Accordingly, he was again arraigned before the assembly's bar in the years 1727-28-29, when it was found clearly proven that he had denied the necessary existence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the numerical Oneness of the Three Persons of the Trinity in substance and essence, with other damnable tenets. Yet when these articles, whereby he had attempted to depose the Son of God from his supreme deity, were proven, and when (as one of the members of this church, in his protest against the assembly's sentence, said) the Son of God was, as it were, appearing at the bar of that assembly, craving justice against one who had derogated from his essential glory, and blasphemed his name, at which every knee should bow. Yet such was the corruption and unfaithfulness of this church, that the blasphemer was dismissed without any adequate censure passed upon him, and still continued in the character of a minister and member of this church.
Again, when Mr. Campbell, professor of church history at St. Andrews, was processed before the judicatories of this church, for maintaining a scheme of dangerous and most pernicious principles, which he published to the world, having a manifest tendency to subvert revealed religion, and expose the exercise of serious godliness, under the notion of enthusiasm; to advance self-love, as the leading, principle and motive in all human actions whatever, and to destroy the self-sufficiency of God, making him a debtor to his creatures: yet though these, with a number of God-dishonoring, creature-exalting, and soul-ruining errors, were notorious from his books, and were defended by him; the heretic, instead of being duly censured, was countenanced and carressed: whereby this church has given a most deep wound to some of the most important truths of the Christian religion, and becomes chargeable with the guilt of all the errors maintained by that erroneous professor.
A third instance of this church's unfaithfulness, appears in the case of Mr. Glas, and others, who openly vented, by preaching and printing, independent schemes of church government, with some new improvements; attacked our Confession of faith and Covenants, unhinging all order and government in the church, pulled up the hedge of discipline, to introduce all errors in doctrine, and corruption in worship; and, at last, openly renounced presbytery, name and thing (denying that there is any warrant for national churches under the New Testament), and asserted, that our martyrs, who suffered for adhering to the covenanted reformation, were so far in a delusion, with many other sectarian tenets: for which, the church at first suspended, and then deposed some of them. But afterward, as if this church repented of doing so much in favor of presbytery, they were reponed, to the great danger of the church: for having discovered no remorse for their errors, they immediately employed all their parts to shake presbytery, by setting up independent churches and ordaining several mechanics to be their ministers; and nothing done by the church for putting a stop to these errors, and for reviving and vindicating the precious truths they had impugned.
Likewise, when Mr. Wishart was staged for error vented by him in some of his sermons, with respect to the influence of arguments taken from the awe of future rewards and punishments, and other erroneous notions; he was dismissed without any renunciation of his heterodox principles, and assoilzied by the judicatories of this church: and, as easy absolutions encourage error, so no sooner was he assoilzied, but he had the assurance to recommend erroneous books, such as Doctor Whitchcot's sermons, to his students. It is indeed no small evidence of the unsoundness of this church, when the heads of colleges are suffered,impune, to recommend such books for students and probationers to form upon.
Again, when professor Leechman was quarreled with for his deistical sermon on prayer, by the presbytery ofGlasgow, and afterward carried before the assembly; yet although in all his sermons, he presents God as the object of prayer, merely as our Creator, without any relation to Christ, as Mediator; but recommends to his hearers, as the only acceptable disposition of mind, an assured confidence in the goodness and mercy of their Creator: not only has that Christless sermon been very much extolled, but the author dismissed from the assembly's bar in such a manner, as if thereby he had merited their applause. From all which it sufficiently appears, that this church is unsound and unfaithful, in point of doctrine; especially, if it is considered, that she has been frequently addressed by representations, declaring the necessity of an assertory net, affirming and ascertaining the precious truths injured and impuned, and that publicly, by the above mentioned errors; and that a solemn warning should be emitted, discovering the evil and danger of them: yet that necessary duty has still been contemned and disregarded.
The great truths of God, have, for many years, lain wounded and bleeding in our streets, trampled upon by their open and daring enemies; while this church has entirely forgotten and slighted the divine command, to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. And though theWestminsterConfession of Faith continues to be subscribed by intrants into the ministry (the covenants owned by the Reformed Church ofScotland, as a part of her confession, being abstracted from the confession of this present church), yet how little of that system and order of doctrine is now taught? the generality having just as much of Christ, and the doctrines of his cross, in most of their discourses, as is to be found in the writings ofPlato, EpictetusandSeneca, and the rest of the Pagan moralists. So that this church appears orthodox, in little (or no) other sense than the church ofEnglandis so, viz., by subscribing the thirty-nine articles, which areCalvinisticalin the doctrinal parts; while yet theArminiansystem of doctrine is generally received and taught by her clergy. Add to what is above, that this church maintains no suitable testimony against sins of all sorts, in persons of all stations; neither emits faithful warnings anent the snares and dangers of the nation, nor full and free declarations of present duty, as church judicatories, like faithful watchmen did in former times. But such faithfulness in God's matters is not now, alas! to be expected; seeing this church has made a formal concert, or mutual paction, binding up one another from preaching against, and applying their doctrines to the sins, corruptions and scandals of the times: seeActs of Assem.16th, 17th,anno1712;Act6th, 1713;Act8th, 1714;Act6th, 1715. The Presbytery cannot also here omit observing, and that with deep regret, that although the most damnable principles, which have a direct tendency to deny the being of God, and so to propagate opinionative atheism, to subvert all religion, to extol the power of corrupt nature, and exalt Popery, as the best form of religion, to deny the subjection of the world to the providence of God, to destroy all distinction between virtue and vice, and consequently affirm, that there is no moral evil in the world, and to ridicule Christianity, as destitute of divine authority, have been lately vented byDavid Hume, Esq.; and another designated by the name ofSopho: yet this church has passed no suitable censure upon the authors of these impious and blasphemous principles, though they justly deserve the very highest: nor have they done anything to testify their dislike, or put an effectual stop to the spreading of these abominable tenets. The presbytery therefore, as they declare their abhorrence of these, and the other errors formerly mentioned, so testify against the church's notorious unfaithfulness, in suffering these wretches to pass with impunity; and as being, on all these accounts noticed, unsound and corrupt, in the matter of doctrine, &c. It may also be here remarked, as an undoubted evidence of the corruptness of the state, that, although there are civil laws presently in being, which declare the maintaining of antitrinitarian, atheistical principles, to be not only criminal, but capital; yet the civil powers in the nation have not so much regard to God, and the Son of God, as to punish treason openly acted against them.
