, (with relation to the matter in debate), when searched unto the bottom. In order to make this evident, it may be observed, that his argument drawn from this instance, consists, and is made up of a heap of false and mistaken notions; such as,

1st, That, (as I have already noticed,) the apostle exhorts and enjoins Timothy, &c. to pray for those Heathen, idolatrous rulers after, and according to that form and sense that he explains the apostle’s words in; (as if the throne of iniquity could have fellowship with God, Psal. xciv. 20.) But this he must prove, before he take it for granted.—

2dly, That the Roman government, and their magistrates and rulers, for whom he supposes Timothy and the Christians to have been enjoined to pray, according to his above-said plan, were a great deal worse than those that he pleads for. “They were (says he) Heathen idolaters; and the emperor himself was the chief priest, having the supreme judgment of all things civil and religious.” And so he argues thus; If the apostle owned, and so acknowledged Heathen idolatrous rulers, much more may we;—those that are among us being so far preferable to these.——Now, this is really and palpably false;

[Page 195]

(as may afterwards appear,) for it is certain, that the inhabitants of these lands, considered either in a church or state capacity, as men, or as Christians, rulers, or ruled, are, every thing considered, a great deal worse in scripture reckoning, and in God’s account, than Heathen nations, magistrates, and rulers are, Amos ix. 7. and iii. 2. Christian, I should say Antichristian, idolatry, is worse than Pagan idolatry. The Roman Heathen magistrates, their state and nation never having been reformed, never were, nor could be guilty of the sins that we in these harlot lands are guilty of.—Apostacy, perjury,—despising the law of the Lord, Amos ii. 4. bursting his bonds, and casting his cords from us.

Here I would put Mr. Goodlet in mind, that there are some appurtenances belonging to the constitution and government which he pleads for, and so highly esteems and extols, that are more shamefully odious and heaven-daring than any thing that ever was known, or found in any Heathen government in the world. To this purpose I would desire to know, (1.) Whether he judges the Roman emperor’s usurping, (in his ignorance), a supremacy with respect to their idolatrous and devilish worship, was more provoking and dishonourable to God, than the civil powers in these lands, their grasping and usurping an ecclesiastical supremacy and headship over the doctrine, worship, and government of the church of Christ, the which belongs only to Christ himself as his incommunicable prerogative; and this in rebellion against the clearest light. (2.) Whether he ever knew, or can give an instance of any Heathen state and government, where their idolatry and devil-worship was so closely twisted and incorporated with their civil state and constitution, that the sworn maintenance and defence of it was made a formal, express, and fundamental condition of enjoying the crown, and holding the government, as is the case with us, with respect to the Antichristian superstition, and hierarchy of the idolatrous and profane church of England. (3.) Whether he ever knew any Heathen state and government, that required and obliged men, as a condition of their enjoying and holding places of trust under them, to join in their idolatry and devil-worship,—and to swear to support it? as is also the case with us at present in these lands; where none can enjoy even the meanest place or post under the government,

[Page 196]

but at the expence of debauching his conscience, by swearing sinful and defiling oaths, and joining in communion with the idolatrous church of England, by taking what is called the sacramental test; and thus, in order to qualify for a civil post, men are obliged by the present constitution and law, to profane the holy table of the Lord, and by eating and drinking unworthily, to eat and drink damnation to themselves, 1 Cor. xi. 29. Ezra, it is true, and Nehemiah, Daniel, Mordecai, &c. served (as we read,) under Heathen kings; but were ever any such conditions required of them?—by no means. Nay, they would never have purchased such places or preferment on any such terms, or at any such expence. Thus it may too evidently and lamentably appear, that the British constitution and government, instead of being better, as Mr. Goodlet views and represents it to be, is really worse, more contrary to God’s ordinance, prejudicial to true religion, and opposite to the kingdom of God among men, than any Heathen government that ever existed in the world.

3dly, Another false foundation our author builds his argument upon, is, his mistaken notion, and misrepresentation of the nature, and state of the testimony among the primitive Christians with respect to the Pagan idolatry and idolatrous rulers that then were. He confounds the testimony of the church at that time, with the testimony of the church at this day, making no difference, in any respect, between the one and the other. According to him, we are no otherways bound by the word of God and our covenants, to bear testimony with respect to the civil state and rulers in these lands, than the primitive Christians in the apostle’s times, &c. were, with respect to those Heathen idolatrous rulers that then were. That this is his meaning and sentiment, is plain from his bringing in the instance of the primitive Christians, and their testimony, in vindication of his own and his brethren’s way of stating and managing the testimony; which could serve him to no purpose, unless he viewed the testimony of that day and time, and the testimony of the present time to be parallel,—on the same footing, and of the same extent. Now, the injuriousness of this false and imaginary hypothesis of his may be evident if we consider, That as there was a remarkable difference between the circumstances both of the Christians of that age, and of the people and nations

[Page 197]

among which they lived, it natively follows, that there must be also a difference as to what was their duty in the way of Christian witness bearing, and what is ours. These Heathen nations, and their rulers, had never been reformed from their idolatry, and brought to an acknowledgment of the truth, and to a professed subjection unto it; and therefore, they could not be testified against as guilty of, and chargeable with apostasy, (apostasy, I mean, after reformation, or a relapse after recovery), as we are called to do, with respect to these lands, and all ranks therein. Thus we read of the apostles in their dealing with Heathens, testifying to them, Acts xx. 21. viz. in a doctrinal declaration of the sinfulness and danger of their natural state, idolatrous and wicked courses, and of the nature and necessity of repentance, and conversion to God thro’ Christ, but never of their testifying against them. See also Acts xiv. 15. An actual Christian testimony thus managed and directed, is founded upon, and takes its rise from that common brotherly relation that subsists among such as profess, and are obliged to walk in the same true faith and religion, and is animated by that brotherly love that ought to subsist among such, as being, by profession and obligation, children of the same father and family. But there was no such relation subsisting between the Christians then and Heathen idolaters, &c. and therefore, there was no foundation nor ground for a testimony against them, as acting contrary thereunto, and unto their profession and obligations to God. Mr. Goodlet therefore talks very widely, and at random, when he tells us, that the apostles and primitive Christians, “testified against idolatry.” The apostles and primitive Christians, neither did, nor were called to testify against the idolatry, and devil-worship among the Heathen nations,—neither against their civil nor religious idolatrous constitutions, (and that for the reasons above-mentioned), in the way that we are, by the word of God, and our Confession of Faith and Covenants obliged to testify against Antichristian idolatry among us. And thus, I suppose, were the Associate Presbytery residing in China or Japan, they would, for the same reasons, be under no obligation formally to testify and declare against the idolatry, &c. of these poor Pagans, or to deal otherways with them than by compassionately instructing them, and using all means for their illumination

[Page 198]

and conversion.—They could be under no obligation in a judicative capacity, to Dr.aw up and publish An Act, Declaration, and Testimony, for the true religion, and against the corruptions and wickedness of their civil or religious constitutions there, however diabolical and absurd. But now, if we take a view of the methods God himself took, and commanded his prophets to take with his Israelitish church of old, when they went astray into idolatry, we will find them very different from the above, and that from their very different circumstances. To this purpose we shall need but to turn to, and read these several texts, 2 Kings xvii. 13. Yet the Lord testified against Israel by all the prophets. 2 Chron. xxiv. 19. Yet he sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto the Lord, and they testified against them. See verse 20. Neh. ix. 29. 30. and xiii. 15,—And I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals. See also verse 17. Jer. xv. 19. 20. From all this it may be evident, what difference the word of God states between the way that Christians, as brethren, are to behave towards, and deal with one another, in the case of any making defection and apostasy from the truth, and the way they are to deal with Heathens, who never were favoured with the knowledge of the truth. And moreover, this may be set still in a clearer light, by attending to the consideration of those excellent rules the apostle lays down with reference to this, 1 Cor. v. 9. 10. 11. 12. I wrote to you in an epistle not to company with fornicators; yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters: for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Here the great apostle gives us a most complete, plain, and particular directory, how a Christian testimony ought to be stated and conducted, both with respect to those that are without, and with respect to those that are within the church. Here we must observe, that the apostle’s advice and counsel is directed to Christians; and so to all,—in general, and in particular. His injunction in general is, That they should not company with fornicators. This he afterwards cautions and explains, verses 10. 11. And tells

[Page 199]

them, that he did not mean to forbid them of all manner of civil conversation and commerce with the men of this world, even though they were fornicators, idolaters, &c. that is to say, such converse as the civil offices, secular affairs, and relations of life might call them unto, For then (says he), must ye needs go out of the world. But the principal thing remarkable here, is the particular difference he states as to their conduct and duty towards such as were in the same Christian relations, and under the same Christian obligations with themselves, on supposition of their scandalous sins, or defection,—If any man that is called a brother (says he) be a fornicator, or—an idolater—with such an one no not to eat.* The sum of the apostle’s meaning is, That our deportment and behaviour towards such ought to be so conducted, as that it may not have a tendency to harden or encourage them in their sinful ways, and to prevent their repentance and reformation, but the contrary. And so he gives this as the reason and end of such behaviour towards such persons, 2 Thess. iii. 14. 15.—That he may be ashamed; yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. To apply this to the matter in hand, it may be very obvious, that these words of the apostle afford a very clear directory, how such as would dutifully and faithfully adhere to the covenanted constitution,—the doctrine, worship, and government of the church of Scotland, and to their covenant allegiance to Christ the King and head of his church, ought to state their testimony, and order their behaviour, not only towards a sinful and backsliding generation, and church, but also towards the civil state, and rulers in these lands, who have

_____

* “With such an one, no not to eat: i.e.—Ye ought not so much as unnecessarily, and out of choice, to sit down with familiarity, at common meals, much less at the Lord’s table with him; that, while he observes your distant carriage—he may be ashamed of his evil ways.” “You are concerned to behave towards such, “as, by the blessing of God, may be subservient to the making them sensible and ashamed of their sins.—Not conversing in such a free and familiar manner with them, unless for bringing them to repentance, as may be allowable with the men of this world, that are guilty of the like crimes.” Guise’s Paraphrase in loc.

