A Short Survey of a Pamphlet, Entituled, A Friendly Conference betwixt a Countrey-Man and his Nephew.

Wherein is discovered the Lameness and Falsehood of the Author’s Defences of the Backslidings of this Church; His pretended Differences betwixt the State and Management of the Testimony of the witnessing Remnant before, and since the Revolution, are reconciled; The Conduct of the Church anent the late Treaty of Union, is briefly discoursed, and shown to have been Unfaithful: Other incident Controversies are succinctly handled, And his Malicious Queries answered.

Whereunto is prefixed a large PREFACE, containing Remarks upon the ACT for preventing the Disturbing those of the Episcopal Communion in the free Exercise of their Religious Worship, and in the Use of the Liturgy of the Church of England; together with some Reasons against the Oath of Abjuration thereby enjoined. As also Observations upon the Addresses and Representations of the Commission of the Kirk thereanent. With Animadversions upon the Bill for Restoring Patronages in Scotland.

Melius est pro Pietate Dissidium; quam Concordia fucata [Dissension for the sake of piety is better than painted concord]. Nazianzen.

Dan. 11. 32. And such as do wickedly against the Covenant, shall he corrupt by Flatteries, Or, cause to dissemble.

Mal. 3. 5. I will be a swift Witness against false Swearers.

[Edinburgh?: s.n.]:

Printed in the Year,

[1712]

---

To all the true Lovers of the Covenanted Reformation of Britain and Ireland.

IT is a Privilege and Honour, never to be forgotten, by these Kingdoms, that our LORD JESUS CHRIST, who according to the Eternal Contract, received the utmost Isles of the Earth for His Possession (Psal. 2. 8. Psal. 72. 10.) was pleased to signalize the Isles of Britain and Ireland for his peculiar Inheritance, taking Enfeoffment and Seizing thereof, to set up, not only his Standard of lively Gospel Ordinances, for the Conversion of many Souls from the Kingdom of Darkness, unto his marvelous Light; and from the Power of Satan unto GOD; but also his Regal Throne and visible Dominion, making his Churches therein Glorious and terrible as an Army with Banners; bringing his People under the Bond of sacred and solemn Covenants, to his Glory and their Good in the Advancement of Reformation Personal and National, to as great a Pitch, as ever it attained any where, since the Apostolick Times. It has been the Observation of many of the LORD’s Worthies in this Land, that Christ’s Regal Dignity has been the Depositum or Pawn, which he has specially entrusted to poor Scotland, as the peculiar Point of Truth, to which they should adhere, and bear Testimony; and therefore has he in his Infinite Wisdom permitted the same to be the special Mark of the Wicked’s Ma-

[ii]

lice

and Opposition, at which they have still aimed, and against which they have raised their greatest Efforts; and upon the other Hand, he has strengthened and animated his People more especially for the Defence thereof, against all the Attacks of the Wicked. There’s none, who has but an ordinary Acquaintance with the History of the Church of Scotland, that can be ignorant of manifold Instances hereof. The Courage, Boldness, Zeal and Faithfulness of the LORD’s Servants in opposing the unjust Usurpation of the State, upon the Assemblies, and other Ecclesiastical Courts of Christ in Scotland, shall (’tis hoped) be had in perpetual Remembrance to the Glory of his Grace, who enabled them to witness so good a Confession for Him, and who established them in the present Truth (as the Apostle elegantly speaketh) viz. That our Lord Jesus Christ is a King and Sovereign Law-giver in his Church, appointing Courts, Ordinances and Officers therein, which he hath exempted in the Matters of his Worship and Government of his House, from the Laws, Ordinances and Appointments of Men. But if we look to the present State of Affairs in these Kingdoms, how dark and deplorable is it now become! what a sad Aspect is there in the Condition of things! What fearful Indications of the LORD’s Displeasure against these Lands are discovering themselves! When our covenanted Reformation is in so great a Measure broken down, and every day further like to be demolished. Nay the Enemies of Truth, and Godliness are not satisfied, to have it only broken down; but they are for razing, rooting up, and utter abolishing of the Name and Memory thereof: And that which heightens our Misery, and puts an Accent of deepest Lamentation upon our unhappy Circumstances, above all that our Enemies, by Might or Malice, could ever have done, is, that our Sins and Provocations, and particularly our Unstedfastness in GOD’s Covenant, has pro-

[iii]

voked

provoked Him to depart from us, to hide his Face, and return to his place, till we acknowledge our Ways, and accept of the Punishment of our Iniquities, and that yet notwithstanding hereof, there is no returning to Him, None is stirring up himself to take hold of the LORD; none standing in the Gap, to make up the Hedge for the house of Israel. Nay indeed, Men are generally so far from this, that though the LORD’s Hand be lifted up, they will not see, and though his Anger be loudly proclaimed in his Dispensations, few or none are seriously enquiring into the Causes thereof. ’Tis the great Ground of Encouragement and Consolation, which the Lord affords his Zion, when he calls her Hephzibah his Delight, that he has set Watch-men upon her walls, that shall never hold their peace day nor night, and give him no rest, till he establish and make Jerusalem the praise of the whole earth; were this the Case of his Zion this day in Britain and Ireland, our Condition would not be so deplorable like, as it really is: But the profound Negligence and Unconcernedness of these that should put the Trumpet to their Mouth, to give People Warning concerning Sin and Duty, is a very dismal Sign (amongst others) of the LORD’s heavy Indignation.

GOD never plagued a People with Blind Watchmen and dumb Teachers, but he had some signal Controversy against them, when GOD ceases to be a reprover (by sending faithful Ministers rightly dividing the word of Life) to a People or Nation, it speaks terrible things to that People, Nation and Kingdom. ’Tis a Promise full of Marrow, able to support under many other breaking Difficulties, which GOD makes to his Israel (Isa. 30. 20.) that whatever other Trials they should meet with, yet their Teachers should no more be removed into a Corner, but their eyes should behold their Teachers: But as for us in these Lands, since we left off our first Love, and said to the Seers,

[iv]

see not, and to the Prophets Prophesy not, the Lord seems in holy Justice to have answered us according to the Idols of our own Heart, and because we hearkened not to the Voice of the former Prophets (I mean faithful Ministers) who gave us warning from the Mouth of the Lord, but loved our Worldly accommodation more than his Truth, Cause and Covenant, therefore he has given such in his Wrath as have not such a regard to his Glory and the Souls of his people as they ought; who do not give faithful warning, but rather sow pillows for all arm-holes, and strengthen the hands of the wicked, by speaking peace, to those to whom God has spoken none, and weaken the Hands and sadden the Hearts of the Godly, by calling evil good, and Darkness Light. Ah! how little Zeal and Concern do such Men shew for Christ’s Prerogatives so boldly invaded by wicked Men, When his Glorious Sovereignty is laid in the Dust and trampled upon by a set of Malignant haters of Truth and Godliness? Where is there so much as an open Testimony against it? But some perhaps are of the mind that ’tis but a small thing that Christ’s Sovereignty, in the freedom of his Courts, and times and matter of his Worship, should be encroached upon by the Civil Powers; they think (belike) they are not much concerned in that, let such see to their hazard as assume the same, ’tis their safest to obey and submit: but such would beware that when God arises to strike through Kings that withstand him, they partake not in the Vengeance of his Temple. Silence when God’s Cause and Christ’s Sovereignty are in hazard, is a Constructive Treason against him. Memorable to this purpose are the words of that Learned Interpreter Mr. Joseph Caryl in his Exposition upon Job Chap. 10. verse 13. “As there is a direct and literal contending with GOD, so an Equivalent and Constructive contending with him; as some Men commit plain open Treason against a state, but others com-

[v]

mit only a Constructive Treason. ’Tis so here, the GOD of Heaven knows when spirits turn against him directly, and when by Consequence, and he will take Vengeance not only of direct and avowed, but also of Consequential and constructive Treason against his Sovereignty, unless the Offender Repent and be humbled before him, &c.

In our unhappy Days, Christ Jesus is not only robbed of his Crown, Sword and Scepter, in the freedom of his Courts and other things which he has purchased and given to his Church, as her Privileges; but our Land is made the seat of all Errors and Heresies that Satan and his Emissaries are pleased to broach, and the avowed Enemies of Reformation are again established in the Land to disseminate what Corrupt Opinions and promote what wicked practices they please. The sinful Lenity and Tenderness used towards these Canaanites, whose Superstitions and Hierarchy we had sworn to extirpate, and the Conjunctions and Combinations made with them to the prejudice of Truth and the destruction of our Holy Religion, have provoked a Holy GOD, to make them not only Thorns in our sides, and pricks in our eyes, but even to make them the head and us the tail. We trusted to an Arm of flesh, and leaned upon a Bruised Reed, which is now gone into our hand and has pierced it; and yet for all this we return not to the LORD, but will needs lean still to the same Confidence, so blind and foolish are we as to expect help from the Enemies, and haters of the Lord.

It was the Mercy of Scotland, that since the Reformation from Popery, notwithstanding all the attempts of Satan, and his seed, the English Popish Ceremonies, never got peaceable Entrance into this Land. What faithful and zealous opposition did the Servants and People of GOD make against the Perth Articles, and against the Service-Book imposed by Charles 1st. But now in our degenerate days, the whole Trash of the Romish Su-

[vi]

perstition, embraced by the Church of England, is peaceably established; and where is there a Testimony exhibited against the same? But methinks, I hear some saying, what! is not the Address presented by the Commission of the General Assembly to the Queen’s Majesty, a sufficient Testimony, which seeing it has not met with that gracious acceptance that was wished, they must rest satisfied with the Proceedings of Her Majesty and the Parliament? Answer, I must say that I am of opinion, no true Lover of the Covenanted Reformation can look upon that Address as a sufficient Testimony against such a horrid Act of overturning the Reformed Religion, and introducing Romish Superstition. 1. Because Addressing still imports a Submission to such wicked Overturners of Reformation, as Lawful Rulers. 2ly. Because Addresses proving ineffectual, are no sufficient Testimony without Protestation against such unlawful Proceedings. Our Ancestors in the time of the Reformation, 1638 and 1639, did not Address only; but also protested against the proceedings of the King and Council, to overthrow Religion. 3dly. That Address is not bottom’d upon the right foundation, there’s an Enumeration of some Acts of Parliament, but never a word of our being bound in Covenant to maintain & defend Presbyterial Government; never a word of the Obligation of our Solemn League; nay indeed, that would have spoiled all the business, the tender Ears of their Queen were too delicate to hear of the Oath of GOD. The Union Act of Security is the great Pillar of Support, but for Covenanted Uniformity it must be suppress’d and kept under board. And ’tis worthy of remark, that as the profound Silence of Covenant Engagements declares, that this Church has cast off these Obligations, so the express Pleading upon the Ground of the Union-Treaty, is a formal Declaration of their owning and approving thereof; Notwithstanding, what some Ministers to quiet the Scruples of the People, affirm, viz. That the U-

[vii]

nion, though carried on by the Parliament [in 1707] was never consented to by the Church; yea the Words of the Address seem to import that their Security and Establishment was one of the Projects fallen upon, for expediting the carrying on of that sinful Treaty: For in their Transition from speaking of the Security they had before the Union, to that which they then obtained, they say, But then in Order to the Union, and for facilitating thereof, We have the 6th Act of the Parliament, 1707. &c. Where they expressly tell us that that Establishment of theirs was for facilitating the Union; and what sort of an Establishment that must be, which helped forward such a destructive Treaty as the Union, who sees not? Let them surcease then, to tell People that they approve not the Union, while their Great and plenary Security in Law, that they have for their Church Government and Establishment (as they themselves speak) lies in the Bowels of it: And who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Moreover in that Address, ’tis observable how they glory in their Shame, and openly declare to the World their Disregard to purge the LORD’s House of scandalous Persons, and disaffected to the Cause of GOD, and their willful Breach of Covenant, in not endeavouring to purge out, and extirpate Prelacy, according to the Word of GOD; for they tell their Queen, that the principal, if not the only Cause of these few Prosecutions, that have been made against the Episcopal Party, has been Disaffection to the Revolution, and Her Majesty’s Government, as thereby established. Therefore they have not prosecuted them principally, nay nor at all, as Malignant Persons, disaffected to the Cause of GOD, our covenanted Reformation, but as disaffected to the Civil State; and what is this but to prefer Civil Interests to Sacred, and the Safety and Establishment of a Malignant Government to the Cause of CHRIST? They proceed to lay before their Queen, not only their great Regard

[viii]

to her Government, which led them to the few Prosecutions they made; but their Lenity, Tenderness and Kindness to her Creatures and Fowles of her Feather: We cannot but lay before your Majesty (say they) this pregnant Instance of our Moderation; that since our late happy Establishment, there have been taken in and continued hundreds of dissenting Ministers, upon the easiest Terms. Were these Men speaking to the People, whom they know disaffected to Prelacy, they would bear them in Hand, that they had been very strict and accurate in purging the Church of unsound Ministers: But when they are attacked by the Episcopal Party, then they are forced to a Confession, that they have not acted conscientiously herein. Only they have got a good Name to call it by; to hide its ill-favoured Face, they baptize it with the Name of Moderation and Christian Tenderness proceeding from the Fear of GOD, and consonant to the Love of our Lord Jesus Christ. King Saul called and esteemed his Tenderness to the Amalekites, and sparing of Agag so; but Samuel roundly told him, ’twas plain Rebellion against the Command of the LORD. The Israelites spared the Canaanites, and drove them not out at GOD’s Command, therefore he would not drive them out from before them, but left them to be oppressed by them. And who knows, but these who account it Moderation to embrace, and welcome upon the easiest Terms, such Malignant Haters of Reformation into the Church, and commit the Charge of Souls to such Wolves, may yet come themselves to taste of the Moderation and Tender Mercies (I mean the Cruelties) of the Prelatick Malignant Party, now when they are upon the Ascendant, and have the Ear of the Government.

’Tis not to be supposed that a Complication of Flatteries and Complementing Prayers, such as are frequent in their Addresses & Letters to their Queen, as if she had nothing to do but step from an Earthly to an Heavenly Crown and Kingdom, will prevail so far as to screen them from all such danger, but rather that she will act

[ix]

in a Consistency with her own principles, to advance the Men of her own Stamp. The Philosophick Maxim is true frequently in Morals as well as Physicals, that Operari sequitur esse [Operation follows being]; such as are the Principles and Springs of Acting, such are the Acts; and our Lord’s Rule holds Universally, that a corrupt Tree cannot bring forth good Fruit. We see their Queen and Parliament have gone a great length already towards the Accomplishment of their designs; and Addresses are accounted with them as Rotten wood. They have proceeded to give the Episcopal party here a Settlement and Security not much inferior to that which is commonly called the Established Church. The Legal Maintenance is reserved to them, but for the Flock they may draw them away at pleasure & none may control them. Some are very fond to have the settlement granted to the Episcopal party called a Toleration, thereby to Extenuate the Evil of the same, but as they have not brought in their Bill in these Terms, nor the Parliament passed it as a Toleration, but an act of security and protection, so it’s plain that it can in no proper Sense be called a Toleration; for a Toleration imports an Exception from, not a Repealing of Establish’d Laws and Statutes, which the Parliament has done: And whoso reviews the Episcopal Bill as it past in Parliament, may see that, the Legal Benefice only excepted, the security of the Episcopal party is as full, and their privileges as ample, if not more than these of the Established Church. They have the same freedom of holding Religious Assemblies (as they are called) that these have; the same liberty of Celebrating the Sacraments after their own way and of Marrying, that these have: And the provision that is made for Proclamation of Bands and inserting the Names of the Children Baptized in the Session Books of the Respective Parishes, what is it else, but only a Stratagem of the Episcopal Party, to make the Presbyterians recognize and acknowledge their Baptisms and Marriages as Lawful; and give their Approbation of the

[x]

Persons in their Congregations, in their running after these Hirelings. Surely it cannot be to prevent Scandalous immoralities, for these of the Episcopal Communion are exempted from all Censure, but what is to be inflicted by these of their own Persuasion; and how good Curbers of Vice and Immoralities the Episcopalians are the Land cannot yet have forgotten. Nay indeed, their Security is in some respects preferable to that of the Established Church, for it is Provided and expressly enacted, That the Justices of the Peace assist them for their Security, and none are to molest them, or so much as to speak or make any disturbance about the Doors and Windows of their Meeting Houses, under very great Penalties; But there is no such provision against Rabbling of the Religious Assemblies of the Established Church, though they are the more frequent of the two. And to what purpose is a Legal Establishment when every Body may insult them at pleasure? Moreover by this Bill any shadow of Discipline that they had before is removed; and wholly Enervate as an Established Church. I do not say but that they may inflict Censures upon Delinquents if such please out of Conscience to submit thereunto; but none that proves Obstinate can be Censured. For Justices of the Peace, &c. are expressly discharged to raise any Caption when Summoned, or to give Obedience to any such Sentence when pronounced. And if it be said, that the Church may proceed to Excommunication, ’tis granted She may, but that is likewise made ineffectual, so far as Human Laws can make it, for it is declared and Enacted, That no Civil Pain or Forfeiture or Disability whatsoever shall be in any ways incurred by any Person or Persons, by Reason of any Excommunication or prosecution in order to Excommunication by the Church Judicatories in that Part of Great Britain called Scotland, any Law or Custom to the contrary notwithstanding. Now after this to say that this Church has any Discipline as an Established Church is indeed to speak Contradiction in terminis [in express terms], for that

[xi]

Discipline which wants the Established Concurrence of Civil Authority to make it effectual is not established Discipline: seeing any Church wanting a Legal Settlement may exercise Discipline upon these of her own Communion who are willing to submit thereto, which is plainly all that this Church, which pretends to a Legal Establishment, can do. I know it will be said that the Legal Maintenance imports a Legal Establishment, and I confess ’tis somewhat extraordinary and Paradoxal to see a National Church deprived, in so great a measure of all the Essentials of a Legal Presbyterian Establishment and yet enjoying the shadow and Skin of it so peaceably; but Satan and his Seed are Wise to deceive; they can leave the Shell whole, till they suck out the Kernel; ’tis not time yet to proceed without mask, and give a direct Alarm; things are not come to their maturity; but there’s a Snake in the Grass And in all appearance a peaceable holding of the Legal Maintenance will not be cheap bought, when Oaths are multiplied, which have a very sinful tendency.

There might be many Reasons adduced against the taking of this Oath, which becomes now the peculiar snare of those in the Ministry; but a Preface so short as this is intended, will not allow to prosecute them at such length as were necessary. Beside the Evils which are common to it with the Allegiance Oath, already so universally complied with, such as, first, that it is a swearing to defend, protect, maintain and submit to such, as lawful Sovereigns, who are advancing with the greatest Success, the direct Reverse of what the holy Scriptures of Truth enjoin, and our Covenants consonant unto the said Scriptures, oblige us to maintain, defend and promote to the utmost of our Power.

2ly. That ’tis the plainest and most direct Erastianism exercised over a National Church, classing the Ministers of Christ’s spiritual Kingdom, in the same Rank with the Ministers of the Civil State, and obliging them to own

[xii]

the same specifick Dependency, as Persons in Office and publick Trust, upon the Supreme Magistrate, that the Others do. It affords moreover, several very weighty Grounds of Exception.

’Tis well known, that the declared Sentiments of the Imposers are, that the Monarchy of Great Britain, and other Dominions thereunto belonging, is Hereditary; and that therefore Propinquity of Blood gives a RIGHT thereunto, at least one Kind of Right; and that indeed the principal Kind thereof. And all Kinds of Right, that the Pretender can possibly claim to the Crown of Britain being in this Oath abjured, it follows necessarily, that the RIGHT of BLOOD is therein abjured, and that principally and chiefly, as being the only Ground upon which his pretences, to the Monarchy of Great Britain, are built. And ’tis somewhat hard for any Man in Scotland to attain that Certainty, concerning a Matter so liable to Exceptions, as may warrant him to swear, that he believes firmly in his Conscience, that the Person pretended to be Prince of Wales, is not really what he is said to be. And this being a thing so truly dubious, it cannot be the Matter of an Oath, which must be sworn in Judgment, and as [David] Pareus saith, in Catechis. Ursini Part. 2 Quest. 102. Juramenta licita tantum ea sunt, &c. These Oaths only are lawful, which are made about things true, certainly known, lawful, possible, weighty, needful, useful and worthy. Whether it have the other Qualifications and Properties of Lawful Oaths, or not, shall be seen afterwards; but ’tis evident, it hath not this Property to be a thing certainly known.

To solve this Difficulty, or else to do by it as Alexander did by the Gordian Knot, who when he could not loose it by Art, did it by Violence; Great Apollo, the Politick Oracle, in his Oath of Abjuration set in its true Light, tells us, That King James [VII. of Scotland and accounted the II. of England] having abdicated the Government, the Pretender [James Francis Edward Stuart] (tho’

[xiii]

his Son) loses all Right of Blood: This Forfeiture or Abdication must cut off the Right of Blood forever; and albeit, the Blood Relation may continue, yet it can never import, either Right or Hope of Succession. But then, by the same Argument, the Person now upon the Throne hath not any Right of Blood, her Father having abdicate long before her Accession: And yet ’tis certain the Imposers of this Oath would count it high Treason, for any Man to affirm so much; And consequently according to the Principles of the Imposers and their Sense of the RIGHT abjured, the Oath contains a Denial of the Pretender’s Propinquity of Blood to the late K. James.