6. The presbytery testify against both church and state, for their sinful associations with malignants: as declared enemies to the covenanted interest have engrossed the civil power wholly to their hands, since the public resolutions, that a door was opened for their admission; so such is the nature of the laws presently extant and in force, that one cannot be admitted to any office, civil or military, but by swearing away all friendship to a covenanted reformation. And, moreover, all along since the late Revolution, the nations have been the most earnest pursuing after friendship with the grossest idolators; and, in express contradiction to the word of God, have confederated in the closest alliance with God's declared enemies abroad; nay, have exhausted their strength and substance, in maintaining the quarrel of such as have been remarkable for their hatred at, and persecution of the protestant interest. The Revolution Church has also said a confederacy with such as have, on all occasions, shewed a rooted enmity and hatred at reformation principles: which appears from their admitting such (noticed above) to be office-bearers in the church: from their observing fasts, and praying for success to the allied armies, though almost wholly composed of such, and many of them oftentimes gross Popish idolaters: from their going in with, and approving of the sinful incorporating union withEngland: from their acknowledging the civil power of church men as lawful: from their joining in religious communion with Mr.Whitefield; and in many other instances. Not to insist further in enumerating particulars, the Presbytery finally testify against church and state, for their negligence to suppress impiety, vice, and superstitious observance of holy days, &c. The civil powers herein acting directly contrary to the nature and perverting the very ends of the magistrate's office, which is to becustos et vindex utriusque tabulae; the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath on him that doeth evil. Transgressors of the first table of the law may now sin openly with impunity; and, while the religious observation of the sabbath is not regarded, the superstitious observation of holy-days, even inScotland, is so much authorized, that on some of them the most considerable courts of justice are discharged to sit. Stage-plays, masquerades, balls, assemblies, and promiscuous dancings, the very nurseries of impiety and wickedness, are not only tolerated, but even countenanced by law. And as these, with other evils, are permitted by the civil powers; so this church seems to have lost all zeal against sin. No suitable endeavors are used to prevent the growth of atheism, idolatry and superstition: and though Prelacy, as well as Popery, is growing apace in the lands, and organs publicly used in that superstitious worship; yet no testimony is given against them, but new modes introduced into the worship of God, for carnal ends, as a gradual advance toward that superstition. Yea, so unconcerned about suppressing vice and extravagant vanity, &c, that not only are the forementioned nurseries of sin frequented by ministers' children, but ministers themselves have countenanced them by their presence, to the great scandal of their office, and manifest encouragement of these seminaries of immorality. And notwithstanding that by the late proclamation, the penal laws against vice and profanity seem to be revived (which is in itself so far good), yet this cannot supersede or remove the ground of the Presbytery's testimony against church and state complexly, on the above account, or even against the thing itself, in the manner that it is gone about. For besides that, notwithstanding of all former endeavors of this kind, since the overthrow of our scriptural and covenanted reformation, immorality and wickedness have still increased and overflowed all these banks; partly, because, after all their pretenses, the laws were not vigorously put in execution (and as good, no law nor penalty, as no execution), and partly, because these law-makers, being also themselves the law-breakers, have entrusted the execution to such as are generally ringleaders in a variety of gross immoralities; it is not likely, that ever God will countenance and bless such attempts, whereby (contrary to scripture and all good order) the ecclesiastical power is subjected to the civil, and ministers made the bare inspectors of men's manners, and informers to inferior judges, without having it in their power to oblige such transgressors (if obstinate) to compear before church judicatories, and conform and submit to the laws of Christ's house. Nay, so far will God be from approving such Erastian methods of reformation, that he will certainly visit for this, among all our other iniquities, and in his own due time make a breach upon us, because we sought him not in the due order. Wherefore, and for all these grounds, the Presbytery testify against both church and state, as in their constitutions Erastian and anti-scriptural, including the substitution and acknowledgement of another head and governor over the church than Christ, as may be sufficiently evident from proofs above adduced. And particularly, because the British united constitution is such as involves the whole land, and all ranks therein, in the dreadful guilt of idolatry, communicating with idolators, apostasy, perjury, &c.[3] They declare they can have no communion therewith; but that it is such an association as that God's call to his people, concerning it, is, "Come out from among them. Be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, saith the Lord."
* * * * *
For as much as a good number of people in the north ofIrelandhave acceded, and submitted themselves to the Presbytery, and one of their number is fixed among them as their proper pastor; the Presbytery intended to have subjoined something by way of appendix to the above Testimony, with relation to the state of religion in that kingdom, especially with regard to the settlement of the presbyterian religion there. But as diocesan Episcopacy is the religion there established by law, against which the Presbytery has declared and testified (as above) as an anti-scriptural, anti-covenanted and merely a human and political settlement (whether considered abstractly or complexly with that in the kingdom ofScotland), there needs nothing be further said anent it. And as those called Presbyterians inIreland, are equally enemies to the true covenanted Presbyterian cause with those of the Revolution Church ofScotland; so the above testimony equally strikes against them with the other. There seems, however, to be this considerable difference betwixt the Presbyterians inScotlandandIreland, viz., That although the settlements the same as to the matter of it, yet so it is not as to the form or manner of it, the Presbyterians inIrelandneither having, nor claiming any other security or foundation for their different mode of religious worship than the royal indulgence, or toleration Act. And therefore, as the Presbytery did and do testify against toleration, and toleration principles, disclaiming such an anti-scriptural shelter; they therein, of consequence, bear witness and testimony against all such as do in these lands (where God has given his people a claim of another kind) professedly dwell under such a shadow. But besides, the Presbytery view them (complexly considered) as unworthy of their regard or notice in these papers, as to engaging in any particular or explicit testimony against them, in as much as they have denuded themselves of almost any pretense to the Presbyterian name, by not only disclaiming and opposing the true Presbyterian cause, but having also fallen from the belief and profession of the most important and fundamental truths of Christianity; thereby plainly discovering themselves to be creatures of quite another species and spirit, than the ministers of Jesus Christ, and friends to the blessed spiritual Bridegroom; deserving rather to be termed a synagogue ofLibertines, a club ofSocinians, Arians, Pelagians&c., banded together against Christ, and the doctrines of his cross than a synod of the ministers of the gospel. Therefore, as the presbytery testify and remonstrate against them, their toleration, or indulgence footing, on which they professedly stand, together with their poisonous jumble and medley of errors, commonly calledNewlight, adopted, and with the greatest warmth and diligence, spread and propagated by most of them, and connived at and tolerated by the rest and all their books or prints written by them, or others of the like spirit with them in defense of these dangerous and damnable tenets so they do hereby judicially warn and exhort all the people under their inspection there, to beware of such men, and such books, however they may varnish over the doctrines they bring, with fine words fair speeches and pretenses, in order to deceive the hearts of the simple; and this, as they would not incur the displeasure of a holy and jealous God, and have their souls defiled and destroyed by these error's. On the contrary to endeavor to have their minds and understandings enlightened with the knowledge of the truths of Christ, and mysteries of his gospel, and their hearts warmed with the love of them; so that being through grace established in the belief of the truth, they may not "be as children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"Eph.iv, 14, 15. "But speaking the truth in love may grow up in all things unto him, which is the Head even Christ;" and striving to refrain and keep themselves from every wicked, offensive and backsliding course, and to live soberly, righteously and godly, blameless and harmless as the sons of God, without rebuke, adorning the gospel of Christ with a conversation becoming the same; so shall they thereby glorify God, and transmit a faithful testimony for the despised truths of Christ to posterity, that so there may be a seed to do service unto him in these lands, and make his name to be remembered through all generations.
The principles of some parties, who have made the most specious appearances for the Reformation, considered.—Particular grounds of testimony against that body of ministers and people known by the name of the Secession, wherein their partiality and unfaithfulness in their profession of the covenanted testimony of the Church of Scotland is discovered in various instances,—their loose and immoral doctrine about civil society and government—their corruption in worship, sinful terms of communion, &c., &c.