[Page 200]

have made such palpable and gross apostasy from the truth, and (contrary to their solemn profession, and obligations,) have dishonoured God, by joining in idolatrous worship, and in an engagement and association to support it. If the apostle forbids to give such a slight and ordinary testimony of friendship, peace, and agreement with such offenders against God, men, and the church of Christ, as, not to eat with them, can we think that he would have allowed of praying for peace, success, and prosperity to them in such a course? And if he forbids to do any thing that may encourage and harden private Christians, or Christians in private and obscure life, would he not much more have prohibited any such behaviour towards public Christians, (as I may say,) or Christians in public characters, places, and offices, whose examples and practices, when ungodly and wicked, are of such direful influence to spread the contagion of wickedness through the whole people. But how contrary and opposite the principles and behaviour of the vindicator and his brethren towards the present civil state, and rulers in these lands, is, and hath been all along to these apostolical directions and rules here laid down, may be evident to all who are acquainted with it. For, if, according to Mr. Goodlet’s hypothesis, we are bound by the word of God, and our covenants, no otherwise to bear testimony with respect to them, than the primitive Christians were bound, or did, with reference to the Pagan idolatrous rulers: Then indeed, this will, at once, relieve us from all obligation to testify against them, as having apostatized from the true religion, once received and professed; and as having broken from under all their Christian bonds, and solemn obligations to God and religion, personal and public; and as having gone into a confederacy against the Lord, and into an engagement for the perpetual defence and support of abjured Prelacy in the lands, with all its Antichristian superstitious appurtenances; (and that, because the primitive Christians were not bound, nor had any ground to deal so, with respect to Pagan rulers, and their idolatry;) nor shall we be bound to testify against their claiming and usurping the headship and supremacy of our Lord Jesus Christ in and over his church; but, on the contrary, (following our author and his brethren’s plan), we are to homologate and countenance them in this flagitious course of avowed apostasy;

[Page 201]

idolatry, and blasphemous usurpation of a spiritual supremacy, acknowledging the lawfulness of their constitution and authority, by praying for them in their civil places and offices, as acceptable to God, and accepted with him;—by praising them in the highest strains of panegyric and cajolery, (by which Seceders remarkably signalize themselves,) and by praising God for them. I know indeed, they hold a perfect consistency between testifying against their apostasy, joining in, and for the maintenance of idolatrous worship, &c.—and an owning and acknowledgment of them in their civil power and places only. The foolishness and absurdity of this pretence may in part appear from what has been already said, and will be made further evident in the sequel; I shall only here observe, with relation to the civil state, or statesmen in Scotland, That (as I have already hinted, with respect to the profession of Episcopacy or Prelacy in the king who is their head,) this apostasy in them, and joining in such idolatrous communion, (contrary to all their Christian obligations,) is, by the present law, and united constitution, so laid at the foundation of their actual having and holding civil places of power and trust in the British government, as without it they can neither have nor enjoy them; how, therefore, Seceders, or any, can acknowledge and own them in such places, which they hold only on such conditions, and yet not be said to countenance them in their apostasy, and unlawful methods of acquiring them, will certainly be very mysterious. Even in the civil law, resetters of thieves, and such as buy, and vend their stolen goods, known to be such, are reckoned punishable, as being guilty, art, and part, and, by such unlawful traffic, approving the unjust means whereby such goods were acquired: the case is the same here; and to which purpose these words, Psal. l. 18. may be very agreeably applied, When thou sawest a thief then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. Nay, it may be evident, that, in the nature of things, such a way of dealing with them, (i.e. the present civil state,) has a manifest tendency to harden them more in their sin and rebellion against God, and to prevent their repentance and returning from their evil ways. And how contrary therefore must such a practice then be, both to the Spirit and design of the apostolical directions above quoted, and to the practice of the primitive Christians,

[Page 202]

(who certainly ordered their conduct according to those rules,) either towards one another, or towards the Heathen world, and their idolatrous rulers. The primitive Christians, we may be sure, never acted, nor were allowed to conduct themselves so contrary to the charitable and benevolent spirit of the gospel, as that their practice might be ensnaring, or hardening even to Pagans, and their idolatrous rulers, 1 Cor. vi. 1.

Upon the whole then, it may be evident, that the Associate Presbytery and Synod, notwithstanding of their high professions of esteem, loyalty, and duty towards the present civil state, and rulers in these lands, do yet both act most undutifully towards them, and appear to entertain very dishonourable views and impressions of their personal state, and religious or moral character. In their Christian testimony towards them, they (do indeed) carry themselves nearly as the primitive Christians acted, and were directed to act, with relation to Heathens, and to the Heathen rulers and magistrates then in being; (only in their prayers, and in some of their high flights of vain praise, they go far contrary to their practice, as hath been noticed.) Now, the reason of their stating, and conducting their testimony towards them thus, (without any allowance of distinction or difference between our time, circumstances, and duty, and theirs in those early days,) is, not only because they look upon Christianity, the word of God, or scriptures, and the church of Christ, as such, to have no particular concern about the office, duties, &c. of the magistrate; but also, because they view the present civil state and magistrates, it would seem, as on a par with Heathens. They do not consider or acknowledge them as Christians, or as Christian brethren*, under the same obligations with themselves, (though revolted and gone back from their profession and obligations,) nor conduct themselves towards them as such; nay, instead hereof, they proclaim a dispensation of liberty to them, from scripture obliga-

______

* Brethren, I say, in regard that Christianity makes no difference on account of worldly wealth or dignity, but all its subjects, high or low, rich or poor, are on a level, and equal in respect of gospel acceptance, duty, or spiritual relations and privileges. See Gal. iii. 28. James ii. 9. 10.

[Page 203]

obligations, covenant obligations, and every other law and rule, but that which they (most injuriously) call the law of nature, to wit, the light of natural reason and conscience. And hereupon, they state their behaviour and conduct towards them, as viewing them on a level with original, unreformed, (and not only so, but) unreformable Heathens. They, (viz. the civil state,) have revolted from God, and from their covenant allegiance, and respect due to him, and his law and government, and turned their power against him, and to the maintenance of vile superstition; and they, on the other hand, (viz. Seceders,) have cast off all spiritual care of them, and Christian duty towards them, as irreclaimable.—But more of this afterwards, and therefore I shall go on to observe,

4thly, That another false principle and notion, (and the last I shall mention), on which Mr. Goodlet founds his argument, is this, That praying, (viz. for peace, success, prosperity,—wisdom, and guidance from God, as he supposes the apostle to exhort), for idolatrous kings and emperors, is no acknowledgment nor homologation of their idolatry. And here he comes in with his fanciful distinction between the civil and ecclesiastic power, in the same subject, and applies it even to the vindication of the idolatrous Roman usurpers, the Cæsars, who were the chief priests in the idolatrous devil worship of the Roman Heathens.—“But did ever any person, (for I must repeat his words again), to this day, dream that there was an inconsistency between (the apostles and primitive Christians) testifying against idolatry, and praying for the Roman emperor as their civil sovereign; or that such a prayer could homologate their vile idolatry.” I have already shewn, that the primitive Christians neither did, nor were called to testify against Heathen idolaters, or their idolatrous emperors and rulers in those times and places, as Mr. Goodlet and his brethren are certainly bound in duty to do, with respect to idolatry and idolaters amongst us at this day; i.e. such as, about the owning, or discountenancing of which, the debate is between them and the Reformed Presbytery. And moreover, I would know, by what authority, or instances, Mr. Goodlet will prove, that the apostles and Christians then did own, and pray for the Roman emperor as their civil sovereign, in the manner he represents them to have done? And till he prove it, I

[Page 204]

must still deny that they did.—Pray for idolaters, that, by free grace they may be turned from idols, to serve the living God, 1 Thess. i. 9. we may, and not be partakers nor approvers of their idolatry; nay, it is an express testimony against it, if we walk and behave towards them as we pray, (agreeable to that of the apostle, Eph. v. 11. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them;) but that owning, and praying for an idolatrous king or emperor, according to the vindicator’s plan, is not an homologating of their idolatry, or, is consistent with any kind of testimony against their idolatry, I utterly refuse. I make no doubt but Mr. Goodlet will sneer at my speaking of an idolatrous king or emperor, and make himself merry with it, just as he does above, page 52, at the idea and conceit of a “Prelatic king, and Prelatic constitution.”—But I would not advise him to be over hasty with his mirth, lest his laughter should, like the fools, Eccles. vii. 6. be only as the crackling of thorns under a pot;—though loud and noisy, yet short and soon over. The Roman emperor, of whom he speaks here, as being “himself the chief priest” in the Roman “idolatrous devil-worship,” and as, “having the supreme judgment of all things civil and religious,”—either had this office and power belonging peculiarly to himself as emperor, or else it was an office and power that was common to him with the rest of the inferior and subordinate magistrates, or with all others of the same idolatrous religion,—To say that it did not belong to him as emperor, but was common to all others as above, (in like manner as the profession of the Pagan idolatrous religion was), would be to say a manifest absurdity; for thus there would have been as many chief priests,—and supreme judges,—as there were persons professing the Pagan religion; the very supposition of which would be most contradictory and unreasonable. It must therefore have been an office and power that peculiarly belonged to him as emperor. Hence then, I may appeal to the judgment of almost any man’s reason, if he was not, truly and properly speaking, an idolatrous emperor? He was not only an idolatrous man, or “Heathen idolater,” (as Mr. Goodlet calls him, and only grants him to be,) for such were all Pagans as well as himself, but an idolatrous emperor,—a principal, supreme, and sovereign idolater; for he was the chief priest, and that in virtue of

[Page 205]

his being emperor.—The case is just the same with us, with respect to Prelatical idolatry, and that spiritual supremacy that inseparably belongs to the British constitution. The Reformed Presbytery therefore, very justly observe concerning it, (Testimony, page 128.) “That as a power, both civil and ecclesiastic, belongs to the essence and constitution of an English diocesan bishop; so the same is declared to belong,—to the constitution of an English king, who is the head and chief Prelate among them all; and it is their manner, to call themselves his bishops, (not Christ’s,) as having their power, both ecclesiastical and civil, immediately from him as the fountain of all power within his dominions.”

From this, and the whole of what has been said on this last particular, I may fairly conclude and infer,—That an acknowledgment of such kings, in their civil places and offices, in the manner our author and his brethren plead for and do, be they Heathen, or Christian, who have idolatry so interwoven with their constitution, is utterly inconsistent with any testimony against their idolatry at all.—Where poison is mixed with any potable liquor, it must surely be very difficult, yea impossible, to drink the liquor and leave the poison. If Mr. Goodlet still stands upon the affirmative, I may confront him with still higher and more obliging authority than human reasoning; and that is the authority of an inspired apostle, 2 John ver. 10. 11. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your houses, nor bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. If a king or emperor be, as such, an idolater,—a supreme, chief idolater, I would thereupon ask, if Mr. Goodlet thinks he could bid an idolater God speed, and not be partaker of his idolatry?—Let him consider all these things seriously, and then see if he can laugh at the trick, and sport at the jest.