Men would do well therefore, to beware lest there be a foundation laid in this Oath for a deeper snare, than at first sight discovers it self. Oaths whereof the Propositions or Terms are ambiguous, saith Doctor Sanderson, should be suspected, that there is some deceit lurking, and every Pious and Prudent Man should refuse them offered under such Terms. The State Juggles of the English are, from former Experience, justly to be suspected. It needs not be forgot with what earnest Diligence, yea Violence, they pressed the Tender, abjuring the whole Royal Family and Name of Stuarts, when in the mean time, they were entertaining a Treaty with Charles II. for restoring him to the Crown; that was the Mask, whereby they covered their intrigues, till things were ripened; and who knows but the Tender may have a parallel? They that have a Conscience framed, like the Cock upon the Steeple, flexible to every wind, may think they have no more to do, but to swear or forswear, as the Parliament commands, and that they may abjure the Pretender to Day, and to Morrow swear Allegiance to him: But if a Man resolves Constancy and Honesty, he will find it his Interest to look e’re he leap; and Consult, whether this Oath be agreeable to the Word of God;

[xiv]

and to former Oaths, to which the Land stands Engaged.

Had Men been faithful to God and their Duty, and firmly adhered to the Covenant, in the full extent thereof, there had been no need of an Abjuration Oath. The Covenant would have effectually excluded the Pretender, among others of the Enemies of Religion, without the danger that lies in the Abjuration Oath. In the Covenant we swear, to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority, IN THE PRESERVATION AND DEFENCE OF THE TRUE RELIGION AND LIBERTIES OF THE KINGDOMS. This forever Renounces all Allegiance to Papists, and all others not such as here specified. But alas! we have laid aside the Oath of the Covenant, to please a Malignant Party; and now they impose their New Oaths in room thereof. This is one of the sad effects of our Joining in Affinity with the People of these Abominations.

In the Covenant we Promise WITHOUT RESPECT OF PERSONS TO EXTIRPATE POPERY AND PRELACY; But this Oath renounces a Papist only, and obliges to maintain the Succession to these OF THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, and against ALL OTHER PERSONS WHATSOEVER, in all time coming.

The General Assemblies of this Church were sometime far from thinking such a Condition and Qualification lawful, as the Acts referred to in this Oath, and incorporate therein, require to be in the Sovereign, to whom Allegiance is henceforth to be due. The General Assembly, in their Declaration, concerning the Dangers of Religion, and especially the Unlawful Engagement in War against the Kingdom of England, dated July ult. 1648, set it down as a Breach of Covenant. “That whereas the Duty of Preserving and Defending his Majesty’s Person and Authority, is by the 3d Article of the Covenant, qualified with, and subordinate unto the Preservation and Defence of the True Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms: There is no such Qualification nor Subordination obser-

[xv]

ved in the present Engagement, but on the contrary, it is so carried on, as to make Duties to GOD and Religion Conditional, qualified, limited; and Duties to the King Absolute and Unlimited.”

’Twill be said, that in this Oath and Acts therein refer’d unto, there is a Limitation, and ’tis easily granted there is so. But then ’tis such an one as runs directly cross to Duties to GOD and Religion, limiting Allegiance to such (and ONLY to such) Successors, as JOIN IN COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. This Limitation being indeed worse than None, the Argument holds a fortiori [with greater force], that if engaging to perform Duties to the King, without Limitations, and Conditions, for the Good of Religion and Liberty, consistent with former Engagements, was a Breach of Covenant; much more is an engaging to a whole Succession of Kings and Queens, with a Limitation, and so prejudicial to Religion, and contradictory to the Covenant, to be held and esteemed a direct Breach and profess’d Violation thereof.

In the same Declaration, in Reference to the Breaches of the second Article of the Solemn League, made by that Engagement, they say, Neither can we conceive how the Clause concerning the Extirpation of Prelacy, can consist with Endeavouring to bring his Majesty with Honour, Freedom and Safety to one of his Houses in or about LONDON, without any Security had from him, for the Abolition of Prelacy; It being his known Principle (and publickly declared by himself, shortly after he went to the Isle of Wight) that he holds himself obliged in Conscience, and by his Coronation Oath, to maintain Arch-Bishops, Bishops, &c. Can it be said that they are endeavouring to extirpate Prelacy, who after such a Declaration, would put in his Majesty’s Hand an Opportunity to restore it. If the Endeavouring to bring his Majesty with Honour, Freedom and Safety to one of his Houses in or about London, while it was his declar’d Principle to maintain Prelacy, was a thing in the Judgment of that Venerable and truly Zealous Assembly

[xvi]

inconsistent with endeavouring the Extirpation of Prelacy; how much more would it have been thought wholly incompatible therewith, to swear to a Succession for ever to stand so limited, as gives undeniably the greatest Advantages of firm Rooting and Advancement unto Prelacy, that Laws and Statutes of Men can possibly afford?

And in the Place above cited, they reckon a tacit condescending to the Toleration of Superstition and the Book of Common Prayer, in his Majesty’s Family, to be a breach of the 2d Article of the Solemn League, as well as the Committee of Estates their Invitation to the Queen to return, without any Condition tending to the Restraint of her Exercise of Popery. See the Acts of the foresaid General Assembly, printed anno 1682, in Octavo, pag. 390. And is there not much more than a Tacit Condescension, not only to a Toleration of the Common Prayer in his or her Majesty’s Family, but for a Publick owning and maintaining thereof, in their Dominions, contained in this Oath? Nay, indeed there is the fullest Consent to the perpetuating of Prelacy that can be given.

The General Assembly, in their seasonable and necessary Warning and Declaration, concerning present and imminent dangers, and concerning Duties relating thereto dated July 27. 1649, states this Matter very fully in these Words, In the League and Covenant, which hath been so solemnly sworn and renewed by this Kingdom, the Duty of preserving and defending the Kings Majesties Person and Authority is joined with, and subordinate unto the Duty of preserving and defending the true Religion and Liberties, of the Kingdoms: And therefore His Majesty standing in Opposition to the just and Necessary publick Desires concerning Religion and Liberties, it were a manifest Breach of Covenant, and a preferring of the Kings Interest to the Interest of Jesus Christ, to bring him to the Exercise of his Royal Power, which he walking in a contrary way, and being compassed about with Malignant Councils, cannot but employ unto the prejudice and Ruin of both. How manifest a

[xvii]

Breach of Covenant must it then be to engage in an Oath to the maintaining a Succession expressly so qualified, that the Successor must inevitably walk in a contrary way to the Reformation and be compassed about with Malignant Counsels? Yea here is plainly not a preferring of the Kings Interest only, but also of Satan’s interest, Prelacy and Superstition, to the interest of Jesus Christ. And again they say, It doth therefore concern all Ranks and Conditions of Persons to be the more wary and Circumspect; especially in that which concerns the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant, that before his Majesty be admitted to the Exercise of his Royal Power; that by and attour [in addition] the Oath of Coronation, he shall assure and declare by his Solemn Oath, under his Hand and Seal, his Allowance of the National Covenant, and of the Solemn League and Covenant, and Obligation to prosecute the Ends thereof in his Station and Calling, and that he shall for himself and his Successors, Consent and Agree to Acts of Parliament, enjoining the Solemn League and Covenant, and fully establishing Presbyterial Government, the Directory of Worship, the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as they are approved by the General Assembly, of this Kirk and Parliament of this Kingdom, in all his Majesty’s Dominions, and that he shall observe these in his own practice and Family, and that he shall never make Opposition to any of these, nor endeavour any change thereof. And a little downward, having declared the perpetual Obligation of the Covenant upon them and their Posterity, they add, We are no less Zealously to endeavour, that his Majesty may establish and Swear and Subscribe the same, than if it were unanimously regarded and stuck unto by all the Kingdom of England, for his Majesties Swearing and Subscribing the League and Covenant, will much contribute for the Security of Religion, his Majesties Happiness and the Peace of his Kingdoms.

I have recited these Passages the more largely, both in regard of their being so truly applicable to the matter in hand; and also because they luculently [clearly] discover, upon how vastly different

[xviii]

Principles Men now act, from what the most faithful Instruments of Reformation in this Land, not an Age hence, were acted by; and how truly contradictory our present Courses are, to these by which they obtained a good Report: When instead of endeavouring to obtain Security of the Kings or Queens of this Realm, for their Allowance of the National and Solemn League and Covenant, and Obligation to prosecute the Ends thereof in their Station, and that they shall observe all the parts of the Uniformity in their own Practice and Family; ’tis Statuted and Ordained by Acts of Parliament, and engaged by this Oath, that the contrary shall be Established, maintained, and constantly practised in the Dominions, Chapels, and Families of all and every the Kings or Queens of this Realm. Oh! how effectual a Course of ruining and bearing down Reformation is concert in these ACTS, and confirmed by this Oath! and that at such a Juncture of Time, as renders the Designs and Practices of a Malignant Party, for the utter abolition of all True Religion, so manifest and clear, as if they were written with a Sun-Beam.

Some will perhaps reply, That this is but Pathetical Aggravating of the Thing, tending rather to raise the Passions, than to inform the Judgment; and that all that is contained in the Oath, is only an Obligation, to maintain the Succession in the Protestant Line, against a Popish Pretender; And that, the Condition of the Successors maintaining, and joining in Communion with the Church of England, does not affect, nor become a part of the Subject’s Oath and Obligation, but is only a conditional Provision laid upon the Sovereign allanerly [alone], which whether just and lawful, or otherwise; Let the Sovereign see to it: The Subject is to maintain the Succession; and leave the Successor to his, or her after Behaviour. Tho’ this Sophistical Evasion be advanced by a very great Wit, the Author of the Oath of Abjuration set in its true Light, the Reason of whose Authority, ’tis to be doubted,

[xix]

will prevail more with some, than the Authority of his Reason can do, in a Matter so much against sound Reason and Religion; yet it is not only most false, but wholly insufficient to remove the Difficulty: For the Oath expressly obliges to maintain the Succession according to the Acts therein specified, making no Exception of any one of the Clauses of the said Acts, and Consequently according to the Limitation, Condition or Provision (however the same be named) of the Successors being of the Communion of the Church of England; unless there be a mental Reservation made by the Swearer of that Clause, which, as ’tis not allowable in any, so ’tis expressly provided against in this Oath. ’Tis one of the clearest things in the World, that a Man swearing to do according to an Act of Parliament, without any specified Exception of any part or Clause thereof, engages to do according to every Part and Clause of the same: To deny this were to overturn one of the most unshaken Principles of the Light of Nature, and most unquestionable Maxims of Philosophy, viz. That the whole contains all its parts. Suppose a Man having engaged to marry a Woman of such a Family, according to a certain Contract wherein it is expressly provided, that the Woman shall become his Wife, only upon Condition, she prove an Adulteress, should notwithstanding plead that he has no Hand in, or Accession to his Wife’s Adultery, by engaging to marry her with such a Provision: What Casuist would absolve him from the Guilt of his Wife’s Adultery, upon this Pretence, That the Provision contained in the Contract, is only an Injunction laid upon the Wife, wherein the Husband is not concerned? One egg cannot be liker another, than this Supposition is to the Case in Hand. The Act provides, that the Successor shall be of the Communion of the Church of England, i.e. That he shall be a Spiritual Adulterer; the Oath obliges to maintain and defend the Succession according to the Act: And therefore

[xx]

by a Necessary Consequence, the Guilt of the Sovereign’s Superstition redounds upon those that swear this Oath. This is directly to partake in other Men’s Sins, to which there is annexed a Threatening of Receiving of their plagues. And this is no ordinary Participation of Sin, but a formal Advancing of National Sin; and therefore, a Mean to bring on National Plagues.

The Distinction advanced by the foresaid Author, upon which he lays so great a Stress, which he repeats and inculcates again and again; viz. That Limitation of the Crown, and Provisions or Conditions laid upon the Sovereign are different things, is but at best Verbal not Real. He would bear us in hand, that LIMITATION in English Language imports no more than Entailing of the Crown to these of the Protestant Line, and that to understand the Conditions laid upon the Successor, under the Term of LIMITATION, is only a feigned Criticism. But indeed this Distinction of his, is so jejune, hungry and bare, so Nice and Metaphysical, that it can never afford any solid Acquiescence, true Settlement, or well-grounded Peace of Conscience to any Man in the Sight of GOD. For however the LIMITATION or Entailing of the Crown to the Protestant Line, and the PROVISIONS or Conditions laid upon the Successor, to whom the Crown is limited, be things in their own nature separable, and may be separate notionally in a Man’s Brain. Yet its plain, they are neither separate in the Act referred to by the Oath, nor will they be separate in the Sovereign, who is to succeed to the Crown, who is no less limited to be of the Communion of the Church of England, than he is limited not to be of the Communion of the Church of Rome. ’Tis dangerous then to lay any considerable weight upon so weak a Foundation, especially in a matter of such consequence and solemnity as an Oath. Metaphysical Distinctions of this kind hold not in Morality, where Bonum oritur ex omnibus integris, malum ex quolibet defectu [Good arises from all things being whole; evil arises from any defect]. A thing Morally good must be entirely so, in all its Parts. One

[xxi]

sinful Obligation in an Oath, renders the whole unlawful, while it remains there.

We are told, that ’Tis the same thing to Swear this, as to Swear the Allegiance Oath; the Sovereign having engaged to be of the Communion of the Church of England, before the same was imposed: And yet the Ministry has generally complied therewith, and doubt not to stand upon their own Defence in so doing. This is a very taking Argument with many. What (say they) shall we displease the Government, Ruin our Constitution, and bring ourselves to Misery and Misfortune, for doing that again, which we have already done in effect? This is plainly MAKING PRACTICE THE RULE OF PRINCIPLE. We have done so and so, Ergo We should do it. ’Tis true (indeed) no Man will ever be able to reconcile the Allegiance Oath with the Oath of the Covenant; And therefore ’tis the Duty of all that have taken it, rather to Repent of, than reiterate the Sin. But there is more in this Oath of Abjuration, than in the Allegiance, if not in Kind, yet in Degree. ’Tis one thing to maintain a Sovereign already possessed of the Government, and in the actual Exercise thereof, though not so qualified as they ought to be, and another to engage that they shall be so in all time coming. ’Tis not to be supposed that the Primitive Christians, who in the time of the prevalency of Heathenism, submitted to the Government of the Heathen Emperors, would therefore have engaged that they should Maintain and Defend the Succession to the Imperial Dignity, with this express provision of their being Heathens in all time coming. This would have marred the Current of their fervent, Zealous, and effectual Prayers, for the Removal of these publick Plagues, and giving ’em Godly Emperors, for the furtherance of the Gospel; which the Fathers tell us they were instant in. How zealously did the Christians of Antioch, Pray in their publick Assemblies, for the shortening of Julian’s Reign, and giving ‘em Christian Emperors, for which they suffered much persecution, and highly enraged the Apostate.   

[xxii]

How could these Christians have expected a Hearing at the Throne of Grace, had they taken such an Engagement, as this Abjuration contains? And to make the case our own; What confidence can a Man have to pray for Reformed Magistrates (which is every Mans Duty) if he formally engage by Oath Never to have such in time coming? It has been found equally certain by dear bought Experience, as ’tis agreeable to Reason, that Kings have the greatest influence, upon the Manners of Kingdoms, and the State of Religion therein of any others. As a Just Religious Prince, acting for GOD, scatters away all evil with his Eyes; So a Malignant Son of Belial cannot but be a publick Plague to a Kingdom. And is it not highly Injurious to the Cause of Christ, to preclude the Former from the Government, and admit the Latter? Can they be said to have a tender regard to the thriving of the Covenanted Presbyterian Interest, that willingly have a direct Hand in a Matter so prejudicial thereunto?

I doubt not, but some will say, That ’tis too ill a Name, to call the Persons of that Communion Sons of Belial, and to account Episcopacy and the Ceremonies of the Church of England, Satan’s Interest. And indeed they speak the Soul and Sense of the most part of nominal Presbyterians, who speak and act in Relation to these Things, as though they were things indifferent and of no great Consequence. But as the Godly and Judicious Divines, both of this Church, and of the Church of England, doubted not formerly to give them these their true Characters and Designations: So, were it the Design of this Paper, it might be made appear, that these are the proper Names they deserve. And whoso look upon these, as Matters of Indifferency, would do well to be no more Hypocrites, but ingenuously profess what they are, and not impose upon the World with the rough Garment and sheep’s Clothing of Presbyterian and Covenanted Principles. A Man, who is of Mr. Bax-

[xxiii]

ter’s Opinion for Occasional Conformity, will not scruple it much to swear, That the Successor (so far as in him lies) shall be of that Communion, wherewith he can occasionally conform: but a Man truly convinced of the Sinfulness of Prelacy & Human Ceremonies, will find it a heavy Weight to his Conscience to have so direct a Hand therein. And ’tis too shrewd an Evidence, that a Man who engages into this Oath, is either a Friend to, or at least not under any suitable Impressions of the Sin of Human Inventions, in the Government and Worship that Christ has enjoined his Church: And therefore not under a lively Sense of the Holiness, and Jealousy of GOD anent his own Worship, and the Government and Discipline he has appointed to be, remain and continue in his Church till the time of his second Coming.

Another, ’tis like, will maliciously say, You pretend Presbyterian Principles, and yet you plead in favours of a Popish Interest. What? Won’t you allow Presbyterians to be so much Protestants, as to Abjure a Popish Pretender, a suppositious Bastard, Bred at the French Court, inured to French Tyranny, and the Religion and Kingdom-ruining Devices of the Jesuitical Order? If any should from what has been said, draw such an Injurious inference, he would be no less unjust to the design of the Author, than to the Scope of the Premises. There’s no pleading here for a Popish Interest, none for Popish Magistrates, none for French Tyranny. The true and unfeigned desire of the Author, and Sincere Intendment of what has been here advanced, is to discover the Dangerous design more latently Couched in this Oath; and to shew how pernicious ’tis likely to prove to the Covenanted Interest, for tho’ there be something that makes it appear Commendable, viz. The Renunciation of Popish Magistrates, yet there are other things (as has been Succinctly proven) sinful and Ensnaring to the Conscience. ’Tis observed by Sozomen, Theodoret,

[xxiv]

Gregory and others of the Ancients, concerning Julian, that Capital Enemy and Exterminator of Christianity, that among his many other Devilish Plots and Devices for the Ruin thereof, this was one, to mingle Heathenism with the Laudable Laws of the Empire, that in case they should disobey the Laws, they might be the more invidiously represented, and persecuted not upon the Score of Religion, but for Rebellion against the Laws, or then that they might be wheedled into a Compliance with Idolatry by Reason of the Equity of some part of these Laws: And hence the Christians were put to a Strait, either to rob God or the Emperor, of his due Honour. So ’tis too apparently the Design of the Gentlemen that impose this Oath, who are no more Friends to Presbyterian Church Government, and to Covenanted Reformation, than Julian was to the Christian Name, to mingle Duty and sin together, the Abjuring of Popish, with the engaging to Prelatical Magistrates. That hence they might have the more colourable pretext against Presbyterians, in case they should refuse the same; as if their refusing to Swear that the Successor shall be of the Communion of the Church of England, did import a Respect to a Popish Pretender. But let all who love the Covenanted Reformation, do as the good Christians of that Age did, who Determined their Choice, with the Apostle, Rather to obey GOD than Man; And have thereby taught us that our Duty to Man ceases, when it becomes inconsistent with our Duty to GOD; And (as Austine’s Distinction is) when our Religion is concerned, we must beg our Temporal Lords Excuse. The Primitive Christians never valued themselves upon a false Nicknamed Loyalty, to the prejudice of Religion. They would not Render to Cesar the things that were Cesar’s, when they could not do it, but at the same time they must alienate from God what was God’s. When the Emperor had interwoven his Lawful Rights with the false Wor-

[xxv]

ship of the Heathen Deities, they doubted not to deny him his, rather than give those Idols what was God’s. And in like manner, if Presbyterians cannot be allowed to Renounce Papists, and engage to maintain Protestant Successors, but with so manifest prejudice to their Covenanted Principles, ’tis safer to refuse such an Oath entirely, than by taking it to be involved in the Guilt of thereby renouncing Covenanted Principles, by abjuring Covenanted Magistrates.

’Twill be replyed, the Commission of the Kirk in their Address to her Majesty thereanent, have effectually provided against that Clause; for after they have declared their Renunciation of the Pretender, in the fullest Sense of the Oath, and their Resolution to maintain the Succession to the Crown to the Illustrious Princess Sophia, Electoress Dutches Dowager of Hanover, and the Heirs of her Body being Protestants, they add, But seing we cannot dissemble with your Majesty, that there remains a Scruple with many, as if the Conditions mentioned in the Act of Parliament, establishing the Succession, referred to by the said Oath, were to be understood as a part thereof, and that to swear to something in these Conditions, seems not consistent with our known Principles. — We in the most humble and dutiful manner, most earnestly beseech and obtest, that this our Address and Representation, and most sincere Declarations therein contained, may be graciously accepted by Your Majesty, without respect to the foresaid Conditions scrupled at, as the just and true Signification of our Allegiance and Duty, and our Sense of the foresaid Oath and Engagement, to prevent all Mistakes and Misrepresentations, that possibly we may be lyable to in this matter. But this Address and Representation, whether graciously or ungraciously accepted by their Queen, can never remove the Difficulty, unless the Legislators who’ve impos’d the Oath, shall in the Body thereof make an express Exception of the Clause scrupled at; for in the end of the Oath the Swearer declares solemnly, All these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and

[xxvi]

swear, according to these EXPRESS WORDS by me spoken, and according to the PLAIN AND COMMON SENSE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE SAME WORDS, without any Equivocation, Mental Evasion, or secret Reservation whatsoever. Therefore he cannot swear it in the sense of the Commission’s Reservation, but according to the Declaration made by him in swearing the Oath, that is in the plain Sense of the words spoken by him. ’Tis (indeed) to be feared least some hereby be embold’ned to cheat their Consciences, taking it as it stands, and thinking that the Commission’s Exception will be sufficient to absolve them, contrary to their own Professed Sense of the Oath in the swearing thereof. And all had need to advert, lest they be hereby insensibly entangled. The Commission’s Design (they tell us) in this their Address, and Representation of their Sense of the Oath, is to prevent all Mistakes and Misrepresentations, that possibly they may liable unto. But ’tis justly to be feared, that instead of preventing, it lays a foundation for a very fatal mistake in the Conscience of the Swearer, not far from Perjury in terms, while he understands it in the Commission’s Sense, which is an Exception from the Common Sense and Understanding of the words, and yet declares that he does understand it in the Common Sense and Understanding of the very words spoken. Now that the Commission’s Sense is an Exception from the Common Sense of the Words of the Oath, cannot be denied, unless we shall say that the Commission acted childishly, in putting a Sense upon the Oath imposed by the Parliament, different from the Parliament’s Sense, where they had no just Exception against it. And I believe they’ll take it ill to hear such a Character of their Wisdom’s Procedure, as what this would be.