The Presbytery having in the preceding pages exhibited their testimony against both church and state, as now established in these isles of the sea, and therein discovered the reasons, why they are obliged to disapprove of both, proceed, next, to take notice of some of the parties that have made the most specious appearances for reformation in this land since the Revolution, of which that party commonly known by the name of theSecession, are not the least remarkable. It is vast pity, and it is with grief and lamentation, that the Presbytery find themselves, in point of duty, obliged to lift up a testimony against the forementioned party; considering, that they have made a professed appearance under a judicial banner displayed for truth, and a covenanted work of reformation, and have, in reality, showed much zeal in opposing a variety of errors in doctrine, corruption in discipline and government, most prevalent in the national Church ofScotland; have contributed to vindicate some of the most important truths and doctrines of the Christian faith, that have been openly impugned in this day of blasphemy, and may have been instrumental in turning many to righteousness, and reviving the exercise of practical godliness among not a few. But asPaulwithstoodPeterto the face, and testified against his dissimulation, though both of them apostles of our common Lord and Savior; so it still remains duty to testify against the most godly, and such as may have been very useful to the church in many respects, in so far as they have not showed themselvesearnest contenders for the faith once delivered to the saints, but have dealt treacherously with God in the concerns of his glory. It is therefore with just regret they proceed to observe, that they are obliged, to testify against this party designated, first, by the title ofThe Associate Presbytery(and then that ofThe Associate Synod)—and that particularly, for their error in doctrine, treachery in covenant, partiality and tyranny in discipline and government. It may at first seem strange, to see a charge of error advanced against those who made the countenancing of error in the judicatories of the established church, one principal ground of their secession therefrom. But by taking a narrower view of the principles and doctrines which they have roundly and plainly asserted, and endeavored to justify in their printed pamphlets anent civil government, the reception and belief of which they zealously inculcate upon their followers, it will appear, that their scheme is so far from tending to promote the declarative glory of God, and the real good of human and religious society, or the church of God, which are the very ends of the divine ordinance of magistracy, that it is not only unscriptural, but anti-scriptural, contrary to the common sentiments of mankind, and introductive of anarchy and confusion in every nation, should it be thoroughly adopted, and therefore ought to be testified against. The sum of their principles anent civil magistracy, may be collected from these few passages, to be found in a print entitled,Answers by the Associate Presbytery to reasons of dissent, &c.—Page70. "This divine law, not only endows men in their present state with a natural inclination to civil society and government, but it presents unto them an indispensable necessity of erecting the same into some form, as a moral duty, the obligation and benefit whereof no wickedness in them can lose or forfeit.—Page74. Whatever magistrates any civil state acknowledged, were to be subjected to throughout the same.—Page50. Such a measure of these qualifications (viz., scriptural) and duties cannot be required for the being of the lawful magistrate's office, either as essential to it, or a condition of itsine qua non: I. It cannot be required as essential thereunto; for then it would be the same thing with magistracy, which is grossly absurd, and big with absurdities. In thenextplace, it cannot be a condition of itsine qua non, or, without which one is not really a magistrate, however far sustained as such by civil society; for then no person could be a magistrate, unless he were so faultlessly. The due measure and performance of scriptural qualifications and duties belong not to the being and validity of the magistrate's office, but to the well-being and usefulness thereof.—P.87. The precepts, already explained, are a rule of duty toward any who are, and while they are acknowledged as magistrates by the civil society. Nothing needs be added for the clearing of this, but the overthrow of a distinction that has been made of those that are acknowledged as magistrates by the civil society, into such as are so by the preceptive will of God, and such as are so by his providential will only; which distinction is altogether groundless and absurd: All providential magistrates are also preceptive, and that equally in the above respect (viz., as to the origin of their office) the office and authority of them all, in itself considered, does equally arise from, and agree unto the preceptive will of God.—P.88. The precepts already explained (Prov.xxiv, 21;Eccl.x, 4;Lukexx, 25;Rom.xiii, 1-8;Tit.iii, 1;1 Pet.ii, 13-18), are a rule of duty equally toward any who are, and while they are acknowledged as magistrates by the civil society; they are, and continue to be a rule of duty in this matter, particularly, to all the Lord's people, in all periods, places, and cases." These few passages, containing the substance of Seceders' principles on the head of civil government, may be reduced to the following particulars: 1. They maintain the people to be the ultimate fountain of magistracy, and that as they have a right to choose whomsoever they please to the exercise of civil government over them; so their inclinations, whether good or bad, constitute a lawful magistrate, without regard had to the divine law. 2. That the law of God in the scriptures of truth, has no concern with the institution of civil government, but only adds its precept in forcing obedience upon the conscience of every individual, under the pain of eternal damnation, to whomsoever the body politic shall invest with the civil dignity; and that, without any regard to the qualifications of person or office. 3. Whomsoever theprimores regni, or representatives of a nation, do set up, are lawful magistrates, and that not only according to the providential, but according to the preceptive will of God also, in regard that God, the supreme governor, has prescribed no qualifications in his word, as essential to the being of a lawful magistrate, nor told what sort of men they must be, that are invested with that office over his professing people, though it is confessed there are many that are necessary to the well-being and usefulness of that office: and therefore, 4. That no act, or even habitual series of the greatest wickedness and mal-administration can forfeit the person's right to the people's subjection, for conscience sake, considered as individuals, while the majority of a nation continue to recognize and own his authority. The absurdity of this scheme of principles may obviously appear at first view to every unbiassed mind that is blessed with any competent measure of common sense and discretion, and tolerable knowledge of divine revelation. That magistracy is a divine ordinance, flowing originally from Jehovah, the supreme and universal Sovereign of Heaven and earth, as the ultimate fountain thereof, cannot be denied. Neither is it to be doubted, but that the Lord has lodged a power and right in the people, of choosing and setting up those persons that shall exercise civil government over them, and to whom they will submit themselves. But then, while God has lodged this power in the people, of conveying the right of civil authority to their magistrates, he has at the same time given them positive and unalterable laws, according to which they are to proceed, in setting up their magistrates; and, by the sovereign authority of the Great Lawgiver, are they expressly bound to act in agreeableness to these rules, without any variation, and that, under the pain of rebellion against him, who is King of kings, and Lord of lords. The Presbytery, therefore, testify against this scheme of Seceding principles, calculated, in order to inculcate a stupid subjection and obedience to every possessor of regal dignity, at the expense of trampling upon all the laws of God, respecting the institution, constitution, and administration of the divine ordinance of magistracy. Particularly, this opinion is,
1. Contrary to the very nature of magistracy, as described in the scriptures of truth, where we are taught, that all authority to be acknowledged of men, must be of God, and ordained of God. The divine ordination of magistracy is the alone formal reason of subjection thereto, and that which makes it a damnable sin to resist. So the apostle teacheth,Rom.xiii, 1, &c.: "There is no power but of God; the powers that be, are ordained of God." Not only is it the current sentiment of orthodox divines upon the place, but the text and context make it undeniably evident, that bypowerhere, is understood, not a natural, but a moral power, consisting not only in an ability, but in a right to command. Which power is said to be ordained of God, as importing, not merely the proceeding of the thing from God providentially, but such a being from God, as carries in it his instituting or appointing thereof, by the warrant of his word, law, or precept. So that that power which is to be owned as of God, includes these two particulars, without which, no authority can be acknowledged as God's ordinance, viz., institution and constitution, so as to possess him, who is God's minister, with a moral power. In the divine institution of magistracy is contained, not only the appointment of it, but the defining the office in its qualifications and form, in a moral sense, prescribing what shall be the end, and what the measure of its authority, and how the supreme power shall rule and be obeyed. Again, the constitution of the power, or the determination of the form, and investiture of the particular person with the government, is of God: hence our Savior,Johnx, 35, in his application of these words in thePsalms, "I said, ye are gods," to magistrates, shows how they were gods, "because unto them the word of God came;" that is, by his word and warrant he authorized them; his constitution is passed upon them, who are advanced by men, according to his law in his word. When therefore a nation acts according to divine rule, in the molding of government, and advancing of persons to the exercise of it; there the government and governors may be said to be ordained of God. But that government that is not consonant to the divine institution, and those governors, that are not advanced to the place of supreme rule, in a Christian land, by the people, regulating themselves by the divine law, cannot be said to be the powers ordained of God. It is not merely the conveying the imperial dignity by men unto any particular person, that constitutes the power to be of God; but because, and in so far as this is done by virtue of a warrant from God and in agreeableness to his law that the action has the authority of God upon it.