This sedulous author next proceeds, and is at no small pains, (in the course of about 40. 5 pages, viz. from page 53, to 57.) to reconcile the principles of Seceders, with those of our Reformers in the reigns of James VI. and Charles I. and II. and to make the world believe they are all uniformly of a piece;—as he makes no distinction between the case and duty of the primitive Christians, in the first ages of Christianity, and ours, now in these days

[Page 206]

and places wherein we live, with reference to this particular; (as I have already shown,) so neither does he perceive nor allow any between the case and situation of our Reformers, and ours now, and since that time; (although the difference and disparity is so remarkably evident, that a half-blind person may see it;) but all ages and times are alike with him, and every present government alike lawful, and equally the ordinance of God, and to be homologated and acknowledged as such.—“It is well known, (says he,) that under the reigns of James VI. Charles I. and partly of Charles II. the faithful witnesses for Christ, while stedfast in their testimonies for his royalties, prerogatives, and the church’s privileges,—still looked upon it as their duty to pray for them, as their civil superiors.” For the proof of this he brings in some instances from the practice of our Reformers in the reign of James VI. and of some of the sufferers during the first six years of the reign of Charles II. and the reason why he is so careful and industrious to collect, and present us with those instances, he tells us, is, because the Reformed Presbytery “have been at uncommon pains to make it pass for sterling truth, among those who know no better,—That our renowned covenanters, and martyrs for the truths of Christ, did never acknowledge the king’s authority, nor pray for him, if he professed himself to be head of the church.” The which is a very vile and unjust representation, (I should have said, misrepresentation and perversion) of both the Presbytery’s words and sentiments. I defy him either to shew such words, or such a sentiment in all their Testimony. As for the practice of our worthy ancestors, in those first periods the Vindicator refers to, the Presbytery have, in their Testimony, publicly approved of, (and continue still to approve), both their dutiful behaviour and carriage towards their kings and rulers, and their faithful contendings for, and, (as confessors and martyrs), their steadfast adherence to the Redeemer’s kingdom, cause, and interests; so that these things were never controverted:—But how Mr. Goodlet hath the front and assurance to bring in those instances and examples he mentions, and to apply them to the vindication of his and his brethren’s way of stating and conducting their religious testimony towards the present civil state and rulers, is indeed truly surprising. I can see no purpose that all his

[Page 207]

talk and pains about this serves for, if it is not to betray his own ignorance, (if we can suppose him so blockish as to be really ignorant) of the very singular difference there was between the state and situation of things in those earlier reforming periods, and the situation of matters now, and since that time. And moreover, if such a strained and injurious application of these instances proceeds not from ignorance, then surely, (to use his own words), it must come from a worse original. “It is well known, (and freely granted, that under the reigns of James VI. Charles I. and partly of Charles II. the faithful witnesses for Christ, for his royalties, prerogatives, and the church’s privileges, still looked upon it as their duty to pray for them as their civil superiors.” They did so, and did well, and agreeable to what was their duty when they did so; For,

1. The things they complained of, and wrestled against, were only particular instances of spiritual usurpation and tyranny in the administration, directly contrary to the constitution, which was good: I say, the constitution then was good, in regard that it was not only so ordered and settled, as to exclude both civil and spiritual tyranny, but in respect of its being directly pointed against, and excluding all idolatry and false religion, and, on the other hand, including and comprehending the profession and maintenance of the true religion, in opposition to Popery, Prelacy, &c. (See the Scots coronation oath, as it is contained, act 8th, Parl. 1. James VI. and act 15th, parl. 1. Ch. I. wherein the nature, boundaries, and limits of the constitution are particularly specified.) That the constitution was good in all these respects above-noticed Mr. Goodlet acknowledges; “King James VI. (says he,) had solemnly sworn to maintain the Confession of Faith and covenant, and subscribed the same.” Well, and what then; “Yet, (says he), did he openly renounce his principles, overturned Presbyterial church government, set up Episcopacy in Scotland, and even assumed the supreme power over all persons and causes ecclesiastic.”—True, he did so: But were not all these things only, and nothing more than personal acts of tyranny in the administration. This the Vindicator acknowledges in express terms, when he says, He, viz. King James, did so and so, and assumed to do so and so. Were not all these instances of tyranny con-

[Page 208]

contrary to the constitution, contrary to the king’s solemn oath, and terms of admission? and therefore, hence it followed,

2. That our wise and worthy ancestors wrestled and pleaded against these instances, and acts of personal tyranny and usurpation, (having the laws and constitution, the king’s oath and profession, and all on their side,) by petitions, remonstrances, and even sometimes by taking up arms in defence of the constitution, and liberties civil and religious, belonging unto them, and in opposition to the king’s usurpations:—And in so doing, they acted wisely, dutifully, and piously towards their king. They knew well, (as it has been ever generally acknowledged by all,) that a few instances of mal-administration, or acts of personal usurpation and tyranny, contrary to the constitution, would not, (as I may say,) unking a person once lawfully and rightly constituted, nor lay a foundation for disowning or deposing him, (nay, though there were, it may be, a number of them,) without attempting and trying by all means, to bring him to act according to his oath, profession, subscription, and the laws of God and of the land. Thus they contended during the reigns of James VI. and his son Charles I. in opposition to all these unconstitutional encroachments, especially upon the spiritual liberties and privileges of the church; yea, they not only contended against his unjust usurping to extend and exercise the same Erastian spiritual supremacy over the church of Scotland, which the English constitution allowed him to exercise over that church; but, joining in the Solemn League and Covenant with the Kingdoms of England and Ireland, they wrestled along with them, in opposition to both his unjust civil and religious tyranny over that church and nation; while yet, in all this, they still declare themselves most hearty friends to the King’s Majesty’s person, and to his just and lawful authority, as certainly they were. This, viz. the lawfulness and goodness of the constitution, (as above said,) was the foundation of all the wrestlings and pleadings of our renowned and worthy ancestors in Scotland, in behalf both of religion and liberty.—The import and design of all their petitions, supplications, and remonstrances was the King’s information, and reformation, that he might be brought back from those evil ways and courses, to which his own affectation of an unjust and unlawful

[Page 209]

power, instigated and encouraged by evil counsellors, had led him; and be brought to act conform to the constitution, and to his own solemn oath, profession, and obligations thereunto. This was the nature and purport of the petition from the ministers under confinement, presented to the parliament at Perth, July 1606. Craving “to have the unjust sentence of the council rescinded, and themselves delivered from the odious reproach, and heinous slander of treason, so undeservedly cast upon them;—and set at liberty to serve God in our calling, and pray for the peace of the king, his children, and subjects:” agreeable to the terms of stipulation and re-stipulation between a covenanted king, and covenanted subjects. The same was the nature of the minister’s petition, anno 1617; to the king and parliament, “Craving the—liberty of the kirk as formerly.” Justly therefore they conclude, “We are earnest suppliants to God,—to incline your Majesty’s heart this way, as the most expedient for the honour of God, and well of the subject*.” But it is very evident, and what Seceders themselves may be very sensible of, that they are far behind our Reformers in this particular. Notwithstanding all their feigned loyalty to the present king and parliament, they have never yet been so faithful to God, or dutiful to them, as to lay before them

______

* It may also be observed, that those people who were forced to take arms, anno 1666, who renewed the covenants at Lanerk November the 26th, but were unhappily overpowered and routed on the 28th at Rullion Green near Pentland hills, stated their testimony on the same footing, as may be seen from Crookshanks’s history.—They declared they were not designed to fight, but in their own defence; but their intent and desire was, that they might have leave and access to present and lay their grievances before the king’s privy council at Edinburgh, and petition for redress. Yea, those who with, and after them, still adhered to the covenants, and covenanted constitution, did not afterwards disown him, and cast off his authority, viz. that of Charles II. till they saw, and were convinced, that he was irreclaimable from his apostasy and rebellion against God; and having overturned the constitution, was evidently resolved to tear it up by the very roots: Though, indeed, when they came at length to be obliged to disown his authority, they generally regretted that they had not done so sooner.

[Page 210]

them what is sin and duty in this matter. In consequence of their professed acknowledgment of them, their authority, and constitution, in the same way as our Reformers did those above mentioned, they surely ought to go to king and parliament, and to lay before them what they would have them to do respecting “religion, and the liberty of the kirk as formerly.” If all access be blocked up,—then where is there room for any remonstrance, or declaration against sin, and in favours of duty. If there is access at any door whatsoever, then certainly they must be greatly wanting in their duty. It can be no argument, that they have no hope to succeed; they would then discharge their duty as subjects and ministers, loyal to their prince, and faithful to their God. Moses had ten times to go to Pharaoh, before he got Israel out of Egypt, but Seceders have not gone once yet to the King of Britain, to get the church out of bondage.—And thus they treat him whom they fawningly call, “One of the best of kings,” &c. as if he was an irreclaimable infidel; and as being convinced, that, like Ephraim of old, he is so glued to his idols and idolatry, that he ought to be wholly abandoned and let alone, Hosea iv. 17.

But to return from this short digression,—it may be still demanded, in what respects the present British constitution differs so wide and vastly from that in former times, particularly those to which Mr. Goodlet here refers. In reply to this, I say, the case is plainly this, That we have now vilely and treacherously given up with our covenanted constitution, both civil and religious, and have adopted the English constitution. At the Revolution, our religious covenanted constitution was dropped from, and given up with; and at the unhallowed incorporating union with England, our national civil-constitution was wholly yielded up, and the English constitution adopted; which, instead of including the profession and maintenance of the true religion in it, as our antient covenanted national constitution did, includes the profession, maintenance, and support of abjured Prelacy, with all its English Popish ceremonies, together also with the ecclesiastical, or spiritual supremacy, which inseparably belongs to that constitution, and ever hath done since the time that Henry VIII. of England, viz. in the year 1532, having cast off the Pope’s jurisdiction and supremacy, first at his own hand clothes himself with it,

[Page 211]

by public royal edict, declaring himself, under Christ, the head of the church of England; and then afterwards, had it granted and confirmed unto him by the sentence of both universities, and determination of the English bishops and clergy in convocation, acknowledging, “That unto the king did belong the title, The supreme head of the church.” (Vide Petrie’s History, pages 175, 177.) And last of all, he had it ascertained unto him, his heirs, and successors, and settled by act of parliament, 1534. as a perpetual inherent right and privilege of the imperial crown. For illustrating the truth of the above hints a little, I shall here subjoin the substance of this original parliamentary deed of constitution, as it relates to this particular, together with a sentence or two from the king’s proclamation, which followed thereupon. “Albeit the King’s Majesty, justly and rightly is, and ought to be the supreme head of the church of England, and so is recogniz’d by the clergy of this realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof—Be it enacted, by authority of this present parliament, That the King our sovereign Lord, his heirs, and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head of the church of England, called Anglicana ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and stile thereof, as all honours, dignities, pre-eminence, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, profits,—to the said dignity of supreme head of the same church belonging and appertaining. And that our said sovereign Lord, his heirs, and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority, from time to time, to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend, all such errors, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities whatsoever they be, which, by any manner of spiritual

_____

* “In England, King Henry VIII. having fallen out with the Pope, about the matter of his divorce, begins to favour the Reformation; he writes a book against the tyranny of the Pope, gets himself declared head of the church of England, next under Christ; denies the Pope’s jurisdiction in his dominions; makes it death for any to maintain it, &c.”—Bennet’s Memorial of the Reformation, page 39.