But to take an impartial and unprejudicate View of the foresaid Address and Representation, will not all that they have said in Relation to this Oath, prove a Plaister too narrow for the Sore? How faintly, how indefinitely do they propose their Ex-

[xxvii]

ceptions against it? there remains a SCRUPLE with many (say they) as if the Conditions mentioned in the Acts of Parliament, establishing the Succession, referred to by this Oath, were to be understood as a Part thereof. A SCRUPLE, as it is commonly defined, is a Doubt or Difficulty of a weak misinformed Conscience, anent the doing of something, which may be lawfully done, proceeding from a mistaken Ground. The Commission therefore, by using this Term, insinuates that ’tis not from a well-grounded Persuasion of the sinfulness of this Oath, & its Inconsistency with Presbyterian Principles; but from mere Weakness in some, not duly apprehending the sense of the Oath, that they are obliged to make this Representation and Exception, such as it is. Again they’ve not the Confidence to tell their Queen, what it is in these Acts they except against, or (as their own Phrase is) Scruple at. For (say they) to swear to something in these Acts, seems not consistent with our Known Principles. SOMETHING! What Something? such an Indefinite SOMETHING is truly equivalent to NOTHING. They dare not tell their Prelatick Queen, Truely, Madam, to be plain, with your Majesty, we are Presbyterians, the Offspring of these honourable Reformers, who entered into a Solemn Covenant, to extirpate Popery, Prelacy, Superstition, Heresy, Schism and whatsoever is contrary to sound Doctrine, who therefore would never consent to the Admission of your Uncle Char. II. to the Royal Dignity till he had given his Approbation of the Solemn League and Covenant, and of the whole work of Reformation, and engaged to maintain the same, and to observe it in his own Practice and Family; and we are so far from thinking this Practice of theirs to have been unwarrantable, factious or rebellious, that we judge it very consonant to Scripture and Reason, and indispensably necessary, for the Security and Advancement of Religion, and are therefore resolved

[xxviii]

to follow their laudable Example, and hence we cannot swear that the Successor to the Crown of these Kingdoms, shall maintain, and be of the Communion of that Church, whose Hierarchy and Superstitions we’ve covenanted to withstand and extirpate, to the utmost of our Power. And this Covenant we believe to be binding equally yet as ever, as well upon Your Majesty in Your High and Royal Station, as upon the meanest of Your Subjects in theirs.

The Day has been, when the Church of Scotland had the Courage to use this kind of Plainness and Freedom with their Sovereign, while they lived under Lively Impressions, and had suitable Ideas of the Infinite Disproportion betwixt all created dependent Monarchs, and the Glorious Independent Supremacy of their Master. And yet they were not guilty of that Rudeness, as to deny them the Honour due to their Royal Character. But now there is such Fear of Men, and such Cowardice in maintaining the Truths of Christ, as rather looks like a being ashamed of his Cause, than a Contending earnestly and boldly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints.

As they tell us not what that SOMETHING is, at which they pretend to scruple; so neither do they directly affirm, that it is contrary to, or inconsistent with Presbyterian Principles, but only that it SEEMS so; Too soft a Word in so hard a Matter. And in stead of Presbyterian or Covenanted Principles, (which dare not so much as be named at Court, but only in Disguise) they are called KNOWN PRINCIPLES, a Periphrasis not very certain at this Day, when Men are so various, multiform and Proteus-like; that ’tis hard to know their Principles, and when there is so little done by Persons in publick Capacity, to avouch and make them KNOWN. Such Pusillanimity cannot but expose the Presbyterian Interest to much Ridicule, Mockage and Disdain among the English, when they see that the established Church of Scotland (as

[xxix]

’tis called) has not the Courage plainly to avow her Principles, nor to discover ingenuously what are the Grievances, whereof she complains. Might not these Gentlemen, when they presented their Address to their Sovereign, have in Reason expected an Answer to this or the like Effect?

Gentlemen, You’ve on all Occasions shown so profound a Loyalty to ME, and so universal a Compliance with all My Injunctions and Submission to My Commands, as might justly challenge an Indulgence in this Particular. But your Demand is so very uncertain and indefinite, that I am at a Loss to understand what ’tis you crave, and upon what grounds you scruple at and except against the Oath enjoined by the Royal Authority of Your Sovereign, with Consent of the Honourable Houses of Parliament. You tell ME, there’s SOMETHING in the Acts establishing the Succession that many scruple at, as SEEMING inconsistent with Your KNOWN PRINCIPLES; what that SOMETHING is, you’ve not told Me. Your KNOWN PRINCIPLES I have not made it my Business to enquire into, as neither have you been so faithful to Your Sovereign, as to discover ’em, which makes them the more suspicious, that you have not the Courage to bring them to Light. I shall therefore wish you to take the Oath, as you are enjoined, in the plain Sense of the Words, without Reservation, for your Sense thereof is so obscure, that tho’ I would accept it as the just and true Signification of your Allegiance and Duty; I cannot understand what is thereby intended. And if you have no just and weighty Reasons, for excepting against the Conditions contained in the Acts, referred unto by the Oath; but only SCRUPLES, as yourselves plainly insinuate, how can you have the Arrogance to desire of your Sovereign, to alter the Sense of an Oath, concert by the Wisdom of the Parliament of Great Britain, upon so slender a Ground, as is the pleasing the Humors of some scrupulous Persons?

What Answer they had from their Queen, to this their Address, I know not: But I dare appeal to the Judicious, if One to this Purpose, was not the best, that could

[xxx]

be expected to an Address so ambiguous, blunt and obscure; so perfectly unworthy of the Ambassadors of Jesus Christ, acting in the Name, and by the Authority of an establish’d, Presbyterial Church.

But after all, this whole Address is but Sham and Juggle; for therein they have in effect sworn (or at least declared their willingness to Swear) all the Oath; for they declare, That they understand it in the plain sense of the Words, in so far as the said Oath and Acts to which it refers, Settles and Entails the Succession of the Crown of these Dominions on the Princess Sophia, Electoress, Dutchess Dowager of Hanover, and the Heirs of her Body being Protestants. Here they engage to maintain the Succession, and they very well know that the Condition, at which they pretend to scruple, stands still in force, to be laid upon the Successor, and how they can swear to maintain the Successor thus qualified, while the Condition it self is not removed, or at least fully and fairly Protested against and sought to be removed, and yet be Covenant-keeping Presbyterians, I leave to their Wisdoms to make appear, and to Reconcile these Two so different and Opposite Extremes. Our Faithful Reformers (as has been shown) had not so quick a Wit, as to see a consistency betwixt far less Steps of Defection, and an upright prosecution of Covenanted Duties.

I am to have the most known Article in all the Confession of Faith, cast in my teeth here; Infidelity or difference of Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just and Legal Authority, &c. — But they that object it, must either understand it absolutely, or with some necessary Cautions for unfolding the meaning thereof. If they take it absolutely, of all times, of all Kingdoms, and of all differences in Religion, yea of all Magistrates whether admitted to the Government, or not admitted but only Electors, they say something against what has been advanced. But then they overthrow the Principles of the Re-

[xxxi]

volution, yea the Abjuration and Renunciation of Papists too, and so make the Confession of Faith, to teach the Doctrine of Ignatius Loyola, the crooked Master of Blind Obedience. If it be replied, that the suffrage of a free People is the only thing that gives a just and legal Title to reign in an Elective Monarchy, than I ask, why should not our suffrage be given only to Covenanted Magistrates? To Men of known Integrity, approved Fidelity, and constant good affection to the cause of GOD, having the Qualifications of Rulers enjoined by the Scriptures? Why should not we do that in Relation to the Election of Magistrates, as well as in all other Transactions, that may tend most to GOD’s Glory, and the advancement of Christ’s Kingdom, seeing we are free to do it? Why should a Covenanted Kingdom having such a power, exclude all that may be Friends to the Covenanted Reformation and entail this Right only upon the Enemies thereof? But if they allow that the foresaid Article is to be understood in a Restricted Sense with necessary Cautions, as that a Reformed Kingdom may set up such Magistrates, as they have Reason to think, will prove advancers of Religion and Justice, then it contradicts nothing of what has been said. ’Tis plain, that the Assembly of Divines, who compiled, and the General Assembly of this Kirk, which ratified and approved it, with the Parliaments of both Kingdoms, who Confirmed it with the Sanction of Civil Authority, being Men of Sense and Religion, labouring to have a practice consistent with their Faith, did never understand that Clause so, as to bind up their Hands from opposing the Supreme Magistrates overturning of Reformation, or from requiring of them Conditions necessary for the Security thereof. As is evident from their practice in Relation both to Charles Ist. and IId.

That Christians living in a Land, which has not been generally reformed from Infidelity, or false Religion, where

[xxxii]

Christianity has not yet obtained the Sanction of the Laws of the Kingdom or common wealth, ought to submit to the lawful Authority of the Magistrates thereof, tho’ Infidels or of a different Religion, is the import of that Article, and true meaning of the Scriptures brought to prove it. But for Reformed Kingdoms, that have Covenanted to maintain the true Religion, to Exterminate false Religions, & to do nothing that may impede the Success of Reformation, notwithstanding hereof, to commit the highest Trust into the Hands of the Enemies of Reformation, make them keepers of both Tables of the Law, and submit to them, excluding others that might act for the good of Religion, is contrary to Scripture, Reason, and Covenant Engagements.

This Distinction is no Novel Fancy; we find it amongst the Ancients Lucifer Claritanus, in a Book written to Constantius the Emperor, who had upbraided him with walking contrary to the Apostle’s Precept Titus 3. 1. proposes it to this purpose. Monet nos Apostolus, &c. The Apostle Admonishes us to be Subject in Good works, not in Evil. — I add further, that the Apostle spoke of those Magistrates and Princes, who as yet had not believed on the only Son of God; that they by our Humility, Meekness and long Suffering under Adversity, and all possible Obedience in things fitting, might be won over to Christianity: but if you, because you are Emperor, Feigning yourself to be one of us, shall forsake, and force us to forsake God and Embrace Idolatry; what, must we quietly submit to you, for fear of seeming to neglect the Apostles Precept? Here he fairly tells us that the case was altered, and that the Christians who by virtue of the Apostles Precept, were to obey Heathen Emperors, before the Empire was Reformed, might lawfully deny it to Arian or other Heterodox Emperors, after the laws had Establish’d Christianity. And this Book was approven of by Athanasius, and Diverse others of the Greek and Latine Fathers. Evagrius also tells us, how in Consequence of this Principle, Anastasius tho’

[xxxiii]

Nominate to succeed in the Empire, could not be admitted thereunto, till he signed his Approbation of the Nicene Creed, and Acts of that and other Orthodox Councils.

Some will be ready to be catch’d with the Snare of this Oath, because they did not warn others of the danger thereof: Oh! say they should we refuse the Oath upon a principle of Conscience, who did not discover to such of our Flocks as had the Tentation of it, they would account us unfaithful Watchmen. Tho’ this be no argument for the Oath, it may prove too strong a motive towards a compliance therewith. But Præstat sero quam nunquam [Late is better than never]. If any have neglected their duty in Relation to others, they must not commit sin themselves, to cover that their neglect. That they did not Preach against it was their Sin, but to take it will be more so. ’Twas the care of the Church of Scotland once, that no new Oath should be imposed upon Her Members, without Her Advice and Consent: This care has been in a great Measure wanting with Relation to this Oath, tho the Commission Addressed the Parliament that it should not be imposed, yet when it was enjoined, they made no act against the taking of it. But if they shall take it too ’twill discover them more to the World.

Such as are prudent, not only to consider the sinful Nature thereof, but also to discry [discern] the Consequences, that are like to follow upon it, cannot but see that ’twill infallibly be a Bone of Contention, both among the Ministry, and betwixt them and their Flocks; And this one Consideration would weigh much with a faithful Minister, not to cast a Stumbling-Block in the Way of the Weak, nor do that which he sees will mart the Success of his Ministry. But as the Sovereignty of Christ, to the Edification of Souls is not duly tendered by many, Some may please themselves with this; That the Popular Discontents (as they are called) if managed with Prudence and Moderation, will soon be over. They think of

[xxxiv]

these, as Athanasius said of Julian, Nubecula est cito transibit [It is a little cloud; it will soon pass], ’Tis but a little Cloud, some unsettled Vapours that will quickly evanish. If Ministers continue diligent in their Ministry, exact and circumspect in their Conversation, moderate and gentle in their Temper, and earnest in Prayer; they think, this will surmount all such Difficulties. If any fondly think so, it seems they have forgot, that if a Man regard sin in his heart, God will not hear him. And he that turns away his ear from hearing the law his prayer is accounted abomination. This Oath may prove a Canker Worm, that will eat out the Life of such Duties, especially if taken against the Light of a Man’s own Conscience.

If a Conscientious Christian shall but duly consider the woful Effects, which are like to flow from this Oath, and the snaring tendency thereof, ’twill be hard for him to take it HEARTILY, WILLINGLY and upon the TRUE FAITH of a Christian; as ’tis express’d in the end of the Oath. We are told by the Author formerly mentioned, That Men may be very little forward towards the Enacting of an Oath; which yet when Enacted they may Swear willingly and heartily, and that there is no inconsistency betwixt the two. But however it may possibly be so in some Cases, yet it cannot be so here. For many who are now commanded to take it, have not only not been forward that it should be Enacted, but have shown their Desire that it should not; which behooved to be from some Grounds of just exception they had against it: if they thought it their Duty, why should they be unwilling that it should be Enacted? And if they saw it to be sinful, ensnaring to the Conscience, and of Dangerous and pernicious Consequence to the Church, why should it be Heartily and willingly engaged into, tho’ Enacted? Will the Enacting of it make it Duty?

[xxxv]

To conclude suppose the Oath enjoined by the Parliament were in it self lawful, yet as it comes to be imposed at such a Juncture, upon these of the Presbyterian and Episcopal Persuasion, upon equal Terms, the Legal maintenance of the one, and Established Security of the other depending equally thereupon, it seems to be designed to solder and unite the two parties together upon the same Level, and so to be a Badge of the Presbyterians their Peaceable Submission to the Co-establishment of that Prelatical Rout, which is a dangerous Submission and Acquiescence.

Beside this Oath, there are other Encroachments in the Act of Parliament, made upon the Church, which are like to make the Legal Maintenance a very dear bargain to a Conscientious Minister. It does not suffice them that the Erastian Usurpation of the Secular powers is submitted to in the appointment of Diets and causes of Fasting and Thanksgiving, but they must submit to their Prescriptions in the very matter and form of Divine Worship; for they expressly enact, That every Minister and Preacher, as well of the Established Church, in that Part of Great Britain called Scotland, as those of the Episcopal Communion, Protected and Allowed by this Act, shall at some time during the Exercise of the Divine Service, in such Respective Church, Congregation, or Assembly, pray in Express Words, for Her most Sacred Majesty Queen Anne, and the most Excellent Princess Sophia, Electoress and Dutchess Dowager of Hanover, while Living, and all the Royal Family. Which if they neglect to do, they are to be convened before the Lords of Justiciary, which tho a Civil Court, they must give an Account unto anent the Discharge of their Ecclesiastical Office of Praying, and consequently of Preaching; for there’s the same Reason of both: which is a thing that the Faithful Ministers always declin’d in former Ages, as the height of Erastianism, and thought it a Cause worthy the Suffering of Banishment and Death, for the maintaining of it; choosing rather these Sufferings, than to yield up the Spiritual Power which Christ had put in their hands, to the Encroachment of the Magistrate. And the Penalty enacted for such a Neglect, is twenty Pound Sterling for the first, and Deprivation for three Years for the second Offence. And this Deprivation is not to be done by due Course of Ecclesiastick Process, but is declared to be done ipso facto; that is to say in plain English, the Parliament deprives every such Neglecter upon the very Neglect or Offence, (as they call it) so soon as the same is legally proven before the Lords of Justiciary. Which if it be not an Encroachment upon the Church, I leave to the Judgment of the Disinterested Reader. Herein the Parliament contents not it self to prescribe the Matter of the Petition which they enjoin, but they command it to be done in Express Words, extending their Power to the very Form and Manner of the Worship, which is yet a higher Step of Supremacy. The Parliament which enjoins these things, has surely no Spiritual Jurisdiction, (tho’ there be Spiritual Lords, so called, in it, a part of the Train of Mystery Babylon that Spiritual Whore) and conse-

[xxxvi]

quently they have arrogated that Jurisdiction to themselves; and ’twill be a better Stipend than any in Scotland, that will be a sufficient Equivalent, for giving up the Spiritual Liberty and Intrinsick Authority of the Church, by the Recognition of that Exotick Jurisdiction.

The Licence and Protection granted by this Bill to the Episcopal Party, and enervating of the Church Discipline and Authority, is not all (tho’ it be too much) that’s comprehended therein; but under it there is a Door opened to all the Heresies and Errors, that ever pestered the Church of Christ; Antitrinitarianism only excepted. For these Persons protected and allowed under the Name of Episcopalians, own maintain all unsound Tenets, save the Denying of the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, nothing else being provided against in the Act, and they being required to Subscribe no Confession of Faith, and the most of them that are already in the Kingdom, being known to maintain many very damnable and dangerous Errors, as Bourignonism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, Denying the Doctrine of Predestination, &c. and that Newborn Error of the Necessity of Episcopal Ordination, in order to the Ordinances being effectual to Salvation; making all the Reformed Churches who have not Bishops, to be Reprobates, and cut off from the Salutary Communion of Christ’s Church (as they speak) and under an Impossibility of Salvation. And we are not to expect, when the Flood-gate of Error and Impiety is let loose, but that the Bottomless Pit can afford more Errors than these. ’Twas the Observation of King James the 6th, tho’ no great Friend to the Church of Scotland, That the Strictness of her Discipline was the Reason of the Purity of her Doctrine, and that her Freedom from Error and Sectaries, Heresy and Schism, was owing to the Vigilance of Presbyteries. And it seems it has been the Special Design of the Haters of the Purity of the Gospel, now, when they had a Mind to debauch Scotland, with the Leaven of Unsound Doctrine, that they may the more easily root out Religion out of it, at the same time to destroy any thing of the Hedge of Discipline that remained, as being the surest way to effectuate their Design. What Ground have we then to fear, lest our Land be yet reduced to Antichristian Darkness, while the wicked one has so many employed in sowing tares. Some are of the Opinion (’tis like) that there is no great ground to fear; that Heresie will take root or spread it self much in Scotland. But truly, this is that which confuses me, that it will, because so many think it will not. ’Tis worthy of a grave and serious Consideration, which Our Lord tells us, Matth. 13. 25. That the Special Circumstance of Time that the Enemy made choice of for sowing his Tares, was, while Men slept. We are sleeping and dreaming, that there’s no hazard of the Purity of the Gospel and Worship of God; that there’s no danger of its being polluted and corrupted, when it was never in greater in any Age of the Church. We are looking after our own things, and not caring tho’ the Lord’s house lie waste, Nay, its to be feared that some are doing, as its storied of the Jews, That they took of the Furniture

[xxxvii]

of the Temple, and ceiled their own houses with, and painted it with Vermilion, that it might not be known. Men are selling Christ’s Interest, to purchase their own; and all of us generally saying, The time is not come, when the Lord’s house should be built.

This security and unconcernedness in the midst of such danger, is the more Stupendous and Astonishing, that the Parliament is reviving such Acts as tend to the advancement of Old Buried Superstitions both in Church and State; and Rescinding these that were made for the Abolition thereof: In order whereunto, and that they might leave nothing unshaken that was a support to a Presbyterian Establishment, but might do everything that tended to the unmaking of the whole Constitution of the Church (as the Synod of Glasgow and Air has observed, in an act for a Synodical Fast April 24) and overthrowing as well of the Government as the Discipline of the Established Church, they have past a Bill for Restoring Patronages in Scotland; a most Pernicious and Destructive thing to the Church of Christ, having no warrant for it by precept or approven practice in God’s word, nor example in the Jewish or Primitive Christian Church; but deriving its Original from the Popes Canon Law, and owing its growth and advancement to the Superstitions of the Romish Whore; Spoiling the People of that Right and Privilege, which Scripture and Reason alloweth them in the Election of Pastors; putting into the Hands of Prophane Noblemen and Gentlemen, who generally are Persons that have less regard to Morality than Pagans, and consequently none to Religion, most if not all of them being Malignant Enemies to Presbyterian Church Government and Discipline and Worship, and many of them Strangers to the Condition of the Parishes, to whom they call themselves Patrons, the Power of Electing and presenting Ministers to watch over the Peoples Souls. This Piece of Popish Bondage was a heavy and Insupportable grievance to the Church from her first Reformation; till it came to be happily abolished by a Parliament that had the good of Religion and Success of Reformation at heart, anno 1649. See Parl. 2. Sess. 2. Charles II. Act 39.