Hence, if in this matter there is a substantial difference from, or contrariety to the divine rule, then there is nothing but a contradiction to God's ordinance: this must needs be granted, unless it is maintained that God has wholly left the determination of this ordinance to men, absolutely and unlimitedly, giving them an unbounded liberty to act therein, according to their own pleasure, which is most absurd. From the whole, it follows, that more is requisite than the inclinations of any people, to constitute a lawful magistrate, such as can be acknowledged God's ordinance. That power which in its institution and constitution is of God, by his law, can alone challenge subjection, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake.
2. The Presbytery testify against this scheme of principles, as being anti-scriptural, and what, in its tendency, is destructive to the authority of the sacred oracles.Secedersmaintain, that the people, without regard to scriptural qualifications, have an essential right to choose whom they please to the exercise of civil government, and that whomsoever they choose are lawful magistrates; and thus make the great ordinance of magistracy dependent on the uncertain and corrupt will of man. But that this annarchical system is not of divine authority, but owes its origin to their own invention, appears from the following texts of holy writ, besides others,Exod.xviii. 21: "Moreover, thou shalt provide out of all the people, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers." This counsel of Jethro, was God's counsel and command to Moses, in the choice of magistrates, supreme and subordinate; and discovers, that people are not left to their own will in this matter. It is God's direction, that the person advanced to rule, must bea man in whom is the spirit; Numb.xxvii, 18; whichDeut.xxxiv, 9, interprets to bethe spirit of wisdom, (i.e.) the spirit of government, fitting and capacitating a man to discharge the duties of the magistratical office, to the glory of God and the good of his people; without this, he ought not to be chosen.Deut.i, 13: "Take ye wise men and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you." Here is a precept, directing the people in their choice: they must not be children nor fools; if so, they are plagues and punishments, instead of scriptural magistrates, who are always a blessing. And they must be men of known integrity and affection to the real welfare ofIsrael, not such as are known to be haters of, and disaffected to theIsraelof God. Again, the express law of the king, is, that he must be one of the Lord's chosing;Deut.xvii. 14, 15: "When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations about me: thou shalt in anywise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee, thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, who is not thy brother." Here, though Christians have a right to set a king over them, yet, it is evident, they are not left at liberty to choose whom they please, but are, in the most express and positive terms, limited and circumscribed in their choice to him, whom the Lord their God shall choose: and this divine choice must certainly be understood (in a large sense) of a person of such a character, temper of mind, and qualifications, as God pointed out to them in his law, particularly in the text before cited (for whatever God's word approves of and chooses, that God himself chooses). And in the text before, as the person is further described, both negatively and positively, he must be a brother; which relation is not to be confined to that of kindred or nation, but especially respects religion. He must not be a stranger and enemy to the true religion, but a brother, in respect of a cordial embracing, and sincere profession (so far as men can judge) of the same cause of religion, and so one, of whom it may be expected that he will employ his power and interest to advance the kingdom of Jesus Christ. This precept respects the office, and points at the very deed of constitution, and in the most positive manner, restricts not only the people of theJews, but every nation blessed with the light of divine revelation, in their setting up of civil rulers, pointing forth on whom they may, and on whom they may not confer this honorable office. The same truth is confirmed by 2Sam.xxiii, 2, 3, 4: "The spirit of the Lord spake by me—the God ofIsraelsaid,—he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God."—SoJobxxxiv, 17, 18: "Shall even he that hateth right govern?—Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye are ungodly?" In which words, whileElihuis chargingJobwith blasphemy, in accusing God of injustice, declaring that if he made God a hater of right and impeached him of injustice, he did, in effect, blasphemously deny his government, universal dominion and sovereignty in the world. It is not only supposed, but strongly asserted and affirmed, that he that hateth right should not govern. Again, 1Cor.vi, 1, 4, 5: "If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge—Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that is able to judge between his brethren?" All these texts, which are plain, positive, moral precepts, whereby God hath set boundaries about his own ordinance; that it be not corrupted by men, as they demonstrate what magistrates ought to be, and prove that they cannot be of God's ordaining who have not these qualifications: so they evince, that scriptural qualifications are nothing less necessary and essential to the being of a lawful scriptural magistrate, than the consent of the people; and consequently, do sufficiently overturn this anti-scriptural scheme.Secedersindeed grant, that God hath declared his will, concerning the choice of magistrates in the above, and such like precepts; but, from their granting these scriptural qualifications to be only advantageous to those that have them, and necessary to the well-being and usefulness of lawful magistrates, and at the same time denying them to be necessary to the being thereof; it necessarily follows, as the consequence of their sentiments, that they allow civil society a negative over the supreme Lawgiver in this matter; and in so doing, exalt the will and inclination of the creature above the will of the Creator, which is the very definition of sin. Say they in the fore-quoted pamphlet, page 80th, "It is manifest, that the due measure and performance of scriptural qualifications and duties, belong not to the being and validity of the magistrate's office, but to the well-being and usefulness thereof." How easy is it here to turn their own artillery against themselves, and split their argument with a wedge of its own timber? For if, as is granted, scriptural qualifications are essential to the usefulness of the magistrate's office, they must also be necessary to the being thereof, otherwise it is in itself quite useless. And if in itself useless, with respect to the great ends thereof, without the due measure of scriptural qualifications, it cannot then be the ordinance of God, in regard it must not be supposed, that a God of infinite wisdom and goodness, who does nothing in vain, has instituted an ordinance for the good of his people, in subserviency to his glory, which yet, in itself (as to its being and essence), is useless, and of no profit nor advantage to them. And as for their comparison of the magistrate's office to other common and ordinary places and relations among men, the parallel will not hold, no not for illustration, far less for a proof of their doctrine. Nor is there any comparison, unless they can prove, that God in his word has as plainly and positively required men to be so and so qualified, before it is lawful for them to enter into, or for others to put them in such places and relations, as he has done, with regard to magistracy. This is indeed the scope and end of their whole scheme, to derogate from, degrade and lessen the dignity of this great ordinance of magistracy, allowing it no more than what is common to men in general, in other inferior states and ordinary business of life, alleging, "That these qualifications (which they grant God has prescribed in his word) are only advantageous to them that have them;" and that at the hazard of evidently opposing and contradicting the intention of the Spirit of God, in the above texts of scripture, which imply a specialty, and particular appropriation to kings and rulers in their office.