[Page 212]

authority or jurisdiction, may or ought lawfully to be reformed,—redressed, corrected,—or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, and to the increase of virtue in Christ’s religion, &c.” Some of the words of the King’s proclamation which succeeded this act, are as follows:—“Whereas,—upon good—and virtuous grounds,—by the due consultation,—advisement, and consent of our nobles and commons, temporal, as also spiritual, assembled in our high court of parliament, and by authority of the same, we have—extirped, abolished,—and secluded out of this our realm, the abuses of the Bishop of Rome, his authority and jurisdiction of long time usurped.—But also, for as much as our said nobles and commons, both spiritual and temporal, assembled in our high court of parliament, have upon good, lawful, and virtuous grounds,—by one whole assent, granted, annexed, knit, and united to the Crown imperial of the same, the title, dignity, and stile of supreme head, or governour in earth, immediately under God, of the church of England, as we be, and undoubtedly, have hitherto been: Which title and stile, both the bishops and clergy of this realm have not only in convocation assembled, consented, recognized, and approved lawfully—to appertain to us, but also by word, oath, profession,—have confessed and confirmed the same, &c.”—Fox’s Acts and Monuments, vol. ii. page 378.

This much may serve to give the reader an idea of the English constitution; the constitution which is now sinfully adopted by Scotland, and which the nation have bound themselves, both in their religious and civil capacity, to acknowledge, pray for, defend, and support in perpetuum, (and which Seceders do also plainly give in unto,) and that in direct opposition to, and with the renunciation of our covenanted constitution. King William and Queen Mary, at the Revolution, did not swear the Scots coronation oaths; and now, (by the union, or united constitution,) the king is King of Britain, not, (as formerly,) King of Scotland, or according to the Scots constitution, but as King of England, or according to the English constitution. The English well knew the difference between the two,—they knew the constitutions were widely different; they knew the coronation oaths were also widely different; and

[Page 213]

therefore put that among the first of their preliminary demands and articles, when they came to treat of an union, That the English constitution should be adopted, that is to say, That the king, as he was King of England, and according to that constitution, should be acknowledged king of Great Britain, (as may be seen from the History of the Union.) Hence our Reformers, therefore, had most just and rational grounds, and footing, to distinguish between the king’s civil and ecclesiastical authority, and to acknowledge and honour the one, whilst they utterly refused and opposed the other; in regard that all the acts of his pretended spiritual supremacy and authority over them, proceeded not from their own constitution, (nay were directly contrary to it,) but from the English constitution. And hence also it was, (and may be very proper to be noticed here), That the sufferers and martyrs in Scotland, under Charles II. never cast off his authority, till after the act of supremacy, (and which was also called, the Explanatory Act,) passed in the Scots parliament, bearing date, November 16th, 1669*, wherein the “supremacy, or supreme authority over all persons, and in all causes ecclesiastical,” was declared to be “an inherent right to the crown, within this his kingdom;” and thereby the king was constituted Pope of Scotland, as well as of England:—and yet even then, they did not, in an hasty, rash, precipitant way, publicly disown his authority; nay not for some years,—till they were forced, by his civil and spiritual tyranny, and dismal oppression, again to take up arms in their own defence, anno 1679, when they openly renounced his authority, and that principally and chiefly on the footing, and account of his grasping, establishing himself in, and obstinately holding of Christ’s throne and dignity, in his usurped spiritual supremacy over his church, as shall afterwards be made appear against Mr. Goodlet. Our Reformers then in those times, we may see, had a clear and just foundation for such a distinction between the king’s civil and spiritual authority; but this ground and foundation being now lost and given up, the distinction that our author

_____

* The reader may see this act, with remarks upon it, in Crookshank’s History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. (ad annum 1669,) page 253.

[Page 214]

author and the Associate Synod still pretend to make here, must be purely absurd and groundless. There needs nothing further, than what is above said, be added, to make this appear evident to any considering person. The constitution is now, on which they pleaded, quite altered, nay renounced,—and a new one, viz. the English constitution,) adopted; in which it is declared, (as above,) that the spiritual supremacy is annexed, knit, and united to the imperial crown, or civil dignity: Where then, I pray, is there room for distinction here, unless for one merely whimsical, such as theirs indeed is?—Besides, that now the perpetual maintenance of the Prelatic hierarchy and superstition is included in this new adopted constitution, and lies at the very foundation of it, which was not the case formerly; for though the king, by the above quoted original deed of constitution had a pretended power granted him of forming, reforming, and modelling the church,—yet only, according as might be “most to the pleasure of Almighty God:” so that, whilst the case stood thus, the true Presbyterian worship, government, and discipline of the church, (though it had indeed no better, yet) had still as good a chance, (as I may say,) in the course of divine providence, to be received and introduced, as Popery or Prelacy had, provided the king, by proper means of information and conviction, came to see it to be “most to the pleasure of Almighty God, and the increase of virtue in Christ’s religion,” (as the words are in the act); for he was not then bound by the constitution, to be of any one profession, rather, or more than another, but only to profess and maintain the truth. But since that time, the constitution has been greatly corrected, I should have said corrupted. Prelacy, after a long struggle with Presbytery, like Dagon with the ark of God, though it fell before it for a time, yet at last gets the victory at the restoration of Charles II. and provides for its security and settlement in England and Ireland, firmer and surer than ever formerly. The profession and maintenance of it is now made a constitutional qualification of the English king; and the true religion is perpetually and for ever precluded all access or reception in a national way. So that now, were the king himself to turn to embrace the true religion, and renounce the profession of that false and idolatrous religion established by law, it must be at the expence (poor men)

[Page 215]

of losing his crown, and forfeiting his place and dignity. Thus the reader may see what differences there are between now and then, the present and former times, as to this particular, and all of them to the worse.—Let us therefore hear no more of our author’s imaginary distinction, nor of his examples and instances brought from the practice of our Reformers, in vindication of it, till once he makes, or proves our situation and case at present to be the same with, or parallel to theirs. The foundation being overthrown, the superstructure must naively fall of course. After those instances, which he gathers up during the reign of James VI. some of which I have already touched at, he then brings in some from Naphtali, i.e. in the first part of the reign of Charles II. viz. the noble Marquis of Argyle, Mr. James Guthry, Lord Warriston, and Mr. Hugh M‘Kail; and concludes with two observations upon the whole. The injuriousness of his application of which, to these noble martyrs and confessors, may, from what has been said above, be obvious to every intelligent and judicious reader. His other instances in the reign of Charles II. built upon the same foundation, and brought forward to the same purpose, we will meet with in their proper place.

Well, but after all, Mr. Goodlet thinks to palliate or cloak this matter a little, under the disguise and cover of an insinuation he brings in, in favours of the present constitution; and that is, That the royal supremacy, I mean the supreme spiritual authority, belonging to the present civil constitution, relates only to the church of England, and is not extended also over the church of Scotland; “They, (viz. the Reformed Presbytery,) make a mighty noise against the Synod for praying for the king,—because, according to the constitution of the church of England, he hath the supreme authority over it.” By this insinuation, he seems plainly to deny, that the royal spiritual authority hath any thing to do with the church of Scotland, or that the supreme civil ruler in these lands hath not, by the constitution, the supreme spiritual authority and headship over the church of Scotland, as well as the church of England. Mr. Goodlet being by profession an Antiburgher Seceder, one would have expected him to have been a man both of better knowledge and sentiments, than to think and talk at this rate. The kings of Britain since

[Page 216]

since the Revolution, and particularly since the incorporating union, have acted and exercised a spiritual headship and authority over the church of Scotland in a palpable and evident manner, and that both as to her constitution and government. This the Presbytery have clearly, and at large demonstrated in their Testimony, from page 57. to page 97, to which I refer the reader; where he will find it clearly proven, as the grounds of the Presbytery’s remonstrance and testimony against the revolution ecclesiastic constitution, that it was only a merely civil political one, not built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, but upon the will and authority of the king and parliament, and fluctuating inclinations of the people. The king and parliament were the very formers of the revolution church, settled her confession of faith, or articles of doctrine to be believed.—And even since, in the administration, the king hath acted, as if he judged, and looked upon the constitution of the church, and the general assembly’s power and right of constitution, as subject and subordinate to his spiritual authority and jurisdiction. This may partly be evident from the constant tenor of the king’s letters patent, or commission to his representative in the assemblies, even before the incorporating union; as for instance, 1669, “Quandoquidem generalem ecclesiæ conventum Scotiæ, vicesimo die mensis Januarii instantis, teneri decrevimus.”—And sometimes it runs thus;—“Quandoquidem, ex decreto nostro, generalis ecclesiæ conventus in dicto—mensis—continuatus erat.”—That is to say; Seeing, by our decree, the assembly of the church of Scotland is to meet, &c. Or, Seeing, by our decree the meeting of the general assembly was prorogued; i.e. delayed and set aside till such a time, &c. Accordingly, King William, by his royal spiritual authority, indicted, prorogued, adjourned, and dissolved the general assemblies of the church of Scotland at pleasure. The first assembly after the Revolution was held in virtue of an indiction by his (spiritual) authority, and by the same power dissolved. The next was, by the same royal authority, appointed to be at Edinburgh 1691, but was, by the same power, adjourned to 1692, and then dissolved without passing any act; and though indicted again to meet 1693, yet was not allowed to meet till March 1694. And moreover, from the year 1703,

[Page 217]

1703, we may behold a woman, whom the apostle expressly forbids to usurp authority over the man, and will not allow so much as to speak in the church, 1 Cor. xiv. 35. 1 Tim. ii. 12. I say, we may thence behold one of that sex, for a series of years, exercising this spiritual authority and jurisdiction over the church, and assemblies of the church of Scotland, in various instances.

The reader, upon perusal of that part of the Presbytery’s Testimony I have referred to above, will find a number of proofs drawn from matters of fact, condescended upon, of the civil magistrate’s exercising a supreme spiritual authority over the church of Scotland, during the course of the administration all along since the Revolution.—I shall here only spend a page or two in giving a short abstract of some of them. The first I shall mention, is their third; (the first and second I leave to the reader’s leisure consideration;) and that is, That the king and parliament have taken upon them to prescribe and lay down by magistratical authority,—qualifications, sine qua non, of ministers and preachers. See act 6. sess. 4. parl. 1. 1693. Act 23. 1693. Act 27. sess. 5. parl. 1. 1695. where it is enacted, That all preachers and ministers of the gospel, shall take and subscribe the oaths of assurance and allegiance,—without which they shall not dare to exercise any part of their function.—“With certification, that such of said ministers, as shall not come in, and take said oaths, betwixt and a day specified, are hereby, and by the force of these acts, ipso facto, deprived of their respective kirks and stipends, and the same declared vacant, without any further sentence.” This is a manifest and glaring instance of supreme spiritual headship and authority,—“Most injurious, both to the headship of Christ, whose royal prerogative it is to appoint all the qualifications of his officers, and which he has done in his word,—and injurious to the church’s intrinsic power.”

Another instance of this supreme spiritual jurisdiction, is the civil magistrate, by himself, and his own authority, without consulting the church, or any but his parliament, privy council, or diocesan bishops, his appointing diets, and causes of public fasting and thanksgiving; this stands in need of no illustration.