The woeful Abuses introduced into the Church by, and the unhappy Effects of this Yoke of Patronages have displayed so much of its sinful Nature, as might justly make any Church that has a due regard to the thriving of the Gospel, to use all endeavours to be freed therefrom; much more a Church by the Goodness of GOD delivered from it, never to yield to the Re-establishment thereof. I shall not undertake an Enumeration of these Abuses, being they are scarce reducible to a certain Number. Who so would see them at large, may Consult Park upon Patronages, and Rectius Instruendum Consul. Dial. Chap. 4. Only to instance in a few; By this means many Godly and Zealous Men, well Qualified for the Work of the Ministry will be excluded from Labouring in the Lords Vineyard, who dare not enter therein in such a way, as deprives them of the Character of true Shep-

[xxxviii]

herds, given by the Chief Shepherd, that they are such as enter by the Door into the Sheepfold. Many Naughty rotten Hearted persons, insufficient for the Great Trust of watching over Souls come hereby to be obtruded upon Parishes against their Consent, and thereby the peoples are deprived of that Edification and Profit to their Souls, that was to be expected from one entering into the Ministry with their Choice and Consent. Hereby a foundation is laid for Simoniacal Pactions betwixt Patrons and the persons to be presented, which are like to be the effects of these Patronages now, as well as formerly they have been, to the disgrace of the holy function of the Ministry, yea even of Christianity it self. Or if there be no formal Contracts of this Nature, yet such as are desirous of Presentations come hereby to be under Temptations of Flattering and conniving at Great Men in their wicked Practices. Many Congregations are hereby like to be cast either utterly desolate and Vacant, or to be worse provided than if they were so, to the great hinderance of the Gospel. The Ministry of many is too dependent upon and conformed to the pleasure of Great Men; already, they may not displease the Lord and the Laird, but by this it comes to be wholly dependent thereupon, and subject thereunto. And which is worst of all, Christ’s Church is hereby robbed of one of her Choisest Jewels, and most valuable Gifts wherewith her Husband Christ hath enriched her, Her Spiritual Jurisdiction of Planting Churches with Persons fit to be Watchmen upon her Walls, is hereby made the Civil Right and Property of Patrons; And consequently by them vendible to whom they please, and therefore may be alienate, and given over into the Hands of Papists, or other Enemies of the Truth. ’Twill be Replied, that there is no danger of this Consequence of Patronages now, all being to lose their Right of Presentation, who shall refuse to take the Oaths to the Government: But this is a Qualification that a Reformed Church needs not much glory in, it being in it self sinful, as has been shown. I find in the Year 1641, That Patrons who refused to take the Covenant were deprived of their Right of presentation, and that by the 9 Act Parl. 2, Charl. 1. the Rights of Noncovenanting Patrons was to belong Pleno jure to the Presbytery, not to return to the Crown, as ’tis provided in this Bill. But now the Sole Qualification of Patrons, Ministers and Elders is taking the Oaths to the Government. These come in place of the Covenant, Nay Patrons are not required to Subscribe the Confession of Faith; tho’ ’tis not to be wondered at that it is so, for there are Ruling Elders Commissionate to Sit and Vote in General Assemblies who have never subscribed it. The great Provision which yields the Ultimate Ground of Security in the Business of Patronage is the Amendment made by the Lords, that the Patrons shall present none to Vacant Churches, but such as are of the Presbyterian Communion. But neither is this sufficient, for ’tis not to be doubted but these who are Disaffected to Presbytery will present such as they

[xxxix]

know to have a warm side to their own Party, and ’tis too Notour that Presbyteries are not so strict and Accurate in their Trial, as to preclude all that are not of known Affection to Presbyterian Government.

Notwithstanding of these and many other sinful and woeful Effects of Patronages, there is too great Reason to fear, that this Church will comply with this, as they have with former Encroachments upon their Spiritual Liberties. And that Presbyteries will admit Men to the Ministry upon the Presentation of Patrons: And so relapse from that valuable Degree of Reformation whereunto the Church of Scotland had attained, to the old popish Way of planting Churches, and by so doing, fill the Church with Intruders, all being such in Scripture Account, if they enter not in by the Door of Christ’s Appointment, the free Choice of the People, and Admission by the Presbytery; but climb up another Way, and enter by a Door of the Pope’s Invention.

Will it not be very astonishing to Persons of conscientious Candor, to see the ministers of this Church, who in their Representations to the House of Lords approven with the rest of the Commission’s Proceedings, by an unanimous Vote in the General Assembly, have declared that the Presentation of Ministers by Patrons, is an Innovation contrary to the Church’s just and primitive Liberty of calling Ministers in a Way agreeable to the Word of God, admitting Men to the Ministry according to that Innovation, in a Way not agreeable to GOD’s Word, and destructive of the Church’s just and primitive Liberty, and thereby bring the People of GOD into the Guilt of submitting to this Innovation, and betraying of their christian Liberty, after they have been freed therefrom, and Engaged to withstand all Corruptions and Innovations in the publick Government of the Kirk? Will not every one that shall seriously reflect thereupon, be induced to think, that such Ministers have no other Rule to distinguish between Right and Wrong, Sin and Duty, but Statutes and Acts of Parliament? If it was a Grievance to this Church, from her first Reformation, and the Abolishing thereof was a Restoring of the Church to her just and primitive Liberty of calling Ministers, in a Way agreeable to the Scriptures, then, so long as Contraries are not the same, the Restoring thereof, cannot infallibly be a sinful Course, contrary to GOD’s Word, and therefore, justly grievous to his People. The Antecedent is true, and proven to the Opinion of this Church, from the Representation foresaid; Therefore the Consequent is also true, and this Church’s declared Opinion. And hence whosoever of the Ministers of this Church shall comply therewith, tho’ he take to himself much Soap and Nitre, shall never Wash off the just Imputation of going on in a sinful Course, against the Light of his own Conscience, and opposite to his declared Principles.

Beside this Rescissory Bondage, there is in the Bill, depending before the Houses of Parliament, another Piece of Pagan and Papistical Supersti-

[xl]

tion revived, viz. The restoring of the Yule Vacance [i.e., the “Christmas” vacation]. This having been in Use, till the Year 1640, was by Act of Parliament discharged; for these Reasons, That the Kirk in this Kingdom being purged from all Superstitious Observation of Days; And — that the keeping of the Yule Vacance hath not only Relation to that Superstition, and may serve to keep the same in Memory, but also that the keeping of the said Yule Vacance, hath interrupted the Course of Justice in this Kingdom, to the Hinderance and heavy Prejudice of the Lieges, as the Narrative of the Act bears. See Act 12, Parliament 2, Charles 1st. This Superstition was again revived, and the foresaid Act abrogated by the Popish Usurper, James VII. in the 2 Session of his first Parliament, Act 6, intituled, Act for keeping the Christmas Vacance, which Act is now ratified by a Parliament visibly driving the same Designs, that the said Parliament did, Viz. The Advancement of popish Superstitions, and stopping the Course of Justice in this Kingdom: And yet notwithstanding that we are sworn in the National Covenant, and Solemn League and Covenant, against all these Superstitious Observations, few discover any Concern and Zeal proportionable to the Obligations they are under, to oppose these Land-ruining Acts. Those who call themselves Seers are easily satisfied; a flattering Promise from their Queen, That she will defend them in their Rights as by Law established, possess them, with so profound a Satisfaction, as if all things were in the best Condition that could be wished, tho’ she has granted a Protection to these that differ from them in some Points that are not fundamental, as she speaks in her Letter to the Assembly, May 1. 1712. The Parliament may in their next Session pass as many Bills for annulling the Acts made in Favours of their Constitution, (if there were as many behind as are already rescinded) and yet she may promise to maintain them in their Rights and Privileges as by Law established, till all their Rights and Privileges shall evanish into nothing, as indeed they are not far from it already. There is such a Restraint of a Spirit of Zeal against all these Acts, that the sinfulness of them is not duly remonstrate, far less protested against, and withstood. ’Tis justly admirable, how Men that declare, they believe, that the Bills which have past in this Session of Parliament, tend to the Unmaking of their whole Constitution, can yet, in their most Publick and Solemn Assemblies, pray for Light and Direction to the Parliament in the Weighty Affairs that are before them, to Act for the Good of these Churches and Kingdoms, and yet never pray for Repentance to them, and that they may be made sensible of the evil of these their Proceedings, whereby they have already done so much to the Hurt and Prejudice of the Church of Scotland. It seems they think that to oppose the sinful Proceedings of the Parliament, and pray for Repentance to them, is a thing without their Sphere, which they are admonished by no Means to intermeddle with. Nay so cautious are they upon this Head, that for fear lest they should irritate any in Authority, they must not so much as speak

[xli]

of the sinful Actings of the Parliament in their own proper Names; but only in the indefinite Terms of the LATE OCCURRENCES. There is no Doubt but they think this Way of Speaking, and acting to be a Prudent Way of Management, and value themselves highly upon the account of this spurious Moderation, while yet it is in Reality a Cession from their attained Reformation, to please wicked Men.

But let all the true Lovers of Reformation bestir themselves to Consider from whence they are fallen and Repent, and do their first works, lest the Lord come and utterly remove his Candlestick from among us. Let us consider our ways and turn to the Lord; forsake the Counsels of Flesh and Blood and remember our Covenants, which our Fathers Sware for the Defence of Reformation, And consider that the Obligation thereof being equally strong yet as ever, notwithstanding the Maltreatment it has met with at all Hands, we must either endeavour to keep it, by opposing all these floods of wickedness, Defection and Apostacy, or look that Wrath and Vengeance shall pursue us. Tho’ it were but a Man’s Covenant the willful Breach thereof would bring on Vengeance; how much more when ’tis the LORD’s? I mean made with him and for his Cause. We are not to think that England’s Breach thereof will absolve us from its Obligation, the Duties being of Moral force, and the Oath made with God primarily, and with England only as Covenanted Brethren. England no doubt will bear their Judgment; but we must also bear ours, if we continue to follow their footsteps in breaking Covenant.

The Servants and People of GOD have had great impressions of the certainty of Vengeance for the Breach of Covenant, according to the Scriptures. That great Man of God Mr. John M’clelland Minister of Kirkcudbright, in a Letter to John Lord Kirkudbright a Member of Parliament dated February 20. 1649 hath these Words, speaking of the Sectaries in England their breach of Covenant. “England’s Covenant was not made only with Scotland, but principally with the High and Mighty GOD, for Reformation of his House, and it was conceived in the most solemn manner that ever I read of, so that I may call it GOD’s Covenant, both materially and formally; and the Lord did second the making of it with more than ordinary Success in that Nation. Now it is manifestly broken and despised in the sight of all the Nations, therefore it remains, that the Lord should avenge the Quarrel of his Covenant. England has had to do with the Scots, French, Danes, Picts, Normans and Romans; but they had never such a Party to deal with as the Lord of Armies, pleading for the Violation of his Covenant. They have tasted some Covenant Blessings, they are to receive Covenant-Curses upon their Parliaments, Armies, Navies, Cities, Castles and fair Palaces. English Men shall be made Spectacles to all Nations of a broken Covenant. When the Living God swears, as I live even the Covenant that he hath despised, and the Oath that he hath broken, will I re-

[xlii]

compence upon his own head. There is no place left for doubting. Hath the Lord said it? Hath he sworn it? And will he not do it? His Assertion is a Ground for Faith, his Oath a Ground of full Assurance of Faith. If all England were as one Man united in Judgment and Affection, and if it had a Wall round about it, reaching to the Sun, and if it had as many Armies, as it has Men, and if every Souldier had the Strength of Goliath, and if their Navies could cover all the Ocean, and if there were none to peep out, or move the Tongue against them; yet I dare not doubt of their Destruction, when the Lord hath sworn by his Life, he will avenge the breach of Covenant. — when, and by whom, and in what Manner he will do it, I do profess Ignorance, and leave it to his Glorious Majesty his own Latitude and will commit it to him and look up.” Thus far he. And what he saith with Respect to England, I am confident may be applied this day, with equal Grounds of Certainty, to all the three Kingdoms; the Bulk and Body whereof has shamefully broken their Covenant with GOD. But thou, Christian Reader, if thou be such as I address myself unto, a Lover of the Covenanted Reformation, wilt find it thy interest as well as Duty, in this Day of Declension to adhere to thy Covenant Engagements and to keep thy self far from Corroborating any of these things, that are this Day imposed upon this poor Land to our overthrow, and the Denuding us of all our Sacred and Civil Privileges. And wilt find it thy peace to oppose to thy Power in thy Place and Calling, these manifest Corruptions of our Holy Religion, which however they be now thought little, yet will eat as a Canker; ’Twas a good saying of the Moralist,

Principiis obsta, sero medicina paratur

Cum mala per longas invaluere moras.

[Resist beginnings; medicine is prepared too late

when evils have grown strong through long delays]

’Tis too late applying the Remedy, when the Disease is past Cure, and become inveterate, and the only sure way is to resist the first rise of Evils. And so much the more is every one called to do something in his Station to oppose the Lands Deformation, that these who are called in a special manner thereto, are in effect silent and unconcerned.

Oh how supinely inactive are the Ministers and guides of the Church, either to warn the People of their danger or effectually to put them upon their duty, if they be commanded by Authority to fast for the Confederate Army, and Success of the Peace, or the like, Incontinent its obeyed; but when Prelacy, Heresy, Errour and Schism are rushing in upon the Land, there’s not so much as a Solemn National Fast, for the preventing thereof. A National Fast, say you, that would have displeased the Court, we could never have looked for the Civil Sanction to such a Fast. Ay, indeed that’s the Reason; it would have Angred the Court, and that’s a Charybdis must needs be shunned, whatever Scylla we fall into upon the other hand. Surely I may say concerning our times (and that with far more reason) what that worthy Servant of

[xliii]

Christ, Mr. John Davidson said of his, in a Letter to the General Assembly at Bruntisland May 12. 1601, Quam graviter ingemiscerent illi fortes Viri, qui propter Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ libertatem olim in Acie decertarunt, si nostram nunc ignaviam (ne quid gravius dicam) conspicerent? [How deeply would those brave men groan, who once fought in battle for the liberty of the Church of Scotland, if they now beheld our cowardice—not to say anything more severe?] How grievously would they bewail our Stupendous Slothfulness, could they but behold it, who of Old thought no expence of Blood and Treasure too much for the Defence of the Church of Scotland’s Liberties.

I shall leave these foregoing Remarks, upon the present deplorable State of things in this poor Island, to thy more mature Thoughts; and shall not detain thee further by Apologizing for making my Preface so long, nor yet by shewing the Reasons, why the following Survey is not longer, partly I thought not the Subject worthy of a long Answer; partly I being Conscious of the Disproportion of my abilities for so great an Undertaking, as the advantageous Defence of so Noble and Honourable a Cause, did content myself to omit many things that might have been said, and only to obviate the principal of the Authors Objections, remove some of the grossest mist of his black and false Calumnies; and discover the Lameness and insufficiency of his chief Defences. What thou findest amiss lay it not upon the Cause, but upon the Author’s weakness and insufficiency, and Pray that the Lord would stir up more able and better Accomplished Instruments to defend his Truth, and Vindicate his Reproached Cause and Interest; And if thou findest any thing therein for thy Establishment and support in the Truth, improve it to thy Spiritual advantage, and give God the Glory.

---

[Page 1]

A SHORT SURVEY OF

A Pamphlet, bearing the Title of

A Friendly Conference, betwixt a Country-Man and his Nephew.

---

The insignificant snaking Methods, that this Anonymous Dialogist hath fallen upon, to darken Truth, and make the Followers thereof odious to the World, are so unworthy of the Censure of a Judicious Pen, that its probable, no Body would have been at the Expence of an Hour of precious Time, to confute Him; If his groundless Assertions had not been so far espoused by the Time-serving Men of this present Constitution, as to be obtruded by Judicatories* upon poor People, as a sufficient Answer to their Scruples, and Difficulties of Conscience arising from the general Unfaithfulness of Persons in the Ministry. To follow him in all the Fopperies of his forged Conference, would argue as great Childishness in the Answerer, as the Author discovers in the Composure, who sets up his own Man of Straw, and then fights with him; Neither ingenuously stating the Question, nor fairly proposing the Sinews of the Opponents Arguments, nor confirming his Own with satisfactory Documents; But

_____

* Instance, the Presbytery of Lanerk to the People of the Parish of Crauford, who had laid before them a Paper of very weighty Grievances worthy of a deeper Consideration & more solid Answer than what this Pamphleter affords.

[Page 2]

when Force of Reason fails, making his Imaginary Opponent sold about like a Nose of Wax, and pretend Satisfaction with every Answer, how insignificant soever; and having applauded his own Answers in the Person of his Antagonist, he expects a general Euge from every Body: But however this fantastical Fairding may tickle the Fancy of the less Thinking Sort, yet it will not readily give any Satisfaction to the more Considering, who can perceive the Asses Voice under the Lion’s Skin.

It is not the First Time, that Dialogues have been fallen upon, as a proper Mean of obscuring Truth: And the Cause is usually deplorable, whose Defender dares not face the Field, unless the Arguments of the Opponent Side be of his own Choice. If there had been nothing exposed to the World, in Favours of the Cause, which he takes in Task, there had been some Reason for such a Dialogue: But there being Reasons of their Practice adduced by them in their own Defence, yet unanswered, What else is this Conference, but the shifting of an Answer?

How unfairly he represents Those, that upon many weighty Grievances, have been obliged to abandon the Communion of this Erastian Establishment, as if they had jumped off, without ever acquainting These they formerly embraced as their Ministers with their Grievances, and skulked into Holes, as afraid to converse them on the Head, may be seen in the very Entry of the Conference, where he introduces his feigned-Nephew in Answer to his Uncle’s Question, Did you converse with your own Minister fully, for your own Satisfaction, on these Heads, before ye withdrew from his Ministry? thus pitifully confessing, I confess, Uncle, I took not that Method; for as soon as by my daily Converse with this Party, I began to incline this Way, so soon I grew jealous of my Minister’s Honesty, and — have since kept my self, as much as I could, out of his Way, fearing that he should bring in these things as the Subject of Discourse with me. And after a long beating of the Air, in condemning a Practice, which no Body ever justified; He makes his Nephew pag. 6. to give the Reasons of the foresaid Practice thus, The Reason why I eschewed his Company was because I had not Confidence to converse with him, having left his Ministry. Whereupon he brings in his Uncle canting after this Romantick Sort, Your Answer truly is very weak, Nephew, but I believe its ingenuous, and ’tis the best you can give, I wish you had acted more rationally, &c. And again page 7. he makes his Nephew blockishly answer thus, Indeed, Uncle, his Life and Doctrine were no ways stumbling to me; — And as for my having broken my Promise, I never reflected upon that; for it never came under my Consideration. And again nonsensically thus, I was persuaded, that every one who knew me would be satisfied, that I had good Ground, for breaking Promise to my Minister.

But after all that he has said, Page 6, 7, & 8. he has said just nothing, unless he can make it appear, that this is the usual way of Dissenters towards their

[Page 3]

Parish Ministers; for one Swallow makes no Summer. If any particular Person should have had such a conduct, as what the Dialogist here represents, it were truly blame-worthy, and to be accounted most unjust and irrational; but I suppose he will never make it out, that the Dissenters generally do so. Some have with all Patience and Forbearance, after exhibiting their Grievances, waited for an Answer, and obtained none, but Ridicule and Disdain; being treated withal as Persons destitute of Reason, Brain-sick, &c. Such is the tender Sympathy of most of those, who challenge the Title of Ministers, towards afflicted Consciences. To make this evident, besides that the Daily Practice of it makes it notour, there needs no other Instance than that of the Assembly 1690, to which when the Dissenters had exhibited their Grievances, all the Entertainment they found, was, that they were refused a Hearing, and dismissed without an Answer. And as for what he alleges, of Dissenters declining Conference, as being conscious of a Crime, and wanting Confidence in their Grounds: The Dialogist is desired only to bring an Instance equal to the Charge, for Proof of what he saith. I suppose the Clergy generally have no such Complaint, who had rather they should forbear to converse them on these Heads, than Nonplus them with matters they are in no case to answer. Upon the whole therefore of this Censure of Dissenters their Conduct in withdrawing, this only is Remark worthy, that seeing it is no unusual practice of theirs, it can be only cast Maliciously upon them with a design to blacken their Cause, to such as may not have occasion to be fully informed of the Falsity of the Charge; so well has the Dialogist learned the Machiavellian Maxim, Calumniare fortiter, aliquid adhærebit [Slander boldly; something will stick]. Cast abundance of Dirt and some will stick.

He proceeds Page 8. And as if this Country-man had got on a Professors Gown, he lays down two Grand Rules of Dispute; First, That he and his Nephew should ingenuously own what is wrong on both sides. How well he observes that Rule, in the Sequel will appear, where he makes the Nephew grant every thing to be wrong on his side, but grants little or nought wrong on the other. But its evident this was the Design of the Pamphlet, to cry down the Dissenting Party their Cause, and Conduct but to plaister over all the Defections of the present Erastian Establishment; So that this Rule was proposed only for Sham, but not for Observation. The Second is to keep free from Passion and Reflection. This Rule is most punctually observed, if the forging of Lies and groundless Calumnies be no Reflections, otherwise (as shall be made manifest) its encroached upon, throughout the whole Conference.