Again, this principle either, as above said, denies magistracy to be God's ordinance instituted in his word; or then says, that he hath instituted ordinances in his revealed will, without prescribing any qualifications as essential to their being, but entirely left the constitution of them to the will of man. But how absurd is this, and derogatory to the glory of God, in all his perfections, who is a God of order, once to imagine, that he hath set any of his ordinances, either as to matter or manner, upon the precarious footing of the pure will of wicked and ungodly men? The smallest acquaintance with divine revelation will readily convince, that he hath not. It may as well, and with the same parity of reason, be refused, that there are any qualifications requisite, as essential to the being and validity of the office of the ministry, but only necessary to its well-being and usefulness; and therefore, is as lawful (in its exercise) in the want of these qualifications, as the ordinance of magistracy is accounted to be. But how contrary is this to scripture,Tit.i, 7, 8; 1Tim.iii, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, &c. Now, comparing these with the above-cited texts, respecting the qualifications of magistrates, it appears, that the qualifications of the magistrate are required in the same express and as strong terms (if not also somewhat more clearly,) as the qualifications of the minister; and seeing a holy God hath made no difference, as to the essentiality of the qualifications pertaining to these distinct ordinances, it is too much presumption for any creature to attempt doing it. Both magistrate and minister are, in their different and distinct spheres, clothed with an equal authority from the law of God,—have subjection and obedience equally, under the same pains, required to them respectively, (asDeut. xvii. 9 to 13; 2Chron. xix, 5 to 11;Heb. xiii, 17, &c.)—and the qualifications of both, as above, stated and determined with equal peremptoriness, making them no less essential to the being and validity of the one than the other. And this being the case, it is not easy to understand howSecederswill reconcile their principles anent civil government, with their principle and practice, in separating from an established church or ministry, whose constitution they acknowledge to be good; and who being presbyterially ordained, are also still countenanced by the body of the people. Sure, had they dealt fairly, honestly and impartially in the matters of God, they would have acted in this case agreeably to their declared principle, page 79th of their pamphlet, viz.: "The passages holding forth these qualifications and duties of magistrates, do not by the remotest hint imply, that, if in any wise they be deficient in, or make defection from the same, their authority and commands, even in matters lawful, must not be subjected unto and obeyed," &c. Certainly, according to this, all the deficiencies, defections, and mal-administrations in the church, could never have been a warrantable ground (which yet they make the only ground) of their separation from her. "But on the contrary," they should still have continued in communion with her, and subjection to her in matters lawful, in a way of testifying "against the same, and essaying their reformation, by all means that were habile for them."Secedersmust either grant, that such was their duty, and so of themselves condemn their separation as unwarrantable; or else deny, that the qualifications of the magistrate and minister are required in the same express terms in scripture; that both are clothed with an equal (though distinct) authority; and that subjection and obedience are under the same pains enjoined to both, and consequently say, that it is less dangerous to cast off, contemn and disregard the authority of a church, than that of the state; while yet (according to their scheme) civil authority is entirely resolved into, and depends purely upon the changeable will of civil society. But, it is presumed, they will allow, that ecclesiastical authority is derived, and flows from, and depends entirely upon the Lord Jesus Christ alone, the glorious Judge, Lawgiver, and King of his church; so that (according to them) this being of a far more noble extract and original, it must be of far more dangerous consequence, to contemn and cast off it, than the other.
Again, as this doctrine gives unto men a negative over the Holy One of Israel, it also opens a wide door for introducing and enforcing the cause of deism, already too prevalent: for, if all who are set up by civil society, however wicked, and void of the qualifications God has required, while they are acknowledged and submitted to by their constituents, must be equally regarded as God's ordinance, with those who have those qualifications; then it will follow, that the corrupt will of wicked men legitimates the magistrate's office and authority, not only without, but in contradiction to the preceptive will of God; and what is this (absit blasphemia), but to exalt man above God, in giving unto the universal Sovereign and Supreme Lawgiver, only a consultative power in the constitution of magistracy, while it ascribes unto man an absolute and definitive power, whereby they have power to receive or reject the law of God (at least respecting magistracy) at pleasure, and their deed of constitution be equally valid, when opposite, as when agreeable unto, and founded upon his righteous law. And sure, by the same reason, that man may take a liberty to dispense with the authority of God, in one point of his commanding will; he may also in another, until at last every part of it is rejected. It is but a contempt of the same authority, and he that offends in one point, is guilty of all. Such are the absurdities that this their scheme leads to, though it is hoped the authors do not intend so. It may here be only necessary further to observe, that among the other desperate shiftsSecedersare driven to in defense of their favorite notion, they say, that scriptural qualifications cannot be essential to God's ordinance of magistracy, or necessarily required as a condition of itsine qua non; for then it would be the same thing with magistracy; nor can these qualifications be the condition (sine qua non, or), without which one could not be a magistrate; for then it would be necessary, that every one were possessed of them faultlessly, before he could be owned as a lawful magistrate; either of which they allege would be grossly absurd. But this plausible and fair-set argument of theirs, if it prove any thing, will prove more than it is supposed they themselves will grant, and consequently proves nothing at all. For the same gross absurdity may, with equal reason, be inferred from a maintaining, that a due measure and performance of scripture qualifications and duties are essential to any other of God's ordinances, and so that these are the ordinance itself. For instance, they might as well reason (as some have justly observed already), that scriptural qualifications are not essential to a lawful gospel minister, for then it would be the same thing with the ministry, itself; nor can it be a condition, without which one is not really a minister, unless he were so faultlessly. And thus they have at once stripped, not only all of the race ofAdam, that ever exercised that office, but themselves also, of any real mission, as ministers, unless they have assumed the Pope's infallibility, and are advanced to theMoravianperfection. So, although the scripture declares it essential to the true church, that she hold the head, yet by their childish reasoning, this would infer a conclusion big with absurdities, even that this qualification of a true church, is the church itself. And, in like manner, it can no longer be admitted, that faith in Christ, and holiness, are essential to the being of a true Christian; for that would be to make faith the same thing with a Christian, and would infer, that as in heaven only holiness is in perfection, so there alone Christians are to be found. Upon the whole, as the Lord has given an indispensable law, respecting the constitution of kings, showing what conditions and qualifications are required of them; it undeniably follows, as an established truth, that Christianized nations must invest none with that office, but in a way agreeable to that law, and those alone according to scripture, are magistrates of God's institution, who are in some measure possessed of these qualifications. It is therefore an anti-scriptural tenet, that nothing is requisite to constitute a lawful magistrate, but the inclinations and choice of the civil society.