Further, another proof and instance of this is, The

[Page 218]

king and parliament their arbitrarily imposing their acts and statutes upon ministers and preachers, under ecclesiastic pains and censures. Act 6th, 1706. Ordains, “That no professors, and principals bearing office in any university, be capable, or be admitted to continue in the exercise of their said functions, but such as shall own the civil government, in manner prescribed, or to be prescribed by acts of parliament.” Act of the first year of George I. ordains, “That no person be admitted to trials, or licensed to preach, till they have first taken the public oaths, under pain of being disabled.” And act anno quinto ejusdem, ordains, “All ministers and preachers, to pray, in express words, for his Majesty, and the royal family, as in former acts.”

Again, the act anent Captain Porteous, anno 1737, is a famous instance of this spiritual supremacy and dominion; the penalties thereof being ecclesiastical, and inferring a kind of deposition. Ministers are also thereby made the king’s heralds, to proclaim his acts, and that on the Lord’s day;—for herein it is ordained, “That this act shall be read in every parish church throughout Scotland, on the first Lord’s day of every month, for one whole year,—by the minister of the parish, in the morning, immediately before sermon: and, in case such minister shall neglect to read this act, as is hereby directed, he shall, for the first offence, be declared incapable of sitting and voting in any church judicatory; and, for the second offence, be declared incapable of—holding or enjoying any ecclesiastical benefice in that part of Great Britain called Scotland.”

The last instance which I shall mention of this supreme spiritual authority, (belonging to, and depending upon the present constitution,) as it has been, and is exercised to the oppression of, and tyrannizing over the church of Scotland, is that of patronages. That this pretended spiritual right of patronage, which is parcelled out and distributed among noblemen, heritors, &c. of Scotland, holds of, and is subordinate to the king as supreme, therein, we need no other evidence, than that where there is none that can in law shew a title, or where there happens to be two or more persons contending for, or claiming the same right,—if the controversy cannot be decided between them, the right of patronage always in this case, and ac-

[Page 219]

cording to the present law, accrues to the king;—which plainly declares, that, in the eye of the civil law, he is regarded as the original source, or, at least, the sovereign of this power. To this purpose, one of our Scots lawyers rightly observes, That “the Pope (formerly) claimed the right of the patronage of every kirk, to which no third party could shew a special title: (but) since the Reformation, the Crown, as coming in the place of the Pope, is considered as universal patron, where no right of patronage appears in a subject*.” Thus the king, as the Pope of Britain, &c. is considered as the great superior and protector of this pretended antichristian right and power of patronage, which has been a yoke upon the church, that neither we, nor our fathers were able to bear.

Concerning these above-mentioned instances of the royal ecclesiastical headship, and supreme spiritual authority, exercised over the church of Scotland since the Revolution, I observe these two things, and so pass them.

1. That they are all constitutional, and proceed from the constitution, which, as the Reformed Presbytery do well observe, is, in respect of the evils of the administration, Fons et origo mali. Such like instances of oppression and tyranny, exercised over the church of Scotland in the times of our ancestors, from which the Vindicator pretends to plead, did, (it is true,) then, as well as now, proceed from the English constitution, and were perfectly consonant to that sight and power which that constitution clothed their kings with; and which pretended power, James VI. upon his accession to the English crown, and his two succeeding sons, were still assuming and arrogating to exercise over the church of Scotland, as well as that of England; nevertheless, they were perfectly opposite to the Scots constitution both of church and state.—Our forefathers then had nothing to do with the English Erastian constitution; but now their poor renegado posterity, having renounced their own reformed covenanted constitution, and adopted in its place, the English, Papal, Erastian one, all these things are now become constitutional, and what cannot be found fault with more or less than the constitution, or separate from it.

_____

* Erskine’s Principles of the Law of Scotland, book I. tit. 5.

[Page 220]

For the proof of this, observe, That as no created being can be capable of blame, or liable to censure, while it acts according to its original and natural frame, constitution, and law, and from the powers it was furnished with by its Creator; so, no more can any created power be blamed by its constituents, approvers, or adopters, while acting only according to the rights and powers granted him by the constitution, or in his creation, (I mean as a power.) And hence,

2. I observe, and argue, That Mr. Goodlet and his brethren have not any right, grounded either on scripture or reason, to censure, blame, or testify against either the evils in the present constitution, or any such instances of spiritual tyranny and oppression flowing from it, separate from the constitution itself. All their right they pretend to this purpose, is indeed a mere farce and cheat, and will be found so. It must surely be but very juggling like work, to give a man such and such powers for action, or to approve of his constitution and settlement in them, as they do the British and Irish constitutions, (as has been above shewn,) and then to fall to declaim against, censure, or complain of his actions, (or make them matter of mourning before the Lord,) which are just the native fruits of that constitution, according to which, and the exercise of that power wherewith he is invested, both which they acknowledge as lawful. Just as unreasonable and absurd this is, as if they should give a man liquor till he was drunk, and incapable to walk, and then rail upon, and abuse him for stumbling; or as, if a man should push his neighbour into a ditch or puddle, and then beat him for being dirty. The present revolution-church have uniformly acted more consistently, both with themselves, and with the nature and kind of that constitution which they had adopted, in their hitherto submitting to, and tamely acknowledging them in all their impositions; and seeing, our author and his brethren join with them in yielding up our covenanted reformation constitution, and in receiving and acknowledging the English Erastian idolatrous one, they had done far better to have made as little noise, and been as silent about the administration, as they have been.—Far better than to have taken such a contradictory way, viz. of testifying, or pretending to testify against the streams, but not the fountain, the fruit, but not the

[Page 221]

tree.—As for their talking of evils, or mal-administrations, it is just to talk vanity and deceit; there can be no such thing as evils, or mal-administrations, where the constitution is good, and the administrator acting according and conform unto it, unless we could suppose a fountain to send forth, at the same place, both salt water and fresh, fewer than which is impossible, James iii. 11. 12. But leaving these things I now proceed.

Page 57. Mr. Goodlet comes next to consider the Presbytery’s principles about civil government and governors. The Presbytery’s words which he quotes, are these, Testimony, page 111. “Magistracy is a divine ordinance, flowing originally from Jehovah, the supreme and universal sovereign of heaven and earth, as the ultimate fountain thereof.—And that the Lord has lodged a power and right in the people, of choosing and setting up those persons that shall exercise civil government over them, and to whom they will submit themselves: but then, while God has lodged this power in the people, of conveying the right of civil authority to their magistrates, he has, at the same time, given them positive and unalterable laws, according to which they are to proceed in setting up their magistrates; and, by the sovereign authority of the great lawgiver, they are expressly bound to act in agreeableness to those rules, without any variation; and that under the pain of rebellion against him who is King of kings, and Lord of Lords.” In his preamble or introduction to what he designs to say on this quotation, he pretends, (after his usual manner,) that it will be greatly difficult for him to understand them; “For, (says he,) they so say and gainsay, that it is difficult to know what they would say.” That they necessarily must gainsay Seceders upon the head of civil government, is true, but wherein they gainsay truth, is not yet made evident. However, such a pretence as this is a good way to exalt his own abilities as superior to all others, at the expence of depreciating those of others far below his own. Yet when he comes to consider the thing more attentively, he seems to give a calm acquiescence to the Presbytery’s description of magistracy,—one article only excepted, viz. “Positive unalterable laws.” For the sake of argument, he must desiderate a while about this, and make a halt; yet, as if under the power of some strong conviction, he must

[Page 222]

must afterwards grant, and cannot deny, “but that God hath given men a law, by which they are to exercise the right and power that they have to choose their magistrates;—and that the least deviation from the rule of duty is a sin against God.”—But still he desiderates about the sense of positive and unalterable laws, just as if he had never heard of them before. To discern this, he is an expert logician, he must now distinguish between a theological sense of the words, and another sense of them, which he gives no particular name to. I shall call the popular and common sense. In the theological sense, which he says is the ordinary sense, (which yet is far from being so, being neither used nor known, unless among divines,) he denies that God hath given positive laws—to men, to proceed by in setting up magistrates; and, I believe, in this sense, the Reformed Presbytery deny it too; for I am persuaded, (I had almost said positive), they had not the remotest view to that sense in their use and application of the words.—If he had consulted his dictionary, he might there have found the sense the Presbytery intended; and this would have saved him both the time and trouble of demurring so long about it. At last, however, he exactly falls in with the Presbytery’s sense, and refutes it. “But if, (says he,) they intend by these words, particular, express, scripture precepts and instructions, this I must also refuse; for where hath God given any such laws or precepts to a Heathen people who never saw nor heard of a bible.” This is his impregnable defence; this, however, I have already beat him out of, in the former part of these answers, and shall not now pursue him into it. I would only just ask him, Is not the law of nature an unalterable law? If not, how comes he to call it an eternal law? for if it be alterable, it cannot be eternal; and, if it be eternal, it must also be unalterable. This eternal law he will acknowledge is given to the Heathens, and consequently, according to his own principles, must own that there are unalterable laws given to the Heathens, and that such are given to Christians, I hope he will not deny. But I think, if Mr. Goodlet had no other objection against the Presbytery’s description of magistracy, than their using the words “positive, unalterable laws,” he might have passed them over without taking to himself so much trouble.

[Page 223]

The substance of what follows, in our author’s performance from this 58th page of his book last quoted, to the 93d page, concerns those particulars that I have already treated of, and replied to his cavils about, in the former part of these answers, viz. The scripture institution of magistracy;—Necessity of scripture qualifications; Of the Heathen magistrate, or magistracy among the Heathens, and sundry other things already discussed; I shall therefore pass over these pages, only, as we go along, making some general and cursory remarks on what may occur, that has not formerly been touched upon.