The Preamble is done; and now we are arrived at the Conference it self, wherein the Grounds of Dissent from this present Church are first Discoursed. And first the Nephew in Name of the Dissenters, having given this Church’s Practice, In treading the Steps of the Publick Resolution Party, who

[Page 4]

first rent and then ruined the Church as a Ground of withdrawing, and alleging her not publickly and judicially condemning these Publick Resolution Practices in their Assemblies, as an evidence of the Truth of the foresaid Assertion, the Uncle standing on the defence of the present Constitution, cries out as if all the Rules of good Logick were overturned by an Illegal Consequence. But the Consequence seems not so wide, as what the Uncle would represent it, for, it has been the practice of the Church of Scotland formerly, in a Time of Reformation to discover to her Members, what they were to judge of precedent actings of the Church; And this Church Anno 1690 could not be ignorant of the Nature of these proceedings, and their influence upon the subsequent practice of the Church Members. And it has been the practice of good and Godly Church Guides, to go no more than 40 Years back, in a search of the Causes of God’s Wrath against the Land; as is clear in the Instances of Ezra, Nehimiah and Daniel, and of our own Ancestors their practice, who, in the Assembly held at Glasgow Anno 1638, beginning at the Assembly Anno 1560, examined the Registers, passing their Sentence of Approbation or Disapprobation, as they found cause, of the former proceedings of the Church. But tho’ the Dialogist will not allow the Consequence, yet he is so far forced by the Strength of the Argument, as to acknowledge it the Churches Omission, and heartily to wish it had been otherwise. Let us therefore see, how far his own Concession amounts, for, if it was an Omission, it behooved either to be an Omission of Simple inadvertency, or a Deliberate willful and Designed One. To say the former would be an Impeachment on that Assembly and all the subsequent, which the Author will not readily admit, Viz. That they were Men so far unconcerned with the National sins and Defections, as not to mind the first Spring and Source of them; It remains therefore that it was a designed Omission; and every design having a Reason, it behooved to be that they were minded to prosecute the same Measures, and therefore could not condemn in others, what they saw necessary to practise themselves, so that the consequence is not so wide, as what it is said to be. Moreover there being more than one or two proofs of the point alleged, tho’ severally they should not amount to a full Demonstration, yet taken together, they are a sufficient Moral evidence of the truth of the Assertion.

The next Proof adduced by the Nephew, Viz. This Church, her not protesting against, but consenting, that Persons, who had given Discoveries of a Malignant Spirit against the Covenant, Cause and People of GOD, should be received into Places of Power and Trust, &c. is hissed out of the World, as an Untruth, and gross Falsehood. But is it so great a Falsehood, that it may not appear, and bring alongst with it a Witness or two to evidence it? The Commissioners both to Assemblies, and Parliaments, for the most part, were Men of Blood, and such as had harassed, ruined, and persecuted the People of GOD, and given all Evidence of Loyalty to the former Tyrant’s Authority;

[Page 5]

and taken all or most of the Oaths then imposed in Contradiction to our Covenants; and if these were not evidences of Malignancy, it will be hard to find any out of Rome, and the World heard ever but very little or nothing of their Repentance; Yea, were not many of the Nobility and Gentry, who had been active Instruments in shedding the Blood and ruining the Families of the LORD’s People, and involved in Tests and Bonds, made Ruling Elders in the Church? and if this was not with the Church’s Consent, let the Indifferent judge. To give particular Instances of the Matter of Fact is Superfluous, it being too notour in every Corner, to need Probation. So then, ’tis no Calumny, but plain Matter of Fact. His Distinctions pag. 10 & 11. of Malignant and Disaffected, into Those that were for the Revolution, and those that were for Tyranny and Popery; affirming that the Latter only are to be accounted such, will say as little for salving the Church’s Credit in this Affair, so long as ’tis still evident, that these very same Persons, who were the Maintainers of Arbitrary Government, and a Popish Usurper, and Persecutors of the People of GOD, were without any evident Signs of Repentance, taken into Offices Ecclesiastical and Civil. So that whatever fair Face be put upon the gross Stands of the Revolution, it never justifies the Unfaithfulness of this Church, in joining with these she had sworn to extirpate. For what he saith, of the Revolution’s being a Protest against them with a Witness, any disinterested Person who considers, how their Crimes were hudled up, and they received into the Bosom of the Church without Repentance, who but the other Year, were Men of Blood, Persecution and Tyranny, cannot but see the Lameness of such a Protest. What he adds of the Vindicating Party encouraging the Publishing of the Prince of Orange his Declaration, and engaging to stand in Defence of his Highness’s Person and Authority, when lawfully chosen as King, &c. will say as little for him; for the former was done but by some few, who were as forward within a little to make Defection to the contrary Part; and as for the Latter, besides that it had not general Consent, so it was restricted to his being lawfully chosen as King, which by Persons sincerely engaged in Covenant could not be otherwise understood, than that they would own him, when they found him having Covenant-qualifications, and admitted covenant-wise to the Exercise of the Royal Authority, which is that which Dissenters crave in a Lawful Magistrate.

The Nephew (Page 12.) adduces the Church’s not disallowing the acceptance of Charles’s Indulgence (Page 13.) the Duke of York’s Toleration, as Grievances & Grounds of withdrawing from this Erastian Establishment. Where the Uncle first grants these to have been Steps of Defection, and then again he labours with might and main to Palliate, Plaister, Mince and Extenuate their Sin by what they Mumbled to the Council at their Acceptance, and their entry into the charges into which they were put by the Council’s Order. To enter into the particular Disquisition of the evils of this Indulgence is not the design of

[Page 6]

this Tract. Let the Dialogist for his better Information anent the Sinfulness of that Indulgence, Read the History of the Indulgence and the Learned Mr. [Robert] M’Quard’s [M’Ward] Answer to Mr. [Robert] Fleeming. He Labours to defend the Accepters of, & Addressers for the Duke of Yorks Toleration by these Reasons, They saw Presbytery near to be Extinguished, and considering what Harassing, Persecution and Bloodshed the Nation had come through, and how little hope there was of bettering their Circumstances and embrace that as an occasion to Preach the Gospel, not knowing what GOD might do by it. These Excuses have a fair Face, but if set in a due light, will appear very Frivolous; for Men to do Evil that Good may come thereof, is the downright Reverse of the Scripture Precept. And there seeing Presbytery near to be Extinguished, could never be an Excuse for their Contributing, by their acceptance of this Toleration, to blow out any spark that remained. The Church’s strength is to Stand still and see the Salvation of the Lord. The Church is a Palm tree, that grows the better for Opposition; Resistance, not a Sinful Yeilding to Christ’s declared Enemies has been the mean of the Church’s safety. Again they considered the Harassing Oppression, Persecution and Bloodshed the Church had come through already; should this have been an Argument for them to cast away their Confidence, quite their Testimony sealed with so much Blood, Despair of His Kindness who had sustained His Church in the Fiery Trial hitherto, and fall in with the Persecutors, to help on the Bloodshed and strengthen the Hands of the Enemy, against the remnant of them that held the Testimony of Jesus Christ? Nor was it a simple acceptance of a Liberty to Preach the Gospel, but such a Limited, Clogged and Restricted one as involved them in a course of downright Opposition against the Covenanted Interest, so that they could not but know what God (according to his Word) would do by it; viz. Spue such Lukewarm deniers of his Name, out of his Mouth; wherefore they could not expect, to profit the People at all by it, being these Men that had not stood in God’s Council to turn them from, but in the Council of the Wicked to turn them to iniquity. Yet all the evil that this Author can see in these Christ-dethroning and Church-ruining Courses, is only a sign of Fainting and Inadvertency.

How base an extenuating of Land sins this is, every truly tender Conscience cannot but see, and yet after all, he has the confidence to compare these Church-Betrayers their National Defection with the Apostle Peter’s personal failing who Judaized in compliance with some weak believing Jews. How unparalleled a parallel! And to make the World believe he has a Non such regard to the honest Witnesses, who withstood the Acceptance of this Toleration; he pronounces Mr. James Renwick, Mr. Alexander Shields, and some others who Protested against it, to have been in the Right. If he speak this as his own Private Sentiment, it comes not under my Cognizance; but if in the Name of the Church, as the Strain of the Dialogue runs, then he commits

[Page 7]

a gross mistake anent her Opinion of those Men; for, Anno 1690 the Moderator of the Assembly in his Discourse to those that had Protested against the Toleration, made at their Reception into the Communion of this Establishment admonished them to walk more regularly in time coming, in Opposition to Schism and Division, as the Records of that Assembly bear. Now wherein had their former walk been disorderly Schismatick or Divisive, but in their protesting against and not joining with the Tolerate Ministers? Whereas (Page 14.) he affirms That the Indulgence and Toleration have been mourned over in National Acknowledgements, upon Fasting and Humiliation days, he is only desired to produce any One of all the Fasts since the Revolution, where any of the Two are mentioned in the Publick Causes, to salve this Assertion from being a palpable untruth; but assuredly he will never be able to do it. What then is this, but to publish falsehood in the face of the Sun, without blushing? If he say (as some have done) that its Secretly couched; Such an answer every Body sees to be Sham only to gull the simple. What? Such gross publick National Defections as the Indulgence and Toleration, only implicitly couched in National Acknowledgments, and yet sufficiently confessed, to remove the Guilt and Scandal of them? They must have a very blind Faith that can believe it. But I need not stand to Confute this, for he immediately subjoins what in effect contradicts his Assertion; for, says he If by it you understand the bringing all of them to the Publick, I see not how — it could be practised, if they had not been convinced of the sinfulness of it, how shall they confess it, &c. Where he tells us, that their Non-conviction of the sinfulness of the Indulgence and Toleration was that which made their publick acknowledgement thereof Impracticable; but assuredly had the Church been faithful they might either have been convinced of their Offence, in order to their publick Confession, or Convicted thereof, by being Debarred Publick Office bearing in the Church, ay and while they should come to see the evil of their former Courses, and give satisfying discoveries of their sorrow and Repentance for the same. Upon the whole therefore, it appears that the Guilt of these sins and Defections, is yet lying upon this Church; when not only they have never been mourned over; but the Accepters of them received into the Church, without Repentance. So that whatever footing this Church now stands upon, the guilt of these things not being purged away doth Consequently affect the Terms of her Communion still.

He comes (pag. 15.) to discourse the Church’s Settlement, upon the Act of Parliament, June 1592: which when his Nephew has brought in as a Grievance, that they should have gone so far about, seeking the Nearest, and would not find a Piece of firm Ground in all the Church of Scotland’s Practice and Constitution, to fix their Foot upon nearer than a hundred Years Journey backward; He grants the Matter of Fact, but will not allow that there was

[Page 8]

any Hazard in going so far back; and challenges his dissenting Nephew to show any one piece of Reformation, wherein the Church had advanced after 1592, which she had not attained then. A very monstrous Challenge truly. It seems this Author thinks not, that these things were any Pieces of Reformation, Viz. The Explanation of the National Covenant, the taking and renewing the Solemn League, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Catechisms Larger and Lesser, Directory for Worship, Form of Church Government and Ordination of Ministers; all the Acts of Church and State, for purging Judicatories Ecclesiastical and Civil, and Armies from Malignant and disaffected Persons to the Cause and Work of GOD, and particularly, that worthy Act, for annulling of Patronages; and all these things ratified with the full and ample Sanction of Supreme Civil Authority, by the Kings Majesty and honourable Estates of Parliament; with many others, more largely enumerate Nephtali, from pag. 64. to 73. Prior. Edit. This Challenge then is so easily answered, that it might justly be wondered, how any Man pretending Presbyterian Principles could have the Confidence to make it. Surely our Fathers must be supposed Men of very little Judgment, if they were at so much Expence of Blood and Treasure for Reformation in Religion, and yet advanced not one Step therein. This represents the Conduct of Church and State betwixt 1638 and 1649, very odly. Who can but review the Actings and Proceedings of that Time, without a malignant Eye, and yet find no Attainment in Reformation in them? Well, but there must be some Reason given, why the Church made so large a Skip, to find a fit Place for the Soles of her Feet. Why? Truely the Dissenters could not have been pleased with any other Period; for the Assembly 1649 was treating with the King, and the Assembly 1638 acknowledged his Power to dissolve Assemblings and Proceedings of that Time, without a malignant Eye, and yet find no Attainment in Reformation in them? Well, but there must be some Reason given, why the Church made so large a Skip, to find a fit Place for the Solesies. That the Assembly 1638 acknowledged the King’s Power to dissolve Assemblies, he labours to prove thus, They appointed all Presbyteries, Universities and Burghs, to send up their Representatives, for keeping an Assembly at the Time and Place appointed by his Majesty’s Proclamation Ergo, they owned he had a Power to dissolve them at Pleasure. A fine Consequence indeed. The Supreme Magistrate may in Cases of Necessity indict an Assembly, Ergo, He may at Pleasure dissolve it. He has a Power given him for the Church’s Good, Ergo, for her Hurt. This Consequence was not owned by that Assembly, for when they were charged by the King’s Commissioner’s Proclamation to dismiss, they refused, protested and by Virtue of their Intrinsick Power sat till they had ended their Work: Hence it appears, this Consequence was not to be found in their Logicks; but is lately found out in Defence of Erastian Usurpers.

That the Dissenters would not have been satisfied, with the Assembly 1649, for founding the Establishment upon, he labours to prove from the ‘Informatory Vindication, page 5. It was our great sin first and last, to meddle with Charles the 2d, while he gave all along such clear Indications of his

[Page 9]

being an Enemy to the Cause. Now how well he has here consulted Self-consistency, the Reader cannot but remark; for, as we shall see just now, he extols Mr. James Renwick with the highest Eulogies imaginable, and opposes Him to Mr. John M‘millan, and yet here he brings in the Informatory Vindication, whereof he was the Publisher, as a Book espoused by them, he calls Mr. M‘millan’s Party; but of this more afterwards. To return to the Matter in hand, it does not follow, tho’ the Dissenters looked upon that as a Sin, which this National Church had been guilty of, that therefore they thought it not a fit Period, for founding the Revolution-Establishment upon; the Church having made publick Acknowledgement thereof; see the Causes of the LORD’s Wrath against SCOTLAND, printed Anno 1653. pag. 6 step 5. The Words are as follow; The authorizing of Commissioners to close a Treaty with the King, for investing him with the Government, upon his subscribing such Demands, as were sent to him, after he had given many clear Evidences of his Disaffection and enmity to the Work and People of GOD, and was continuing in the same: And the admitting of him to the full Exercise of his Power, and crowning him notwithstanding of new Discoveries of his adhering to his former Principles and Ways, and of many Warnings to the contrary. And in the enlargement, from pag. 52 to 59, they specify the particular Evidences of his Enmity to the Cause and Covenant, and the unstraight Dealings of Church and State in the Treaty. And where Sins are particularly and sincerely acknowledged, the Scandal and Offence is removed. It is observable with what an Air of Disdain the Dialogist here quotes this Sentence out of the Informatory Vindication, as if it had been some Novel Opinion of the present Dissenters, whereas had he been acquaint with the Affairs of this Church, he might have seen that it was the general Sentiment of the faithful and zealous Part of the Church and State, at that Time, as is evident from the forecited Causes of the LORD’s Wrath, &c. And from a faithful Remonstrance, exhibited by the better Part of the Nobility and Gentry to the Parliament, after the Defeat at Dumbar. And it was upon this very Head, that faithful Mr. James Guthrie was indicted and condemned to Death; as the learned Mr. Brown relates in his MSC. entitled, Apologia pro Eccles. Scot. § 3.

Come we now to another Reason why the Establishment was carried so far back at the Revolution; viz. It was a period not only ratified and approven by the Assembly 1638 themselves, but also ratified by Civil Authority, and hereby they declared to the World and to King William (an utter stranger to our Church Affairs) that they pled no other Privileges in our Church Constitution than what were Established not only by the Church, but also by Civil Authority, above an Hundred Years ago in this Nation. Here’s a very plausible pretext, but Latet anguis in herba [A snake lies hidden in the grass]. It has a Sting in the Tail of it. Its but a very indifferent Character the Dialogist gives King William when he calls him

[Page 10]

such as what he is said to have been towards this Church, and yet an utter stranger to her Affairs? A Magistrate set up over a Covenanted Land, and subjected unto by a Covenanted People, and he notwithstanding an utter Alien and Stranger to that Covenanted Reformation? Was King William an utter stranger to our Church, and yet swear the Coronation Oath; wherein he promised to serve the Eternal GOD all the Days of his Life, according as he has required in his most Holy Word, and that he would Rule the People according to the Loveable Laws and Constitutions received in this Realm, noways Repugnant to the said Word of the Eternal GOD, &c. How could he being an utter stranger to the affairs of this Church, sware this Oath in Judgment? Surely had any of the Dissenters said so much of him, as this Dialogist hath done, it would have been called Treason, Rebellion, Fanaticism, &c. But passing this Remark, to come to the Reason it self. What need was there for going an Hundred Years back, to show to the World, that it was the Church’s Old and Ancient Privileges that were pleaded? Could not this have been done, and yet the Establishment carried no further back than to the Period where the Reformation was interrupted? Surely it might. And as for the Concurrence of Civil Authority to Ratify and approve the Reformation, they needed have gone no further back than June 1651. When the King having attained the Age of 21 Years, with Advice and Consent of the Estates of Parliament past an Act of Security ratifying the Solemn League and Covenant, and the whole preceding Work of Reformation. Now what can possibly be said in favours of skipping over this period, to seek for the concurrence of Civil Authority, when it was so eminently here? The Popular Objection that the same King Disannulled this by a posterior Act says nothing to the purpose; for, this being a solemn Act of the King and Estates of this Realm, confirming, ratifying and approving the Covenant and work of Reformation, it could never be annulled by any posterior unlawful Act whatsoever; seeing that even Kings and Parliaments, Morally speaking, illud tantum possunt quod jure possunt [They can do only that which they can do lawfully], can do nothing but what they may do of right, for (as Boethius tells us) Power is not but to Good. Seeing then that this was a very proper period for the Re-establishment at the Revolution to fix upon, there must be some latent Reason, why it made a retrograde motion of a Century of Years, other than what the Dialogist here Represents: And what could it be else but to bury the whole Attainments of this Church in Reformation and Uniformity betwixt 1638 and 1650, And to make of none effect the Solemn League and Covenant, as being the Grand Eye sore of Malignants, whom we had a mind to embrace again into our arms, and a Bond too strict and pinching for us to be bound with. So that had not this Dialogist been blind he might easily have seen another Reason why the Dissenters are dissatisfied with the Revolution-Establishments being settled upon the Act 1592, And why they would have had it settled upon

[Page 11]

the foresaid Act of Ratification, beside what he alleges, viz. That the former had, and the latter wanted the Civil Sanction. Nay he might have seen that to be no Reason at all; for indeed the latter had the Civil Sanction as amply as the former, as hath been made evident; Hence his Consequence falls of course, That the Dissenters see no mercy in that Glorious Promise made to the Church, in the last Days Kings shall be thy Nursing Fathers and Queens thy Nursing Mothers. Yea they see so much Mercy in it, that they pray for and desire it, but cannot be brought to so implicit a Faith as to believe that persons imposing upon the Liberties and acting to the Detriment of Church and State are such.

But he proceeds (Pag. 17. & 18.) to Remove this Objection, that the Intendment of the Revolution Establishment’s being carried so far back was to Bury the Covenanted Reformation and Faithfull Acts of Assemblies made during that time; and for evidencing that these Acts of Assemblies are yet held as binding, and observed by this Church he quotes an Act made in the Year 1649, Discharging the Reponing of Deposed Ministers to their former Charges, by virtue of which Act this Church could not Repone Mr. M‘millen to his Ministry at Balmagie, what a convincing proof is here? one Act observed in one instance to prove their adherence to all the Acts of that time; But the Dialogist it seems had forgot himself, when he picked out this Act for an Instance, it being one that gives so manifest a proof of this Churches partiality; she could not repone Mr. John M‘millan to Balmagie by reason of this Act, but she could notwithstanding Repone Mr. John Hepburn Deposed for Reasons mostly parallel, to his Church at Ore. Yea, which was worse, were not the three Curates who had been deposed for unsound Arminian Tenets and Immoralities of Conversation by their Respective Synods, Reponed by the Commission to their former Charges, which was approven by the General Assembly? And was not Mr. Law at Crimond, who had been Deposed by the Synod of Aberdeen for Bourignon Tenets, Reponed to his Parish at Crimond by the General Assembly 1710. Notwithstanding that he was not only weak but very Erroneous in many of the Catholick Questions proposed to him by the Assembly? Wherefore tho’ Mr. M‘millan denies not that this Act was observed in his case (as the Dialogist jearingly Speaks) they using his own Staff to Beat him with, improving the Acts of the Reformation which he was pleading for, against their Primary Intendment, as a bar against his being Reponed to Balmagie, yet he has good reason to deny that this Act has been observed with respect to those against whom it was principally meant by the Assembly 1649.