3. The Presbytery testify against this system of principles, because it has a direct tendency to destroy the just and necessary distinction that ought to be maintained between the perceptive and providential will of God, and necessarily jumbles and confounds these together, in such a manner, as a man is left at an utter uncertainty to know when he is accepted and approven of God in his conduct, and when not. That this is the scope of their principles, is confessed, p. 87, of their book of principles: "Nothing needs be added [say they] for the clearing of this, but the overthrow of a distinction that has been made of those who are acknowledged as magistrates by civil society, into such as are so by the preceptive will of God, and such are so by his providential will only; which distinction is altogether groundless and absurd. It will not be refused, that all such preceptive magistrates are also providential. But, moreover, all such providential magistrates are also preceptive. The office and authority of them all, in itself considered, does equally arise from, and agrees to the preceptive will of God." A doctrine most shocking in itself! How strange! that Christians, from any consideration, will obstinately maintain a favorite opinion, which is confessedly built upon, and cannot be established but at the expense of blending and confounding the preceptive and providential will of God, while the distinction thereof is clearly and inviolably established in the word of God! Although divine providence, which is an unsearchable depth, does many times, and, in many cases, serve as a commentary to open up the hidden mysteries of scripture revelation; yet, where the law of God in the scriptures of truth is silent, there providence regulates not, is neither institutive, nor declarative of God's will to be done by us; and where the said divine law does ordain or deliver a rule to us in any case, there providence gives no relaxation, allowance or countermand to the contrary. (SeeGeeon magistracy, in his excellent discourse on providence.) That an overthrow of this necessary distinction, for the sake of the above dangerous scheme, cannot be admitted of, in a consistency with a due regard to the authority of revealed religion, and that therefore the right and lawfulness of magistracy is not founded upon the providential will of God, though they are countenanced and supported by the majority of a nation, will partly appear from the following considerations:
1. If there is no distinction to be made between the preceptive and providential will of God, then is providence equally in all respects the rule of duty, as much as the precept is, and so man should be left at an utter uncertainty, what is duty, in regard of the opposition that is many times between providential dispensations and the precept. Nay, then it is impossible that man can be guilty of sin, in transgressing the divine will, because God infallibly brings to pass, by his holy and over-ruling providence, whatever he has decreed by his eternal purpose.Rom.ix, 17. And thus the Jews, in murdering the Son of God, should be acquitted from the charge of guilt, and could not be said to transgress the divine will.
2. If no distinction is to be made between the preceptive and providential will of God, but providence is declarative of the precept, then is providence a complete rule without the written word. And this at once supersedes the necessity of divine revelation, and derogates from the sufficiency and perfection of the scriptures of truth. The written word is affirmed to beperfect:Psal.xix, 7. Sinners are reproved for doing that which the word gave no command for,Jer.vii, 31, and xix, 5; and challenged for following the promising appearances:Isa.xxx. 1, 2, 3, 11. It is therefore daring presumption to set up providence for a rule in opposition to the written law of God. Hence it must be concluded, either that the preceptive will of God in the scriptures is imperfect, or the laws therein repealable by providence; or then that providence cannot be the rule of human actions.
3. If the distinction between the preceptive and providential will of God is to be overthrown, then providence must be expressive of God's approbative ordination, equally as his revealed will is. For, without this (viz. the divine approbation), there can be no lawful title to what is possessed. But this is what providence of itself cannot do; it cannot without the precept discover either God's allowance or disallowance. If then this distinction is denied, and the providential will of God asserted to be declarative of his preceptive, and so of his approbative will; it remains to be manifested, where and how it has been appointed of God for such an end, an end that is by the Spirit of God denied unto it:Eccl.ix, 1, 2, 4. If this distinction is to be overthrown, then either the providential will of God, without any regard to the precept, in every case, and in every sort of tenure, gives a just and lawful right and title; or God has declared in his word that it shall be so in the matter of civil government only, viz. that whosoever gains the ascendancy in the inclinations of the people, by whatever sinful methods this is obtained, it matters not, and so is by the hand of providence raised up above all his rivals to the regal dignity, he is the lawful magistrate, God's ordinance according to his precept. The first cannot be said; it were impious to suppose it; for that would justify all robberies and violences, and legitimate every fraud; not the latter, for where is it to be found in all the book of divine revelation, that God hath made such a law touching magistracy? But how big with absurdities, to say, that a holy God has given to man a plain and positive law to be his governing rule in every particular that concerns him, this of magistracy only excepted. In this great ordinance he hath wholly left him to be guided, or rather misled and bewildered by his own corrupt inclinations: but the contrary of this has been in part discovered, and may further. 5. If, in order to establish their anti-government scheme, the foresaid distinction is to be destroyed, and all such as are providential powers, and acknowledged by man, are also preceptive, and therefore to be submitted to for conscience sake, then are the kingdoms of men necessarily obliged to own and submit unto the dominion of the devil. The devil not only claims to himself the possession of the power of all the kingdoms of this world, but it is certain that of the most of them he still retains an actual predominancy, hence styled the god of this world. Now, it cannot be refused, but that the power he exercises is providential (or a power of permission); and it is most certain, that it is with the consent and good will of all the children of men, while in a natural state. But are men therefore obliged to acknowledge his authority, or submit to that providential power he maintains over them? If every providential power is also preceptive, the answer must be given in the affirmative. The like may be said of the Pope ofRome, the devil's captain-general, to display his hellish banner against the King of kings, and Lord of lords, with respect to those nations where he is acknowledged in his diabolical pretensions. It can be to no purpose forSecedersto allege that the Pope claims a power unlawful in itself, and therefore cannot be owned, in regard the person whom they make a pretended acknowledgment of, as their lawful sovereign, is by the act of his constitution invested with a similar power, a power both civil and ecclesiastical, and declared to be head of the church, as well as the state. Nothing, therefore, remains for them, but either to acknowledge this clear distinction between the providential and preceptive will of God, or then profess the lawfulness of both the above mentioned powers. 6. If the foresaid distinction is too big with absurdities to be received, and if the authority of all providential magistrates does equally arise from, and agree unto the precept, then it would be no sin to resist the powers ordained of God, provided that providence proves auspicious and favorable to the rebel, and advances him to the throne, with the good will of his fellow rebellious subjects, by expelling the lawful sovereign; at least such resistance could not be determined to be sinful, until once the event declared, whether providence would countenance the treasonable attempt or not. Thus what the apostle declares a damnable sin,Rom.xiii, 2, must be justified and made the foundation of subsequent duty, if patronized by a multitude. This they evidently maintain, as appears from their declaration of principles, page 82, where, pretending to obviate some difficulties anent their principles, arising from the people of God's disowning anti-scriptural magistrates: "The whole nature of any simple revolt [say they] lies in breaking off immediately from the civil body, by withdrawing from, or withdrawing part of their territories; and then it necessarily follows at the same time, that these revolters break off from the head of the civil body, without ever denying his authority over the members who still cleave unto the same." This, in connection with their grand foundation principle, and the scope of their discourse at the above citation, discovers that they grant, that if the whole civil society should reject the authority they had set up (however agreeable it should have been to the preceptive will of God, and should again set up another, though never so opposite thereto), their doing so would be lawful; but it is not lawful for a few to disown any authority (however wicked and anti-scriptural), unless they can at the same time withdraw from, or withdraw part of his territories. Nothing can be more absurd than to say, that a people are bound by the laws of God to give subjection for conscience sake, and yet at the same time are at liberty to cast off and reject the same authority at pleasure. If the magistrate be lawful, it is utterly unlawful to reject him; an attempt to divest him of his office, power and authority, though carried on by theprimores regni, is rebellion against God. It is most ridiculous to allege, that a people considered as a body politic, are not under the same obligation to their rightful sovereign, as when they are considered as individuals, but may lawfully reject him, and set up another, if they please; so that he who one day is God's minister, next day hath no title to that office, but if he claim it, must be treated as a traitor, whereby all security that can possibly be given to the most lawful magistrate, is at once destroyed. Thus, if the Chevalier had succeeded in his late attempt, had gained the favor of theprimores regni, and thereby mounted theBritishthrone;Secedersmust then, of necessity, either have quit their present principles, or then have subjected to his yoke for conscience sake, under the pain of eternal damnation. His being a professed Papist, and enslaved vassal ofRome, could not have warranted them to leave their place of subjection to him while owned by the civil society, and so they must have treated the present powers as usurpers and enemies to government, though they now flatter them with the pretensions of an ill-grounded loyalty. Again, how absurd and self contradictory to grant, that a minor part may not only revolt, but also withdraw part of a prince's territories; and yet that the same party may not, when residing in the nation, refuse to acknowledge the lawfulness of an anti-scriptural power. This is to say, that people are no longer obliged to submit to authority, than they are in capacity to withdraw from, or withdraw part of their prince's territories from him, and so to justify their rebellion, by that which can only be a terrible aggravation of their sin. These, with a number of other absurdities, natively flow from a denial of the distinction between the providential and preceptive will of God, making the title of the lawful magistrate depend solely upon the will of the people. Nothing is more evident than this, that if the inclinations of the people, exclusive of all other qualifications, constitute a lawful magistrate, then (though he rules ever so agreeable to God's preceptive will), so soon as this body (though in a most unjust and tyrannical manner) casts him off, he that moment for ever loses all title and claim to the office, and can no longer be regarded as a lawful magistrate. A principle that in its nature and tendency is introductive of all anarchy and confusion, and with the greatest propriety deserves the encomium of theanti-government scheme.