The first thing of this kind that meets us, is in page 60. there Mr. Goodlet in his further experiment upon the Presbytery’s principles about civil government, seems mightily disgusted with the definition of magistracy they give, (Testimony, page 189.) viz. “That God Almighty the sovereign Lord of all things, and special protector and preserver of his professed subjects in this lower world, hath, for his own glory, and the public good, authorised and instituted in his word, the office and ordinance of civil government and governors.” &c.—Against this account of the original and institution of magistracy, he hath two exceptions, “1. That it is said to be instituted in the word.” (This I take no notice of here, because I have handled it already, and answered his objections.) “2. That God is herein called, the special protector and preserver of his professed subjects in this lower world.” From this Mr. Goodlet thinks to force this principle upon the Presbytery, viz. That they hold the derivation of the magistrate’s office to be from Christ as Mediator. I have already sufficiently vindicated them on this head also.—But there still appears to be something very dark and enigmatical in this objection of Mr. Goodlet’s. Can we think that he denies the doctrine of God’s general and special providence? or that God is the special protector of his professed subjects in this lower world, so clearly manifest both from nature and scripture. See 2 Chron. xvi. 9. The eyes of the Lord run to and fro, throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect towards him. 1 Tim. iv. 10. For therefore we both labour, and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all

[Page 224]

men, specially those that believe.* And if we look into the volume of providence, or take a view of such of its acts as are recorded both in sacred and profane history, what a multitude of instances should we meet with of the special care and power of divine providence, exercised and manifested towards his people, and “professed subjects in this lower world.” Thus they are taught, and thus they are found accordingly to have their waiting eyes towards the Lord, as the eyes of servants are to the hand of their masters, both for direction and protection in their work, cxxiii. 2.—But again, may we so much as suppose, that Mr. Goodlet will deny, that the divine ordinance of magistracy was particularly designed by God for the good, protection, and defence of his “professed subjects in this lower world?” If he does, what then will he make of Rom. xiii. 1. 2. 3. 4. (where this institution is recognised and acknowledged under the New Testament,) particularly verses 3. and 4. and 1 Pet. ii. 14. where, by the concurring testimony both of the apostle of the Gentiles, and the apostle of the circumcision, this is expressly declared to be the end of this institution. For

_____

* “For it is in consideration of this important truth, (viz. That godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, verse 8.) and of the assured hopes of its accomplishment to ourselves, that we, the apostles and servants of Christ, undergo great fatigues in our holy ministrations, to advance his glory, interest and kingdom;—and that we patiently and cheerfully bear the most contemptuous scorn, and infamous revilings from our adversaries, for his sake, because we firmly rely on the power, truth, and faithfulness of the almighty and everlasting God, who has life in himself, and is the fountain of—life, and of every blessing that is needful for the support and comfort of it; as he is the great preserver of all mankind, and the author and giver of all their temporal salvations and deliverances, and, in a providential way, is good to all, (Psal. cxiv. 9.) and he is so, by the particular care of his providence, and in a special way of covenant love and faithfulness, to true believers, with respect to all the promised good things that pertain to the present life, as well as is most eminently so, with respect to an everlasting salvation in that which is to come.” Guise’s Paraphrase on this text.

[Page 225]

rulers are not a terror to good works.—Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same; For he is the minister of God to thee for good.—A revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.—Ordained, and set—for the punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well.—And moreover, if this is his opinion, I might also oppose to it the doctrine of the synod of divines in their Larger Catechism, quest. 20. where they reckon the ordinance of marriage, (which our author himself acknowledges to be an ordinance somewhat similar to magistracy,) an instance of God’s special providence and care towards man in his first state; and also the institution of the sabbath, both which institutions originally belonged to, and were given to man in a state of innocency, and both of them are recognised, or, (if I may be allowed to use the word) renewed in scripture.

I cannot here omit to transcribe some few sentences from an old, but excellent and worthy divine, very much to our present purpose. “The main and principal end of all government, (says he,) regal or subordinate, is the advancement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the cherishing of his children. For let men of the world, which have their portion only in this life, think and say what they list, is is for the sake and safety of the saints alone, whom they look upon so disdainfully,—and would, if they might have leave, trample them into the dust, with the feet of pride and malice:—I say it is only for them that the mighty Lord of heaven not only supports and preserves all the states and monarchies, all the commonwealths and kingdoms of the earth, but even the world itself. Assuredly, when the last of these elected ones, whom God hath everlastingly loved from before all worlds, shall be called, converted, and fitted for heaven, the world shall stand no longer; (the reader may compare this here, with what is said page 80. preceding;) but the heavens shall shrivel together like a scroll, and pass away with a great noise; the whole frame of this inferior world shall be turned into a ball of fire; and the imperial crowns of the greatest monarchs upon earth shall flame about their ears.—And what will become of all the power and policy that opposeth the people of God, we may see in the second of Daniel, verses 34. 35. 44. 45. Those four

[Page 226]

strongest monarchies, and mightiest states that ever the sun saw, shadowed by Nebuchadnezzar’s great image, were setting themselves against the servants of God, were beaten upon and blasted by the curse of divine wrath, and so sunk, in their several times, into the jaws of ruin and irrecoverable desolation.—That stone, (saith the text,) which was cut out without hands, smote the image upon his feet, that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces; then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver and the gold broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors, and the wind carried them away that no place was found for them. And so let all the implacable enemies of Jesus Christ perish to the end of the world. Selah. Thus you see what is the main end of magistracy, which necessarily requires righteousness in rulers*.”

The next thing I shall passingly take notice of, occurs page 67. here Mr. Goodlet seems greatly disgusted at the Presbytery for demolishing their scheme of civil government without mercy, leaving them only the stump of Dagon.—Here, therefore he falls foul upon them in the way of boast and banter,—and charges them with disingenuity, lying, and falsehood.—“But it does not appear, (says he,) as if our adversaries were in a difficulty to assert any thing to serve a turn, whether it have any other foundation than their own imagination or not.” This, however, is easier to be born, than to suffer truth to be trode upon without correction offered to those who trample it down.—The Presbytery, page 117, had been exposing their inconsistency in their vain pretences of yielding subjection and obedience to the present civil powers, in their lawful commands, while yet they refuse to give any subjection to the established church. The Presbytery’s words are;——“It is not easy to understand how Seceders will reconcile their principles anent civil government, with their principles and practice in separating from an established church or ministry, whose constitution they acknowledge to be good, and who being presbyterially ordained, are still acknowledged by the body of the people. Sure, had they dealt—impartially in

_____

* Bolton’s (Robert) sermons on Prov. xxix. 2.

[Page 227]

the matters of God, they would have acted in this case agreeable to their declared principle, page 79. of their pamphlet, viz. the passages holding forth these qualifications of magistrates, do not, by the remotest hint, imply, that if, in any way, they be deficient in, or make defection from the same, their authority and commands even in matters lawful, must not be subjected unto and obeyed, &c. Certainly, according to this, all the deficiencies, defections, and mal-administrations in the church could never have been a warrantable ground, (which yet they make the only ground) of their separation from her; but on the contrary, “they should still have continued” in communion with her, and “subjection to her, in matters lawful, in a way of testifying against the same, and essaying their reformation by all means habile for them.” Seceders must either grant that this was their duty, and so—condemn their separation as unwarrantable, or else deny, that the qualifications of magistrate and minister are required in the same express terms in scripture;—that both are clothed with an equal (though distinct) authority, and that subjection and obedience are, under the same pains, enjoined to both;—and consequently, that it is less dangerous to cast off and contemn—the authority of a church, than that of the state; while yet, (according to their scheme,) civil authority is entirely resolved into, and depends merely upon the—changeable will of the civil society: but it is, presumed they will allow, that ecclesiastical authority is derived—from, and depends—upon the Lord Jesus Christ alone, the glorious judge, lawgiver, and king of his church; so that, (according to them,) it must be of a far more noble extract and original, it must be of far more dangerous consequence to contemn and cast off it than the other.” From this passage Mr. Goodlet draws his charge of lying and falsehood.—Particularly, “They assert, (says he,) that the (Associate) Presbytery acknowledge the constitution of the present established church of Scotland to be good, though they have most solemnly testified against the said constitution as very corrupt,—by their declinature in the face of the general assembly.”—All very good! if they did so, be it so: but if they had testified equally, and as openly against the constitution of the state, “as very corrupt,”—as en-

[Page 228]

grossing the usurpation of the dignities and prerogatives of the Mediator, the establishing, and perpetual maintenance of Prelatic idolatry and superstition, &c. they had acted more faithfully, and more agreeable to their duty both to God, and to the present civil state. I shall only here observe, that whatever way they expressed themselves before the general assembly, yet, by their after conduct it is evident, they either owned her constitution to be good,—or otherwise received some into their communion in terms inconsistent with their declinature; (and if such a way of acting was not a handling of our covenanted testimony, and the word of God deceitfully, I may leave the impartial to judge.) For proof of this, I refer both Mr. Goodlet and the reader, to Mr. Ralph Erskine’s signed adherence to Mr. Mair’s declaration of secession, engrossed with the Associate Presbytery’s Testimony, page (mihi) 126; his words are, “I think myself obliged to join with them,—not as they are a Presbytery, or judicatory separate from the church of Scotland, but as they are a part of the same church,—and witnessing (only) against their corruptions and defections.—I intend and understand no withdrawing from ministerial communion with any of the godly ministers of this church.” These were his principles, and grounds of accession, and which were also sustained by the Associate Presbytery. And however dissonant his after practice was to this his adherence, in (so far as I know,) joining with any of them, yet, I dare say, it would be too harsh divinity to give this as the reason, viz. because there were no godly ministers in the national church. I refer also to the Presbytery’s act admitting him, subjoined to his adherence, where they declare, “That his grounds of secession from the present judicatories of the church of Scotland, are the same which the ministers of this Presbytery had declared in their secession from said judicatories.” And lastly, I might here add, that they seem not obscurely, but plainly, to acknowledge the constitution of the revolution national church of Scotland in their Act and Testimony, page 119, where they “declare their adherence to the several testimonies emitted and published since the year 1688, against the several omissions and defections of the judicatories of this church, from a covenanted work of reformation once attained unto.”——Our author cannot but know, that

[Page 229]

at, and since the year 1688,—there were some who gave their testimony and protestation only against the defections and sinful omissions of the then judicatories; while at the same time there were others who declared and protested both against the sinfulness of the constitution, and the sins and defections appearing in the administration, and flowing from the sinful Erastian constitution; but the Associate Presbytery, in these words quoted, declare their adherence to, and coalescence with the former sort, altogether exclusive of the latter. From all this it may be plain, that there is no such lying, falsehood, and disingenuity, in the Presbytery’s saying, that Seceders acknowledge the constitution of the revolution-church to be good, as Mr. Goodlet would have the world to believe. “Reason and experience,” however, might have taught him that though he and his brethren did afterwards bethink themselves, and repenting of some of these rash, loose, and superficial ways of acting above-mentioned, took a step further into the way of duty, (in declaring expressly against the constitution of the revolution-church, and which the Presbytery are far from blaming them for,) yet there were, and are still a numerous body of Seceders that the Presbytery had also to deal with, who maintained, and still affirm the goodness of that constitution. But the plain truth seems to be, that Mr. Goodlet is minded to monopolize the name of Seceder, and wholly to engross all the honours and privileges belonging to it, to himself and his brethren, and the people under their direction, exclusive of all others. This being the case, he sets himself to insist largely in opposition to this alleged false imputation. “It is plain, (says he,) though they, (viz. the Reformed Presbytery,) appeared to face and oppose the Presbytery’s principle, that a due measure of scriptural qualifications is not essential to the magistrate’s office, yet now they run to another point, of a supposed parallel between magistrates and ministers.”—No such thing; they stick close to the point; (Mr. Goodlet thinks they do so indeed, which is an easy way of defence against an adversary.) The plain matter of fact is, the Vindicator, when he found himself deeply wounded in the quick, deserts the point himself very cunningly, and gives us a long dissertation about the distinct offices, and the power of magistrates and ministers.—Respecting the immediate