He labours with a great many Whimsies and Distinctions (Pag. 18, 19, 20.) to Palliate the Nations Perjury and the Church’s Neglect of Renewing the Covenant. Where I shall only remark some few things, First, he Speaks only of the National Covenant of Scotland, which he grants to be binding on

[Page 12]

us; but for the Solemn League and Covenant of the three Kingdoms for Reformation of Religion, and Uniformity in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government, and Extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, Erastianism and Sectarianism, he must hold his Thumb upon that, as being the thing which his Sovereign hates, which the Nations have Violated and Burnt, and the Church has Buried, and to the Reverse whereof the Nations have United, Consented and Combined. The mali me tangere [] of Prelacy must not hear of this Solemn Oath of God. This must have Disrespect put upon it by all Ranks. Wherefore seeing that this present Establishment disowns the binding Obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant, as appears not only from this Dealogue espoused (as said is) by the Judicatures of this Church, but also from the Acts of Synods enjoining the National Covenant, without the Solemn League to be Subscribed by the several Kirk Sessions, within their Bounds, and by many marks of Disrespect put upon it by all; as for instance, in a late Address drawn up by some who pretend a Zeal for Reformation, to be presented to the General Assembly for renewing the Covenant, they specify only the National without the Solemn League; And albeit the National Covenant were renewed (which cannot be sincerely done without the other) while this Solemn League and Covenant continues to be Neglected, and the ends of it not prosecute; but the contrary of what it obliges to promoted, the sin of manifest Covenant breaking, is not Removed from this Church and Nation.

2dly, He labours to make it appear that the time of the Revolution and these 24 Years since, have never offered a fit Season for Covenant Renewing by this Argument, That the Covenant being primarily intended as a mutual Bond for the preservation of Religion against Persecution, should never be sworn but in a time of Persecution. But every Judicious Person must needs see the weakness of this Argument in it self, and more especially in this particular case to which its applied. The time of the Revolution was undeniably a time of great Defection. All Ranks and Degrees had corrupted their ways and violated the Oath of the Covenants. It was a lightning and a little Reviving given in the midst of great Bondage; after a long time of the LORD’s heavy Rebuke against his Church. Now whether such a circumstance of Time as this, was not a proper Opportunity for the People of GOD in these Lands to confess their Sins unfeignedly, and engage themselves anew in their Duty to GOD, and to one another in the prosecution of it, every upright Hearted Person cannot but see. The Objection comes not therefore to what the Dialogist reduceth it; viz. Whether the General Assembly in the Year 1690, or the Dissenting Party were the fittest Judges of the proper Season of Renewing the Covenants; But whether the Command of GOD, and Practice of the Godly recorded in Scripture, and of our worthy Ancestors in this Land, in such Circumstances did not oblige both the

[Page 13]

Assembly and the Dissenters thereunto? That it is the express Command of GOD to people in such Circumstances as what we were in, at the Revolution, appears from Hosea 14. 1, 2, 3. O Israel, return unto the LORD thy GOD; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. Here’s the express parallel of our Case. ver. 2. Take with your words, and return to the LORD; say unto him, take away all iniquity: Here is Acknowledgment. So will we render unto thee the calves of our lips. ver. 2. Asshur shall not save us, we will not ride upon horses, neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, Ye are our Gods. There is Covenanting. Many Instances of the Godly in Scripture, renewing their Covenant with GOD, in cases parallel to our Revolution circumstances, might be adduced. Moses and the Israelites in the Plains of Moab, Deut. 29. renew the Covenant made at Horeb. And from the 2d to the 9th Verse Moses reckons up the many Mercies of God to them in Egypt and the Wilderness, the many Rebellions of the People, their Hard heartedness, Murmurings and Provocations against GOD, and his just Rods, Plagues and Punishments laid upon them therefore, as Reasons why they were then called to renew it. A parallel of all which was in our case at the Revolution. Joshua likewise renewed the Covenant, for the same Reasons, Josh. 24. Asa likewise, 1 Chron. 15. makes a solemn Covenant with GOD, upon the Reasons adduced by Azariah the Prophet in the 2, 3, & 5 Verses, which if we compare with our case, we will find, that the Circumstances were much the same. Such likewise were these, wherein Josiah, that great Pattern of Reformation, was, when he and Judah entered into Covenant; they were emerging out of a Time of great Deformation (according as we seemed at the Revolution) and so far they proceeded in Reformation, as not only to reform Judah, but through the Ten Tribes, they destroyed the Altars, Groves and High Places of the Idol-Worshippers. And the case of Nehemiah, and the People returned from Captivity, was very like to what our Revolution seemed to be, and might really have been, had we followed their Example, in that 9th Chap. of Nehemiah, which was their publick Acknowledgment, and Preamble to their covenanting; the Sins confessed are very much adjusted in Nature and Aggravations, to what ours then were, and yet continue to be. To which we may add, that gracious Promise made to the Remnant of the Church returning from Babylon, (which no Doubt, has also a further Look, even to the Time and condition of the New Testament Church) Jer. 50. 4, 5. In those days, and at that Time, saith the LORD, the children of Israel shall come, they, and the children of Judah together, going and weeping: They shall go, and seek the LORD their GOD. Ver. 5. They shall ask the way to Zion, with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join our selves to the LORD in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten. And if we read the two following Verses, we shall not find a case nearer to the case that this Land had been in during the Times of Persecution and Defection, no not in the whole Bible. And

[Page 14]

as for the Practice of our Ancestors, to mention no other, that solemn Renovation of the League and Covenant 1648. & 1649. was not so much upon the Account of Persecution, as National Defection, and Discoveries of the LORD’s Anger against the Land, to avert which, they judged it necessary, to renew their Covenant Engagements. Hence it is evident, that the Revolution was a proper Season for covenanting with GOD; but we were unwilling to undertake the Work, and therefore are still crying, as they of old, The time is not come, the time that the LORD’s house should be built.

If the Dialogist would have further Satisfaction, That Covenants made Primarily for the Church’s Defence in a Mutual Resistance of her Persecuting Enemies ought to be retained and renewed even in a time of Peace, let him peruse the Harmonious Testimony of the Ministers of the County Palatine of Lancaster to the Truth of Jesus Christ, and to our Solemn League and Covenant Published anno 1647. Wherein they take his Notion to Task, in Confutation of a Book written by one of the Sectarians, Intituled the Independency of England maintained. And particularly of the Authors Assertion, That the Solemn League having been entered into for Suppressing the common Enemy, when the Enemy is quasht, it ought to be laid aside, like an Almanack of the last Year, wronging us rather what we have already done than what we are to do. Which Assertion is in effect one and the same with this Dialogist’s Reasoning.

He goes on (Pag. 20.) to clear the Church from the Objection of Her not Requiring King William to Swear the Covenants, according to what our Forefathers did with Charles II. before his Admission to the Government. And the difference of the Church’s procedure with respect to King William, from that of their Forefathers with King Charles second, he makes to ly in the different Dispositions of King Charles and King William; King Charles (saith he) was a Man that would have Sworn, or Forsworn any thing for his Triple Crown; but King William was a man of a Principle. How a Man of a Principle, and yet an utter Stranger to our Church Affairs? He was indeed a Man of a Principle, such a Principle as made him uncapable of being our Covenanted Magistrate; a Man of such a Principle as we are obliged to the outmost of our power to Extirpate: How then could he be our Lawful Sovereign? As the Dialogist affirms he was. Why? Truely Queen Mary was the nearest of Blood in the Protestant Line. And is that sufficient? Scotland both Church and State thought otherwise, when they required that the Magistrates over these Realms should be Men of Truth, Fearing God, Men of known Integrity, Approven Fidelity, constant Affection and Zeal to the Cause of God, such against whom there is no just cause of Exception or Jealousy. As for what he alleges out of the Confession of Faith, for Justifying Subjection to King William, tho a Supporter of Prelacy contrary to our Covenants; it has been often shown, that we being a Covenanted & Reformed Land, the Fundamental Laws of the Land Required, that our King should be a Covenanted

[Page 15]

and Reformed King. And as for the Coronation Oath which is said to be a tie equal to the Covenants, what can be said, but that this Church and Nation, by requiring King William to Swear that Oath, Involved him in the grossest perjury? They obliging him to Swear that he should serve the Eternal God according to his most holy Word, while yet they very well knew that he had Engaged before the Altar to be of the Communion of the Church of England, which serves God, not according to his most holy Word, but according to the prescript of the Romish Superstitions.

He brings in his Dissenting Nephew (Pag. 21. asking this Question, Why did not the Church of Scotland make the Covenant the Terms of her Communion, as we see they have made the taking of the Sacrament after the Church manner a Badge and Test in England? To which he Replies, I am very much Surprised that you take that Sacramental Test for your Precedent. And so goes on to shew all the evils and sins involved in that Sacramental Test. Which I confess he has need to do, because Scotland is so near incorporate with the Gentlemen that impose it, and because it is now more strictly enjoined than before. But withal, what is this to the Dissenters, who are very far from taking it as any Pattern or Precedent. Their Precedent is the Laudable Custom of their Ancestors, who Judged it necessary that there should be a Badge of Distinction put between the Friends and the Foes of the Reformation. The Dissenters indeed say, that the Church of England discovers more Zeal for the support of her Romish Superstitions, than the Church of Scotland for the pure Worship of God, which is our Bane and Shame that we should be behind with them, when our cause is so much preferable to their’s: But it is but a Slanderous consequence to infer, therefore they approve of the Church of England’s Superstitious Zeal, and take that for their Pattern. But to pass this as a piece of the Dialogists Machiavellian Art, let us see his Reason, why the Covenants are not made the Test of this Church’s Communion; and its this in short, the Covenants are a Door too strait to let in Malignants and Enemies to Reformation; for (saith he) this would debar all the Well wishers, such as are for the Revolution and Constitution, but not of our persuasion in every part, and being Men of a Principle cannot meddle with it. Hence we see what a constitution this is, the Wellwishers whereof are Enemies to our Covenant, and what sort of Men ’tis readiest to advance, even these whole Principle hinders them to middle with Covenanted Reformation; for if they were Friends to Reformation the Covenants could never debar them. And for what he saith, that the Malignants would take the Covenant to serve an interest, its but of a piece with the former pretext, for its better that the Church being terrible as an Army with Banners, oblige the haters of the Lord to Feign a Submission to him, than that she should willfully break down her own wall and Hedge, that she may invite the Boars of the Forrest to destroy the Lord’s Vineyard: As at this Day, while the Locusts of the Bottomless pit are spreading themselves through the Land, under the protection of Parliamentary Authority, and none may control them.

[Page 16]

He brings in his dissenting Nephew (pag. 21.) proposing a Doubt anent the Constitution of the Church Government in the Claim of Right; That in it Presbytery is not said to be most agreeable to the Word of GOD; but only to the Peoples Inclinations; And Episcopacy is therein abolished, only as a Grievance to the Nation, not as contrary to the Word of GOD. Upon which he cries in a horrid Fume, as if the Dissenters did represent the Church disingenuously on this Head, and misrepresent the Claim of Right: For (saith he) I find, when they give what of the Claim of Right concerns the Church, they leave this Clause entirely out; wherein the Act establishing Presbytery, ’tis said, that this is the Government most agreeable to the Word of GOD, and most conducive to the Advancement of true Religion and Godliness, and Establishment of Peace and Tranquility within this Realm. This is indeed a high Charge of disingenuous and insincere Dealing, in the Matter of Quotation; but how is it proven? For the Modest Reply, which the Dialogist here covertly strikes at, in quoting the Claim of Right, gives what of it is relative to the Church, without any such Prevarication, as he would have People believe it commits, seeing there is no such Clause, as what he mentions in the Claim of Right. ’Tis a false charge to say, that ’tis left out, when the Claim of Right is quoted. And if the Parliament called the Presbyterial Government, most agreeable to the Word of GOD, why did the General Assembly, 1701. in addressing their Gracious Nursing Mother, Refuse to say that Presbyterian Government is founded on the Word of GOD, tho’ it was often pressed for;* might they not have said what the Parliament had said before them? Wherefore, he has not yet made it appear, that Presbytery was at the Revolution first settled any otherwise, than according to the Peoples Inclinations; A very variable Rule. Nor is it otherwise managed all along, but as may please a malignant Party, and keep the right Side of the Court. And ’tis still more and more apparent, that this is too great a Truth; For now when the People give in a Bill for a Toleration of Episcopacy, as the Government most agreeable to their Inclinations, they must have it granted them.

The next Head of Conference, that offers it self, is anent the Oath of Allegiance imposed upon, and taken by Ministers, which he proves to be lawful from 2 Kings 11. 4. For, saith he When Joash and Athaliah were disputing their Titles, Jehoiada imposed an Oath upon the Civil as well as Others. Who would have thought, that the Dialogist claiming the Designation of a Minister would have shown himself, so little of a Divine, as to allege this place of 2 Kings 11. 4. to prove that Sovereigns have imposed Oaths of Allegiance upon Ecclesiastick Persons? Whereas it was only an Oath of Secrecy, taken by Jehoiada of the Captains of Hundreds, who went about through all Judah, to gather the Levites, and the chief of the Fathers, to Joash’s Corona-

_____

* See, The Grievances offered to the Presbytery of Kirkcudbright by M[iste]rs. R[eid]., T[od]., & M[‘millan].

[Page 17]

tion; as appears from the parallel Place, 2 Chron: 23. 1, 2, 3. See Mr. Pool upon the Place. ’Tis true (indeed) there was a mutual Covenant betwixt the King and the People, wherein, as the King for his part engaged to the Duties of his Station, so the whole Congregation, as well Priests & Levites, as other Subjects, engaged to bear true Allegiance to him in so doing; as we find 2 Chron: 23. 16. And this Pattern our Fathers followed, with Charles 2d, at his Coronation. He engaged, to own, defend and prosecute the Covenanted Reformation: And they sware Allegiance to him upon these Conditions. And such an Allegiance the Dissenters allow Ministers (as well as other Subjects) to yield. But King William never being received into the Bond of the Covenant to prosecute the Ends of it, in adhering to & preserving the covenanted Reformation, how could Ministers swear to bear Faith and true Allegiance to him, without any Limitation of their Obedience, such as what was in this Allegiance contained in the Solemn League and Covenant. That there is no Limitation expressed in the Oath it self, he cannot deny; but he runs to the Coronation Oath, as the altera pars contractus [the other party to the contract], for it. But ’tis confessed by all Casuists, That an Oath must always be taken in the Imposer’s Sense: And that this was not the Sense of the Parliament, is manifest, for the Reason of their rejecting the conditional Allegiance Oath, contained in the Solemn League and Covenant, and framing a New one, was that they might make the New One absolute and unconditional, lest when the Prince should make Arbitrary Encroachments upon the Church, as he many times afterwards did, Ministers might have any way of Evasion from yielding an absolute Subjection. And that this New one was substitute in the Room, as well of the Allegiance in the Covenant, as that required by Charles and the Duke of York, is manifest from the Words of the Claim of Right, immediately preceding the Oath, which are these, And that the Oaths, hereafter mentioned, be taken by all Protestants, of whom the Oath of Allegiance, and any other Oaths and Declarations might be required by Law, in stead of them, and that the said Oath of Allegiance, and other Oaths and Declarations may be abrogated. Where under the general Term of Oaths that might be required by Law (instead whereof) this New Oath of Allegiance was to be taken, may very well be comprehended the Covenants, these being Oaths, which might be required by Law, they having been confirmed by the Laws of the Land. For if they had only intended the abrogating the wicked Oaths, and Declarations imposed by the Tyrant and Usurper in contradiction to our Covenants, then there was no need of framing a New Oath of Allegiance, but only of declaring, that the Allegiance contained in the Covenant should stand in full Force, and be taken by all Subjects, as before these wicked Oaths and Declarations were imposed. Now what other Reason could there be, why this was not done, but a new Form imposed in stead thereof, but only that the new one should be illimited. He tells us, That upon the Back of the Reformation

[Page 18]

Reformation, in the Competition betwixt King James 6th and his Mother, Ministers were to swear the Oath to the King from the Pulpit under Pain of Deprivation. If he means the Allegiance Oath, contained in the National Covenant, which the Ministers as well as all other Subjects were to swear, the Dissenters (as said is) do not object against, but plead for this; but then it saith nothing to his present Purpose. But if he mean, that there was an Oath of Allegiance, such as what this is, wanting any Restriction, Condition or Limitation imposed upon and taken by the Ministry, without being protested and witnessed against by any considerable part of the Ministry, that were zealous against Encroachments: Then let him produce the Oath, that it may be compared with the present; or at least quote the publick History, where it is to be found: For to say, that it was upon the Back of the Reformation, is so wide a Quotation, that ordinary Readers, tho’ they find the Page, can hardly fall upon the Line. Now if he make it not appear, that the Oath he speaks of, is an illimited Oath, like this present Allegiance, and imposed on the Ministry, as Persons in publick Trust, he has gained nothing by it: For the Dissenters do not deny, but that Ecclesiastick Persons, as well as others, ought to swear Allegiance to a lawful Sovereign, if it be imposed upon them in the Notion of private Subjects; but if an Oath of Allegiance be imposed on them as Persons in publick Trust, as the Parliament specified it, and the Dialogist here affirms that they took it under that Specification, then they deny it to be lawful for them, for they have no other publick Trust, but what is derived from Jesus Christ the King and Head of his Church. That more was to be understood by the Act of Parliament, Enjoining this Oath to be taken by all Ministers of this Church, and that no Person thereafter should be admitted, or continued to be a Minister, or Preacher within this Church unless he have, first taken and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance, and Bond of Assurance, than only a losing the Emoluments of Stipend, Manse and Gleb (as the Dialogist would scruff the Matter) appears from this, that some have been excluded from Voice in the Assembly, upon that Account. Yea, some Parishes have for a considerable Time wanted Ministers, because their Elderships were not qualified, by taking this Oath, to give them a Call.

We are now, at length, brought to the Main Design of the Conference. This Dialogist knowing very well, that so long as Men walk after the Footsteps of Christ’s Flock, follow the cloud of Witnesses, that have gone before, and imitate the Saints in their imitation of Christ, their Cause can never be truly odious to any, but the Seed of the Serpent, which hates Goodness for it self; and perceiving the Dissenters from this present Constitution to be Labouring so to do; and to be looked upon by many of the Godly through the Land (tho’ differing in some Points from them) as Persons whose Design is, in treading the Footsteps of the Faithful, to keep up a Testimony in their Day,

[Page 19]

against the manifold Defections made from the Truth: And further considering, that so long as any in the Land have such an Opinion of their cause and course, he can never prevail so far as to attain his main Design, which is manifestly, to cast them out of any little Share of Sympathy and Affection, which any are pleased to bear towards them, that so they may be laid obnoxious to Persecution, and deprived of all Love or Compassion from others. He having these things before his Eyes, hath laboured to invent all the sinistrous calumnies & subtle Distinctions, which Malice is capable to inspire, in order to bear the World in hand, that it is a Course and Design opposite to the Testimony of the Worthies of the former Period, which they are driving. And tho’ it be very manifest, that this Church hath many ways cast contempt upon the Testimony of these Worthies, yet this Dialogist will needs have People think, that he has a Non-such Veneration for them: But what’s the Design of it? It is plainly that he may the more successfully cast Reproach upon Others; using this Pretext, as the Angler doth his Bait to hide the Hook.

He adduces nine Heads of Differences (as he calls them) to make good his Point; but for Brevity’s sake, they may be ranked into three Heads more generally. The First has a Relation to the Difference of the Persons in the Government, whose Authority was disowned before and since the Revolution. The Second respects the Difference of the Ministers withdrawn from under the Indulged and Tolerated Liberties, and these of the Present Establishment. The Third contains some personal Differences betwixt Mr. James Renwick and Mr. John M‘millan.

As for the First Head, It must (indeed) be granted, that the Persons presently in the Government, and all alongst since the Revolution, not being bigoted Papists, as the Duke of York, have not breathed out so much Cruelty against the Persons of Men, and against the Protestant Faith, as his most abominable Principles, screwed up as high in Malice, as the Devil and his Sons the Jesuits could make them, laid him to do. And hence it cannot be expected, that there should be all the Grounds of Exception against them that were against the Duke of York. And herein the Dialogist’s unfair Sophistication, and disingenuous Dealing discovers it self, that in stating these pretended Differences betwixt the Witnessing Remnant now and in the persecuting Time, he only mentions their disowning James Duke of York, for his being a Papist; never mentioning their disowning Charles 2d, who was no profess Papist; and excepting Charles his managing his Designs by open persecuting, Violence and Breach of Covenant, to which he was solemnly and formally engaged, the Reasons for disowning him, were the same substantially with what the Dissenters allege for their Practice now. Those who are now in the Government never having been legally admitted thereto, according to our Covenants, and being practically opposite unto, and really opposing our Covenanted Reformation, and encroaching upon the Liberties of CHRIST’s Kingdom.