7. This anarchical system of principles, which destroys the above just and necessary distinction, is directly in opposition to the laudable and almost universal practice of all nations, in ordaining and enacting certain fundamental laws, constitutions and provisos, whereby the throne is fenced, the way to it limited, and the property thereof predisposed. The Scripture sufficiently discovers those restrictions and rules, which God himself has prescribed and laid down, for directing and determining of his people's procedure about the erection of magistrates. And profane history abounds in discovering certain fundamental laws and conditions to take place, almost in every nation, without conforming to which, none can be admitted to that dignity over them. But to what purpose are any such laws and constitutions, if this vague principle is once admitted, which cancels and disannuls all such provisos and acts? Why shouldMoseshave been so solicitous about his successor in the government ofIsrael, Numb.xxvii, 15-17, if God had ordained the inclinations of the people alone should determine? Or to what purpose didIsrael, after the death ofJoshua, ask of God, who should be their leader, if their own inclinations alone were sufficient to determine it? If God has declared, that the corrupt will of the people is the alone basis of civil power, then, not only are all state constitutions and fundamental laws useless, because, on every vacancy of the throne, they not only must all give place to the superior obligation, the incontrollable law, of the uncertain inclinations of the body politic, but they are in their nature unlawful; their proper use in every nation being to prevent all invasion upon the government by unqualified persons, and to illegitimate it, if at any time done. So that, if the consent of civil society is the only essential condition of government which God has authorized, not only are all scriptural conditions and qualifications useless and unlawful, but also all human securities, either from intruders or for lawful governors, are unlawful, in regard the very design of them all is to oppose this grand foundation principle, the jure-divinity of whichSecedershave found out, and do confidently maintain. And thus, by the seceding scheme, is condemned, not only the practice of almost all other nations, determining by law, some indispensable qualifications that their rulers must have; but particularly the practice of these once reformed lands, when reformation had the sanction, not only of ecclesiastic, but also of civil, authority, is hereby condemned. Scripture and covenant qualifications were then made essential to the being of a lawful magistrate, by the fundamental laws and constitutions of the nations; so that however the inclinations of the people might run (as it soon appeared they were turned in opposition to these), yet, by these laws, and in a consistency with that constitution, none could be admitted to the place or places of civil authority, but such as professed, and outwardly practiced, according to reformation principles. SeeAct15th,Sess.2d,Parl.1649. And how happy we had been, if we had constantly acted in conformity to these agreeable laws, experience, both former and latter, will bear witness. How much better had it been for us to have walked in God's statutes, and executed his judgments, than by our abhorrence of them, and apostasy from them, to provoke him to give us statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby we cannot live (Ezek.xx, 25), or have any comfortable enjoyment and possession of the blessings and privileges of his everlasting gospel, as it is with us at this day. And yet, this is whatSecederswould have us caressing, embracing and (with them) blessing God for, under the notion of a present good; and so bless God for permitting his enemies (in anger against an ungrateful and guilty people) to overturn his work and interest, and establish themselves upon the ruins thereof; to bless him for making our own iniquities to correct us, and our backslidings to reprove us, until we know what an evil and bitter thing it is to depart from the LORD GOD of our fathers; to bless him (for what is matter of lamentation) that the adversaries ofZionare the chief, and her enemies prosper,Lam.i, 5: and all this abstractly, under the notion, of good, which comes very near the borders of blasphemy.
But, moreover, the civil settlement at the revolution is also condemned by this principle of theirs; not because of its opposition to a covenanted reformation, but in regard it includes some essential qualifications required in the supreme civil ruler. The nations are, by that deed of constitution, bound up in their election of a magistrate; and all Papists, such as marry with Papists, or do not publicly profess the Protestant religion, are declared incapable of the throne. So that we see the present law makes some other qualifications, besides the consent of the body politic, essential to the constitution of a lawful sovereign inBritain. From all which it is plain, that this principle ofSecedersis neither a reformation nor a revolution principle; let then the impartial world judge whence it came.
Seceders, in consequence of their contradictory and self-inconsistent system of principles, declare they cannot swear allegiance to a lawful government. They maintain the present to be lawful, yet (in Dec. of their principles,page55th) they say, "The question is not whether it be lawful for us to swear the present allegiance to the civil government, which the Presbytery acknowledge they cannot do, seeing there are no oaths to the government in being, but what exclude the oath of our covenants, and homologate the united constitution." But seeing they acknowledge that every constitution of government, that comprehends the will and consent of civil society, were it as wicked and diabolical as can be imagined, is lawful—yea, as lawful as any that is most consonant to the preceptive will of God, having all the essentials of his ordinance; and seeing, because of the will and consent of the people, they own the present to be lawful, it is most surprising why they cannot swear allegiance to it; their reasons cannot, in a consistency with their principle, be sustained as valid. That the present oaths of allegiance and the oath of the covenants are inconsistent, is readily granted; but seeing the oaths of allegiance bind to nothing more than what they confess they are bound to for conscience sake, namely, to own the lawfulness of the government, and to maintain it according to the constitution thereof (which is a duty owed by subjects to every lawful sovereign); and seeing that whatever is in the oaths of allegiance contrary to the covenants, does not flow from them, abstractly considered, but from the constitution to which they bind (which constitution is sanctified by the people's acknowledgement of it). If, therefore, the covenants forbid a duty, to which they are bound for conscience sake, their authority in that ought not to be regarded.
But certainlySeceders, who have found it duty to alter and model the covenants, according to the circumstances of the times they live in, might have found it easy work to reconcile the oath of the covenants with allegiance to a lawful government. The other part of their reason is no less ridiculous and self-contradictory, viz., "They cannot swear allegiance to the present government, because it homologates the united constitution." But is not this constitution according to the will, and by consent of, the body politic? and is it not ordained by the providential will of God? therefore, according to them, has all the essentials of a lawful constitution, which claims their protection, under pain of damnation. How great the paradox! they cannot swear allegiance, because they would bind them to acknowledge and defend a lawful constitution. Is not active obedience, is not professed subjection for conscience sake, an homologation of the constitution? Certainly they are, and that not in word only, but in deed and in truth. And what is the allegiance, but a promise to persevere in what they do daily, and what they hold as their indispensable duty to do? To grant the one, then, and refuse the other, is, in effect, to homologate or acknowledge the constitution, and not to acknowledge it, at the same time, which is a glaring absurdity.