[Page 230]

source, origin, and fountain of ministerial power being in and from our Lord Jesus Christ, this is readily granted without disputation; as to what he asserts concerning the magistrate’s power, and the conferring of it upon him by the people, is vague enough, (but what I shall take no notice of now.) At present, Mr. Goodlet’s business was, (if he designed any honour to the cause he maintains,) to enter pointedly upon the Presbytery’s reasoning, and answer directly to the scriptures quoted. The Presbytery, page 117, was considering the qualifications of both minister and magistrate, the necessity of which to both, is asserted in equally strong and express terms in the word of God. They were also considering them in their different and distinct spheres, clothed with authority from the law of God, and having subjection and obedience equally enjoined to them respectively, under the same pains, in the divine law.—For proof of the magistrate’s qualifications, they have cited Exod. xviii. 21. Numb. xxvii. 18. Deut. i. 13. Deut. xvii. 15. 2 Sam. xxiii. 2. 3. Job xxxiv. 17. 18. 2 Cor. vi. 14. 15. For the qualifications of the gospel minister, they have cited Tit. i. 7. 8. 1 Tim. iii. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. and for equal subjection and obedience to them respectively, they have cited Deut. xvii. 9. to 13. 2 Chron. xix. 5. to 11. Heb. xiii. 17. &c. These scriptures Mr. Goodlet should have examined particularly, if he designed to remove the strength of the Presbytery’s arguments supported by them, all which unavoidably lay in his way. But it would appear he has neither seen them, nor read them, nor yet considered the arguments drawn from them, otherwise he had no reason to say they ran off to another point, for this was just the point to be cleared, viz. the qualifications essentially necessary to both ministers and magistrates, and subjection and obedience respectively to both. It was therefore idle work for Mr. Goodlet to launch out into such a tedious dissertation, shewing the difference between the ministerial power and the magistratical power, and the different origins and sources from whence they come; in speaking of which, the Presbytery has guarded sufficiently all along, against blending or confounding these two, constantly maintaining a just and proper difference between each office. Mr. Goodlet offers only to impose his light upon the credulous, and would have the world believe, that the Presbytery can make no difference between the magi-

[Page 231]

strate’s office, power and authority, and the gospel minister’s: If he has any superior wisdom for better distinction between these offices, why not; but let the world have a share of it: but, with all deference to his superior abilities, we have got nothing new from him yet.

Page 72. Mr. Goodlet goes on still in a contemptuous prosecution of the Presbytery’s arguments, “Because they say, that the doctrine of Seceders, in denying scripture qualifications to be essential to the being of the magistrate’s office, gives men a negative over the Holy One of Israel.”—Against this Mr. Goodlet resumes all the strength of mopish pride, stuffed with wild and unnatural similitudes. However, all his argument against the Presbytery is “strange logic! Where does the Holy One of Israel declare such qualifications to be essential?”—Where does he declare such qualifications? The same answer, with little variation, might serve, which the best master of divinity gave to an ignorant sot about regeneration, Art thou a teacher in Israel, and knowest not these things? If ignorance be the nurse of this objection, he may consult his bible for them, or let him (for ease) cast his eye where they are cited by the Presbytery, or then view them as they are just now quoted above; but it seems abortive work to deal with one incorrigible,—at no loss to Dr.ag over scripture and reason at pleasure, without giving any reply, but what hath neither sense nor connection.—“Does it give a negative over the Holy One of Israel,—that physicians, lawyers, or tradesmen ought to have scriptural qualifications, and perform scripture duties, and, at the same time, deny that the scriptural qualifications and duties, are essential to the being of their respective offices and trades.”—As to this expression, the Holy One of Israel, I shall only observe, that, in the heat of his spirit, or the anger, he makes an odious attack upon the scripture, in way of scorn, and in such an unholy rapture, by way of profane jest and insult upon the Presbytery, which is a dreadful uncommon liberty used with the word, in an unchristian and unmanly manner; which obliges me to let him know, that his frequent, vain repetition of these words, the Holy One of Israel, (as if the expression or terms had been the words and language of the Reformed Presbytery, and not the words of the Holy Ghost,) is nothing less than an impious abuse of, and blaspheming

[Page 232]

the name of the Blessed.—Sanctified minds would use scripture language with holy reverence. If he please to consult his bible, he may find this sacred name of God above twenty times used by the prophet Isaiah, besides what he may find in a variety of other places in scripture.—Some I shall mention, which seem to point out the character of those who use them as he hath done, 2 Kings xix. 22. Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? against whom hast thou exalted thy voice,—even against the Holy One of Israel. Jer. l. 29. Babylon hath been proud against the Holy One of Israel. Chap. li. 5. Their land was filled with sin against the Holy One of Israel. Isa. i. 4. They provoked the Holy One of Israel. Psal. lxxviii. 41. They limited the Holy One of Israel, and despised the Holy One of Israel.—I have quoted these out of duty to Mr. Goodlet, and for his conviction, and shall leave him to judge how far they excuse or accuse him justly.

After this insult offered to divine language, in the fury and heat of his opposition to scriptural qualifications being required as indispensably necessary, and essential to the being of a lawful magistrate, he next faces about, and turns full against an argument the Presbytery had brought in defence of this truth, and in opposition to the Associate Presbytery’s doctrine in their Defence, page 80. The Associate Presbytery’s doctrine is, “That a due measure of scriptural qualifications—cannot be required to the being of the magistrate’s office, either as essential to it, or as a condition sine qua non; 1. It cannot be required as essential thereunto, for then it would be the same thing with magistracy, which is grossly absurd.—Next, it cannot be required as a condition sine qua non, or without which one is not really a magistrate; for then no person could be a magistrate, unless he were so faultlessly.” To this the Reformed Presbytery reply, (Testimony, page 119.) “That if this argument—proves any thing, it will prove more than it supposed they themselves will grant, and consequently proves nothing at all.”

To this Mr. Goodlet answers, (Vindication, page 72.) “It is not refused, that an argument of this sort cannot be good; but let us see how they make out the charge.—They, (viz. the Associate Presbytery,) might as well reason, that scriptural qualifications are not essential to a lawful gospel minister, for then it would be the

[Page 233]

same thing with the ministry itself; nor can it be a condition without which one is not really a minister, unless he were so faultlessly. And thus they have, at once, stripped not only all of the race of Adam that ever exercised that office, but themselves also, of any real mission as ministers, unless they have assumed the Pope’s infallibility, and are advanced to the Moravian perfection. So, although the scripture declare it essential to the true church, that she hold the head; yet, by their childish reasoning, this would infer a conclusion big with absurdities, even that this qualification of a true church, is the church itself. And, in like manner, it can be no longer admitted, that faith in Christ, and holiness, are essential to the being of a true Christian, for that would be to make faith the same thing with a Christian; and would infer, that as in heaven only holiness is in perfection, so there alone Christians are to be found. Thus the Presbytery make out the charge, and add, Upon the whole, as the Lord has given an indispensable law respecting the constitution of kings, shewing what conditions and qualifications are required of them, it undeniably follows, as an established truth, that Christianized nations must invest none with that office, but in a way agreeable to that law: and these alone are scriptural magistrates who are possessed, in some measure, of these qualifications; and therefore, it is an antiscriptural tenet, that nothing is requisite to constitute a lawful magistrate but the inclinations and choice of the civil society.”—To the above, Mr. Goodlet answers, “Such is their doughty performance on this head.”—A great deal of vile matter, and ill-nature he uses here, to evade the dint of argument. It is truly surprising what frisking motions he makes, when he finds himself inevitably circumrounded [encircled] on all hands; yet he will make policy edged with obstinacy do their utmost, before he succumb. At the last, when every subterfuge for defence fails him, he must apologize for the sense of his brethren’s words; says he, “The Associate Presbytery use the word essential in a strict and philosophical sense, as, to be essential to a thing, is to be the essence or being of it; whereas, our adversaries play upon the word essential, as if it had been in a large and popular sense.—The Presbytery’s argument respects an office or character;

[Page 234]

but they play upon it, as respecting a person in an office or character. The Presbytery’s argument respects a due measure of scripture qualifications; but they play upon it, as if it respected scripture qualifications in general.”—Pinched work here! If this be the issue of their whimsical reasoning, there must be great deceit at the bottom, and it would appear, that they design to fetch out the sense of their principles, piece by piece, only as they are strained with them.—The Vindicator here uses two different shifts, in order to elude the force of the Presbytery’s reasoning. 1. (He says,) “The (Associate) Presbytery use the word essential in a—philosophical sense.” This philosophical sense he explains in the next words; “As to be essential to a thing, is to be the essence or being of it.”—All that I shall reply to this is, that, (as I have told him already,) he mingles too much of his philosophy with his divinity; and moreover, I might add, that all the philosophy that either he himself, or the Associate Presbytery are masters of, is not capable to inform us what the essence of any being is, or wherein it consists. What he calls “the large and popular sense of the word,” as distinct from the philosophical sense of it, is a sense of it, that I believe has never hitherto been known or heard of. The proper and native sense of the word essential, if he consults his dictionary, he will find to be, or import, That which belongs, (and which necessarily belongs) to the essence or being of things, not the very essences of the things themselves. This is, however, what he calls the popular sense of the word essential, though indeed it is really the philosophical sense of it; for whatever knowledge, (more or less,) the common people get of the sense of this word, it is of the philosophical sense of it, and no other; in regard that it is in itself, properly and strictly speaking, a philosophical term. So that this pretended distinction of his, is but a mere shift and artifice, to be a screen for a little, (and but a very slender one too); for after all the confidence he puts in this famous pretended distinction, between the popular and philosophical sense of the word essential, he may find, that the Associate Presbytery use it in the same sense that the Reformed Presbytery, and all others universally use it in: (Defence, page 79.) “Magistrates, (say they,) are here always supposed to be possessed of these moral and acquired qualifications, which

[Page 235]

they ought to have:—this is always in scripture, and by all people implied in the essential notion of magistrates.”—Another evasion that he makes use of, in order to shift the force of the Presbytery’s reasoning, is this, “The (Associate) Presbytery’s argument, (says he,) respects only an office or character, but they play upon it, as respecting a person in an office.”—Reply: It is very true that they talk, (viz. the Associate Presbytery,) this way all along.—Their argument respects only an office, (viz. the magistrate’s office,) and this being the case, it makes their argument to be only mere jargon and nonsense. “Scripture qualifications, (say they,)—cannot belong to the magistrate’s office.”—What man of sense and reason would talk at this rate? The qualifications about which the controversy is, cannot, in the nature of things, belong to the office, but properly and only belong to the persons in the office, or rather, which ought to be invested with the office. They belong to the officer, not to the office.—This however is a subterfuge they have frequent recourse to, to relieve themselves when straitened. A third article of his apology for his brethren’s words is, That “their argument respects a due measure of scriptural qualifications, but their adversaries play upon it, as if it respected scriptural qualifications in general.” What they mean by a due measure of scriptural qualifications I know not; but it may be evident, that by framing their doctrine and scheme after this sort, they intend to justify and legitimate the authority of such as lawful, who instead of having a “due measure” of these qualifications, may perhaps have no measure of them at all. Our author’s last article of apology and defence offered for his brethren, is in these words; “They most absurdly take it for granted, that magistrates and ministers are on a level, as to the necessity of scripture qualifications, tho’ the office of the one is wholly founded in nature, and the office of the other is wholly founded in supernatural revelation.” What the Presbytery have said concerning both magistrates and ministers, has been represented above. What I would take notice of here, is the absurdity of that argument he here advances to shew the absurdity of that which he charges as an error upon the Presbytery, viz. That they ascribe scripture qualifications to magistrates as well as ministers. His argument is, “Though the office