[Page 20]

But let the Dialogist himself Speak; Mr. Renwick (saith he Pag. 25.) with his Colleagues and Followers disowned King James his Legal Title to the Crown, because he was an avowed Enemy to, and overturner of the Religion Established by Law, for proof whereof he quotes the Testimony against the Toleration, Pag. 13. col. 2. Now whoso will but Impartially Read that Page of the Testimony against the Toleration, may easily perceive that the Words quoted are quite perverted to another strain than what the Subject matter permits. For they are there giving a General unrestricted Explication of the Words of the 4 §. of the 23 chap. of the Confession of Faith. Where they say. Further we grant all that is in the Confession, viz. Dominium non fundari in Gratia [Dominion is not founded in grace]; yet we assert that a Prince, who not only is of another Religion, but an avowed Enemy to, and Overturner of the Religion established by Law, -------- can claim no Just and Legal Authority. Now to infer hence, that this was the only ground upon which they disown’d the Duke of York’s Title to the Crown, is not only against the Scope of the Place, they not being here giving the Reasons of disowning his Authority, but their Sense of the words of the Confession of Faith; but also against the scope of their own Principles, who had disowned Charles 2d, tho’ a Protestant. And it was not the Religion at that time by Law established, which they were contending for, but the covenanted Reformation. For every Body knows that the Legal Establishment, at his Accession, all Britain over was Prelacy, which they were witnessing against as well as Popery. And if we read on further (pag. 14.) it will be more clear that it was not for his being Popish only, that they disown his Title; for they own the Practice of the General Assembly, who refused to concur in that Unlawful Engagement for restoring Charles 1st. before Security had of his prosecuting the Covenanted Reformation, & the Act of the West Kirk August 13, 1650, wherein they declare that they will not own Charles 2d, otherways than with a Subordination to GOD, and so far as he owns and prosecutes the Cause of GOD, and disclaims his and his Father’s Opposition to the Work of GOD, and to the Covenant. And pag. 15 they add, “—— Its evident, ——— that neither the Authors of our Confession of Faith in England, nor Owners of it in Scotland, did ever understand that Article so, as that a Malignant Enemy to our Covenanted Reformation, let be an Idolatrous Heretical Enemy to the Christian Religion, could be capable of bearing Rule.” Hence it appears, That as the Suffering Remnant in Mr. James Renwick’s time, were perfectly of the Mind of the General Assembly 1648 and 1650: So that the Remnant adhering to the same Testimony, do not differ toto from them, in this Head; for they crave no other Qualification in Magistrates, than what the General Assembly and Committee of Estates then did. Nor do they, upon any other Reason, disown the Persons at present in the Government, but because they are Malignant Enemies to our Reformation, and effectually bearing it down in these Kingdoms, devoted

[Page 21]

to GOD in Covenant. So that what he talks of Mr. John M‘millan’s disowning Protestants and Protestant Defenders, will not amount to evidence any such Difference betwixt him and Mr. James Renwick, as what he pretends; so long as he cannot show, that these Protestants and Protestant Defenders are rightly invested with the Government, according to the Specifications made by the foresaid General Assemblies. Hence it appears also, that Mr. John M‘millan, and such as own him for their Minister, can subscribe the foresaid Confession of Faith, as well as Mr. James Renwick and his Followers, in the Sense in which the Divines of this Church did own it in the foresaid General Assemblies; and consequently that they do not Judaize anent the Civil Magistrate (as the Dialogist, pag. 27. affirms) more than these Assemblies did: For they judged it necessary that their King should be their Brother in adhering to, and defending the Covenanted Reformation of Religion. And Mr. James Renwick adhering (as said is) to their Practice, adduces that very same Scripture, which this Dialogist allegeth to pertain only to the Jews, for a Proof of what he maintained with respect to the Magistrate, viz. That he should be our Brother in the Affair of Religion. For (pag. 14. col. 1.) of the forecited Testimony he says expressly, “That the Word of God — forbids to set a Stranger over us, who is not our Brother, Deut. 17. 15. which includes as well a Stranger of a strange Religion, as one of a strange Country:” And adds, This is not our Notion only, it is asserted by Doctor Guild in his Exposition on 2 Sam. 5. 1. 2. Observ. 5 pag. 104. “We infer the General Rule of Election of Magistrates, as well in regard of his Qualities, and Form of Election, as of the End wherefore he is to be elected. As for his Qualities, first, He must not be a Stranger in Birth, much less in Religion, but must be of a Conjunction Natural and Spiritual with them whom he governeth; otherwise there can be no Sympathy nor symbolizing between them. 2ly. He must be able to govern, which is called here to lead out and in. Next, The Form of his Election should be by common and Voluntary Consent, according to the Constitution of the State, and Oath or Obligation of Right Administration; the Rule whereof should be the Law of God, and Positive Constitutions of the Realm. And last, The End should be to feed the People, caring that they be spiritually fed in the Food of Life; and Temporally, that they be not spoiled or bereft of their Means of the Life Corporal, &c.” And a little downward he recites Mr. Knox’s four Propositions, which the Reader may see in the forecited place. From these Testimonies it appears, that Mr. James Renwick thought that this Precept was not proper to the Jews only, but being a Moral Command, is common with them to Christians; and Mr. John M‘millan says no otherways: And therefore, the Impartial, to whom the Dialogist refers the Matter to be judged, cannot but see that they are of a Mind in this Head.

For what Differences he alleges anent the Reasons of not paying the Cess

[Page 22]

before the Revolution and now, they are equally frivolous: For if there can be Reasons sufficient adduced, for not owning the Authority of the Persons in the Government since the Revolution (for which, besides what has been here said, the Reader is referred to the Declarations since published) these same Reasons are enough against the paying Cess, seeing that were an owning of their Authority; and moreover, its employed in no good Cause yet: For tho’ it be not expressly imposed for bearing down the Gospel, yet its plain, the Persons maintained by it, bear down the Free Course of Reformation in these Kingdoms, more effectually (tho’ not so violently) than the former ever could. And the Foreign War, being in favours of a Popish Interest, has no just Claim to Supply from Covenanted Presbyterians.

As to the 2d Head of his alleged Differences, which is, The Difference of the Toleration from the present Establishment. Which he makes to lie in this, Mr. Renwick (saith he gave in his Testimony against King James his illegal impious Way of giving a Toleration to all, by Vertue of his Supremacy, and against the Accepters of it with Restrictions and Limitations. And that if the Magistrate would grant a simple Permission and Liberty, to the Ministers of the Church to exercise all the Parts of their Office, without any Encroachment on any Kind of Power seated in Church Judicatories, and having no sinful Tendency, they would take it at his Hand, — And this they asserted, even when a Popish Sovereign was on the Throne.* For which he cites the forementioned Testimony, pag. 16. Col. 1. But Mr. M‘millan again has given in his Testimony upon the Matter against a Legal Establishment of Presbyterian Government, free of any Encroachments, and that granted by a Protestant Sovereign. It is true there is some Difference, betwixt that Toleration and the present Establishment, but it is as true, that the Persons accepting that Toleration, were the greatest part of these that calculated this Establishment, & managed the Government at, and after the Revolution, who (as has been before cleared) never gave any Discovery of their Repentance, for their strengthening the Tyrant’s Hands, by accepting that illegal impious Toleration. And so long as this Rubbish lies upon the Foundation, and the Superstructure is daubed with untempered mortar of unworthy Compliances, it cannot be so sound as what he gives it out to be. And these same Protestant Sovereigns that have granted this legal Establishment, have given a Toleration to all the Sectaries in one place of their Dominions or other, to whom the Duke of York granted that Toleration, Papists only excepted, who yet have Abundance of Connivance. Albeit they do not expressly say, that it is by Vertue of their Supremacy and absolute Power, they have the Parliaments Concurrence; yet it must still be by Vertue of an inordinate illegal Supremacy, that either King, or State grants a Toleration of false Religions and Errors, contrary to the Word of GOD; And so the present Toleration is still of a Piece with his as to the substantial of it. If it be said, that this Toleration does not affect the Establish-

[Page 23]

ment, the contrary is manifest, in regard that this Church has never remonstrate to the State the sinfulness, nor sought the Removal of it, and a Legal Establishment of Covenanted Uniformity in its place, as the Covenant binds them to do.

And as there were Restrictions and Limitations in the grant of the Duke of York’s Toleration, so there are many upon this Establishment; Particularly in reference to the Episcopal Clergy, with whom they must keep up Brotherhood and Amity, and must depose none of them for their being Episcopal. Which is contrary to our Engagements to Extirpate Prelacy, and to the practice of the Church of Scotland in our Reforming times. And that this Church is free from any Encroachments made by the Magistrate upon her Judicatories, the Dialogist will never make good, so long as General Assemblies are called, Adjourned and Dissolved in the Magistrates Name, and the Days of Fasting and Thanksgiving, with their causes appointed and enjoined, by civil Authority, which certainly are things within a Rightly constitute National Church’s Sphere; but it’s like the Dialogist thinks nothing within the Church’s Sphere, but what the Magistrate pleases to grant. Moreover he manifestly wrongs the sense of the place quoted out of the Testimony against the Toleration. For it does not say, if THE Magistrate would grant a simple permission, &c. But if A Magistrate would grant it, the Ministers of Christ might improve it. Whereby they speak of a Lawful Magistrate, not of the Popish Usurper the Duke of York; so that when he says, they granted this even when a Popish Sovereign was on the Throne, if he means that they granted this with reference to the person then on the Throne (which he must, if he speak to the purpose) then he manifestly wrongs their meaning, who did not own him as a Sovereign at all, but looked upon him as an Usurper, having no Legal Title, and Contradicts himself, for he just now told us that Mr. Renwick disowned the Duke of York because Popish. For what he adds of Mr. Renwicks, Colleagues their praying for Success to the Prince of Orange his Enterprise and Engagement, in their renewing of the Covenants at Leshmahegow, to stand to the defence of his Person and Authority, when lawfully chosen; it is easily obviate, for besides that these words were without common consent Surreptitiously slipt into the Margin, so (as was said before) they had a condition, which has never yet been fulfilled; for he was never chosen Covenant ways; and indeed had that condition been observed, the Dissenters had cheerfully submitted to his Government. Wherefore they need not be so much in a Dilemma about Renewing the Covenants, as the Dialogist conceives, either to cast out the Engagements relative to the Magistrate, or to make any Mental Reservation, but take them in their primitive intendment, and according to the Qualification in them express, which is, that the Supreme Magistrate be defending the true Reformed Protestant Religion, Administering Justice and Punishing Iniquity. And such a Magistrate they are

[Page 24]

most willing cheerfully to obey and defend, as exprest in the Covenant, whenever it shall please the Lord to grant such a one; for which they hope in his Gracious promise, who has said to his Church, Kings shall be thy Nursing Fathers, and their Queens thy Nursing Mothers.

Before I pass from this Head, I shall only desire that this One Consideration be duly weighed, that if Mr. James Renwick had good Grounds to testify against and withdraw from the Ministers, who had by their Acceptance of that Toleration betrayed the interest of Christ (as the Dialogist allows he had) how much more is there a Necessity of Witnessing against these, and withdrawing from them Now? When besides the Guilt of that Toleration unrepented of, there has been so many Compliances made by them, that Scotland’s Covenanted Reformation is so far defaced, as the poor Young Generation, which never saw the mighty Acts of the Lord in his Sanctuary, is like utterly to forget that ever there was a Covenant made between GOD and the Land, and a Carved work of a Glorious Reformation set up at the Expence of so many Wrestlings and contendings, Blood and Treasure as our ever Honourable Ancestors thought all but too little for these Prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ’s Kingdom, now unfaithfully surrendered, and for the Purity of his Worship, now abominably corrupted.

The 3d Head respects some Personal Differences betwixt Mr. James Renwick and Mr. John M‘millan; where many things are by the Dialogist adduced to prove Mr. John M‘millan not only no Minister, but no Christian. All these things have been answered again and again, (for which the Reader may see his true Narrative and a modest Reply to a Friendly Letter) so the objecting them again and again discovers a great dale of unchristian malice at his Person, in his opposing the courses of Defection carried on by lukewarm Ministers and Professors. It is one of the grand Deceits of the Old Sophister, and Father of Lyes, to load the way of Truth with invidious personal Reflections, and make the infirmities of the Owners and followers thereof bugbears to affright others from a cordial Embracement of the same; And the method of this Dialogist bears too apparent affinity with this Stratagem. To remove these Objections lead so industriously against Mr. M‘millan were but to do what has been done, as indeed the Dialogist has done nought else. The common clamour of his Breach of Ordination Engagements is the strongest prejudice that ever has been objected; and yet to thinking persons how frivolous and insignificant is it? He promised subjection to the Presbytery and other Judicatories in the Lord, and in a consistency with other Duties; And when his subjection behooved to be such as would hinder the Duty of faithful declaring the Truth, or not be acceptable to the Presbytery, It became his Duty rather to obey GOD than Man. And this being indeed (whatever other things have been pretended) the true and adequate cause of the Presbyteries Sentence, and subsequent proceedings of

[Page 25]

the other Judicatures against him, his Ministerial Power (while he is helped to improve it suitably to the end thereof, God’s Glory and the Edification of his Church) cannot be thereby Nullified and made void. And however this Dialogist to serve a turn, pretend that Mr. Renwick’s Ordination by the Classis of Groningen was so approvable, and the same continued valid, having never been ranversed [reversed] by any posterior Act of the said Classis: Yet its well known how invidiously the Gentlemen of his Kidney represented Mr. Renwick’s practice in going Abroad for Ordination, and made use of all the Sinister surmises imaginable against the Validity of the same. Yea ’twas not without the special Instigation of pretended Presbyterian Ministers that he was put to Death. But to pass this Head shortly, whatever personal Difference the Diversity of Providential Occurrences, or of Gifts and Graces ministered by the same Spirit to the One and the other, may have occasioned, as who ever were in all things alike; yet while their Cause, Course, Aim, and Design is the same, viz. A Testimony to the Truth against the corruptions and Backslidings of their respective Days (as has been evidenced) The Diversities are not (as the Dialogist calls ’em) Substantial and Essential, but indeed so Circumstantial and Accidential, that they can never bear the weight of a Twentieth part of that Conclusion which he would hang on these Premises, viz. That the one should have been owned honoured and countenanced as Christ’s Ambassador, and faithful Witness for the Truth, but the other rejected despised and discountenanced as an unfitted Preacher and one justly to be suspect as no Christian. His Argument is a precise parallel of or rather the same with this, One Star is inferior to another in its magnitude, Resplendency, Motion or Influence, Ergo its no Star.

But to proceed: The Dialogist contents not himself to be a Historian in telling what Mr. James Renwick did, but he will needs be a Diviner too, and tell us what he would have done, had he survived the Revolution; which as ’tis but at best Conjecture, so it deserves not a serious Confutation. The Arguments he brings are all answered already, except the Practice of Masters, Linning, Shields and Boyd, who had been of his Judgment. But it is a very bad Consequence, to say, because some Persons yielded their Cause, and were satisfied to be branded with Disorderly Walking, maintaining Schismatical Principles, gross Mistakes and false Reflections, as they are expressly stigmatized in the Publick Records of the Assembly, to which they submitted, that therefore another, who owned the same Testimony, would have so succumbed.

He labours (page 32.) to clear the present Possessor of the Government, from being a Malignant, and the Head of Malignants, by telling us, that King Charles was disowned for his perverting Religion, Laws and Liberties, and breaking his Solemn Covenants, which cannot be said of the Person now on the Throne. But all that he, or any can say in her Defence, will never clear her from being a Malignant and Enemy to the covenanted Reformation; while

[Page 26]

she is of the Communion of that Superstitious Church of England, and executing her Supremacy over this Church, to the invading Christ’s Sovereignty, and is not seeking the Advancement of covenanted Uniformity, but encouraging Sectarian Multiformity. And that she has not formally broken Covenant, as Charles did, is because she was never required to take them, yet none can deny, but that she has carried on the same Designs against them, that he did, and therefore however she be flattered, as a gracious nursing Mother of the Church, yet she is deeply guilty of the Sin of Covenant breaking: Her not taking the Covenant can not absolve her before GOD, nor any sitting upon the Throne of Britain; for the Duty of covenanting with GOD, and prosecuting the Ends thereof, is no less necessary for King and People Now than ever; and she being the Successor of Charles 2d is no less bound to that Duty than he. Wherefore Ministers would do more consonantly to the Character they bear; if they would deal more faithfully with her, in shewing her the Guilt she is involved into, while she continues in the Sins of Charles who made Britain and Ireland to sin. And whereas Charles 2d had mounted himself on the Head of a Malignant Army, &c. which she has not done, The Reason is obvious, for he was opposed in his wicked Courses; but she has never met with Opposition, but stupid Submission.

He proceeds (page 33 and downward) at great Length, and with Abundance of Language to discourse the Conduct of the Church anent the Affair of the Union; where we have a World of Stories, about the Opposition the Ministers met with from the Noble men, about the Adress, laid by them before the Parliament, which, whatever it was, seeing their Address did not truly discover the Sin of that Course of Covenant-breaking, by uniting with England, upon another Foundation than our covenanted Union; yea, a Foundation expressly opposite thereunto, it gives not so great a Document of their Zeal, as to have occasioned so mighty a Struggle, as the Dialogist gives out, it did. The Extenuations and Excuses brought from the Darkness and Criticalness of the Juncture, say but little; for any Body, not willfully blind, could not but see, that it was a Course manifestly sinful: Tho’ indeed many of the Ministry, who should be Seers, either were truly Dark, or at least made People believe so, when they prayed, that if the Union were for the Glory of GOD, it might prosper; and if not, it might be stopped. But as every thing that falls out in the World, some way redounds to the Glory of God, so it was the Duty of Watchmen to have laid out themselves to know the Mind of the Lord from his Word, whether a Transaction of such Consequence to the Nation, should actively glorify Him, by advancing his Kingdom, or not. So that the Darkness of the Juncture can be no Excuse; nor yet was it so very critical, there being so many in the Land averse from it, which, had they been duly warned of the Sin of it, had opposed its being carried through. The Pretext he makes, That the Jacobites were also against it, says as little; for we are called

[Page 27]

to be at our Duty, whoever they be, that be either for, or against the same. And because these had a bad Design in opposing the Union, must we therefore be for it, when ’tis a Course of Sin and Defection? We ought to have opposed it upon a good Design, if they did it upon a bad. Which we might have done, and yet have been no Abettors but Opposers of their Course. Nor did this absolve the Church from her Duty of declaring the sin of that course, that she saw the Parliament would carry it over her Belly; for the Ministers of Christ are called to shew Jacob his sin, and Israel his Transgression, tho’ they had no promising like Grounds of Expectation that they would turn from their evil way, but rather go on as the Horse rushes unto the Battel. The Prophets of Old were to warn the Jews, tho’ they were a Rebellious House, that would not hear. And the Church of Scotland opposed the Engagement for Charles 1st. his Restitution, upon Terms disadvantageous to Religion, tho’ they saw that the Nobility was resolute upon it, and hereby tho’ they had not their wished Success, yet they delivered their own Souls. And as for the Fear, which he insinuates, of the Parliament’s Re-establishing Episcopacy, and overturning the Presbyterian Government; what could it be else, but a slavish Fear of Men, seeing it hindered Faithfulness? We being commanded to do our Duty, and leave Events to GOD. And tho’ all the Ministers in Scotland had been turned out of their Charges, for so Eminent Faithfulness to their Master, they might have had more Peace in it, than in enjoying an Establishment, with so many Encroachments as are already made and are like to be yet further made upon them, as the Fruit of Unfaithfulness.

As to the particulars of the Address; as they were not Faithfully represented, so their success was but small. The Sacramental Test is so far from being laid aside in England, that its more strictly enjoyed. And yet some of the Dissenting Ministers who take it are Countenanced in the Judicatories of this Church. And as for Oaths contrary to our Principles, which they crave might be provided against, it is indeed hard to tell what Oath is contrary to the principles of the most part; every thing being consonant enough to them that is imposed by Authority. Yet the Abjuration Oath, which obliges to the Succession according as it is by Law Established in England i.e. that they be of the Communion of the Church there, is undoubtedly contrary to true Presbyterian Principles; and yet these same who Addressed against this Oath, have themselves in all their Ecclesiastick Judicatories, who have taken the said Oath. As for a Judicatory wherewith they might Correspond anent Fasts and Thanksgivings; that is Excellently provided for, for they have the Absolute civil Injunction, in stead of such a correspondence, which eases them of much trouble. And whereas they represent, that its contrary to our known Principles, to acknowledge Church men having civil places and Votes in Parliament; to what purpose was such a Representation, when yet not-

[Page 28]

withstanding, contrary to these known Principles, they own them and receive Laws from them as the first Rank of their Lawgivers, all Bills and Acts being past by Authority of the Lords Spiritual as well as Temporal.

He labours to remove the Objection of the Union’s, being a breach of Covenant, and destroying the Rights and privileges of Parliament, by telling us, That a Merchants right is as well secured, when incorporate with a Company of Merchants, as when in a separate and single Capacity. But its a very lame Parallel, for such a Merchant has still a proportion of gains and losses answerable to the Stock he advances; whereas Scotland has no such Proportion of Members to the English in Parliament. But what matter how few they be? Being they are Enemies to the work of Reformation and Friends to Prelacy and Superstition as well as the English; and such as are not Faithful to God, will never be true to their Country. Neither will his Pretences (Pag. 39.) ever prove us of this Nation to be free from Covenant Breaking, in not endeavouring the Reformation of Religion in England and Ireland, while we do so much to harden them in their evil courses. We are not to force them to Reformation by Fire and Sword its granted. For tho’ Fire and Sword be sometimes occasioned by Reformation, through the Wickedness of Men opposing it, yet these are neither the Cause nor Effect of Reformation; which is to be done by the Gospel of Peace; yet that we are to do nothing towards their Reformation till we have their call to it is false; we are bound, notwithstanding we have no call from them, to do more for their Reformation than we do, and not to do that for their hardening which we do. This Church and Nation at the Revolution might lawfully, yea was bound to warn them of their Sin of Covenant breaking, and to invite them to joining in Covenant. Whereas upon the contraire they were confirmed in their course by our joining with them under a Sovereign of their Communion; and then by Incorporating with them, expressly stipulating that their Church Government should remain Prelatical for ever. And tho’ he thinks to scruff all with this, that it was not the Church but the Parliament that made that Stipulation; yet seeing all must be interpreted to have consented to that Union so Established, who did not, after other means proved ineffectual, fairly protest against it (which the Church never did) its evident that neither Church nor State are herein guiltless.

He goes on (page 41.) to shew, how it’s not impossible but that England may yet be Reformed. And I indeed know no Body that has any spark of knowledge, will say that its absolutely impossible but that in the Mercy of God they may be Reformed. They would be very Impudent that would thus limit the Lord. But when its said that England is by this Union laid under a Necessity of lying under the Yoke of the Hierarchy and Ceremonies, ’tis only meant of a Moral Necessity, so far as Acts, Laws and fundamental Stipulations can do it. Whereas he says that we may pray for the Reformation of

[Page 29]

England, yet as well as before the Union; Its granted to be true; but as there are but few publick Prayers made for the Extirpation of Prelacy and the Reformation of England, so while our Practice runs Counter our Prayers we have no Ground to look for success. And as for Our willingness to Concur with them for Reformation upon their Call; There was no great discovery given thereof, when the Assembly in the Year 1690, refused to send Ministers to Northumberland, upon the Petition of some in that Country, in respect those People do not belong to this Church. See the Index of Unprinted Acts Session Eight.

As for the Clause in the Act of Security, where he insists so much, (pag. 32, 33, 34.) it is sufficiently shown before, that that Clause is already broken by imposing the Abjuration Oath upon the Subjects of this Nation, in which Oath he grants there is a Clause contrary to Presbyterian Principles. His Bantering of the Dissenters, for slandering the Ministry, as if they had addressed for their own Exemption from that Oath, without respect to the Exemption of others, is nought else but Slander it self; for its denied that the Dissenters say so: but they say upon very good grounds, that tho’ the Ministry has not yet been obliged to take it, several of them have notwithstanding counselled others to take it, and that their Judicatures are stuffed with such as took it.

Having (as he conceives) sufficiently plastered the Affair of the Union, he comes to remove the Objection of the Church’s approving the Confederacy with Popish Allies; and he tells us, that its a bad consequence to say, that the Church approves of the Confederacy, tho’ she prays for the Success of the Confederate Armies, and keeps Days of Fasting and Thanksgiving upon that account. Which he illustrates by two Parallels, the one, Of a Son, who must pray for his Mother’s livelihood, tho married to a Papist against his will: The other, of Elisha his enquiring of the Lord for the Confederate Army of Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and the King of Edom. As for the former, the Case is not parallel, for it can not be proved that this Church has ever given any Discovery of the Confederacies being against her Will, as he supposes the Marriage to have been; and if Silence import Consent, much more will the Activest Concurrence that the Church is capable to give: Besides, such a Marriage is a thing that cannot be dissolved, as this Confederacy. Supposing it rashly made, might easily be. As for the Scripture Instance of Elisha, it is not parallel neither, for tho’ Elisha’s own King came to him in a supplicant humble manner, desiring him to enquire of the Lord for him, (the contrary whereof Queen Anne does, who by her Supremacy enjoins the Church’s Observation of her Diets and Causes of Fasting and Thanksgiving) yet we find he tells him expressly he would not vouchsafe him a Look; and if Parallels must be had in the case, we may safely affirm that she is more fitly compared to Jehoram as being treading his footsteps in practising and maintaining a false Superstitious Worship, no where commanded in GOD’s Word; than like good Jehoshaphat, who tho’ he had his own Failings, (as who have not) yet he has the Testimony of the Holy Ghost, that he was a good King. Yea, in so far does the Parallel betwixt her

[Page 30]

and Jehoram hold, that as its said of him, That he did evil in the sight of the Lord, yet not like Ahab his Father; for he brake down the Image of Baal, that his Father had made; yet he clave to the sins of Jeroboam. So she has not so manifestly countenanced the Baalism of Popery, as her Father the Duke of York did, yet she claves to the Superstitions of the English Popish Ceremonies, and Ecclesiastical Supremacy, and Headship over the Church, transferred by King Henry the 8th. from the Pope to himself. Moreover, the State of the Quarrel was not parallel to this, for the King of Israel was not, as the Popish Allies, persecuting the Professors of the True Religion; nor was there any thing of the Popish Interest in the Quarrel, as it is in this. Wherefore what he has said upon this Head, will never remove the Objection, so long as the Cases so widely differ; nor will it make the Argument used by Dissenters inconsequential, viz. That the Church approves that, for the Success whereof she Fasts and Prays. I am very apprehensive, that few will affirm, that they believe the Confederacy to be sinful, and yet pray for Success and Blessing upon it. Surely the Church of Scotland was at a singular Loss for the want of this Casuist, when they sticked to pray for the Success of the Unlawful Engagement; for according to him they might have done it, and yet not approve of the Engagement. Had this Church been so happy as to have this Resolver of Doubts in the time of the Publick Resolutions, there needed have been no such Differences, as then were amongst the Ministry about them; for he could have taught the Remonstrators a way to have kept Days of Fasting and Thanksgiving for the Success of the Armies, and yet not to have approved of the Confederacy with Malignants.

The Magistrates calling, Dissolving and Adjourning Assemblies is treated of next; To which there needs not be much said the Matter of Fact being undeniable from recent instances. The Magistrate may (indeed) call Assemblies in a broken unconstitute State of the church, or pro re nata in a constitute church: And Ministers being lax about their Duty, may be stirred up thereunto by the civil Magistrate: but the Dialogist himself will not allow us to say that this is an unconstitute State of the church; nor yet that the Ministers so fail in their Duty, as to need so frequent upstirring from the Court. So that it appears plainly that the Assemblies being called not pro re nata, but yearly indicted in the Magistrates Name (as none can deny) it is an Erastian Usurpation not favoured by our Confession of Faith, as received and approven by this Church, with the Act Explanatory thereupon: But this Act Explanatory was left out when the Confession of Faith was approven in Parliament, since the Revolution, as being inconsistent with the Erastian Impositions of the Magistrate, as appears by the Act approving it, wherein there is no mention made of the foresaid Act Explanatory: And its further evident from this, that Presbyteries when they cause Intrants into the Ministry Subscribe the Confession of Faith, do not oblige them to Subscribe it with this Explanation, but only as the Parliament ratified it. Neither is this yearly calling of Assemblies favoured by the practice of Christian

[Page 31]

Magistrates calling General Councils, for condemning Heresies sprung up in the Church; and as for the consequence that he founds upon the Light of Nature that if the Magistrate may call, he may also Dissolve Assemblies; it has been before proved that this is but a fallacious consequence, as appears from the practice of the Church Anno 1638. Nay indeed this light of Nature was never observed in the Horizon of this Church, till of very late years, that it has Sprung up out of the Earth; which says its but some ignis fatuus, and no Beam of solid and self consistent Reason, and its hoped that when it has burnt a while ’twill evanish again.

He comes now to discourse the Magistrates appointing Fasts and Thanksgivings; and tells us a great many Stories of the long Time it would take to convene the Commission and send to London for the Civil Sanction; and that therefore the Church chooses rather to let the Civil Appointment take Place, and observe the Proclamation, than to be at so much Pains, but to thinking Persons these are but childish Reasons, not worthy of an Answer. The Scripture Example of Jehoshaphat, being sufficiently answered, against Erastians by Mr. Gillespie in his Aaron’s Rod blossoming, needs not be largely handled here. Let the Dialogist show that the Kingdom is in such Circumstances at every Time, when such Fasts and Thanksgivings are appointed, as Judah was at that Time, and the Case will be the more Favourable. Judah then was threatened with a sudden Invasion, which is not the Case of this Kingdom at the Times of these Appointments. Any that would be further informed anent this Head, may read a little Piece lately printed, entitled, A short, but plain Discovery, to whom the Right of prescribing Diets and Causes of Fasting doth belong &c. The Instance of the Prophet Joel his not appointing the Fast himself, but enjoining it upon these to whom it did belong, will not prove that Jehoshaphat acted not as an Extraordinary Person in an extraordinary Emergent, but rather the contrary; for Joel tells us, that the Persons to whom it did belong to appoint Fasts, were such, as were appointed to blow the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in GOD’s holy mountain, for he expressly enjoins it on them; but these were only the Priests, the Levits, the LORD’s Ministers, not the Civil Magistrates. Therefore either Jehoshaphat did this extraordinarily (in whatever Capacity he did it) or then he invaded a part of the Priest’s Office, which I hope he will not affirm. And as for the Assemblies Act enjoining the strict Observation of such Fasts, and affirming that the Observation thereof tends much to the Glory of GOD: What is it else, but a manifest proclaiming of their resolute and willful Subjection to such Christ dethroning Usurpation. It was not enough that this Usurpation should be practically submitted unto, but it must be enacted, that it be more punctually obeyed; and this without any Dissent. Nay, some who had represented this as a Grievance to the Assembly, meeting with this Answer, that it should hence forth be a Statute and Ordinance, which was a Grievance before, have since willingly submitted thereunto. How great an odds was there betwixt this and our Reforming Assemblies? We may justly say of it, Quan-

[Page 32]

tum mutatus ab illis, qui quondam! Where was there ever a Church professing Presbyterian Principles, that declared that the Observation of Fasts, wherein the Civil Magistrate displays his Ecclesiastick Supremacy by appointing them without the Church her Concurrence, should tend much to the Glory of God? How unlike is this to the Sentiments of the greatest Divines of our Church, and worthiest Instruments of our Reformation, &c.

See a Testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ, &c. By some Ministers of the Gospel, in the Provinces of Perth and Fife, pag. 20, 21. where they express their judgment of it thus: “As we do profess our dissatisfaction, that the Civil Powers should take upon them, by themselves, ordinarily to prescribe publick Humiliation and Thanksgiving, with the Causes and Diets thereof, to all the Ministers and Members of this Church; as being contrary to the well-warranted Privileges and constant Practice of the Church it self, and in its own Nature introductory to greater Encroachments; and putting in to the hands of the Civil Power the modeling of the publick Worship of God, and things most properly Ecclesiastick. Thus far they.” Nay, how contraire is this Act to our only Rule of Faith, the Bible, as appears from Joel 1. 13, 14. of which before. Wherefore till they reconcile their Act with Scripture Precepts, with the Supremacy of JESUS CHRIST, and Privileges of His Kirk, and with the Sentiments of our Reformers, this Act of theirs ought to bind no Man’s Conscience to observe such Appointments.

What he says, for removing the Popular Objection (as its called) of Bishops being in the Council where these causes of Fasting and thanksgiving are Calculate; is of no great consequence; for tho these causes have no small Tincture of the Prelatical Fingers they come through, and are not so Adjusted in their Expression to the Strain of the Gospel, as the Fasts of God’s People should be; (which has been represented to the Assembly by several Ministers of no small Figure in this Church;) so it is (indeed) no great matter whether Bishops have a hand in them or no, while they are enjoined, as they are, and most of them materially unlawful. And yet sure I am, the Church of Scotland, has some time been in such a condition for Zeal against Prelacy; that she would not have, even in that matter complied with them.

The Dialogist (Pag. 53.) turns a Magisterial Examinator, proposing a great many Queries to be answered by Mr. John M‘millan and Mr. John M‘neil, which I am sure, they are by no Law bound to answer: For if every Query, which any Pamphleteer pleases to forge, ought to be answered by these to whom they are proposed; a Fool might start more Questions, than this Dialogist and all his learned Brethren could be able to answer. The most of his Queries are bottomed upon the most groundless lies and Calumnies, that Report, which is oftener a Lier than a Faithful Recorder, can spread. And for these that have any Foundation, they are either answered in the Reply to the Friendly Letter, or they are only some sarcastical Jeers, fitter for a Mountebank than a Minister, and which will not quite the cost to answer them.

His first Querie is, Whether Mr. M‘millan and Mr. M‘neil be influenced

[Page 33]

by France, and have Communication and Supply from a Popish Pretender there? And his foundation for it is, some Letter commonly talked of sent to them from St. Germans, and discovered to the World by one of their Trustees. All which is so gross a Falsehood, that tho’ he be so wary as to cover his design of spreading a most horrid calumny with common report, which is all the Authority he can adduce, yet he will never be able to evade the Infamy of a Slanderer, till he bring some evidence for what he saith. If he seek an Evasion by saying that he does not assert, but ask if it be so or not; this with any thinking Person will never remove the Difficulty. For to what purpose doth he propose such a Question, and allege Grounds for it, but to possess people with such an Opinion? For Instance, if I should ask him whether the Ministers in the time of the Union got an Equivalent to make them fall in with and not oppose it; and allege common Report, as he does, for my Authority, would not he call me a slanderer of the Ministry? And whereas he talks of a Letter sent from St. Germans, and published to the World by one of their Trustees, its no better proof than common Report, so long as he neither produces the Letter, nor Names the Trustee, and to say that its published to the World, is a barefaced untruth, when no Body can have access to see it; had it been published to the World, he need not have spoke so indistinctly about it. What he talks of their keeping Fast Days upon the Defeat of the French is just another Calumny, which he will never make good, to say that it was at a time after they received a Defeat, is no better Argument, than it would be for one to say, The Church of Scotland gave thanks to GOD for the Defeat of the Swedes by the Muscovites; because one of their Thanksgivings fell near after that Time; which I am sure, the Questionist would call very inconsequential.

The 2d Querie is of a Piece with the first; being only another Calumny. He asks, Whether it be mere Weakness in them, or something worse, that they do not discern the Jacobitish Designs, who being Heart Enemies to the whole Protestant Interest, giving them all Encouragement in keeping up this Schism, by sending for them to their Houses, kindly entertaining them, and sending out their Friends and Children with large Collections to their Meetings? All these being only false Allegiances against them, who labour to oppose and keep up a Testimony against Schism and Defection: The Querier is desired, as he will not have his Credit justly suspected, by all who read his Pamphlet, to bring Probation equal to his Charge; which Mr. M‘millan and Mr. M‘niel utterly deny to be true.

The 3d is, If they be unstable and professed Tools for ruining this Church, seeing they pray very fervently that God may dress her? To which ’tis answered, That they desire to be more active, than yet they have been, to keep up a Testimony against the Church-ruining and schismatical Courses of this complex Defection from the covenanted Reformation of the Church of Scotland; which if it be, in the Sense of this Questionist, a ruining of the Church, then they deny not the Charge; but it is hoped, all who love that Reformation will account this no Church ruining Course.

[Page 34]

The 4th Querie is, When they call the Curates black Devils, and the present Ministers white Devils, whether that godly pulpit-like Denomination be most applicable to themselves, or the present Ministers, for the Word Devil signifies an Accuser? Here the Questionist treads the Footsteps of Nero, and of the Duke of York, the former whereof set Rome on Fire, and blamed the Christians; the latter set London on Fire, and blamed the Protestants: So he imputes his Brethren’s Expressions to Mr. M‘millan and M‘niel. For it can be proven, that several of the present Ministers have used this godly Pulpit-like Denomination with respect to them; calling them the Mildew of Hell, Angels come out of the Bottomless Pit, the Devil’s Trumpeters, &c. But that ever Mr. M‘millan or Mr. M‘niel called any of the Ministers Devils, is denied. And therefore, till the Questionist make this his Assertion, and others of the like Nature, appear, he shall be allowed to apply the Denomination to himself, as the Man to whom ’tis most fitly applicable, he being therein a false Accuser of the Brethren.

The 5th Querie is answered in the Modest Reply, pag. 16. to 21. And the Foundation of it is another false Calumny, viz. That when another was to be settled in the Parish, Mr. M‘millan sent his best Friends secretly to the Presbytery, promising all Security, for his good Behaviour. He is desired therefore, to prove this his pretended Information, as he would avoid the Denomination foresaid, which indeed he will never be able to do.

For Answer to the 6th, see the Modest Reply, pag. 34.

For the 7th, Whether the casting off & disowning lawful Protestant Sovereigns ---- be the ready way to cause them desire to have their Kingdoms reformed into a Presbyterian Establishment, the charge is denied: The Dissenters never disowned any lawful Protestant Sovereigns, admitted to and managing the Government according to the Fundamental Laws of the Land, and our Covenant Engagements. The Question then will be, whether the submitting to the Erastian Usurpations of Prelatical Magistrates, wanting Covenant Qualifications, and not admitted Covenant ways be the best way for making Kings and Princes to become Reformed Covenanted Sovereigns?

To the 8th Whether Mr. M‘niel’s Scruple anent the Church Constitution was industriously trampled upon till he came to be Licentiate to Preach, or if it was only by a happy accident that it fell so out. Its answered, that it was by an Unhappy Accident. I mean unhappy in its self; tho’ it was happy to him, to make him more inquisitive anent the Defections of this Church; the Accident was the unlimited Oath of Allegiance to their present Prelatick Sovereign. And whereas he is charged with the Breach of Solemn Promises, the charge is denied, for no Promise binds but in so far, as the subject matter is Morally just, and he promised these things only with that Qualification. If the Dialogist say still that these Promises did oblige him to keep unity with this Church, when he was convinced, it was sinful then he may say likewise that the Jews (Jer. 44. 25.) did well to make Cakes to the Queen of Heaven, because they had Vowed so to do. The Question, Whether he or the

[Page 35]

Precentor of any Parish having a competency of Gifts, has best right to preach is easily answered; for whatever be the Natural or acquired abilities of such a Precentor, till he be tried and Licentiate he has no moral Ability for it. But Mr. M‘niel has been tried and Licentiate; which gives him a right; and so long as he improves that right for the Glory of God, the Presbytery has no more power to take it away, than the Church of Rome, had to take away Martin Luther’s or any other of our reformers ordained by them: For whatever power may reside in corrupt Judicatories for the good of the Church, yet the Purest Judicatory under Heaven has no power committed to it for her detriment, as the Apostle expressly tells us 2 Cor. 13. 8. We can do nothing against the truth, but for it; which certainly extends it self to Church Judicatories; and being meant of a Moral not a Physical Power, seems very applicable to the case in hand.

As for his 9th Query, Whether Mr. M‘millan and Mr. M‘neil, called by a few, or the Minister called by the plurality, and settled by the Church, hath best Right to dispence Gospel Ordinances? The Answer is in short, That they have the best Right who labour to approve themselves most faithful, in declaring the Mind of GOD, vindicating his Truth, and dealing uprightly with the Souls of the People. I mean, in this Declining State. See the forecited Reply, pag. 35, 36.

The 10th, being a Supposition that has not a Being, there needs no Answer to it, till such time as he show some Dissenters who withdraw from Ministers, that have given no Offence in their Life and Doctrine. All having given Offence by compliance with the courses of Defection, and when he can shew such as have given Scandal by unjust withdrawing, he shall be instructed where to rebuke them. As for his Jeer that he makes of Mr. M‘millan’s rebuking Fornicators 30 miles distant from the place where the Scandal was flagrant, he is required to prove the Matter of Fact; and supposing it true, if they be rebuked so as to answer the Design of Publick Rebukes, which is to remove the Scandal, it seems (circumstances considered) to be what the Scriptures require.

The 11th being a Consequence of the former, and depending upon the same Supposition, deserves no other Answer, there being no such Dissenters from Ministers who are blameless, as he pretends: And however he, and others of his Brethren, who are not conscientious to seek out that which was lost, and driven away, may satisfy themselves with disowning all Relation to such; yet its of greater Import, how such as have given so many grounds of Stumbling to weak Consciences, in leading some into sin, and driving others to be in those circumstances, that they dare not keep Communion with them; How (I say) they will answer for their Unfaithfulness that occasions this? Moreover, this needs be no great difficulty to him and his Brethren, whether they should grant the Dissenters any Church privileges, till they be once coming to require them at their hands.

To the 12th, Whether Dissenters could have more Edification by attending

[Page 36]

the Ordinances daily in their own Congregations, or by hearing Mr. M‘millan or Mr. M‘neil once or twice a year? Its answered, That the Ordinances being unfaithfully dispenced in their own Congregations, by Men who have given too large discoveries of their opposition to our Covenanted Reformation, and therefore come rather into the Category of these who are to be opposed as Enemies to the Cause and Work of GOD, than countenanced as Ambassadors of Christ; they have more ground to expect Edification (tho’ their Meals be few) in attending the Ordinances faithfully dispenced, than in countenancing any unfaithful course: For Men may expect a Blessing in the way of their Duty, but none out of it.

Whereas in the 13th Querie, he pretends that all the careless, Irreligious loose persons, and all such as are disobliged by being justly brought under Church censure, neglect the Ordinances, and in the mean time cover their slighting of them with the fair pretence of their having become followers of Mr. M‘millan, its a consequence which Mr. M‘millan is not to be blamed with (tho it were true matter of Fact; or if it be true of any it will be very rare) for He advises none to slight Gospel Ordinances, nor contemn Church Discipline. But the true reason lies at their Door, who have neglected to exercise Church censures in their full vigour impartially, against all persons of whatsomever quality deserving the same. The partial ways that one and all of the Ministers take in covering the Faults of some, and proceeding to censure the like in others, makes Church Discipline contemptible. He makes a great noise of these that fall off from attending the Ordinances, and refuse Subjection to Church censure upon the Pretext of following Mr. M‘millan; but we hear never a word of Thousands through the Land, who by following the Episcopal Clergy, are exeemed from all Church censure, tho most justly deserving it. Nay, this is a kittle point, they may complain to the British Parliament; he must be sober with respect to them; but he thinks he may load Mr. M‘millan with all the malicious consequences he pleases, without displeasing of the Court. But suppose it were so, that some should make use of this pretext for palliating their unjustifiable practices, how will they answer for it, who by their unfaithful dealing have obliged Mr. M‘millan to the methods he takes, which (I doubt not) if better could be had, he would not approve nor practice? For what he says of their harkening about in every corner, and Fishing in every drumbly Water; I shall only say that there is need of Good Hunters and Fishers to catch Christ’s Flock, that have been scattered in the Cloudy and Dark Day: and that there is (indeed) too much Drumbly Water in our day, that the strong Cattle which push with side and shoulder all the diseased and weak of the flock, have fouled with their Feet.

FINIS.