[Page 236]

the one be wholly founded on nature, and the office of the other—wholly founded on supernatural revelation.” I have already sufficiently confuted his wild notions, and vague doctrine about the foundation of magistracy; but meeting with this favourite sentiment of his here again, (viz. that it is wholly founded in nature,) I would just reply to him in the words of a reverend brother, and venerable friend of his own, whose authority I hope will be of considerable weight with him, viz. the great Mr. Adam Gib. In his combat with Mr. Pirrie, page 31, of his Answers, he justly calls the “law founded upon a principle in the heart, (viz. the moral sense,) an imaginary law,—which produces but an imaginary morality, which, (says he,) Christians should have no business with.”——And I may as justly call Mr. Goodlet’s magistracy founded on nature, as he explains it, (viz. of human reason and convictions), an imaginary magistracy, which produces but an imaginary government, which Christians should have no business with. Mr. Gib further tells there, “That the moral sense is not the standard of moral action in a state of nature, or yet to the Heathen, but the law of God, (by which he surely means the law expressed in scripture,) is the only rule by which we can determine the morality, or immorality of human actions.” If this be true, what must we think of his and our author’s doctrine, which founds a moral duty, and divine ordinance, both upon this imaginary law.——This I leave with Mr. Goodlet till he further explain himself.

Upon the whole; Mr. Goodlet had no reason to make such a frightfully merry conclusion, saying, “Let them see upon whom their laugh will turn, &c.”——It would seem he is merrily disposed, and from hence he concludes all others are so also: No, no; if Mr. Goodlet’s pen is guided by the spirit of Christ, with zeal for his truths, and the advancement of his kingdom, and Mediatory glory, he will suspend his carnal mirth, till Zion’s headstone be brought forth with shouting, and then he may cry, Grace, grace unto it.

The next thing I should of course take notice of, is what we have page 74. of our author’s performance, where quoting a paragraph from the Testimony, page 196, he thinks or concludes, that the Presbytery has espoused

[Page 237]

two contrary principles; “1. That the office, authority, and constitution of lawful Christian magistrates, doth solely belong to professing Christians in a Christian reformed land.—2. That such as are backsliders and apostates from reformation purity, have no right to set up any magistrates over themselves.” Here Mr. Goodlet seems to make a mighty stand against the Presbytery, as if he had reserved all his ruled artillery, and useless ammunition till this encounter. And now the wasteful explosion discloses itself, miserably disappointed of any designed execution, into the empty vacuity; and the baleful cholerous [angry] poison is unhappily spent to no purpose. Upon the forced gloss our author puts on the Presbytery’s words, he fills some pages with a descant at large, or rather a rhapsody stuffed with great abundance of railing, chicanery, perplexed reasoning, impertinent language, foreign arguments, uncharitable and unnatural inferences. Such seed, I should think, will die in the clod, except with people of an implicit faith, and who are contented with any sound that tingles well on the ears of an itching fancy.——The article in the Testimony, about which he makes so much noise, is expressed thus;——“They likewise testify against, and reject that equally absurd opinion,—That the office, authority, and constitution of lawful Christian magistrates, doth not solely belong to professing Christians in a Christian reformed land; but that the election and choice of such as either will not know what is contained in the sacred oracles, nor pay any suitable regard thereto, as the rule of their duty, or sinfully apostatize—from reformation purity, make up what is essential to the authority and constitution of lawful Christian magistrates, according to God’s ordinance revealed in his word.”——From this article Mr. Goodlet draws sundry very harsh and vicious conclusions, (besides the one I have already mentioned,) and pretends to force them upon the Presbytery, as principles held by them, (and which he cannot but know are all false and forced); such as, “That the right of choosing magistrates, is a new spiritual Christian right that comes by Christ;—That the Presbytery look upon themselves as the chief, if not the only professing Christians in Great Britain:—That they have the sole right of judging of such rights,—and of setting up civil magistrates:—And that none can law-

[Page 238]

fully be vested with the office and authority of civil magistrates, but such as they shall choose out of their number, &c.”—Were it worth my while, I could so disclose the vileness of the principles he goes upon in all this great parade he makes, as to make them appear odious and hateful to mankind, and all Christians; I shall only observe, that the above quoted article of the Presbytery’s Testimony, was laid in terms designedly and directly opposite, as light is to darkness, to that wild random scheme espoused and maintained by our author and his brethren, so manifestly contrary to the law of nature, and of all nations, making no difference, in a Christian reformed land, between a Pagan, Mahometan, Papist, Prelatist, Atheist, &c. for a ruler or magistrate, provided such was chosen by an infatuate people, turned aside by a deceived heart. And this is the true reason why he sets himself, and appears with so much virulent enmity and opposition to it. But, for brevity’s sake, I pass from it, and proceed.

Page 78, “Again they say, (Testimony, page 196.) “The Presbytery testifies against that principle, that the Christian people of God ought to give explicit acknowledgment of, and implicit subjection and obedience unto whatever civil authority, (though most wicked and unlawful,) the Lord in his holy providence may, for the trial and punishment of his church, permit a backsliding people to constitute and set up, without regard to the precept of his word.”—To this article, after a preface of near half a page, wherein Mr. Goodlet gives a short sketch of his exquisite skill in criticism, from some curious remarks he makes upon the Presbytery’s words, (but to no purpose for the reader’s benefit,) he at last replies; “If, by this article, they intend to charge the (Associate) Presbytery with the doctrine of implicit obedience, without regard to the precept of God’s word, they but take upon themselves the office of gross calumniators.”—The Presbytery charge them not with any thing but what they own in their public prints.—Which of the two contending parties are most given to gross calumny, let the world judge, when they have heard both parties. The Presbytery count nothing strange of the treatment they get this way from Seceders in general, and Mr. Goodlet in particular: but one thing appears certain, he seems never

[Page 239]

in his proper element, but when he is belching out scoffing language, jeering sarcasms, and loading them with vile, opprobrious, and diminutive characters.—One instance, in place of many, ever and anon he loads them with the epithet of anti-government men, nay a disowning of government altogether, page 77.; judge if this be not a groundless charge founded upon calumny; allowing for once, but not granting, that they were chargeable with inconsistencies on this head, yet Mr. Goodlet cannot but know the charge is impiously false, to call them an anti-government party, or a people that are for no government at all; whereas, I am certain, with evidence, there is not one anti-government man, among all those people the Presbytery are concerned with; and it must be as certain he knows they are declaredly and professedly for all lawful government and governours, agreeable to the law of God, and our indispensable and solemn covenant-engagements.

Anent the alleged charge concerning the doctrine of implicit obedience. I offer one instance, (for illustration,) of gross implicit obedience, viz. their ridiculous principle, and corrupt notion about civil magistrates.—Do they not hold, that there is not an institution of magistracy in divine revelation? This institution is not at all to be found in the word with them; and yet an ordinance craving subjection and obedience for conscience sake; strange enough! where is the ground and warrant of faith to guide us in this particular? Do they not hold also, that all magistrates chosen, and vested with the office by the body politic, (which they make a lawless rabble, and free from all bonds either from the law of nature, or of scripture,) are lawful magistrates, such as must be owned, and subjected to for conscience sake, as God’s moral ordinance. Now, here is certainly a faith, obedience, and subjection that hath no foundation in the word of God, because, with them, the institution itself is not there.—Judge then, if this be not an implicit obedience: Judge if it be not an arbitrary dispensing with the authority of God displayed in the word, which only can teach us the will of God respecting any ordinance, and the observation of it;—Judge also, if this be not a sinful dispensing with the administration of God’s ordinance; seeing the magistrate, or person, needs no covenant nor scripture qualifications, as necessary to fit him for the administration of government, obvious to conviction it must be,

[Page 240]

according to their scheme, he cannot be capable of any transgression of the divine law, as a magistrate, seeing therein there are no important necessary qualifications or directive rules pointing out his duty. Can he break that law, as a magistrate, which could never bind him as such? this is an hyperbolical contradiction, which none can declare but Seceders.——I shall therefore now leave the reader to judge if this be not enough of implicit doctrine, to the renunciation of all covenant and scripture qualifications, exhibited in our Scots coronation oath, which binds king and subjects to be of one true religion; and which, if it is not owned to be still obligatory, then no more fundamental laws, asserting our religion, freedom, and liberty, as a people Christ has freed from all human, superstitious, English Popish ceremonies, and vile inventions of men.

I was just going to have made a pause here, and concluded this chapter; but there is one thing occurs to me, which should have been adverted to sooner, and which I must yet take notice of. Mr. Goodlet, all the way I have hitherto followed him through the course of his Vindication, hath hipt and skipt [hopped and skipped] hither and thither through the Presbytery’s Testimony, in a most confused and disorderly way, taking such bits and scraps of it, here and there, as answered him best, and where he thought he had most room to display his talent.——But there is one very momentous particular hath escaped him, (or rather I believe he hath designedly put his thumb upon it,) and that is the Presbytery’s charge against the Associate Synod for their treachery in covenant; though, in one sense, it was indeed best for him to meddle only with such things as he was capable to make some shew of reply to, and to let the rest alone, (as he hath done in a variety of particulars, besides that of the covenants;) yet I cannot help thinking but that, in other respects, his omission of this is very dishonourable to himself, as the Synod’s vindicator, as well as injurious to them, who do, in the most public manner, profess themselves the only true and faithful witnesses for the covenants and work of reformation. They could not surely but greatly merit his vindication on this head;——on which the Presbytery had so publicly charged them with unfaithfulness,—with mangling our covenants, (and the truth of which they had at great length demonstrated;)

[Page 241]

——and also, that their pretended renovation of our covenants, is a real burying of the covenanted reformation;—That they had cast a most injurious calumny and reproach upon our honoured Reformers, in their pretending to imitate their practice in renovation of the covenants;—and are hereby guilty of a most dreadful imposition on the generation.—These are all very dismal and high charges, but clearly proven against Seceders, as the reader may find upon consulting the Presbytery’s Testimony, page 157, and onward to page 163.——And it certainly looks very ill, and is really surprising, that Mr. Goodlet has not in the least concerned himself to vindicate them from these heavy imputations,—when he hath spent so much of his time and pains about many other things, that in themselves, and in comparison, are mere trifles.