But here, they would have people attend to their chimerical distinction between the king's civil and ecclesiastical authority. They have made a successless attempt (in order to establish their antigovernment scheme) for the overthrow of a distinction, which Heaven has irreversibly fixed, between the preceptive and providential will of God; and, for the same purpose, they will impose this distinction on the generation—a mere shift and artifice, which has no foundation nor subsistence any where else, but in their imagination, and serves for no purpose but to cheat their own and others' consciences, and betray the cause of God. It is plain, that as a power, both civil and ecclesiastical, belongs to the essence and constitution of an English diocesan bishop, so the same is declared to belong now to the essence and constitution of an English king, who is the head and chief prelate among them all; and it is their manner to call themselves his bishops (not Christ's), as having their power, both ecclesiastical and civil, immediately from him, as the fountain of all power within his dominions So that there is no room for this distinction ofSecedershere, unless they are such expert logicians, as to distinguish a thing from that which is essential to it, and so from itself; but this is a destruction, not a distinction.Secedersindeed presume and depend very much upon their abilities of this kind; for they can distinguish between the magistrate's office and its essential qualifications, which God has inseparably joined together in his word. They can distinctly pray for the head, author, authorizer and prime supporter, of abjured Prelacy and Prelates, that God would bless him in his government, and yet not pray for the Prelates themselves. They can pray very fervently and distinctly for the British and Irish parliaments, and yet not at all pray for the bishops, necessary and essential members there. And what is all this but to pray for a nonentity, a mere creature of their own mind? They have neither king nor parliament in their abstracted and imaginary sense, but do clearly distinguish themselves out of both. We might refer them to that famous and faithful embassador, and renowned martyr for the cause and testimony of Jesus, Mr.Donald Cargill, in his last speech and testimony, and let him determine the controversy (in this particular) between us. They will not be so bold as to say, that this honorable witness died with a lie in his right hand. His words are these: "As to the cause of my suffering, the main is, not acknowledging the present authority as it is now established. This is the magistracy I have rejected, that was invested with Christ's power; and seeing that power taken from Christ, which is his glory, and made the essential of the crown, I thought it was as if I had seen one wearing my husband's clothes, after he had killed him. And seeing it is made the essential of the crown, there is no distinction we can make, that can free the conscience of the acknowledger from being a partaker of this sacrilegious robbing of God. And it is but to cheat our conscience, to acknowledge the civil power, for it is not the civil power only, that is made the essential of the crown. And seeing they are so express, we must be plain; for otherwise, it is to deny our testimony, and consent to his robbery." From these words it is evident,first, that Mr. Cargill was noSeceder, or of their mind, in this particular; andsecond, that, at the time, there were some who did cheat and impose upon their own consciences, by distinguishing (where there was no room for distinction) between the king's civil and ecclesiastical authority—which distinction was condemned and testified against by all who were truly faithful to Christ and their own consciences, and tender of his honor and glory, by their unanimous rejection of that anti-christian and unlawful power; and that when they had much more reason and temptation to fly to such a subterfuge for their safety, thanSecedersnow have. And,third, from these words it is also clear, that Mr.Cargilland that poor, distressed and persecuted people that adhered to him, rejected and disclaimed the then authority, not so much because of their tyranny and mal-administrations, as on account of the unlawfulness and wickedness of the constitution itself (which was the prime original and spring of all the wickedness in the administration), namely, because the king arrogantly and sacrilegiously assumed to himself that power, which was the sole and glorious prerogative of Jesus Christ. And as to the difference thatSecedersmake between that and the present time (since the revolution), it is certain, that whatever greater degree of absolute supremacy was then assumed byCharlesII, it does not vary the kind of that claimed, or rather conferred on and exercised, by the supreme powers, since the revolution (formajus et minus non variant speciem), nor acquit them of the guilt of robbing the Son of God, Jesus Christ, of his incommunicable prerogative and supremacy in and over his church, as the only king and head thereof. Nor will the difference of times, while the constitution remains the same, while God remains the same, and truth and duty remain the same, nor yet any distinction that can be made, free the conscience of the acknowledger, more now than then, from being a partaker (art and part) with the civil power, in this sacrilegious robbery.Psal.l, 18: "When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him," &c.
But passing this: seeing the above mentioned reasons, whichSecedersallege why they cannot swear allegiance to the present government, which they assert is lawful and scriptural, cannot be sustained, some others must be sought for them: and they may be either, because they judge allegiance itself unlawful; or rather, because then they would be bound by oath to continue faithful to this government in all changes that can happen. Whereas now, they are free, and equally ready, in a full consistency with their principles, to profess their subjection to another, were it even a popish pretender. For according, to them, an infidel or papist may have a just and lawful authority over us, notwithstanding all, both the reformation and revolution laws, to the contrary. If, therefore, the legislature would, in the oaths of allegiance, insert this limitation, viz. so long as the body politic is pleased to acknowledge the supreme magistrate, they would find it easier to come over their other pretended and inconsistent difficulties. For the truth is, they cannot, in a consistency with their anti-government scheme, and with safe consciences, swear to any government, but with such limitation, in regard they cannot be sure, but he that is now owned by civil society may be rejected, and another set up, who must be acknowledged. So they would be brought into an inextricable dilemma; either they must own them both to be God's ordinance, which is absurd; or then be perjured, by rejecting him to whom they had sworn; or then incur damnation, by refusing obedience to him, who is set up by the body politic. Such is the labyrinth of confusion and contradiction this anarchical system leads into; a system that cancels all constitutions by God and men anent civil government.
8. This anti-government Seceding principle, destructive of said distinction between the providential and preceptive will of God, is both contrary to, and confuted by many approven scriptural examples; in which the Spirit of God testifies, that the actual possession of the throne, under the favor of providence, and by the consent of a majority of a nation, may be in one, while the moral power and right of government is in another. The word of God acknowledgesDavidthe rightful sovereign over allIsrael, for the space of forty years (1 Kings, ii, 11; 1 Chron. xxix, 26, 27); seven of these he is said to have reigned inHebron, and thirty-three inJerusalem. During the first seven years of his reign atHebron, there is a positive confinement of his actual rule to the tribe ofJudahonly; 2 Sam. v, 5. And at the same time,Ishboshethis said to be made king over allIsrael, and to have reigned two years. In agreeableness to Seceding principles, there is no reconciling these different texts. According to their schemeDavidcan with no propriety be said to have reigned forty years over allIsrael, seeing seven of the years were elapsed before he was actually acknowledged by allIsrael, before providence put him in the actual possession of all that extensive power. There is another known example, applicable to the present purpose, in the instance ofDavid, during the rebellion of his unnatural sonAbsalom. According to the sacred story, 2 Sam. chap, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, it appears, that he was wholly ejected, both out of the hearts and territories ofIsrael, and not only the throne, but the will and consent of the people given up toAbsalom. But wasDavidtherefore divested of his right and title? Though it is most contrary to scripture to suppose it; yet, according toSeceders, seeingAbsalomwas king, by possession of the throne, and had not only the power providentially put into his hand, but had it also by the consent of the people; it necessarily follows thatAbsalom, being a providential magistrate, his office and authority did equally arise from, and agree to the preceptive will of God, and subjection and obedience, for conscience sake, was equally due to him, as toDavid, by theIsraelitishtribes. And so it was a damnable sin inDavidto fight against him, as it could be no less than a resisting the ordinance of God. The same may be said with respect to that other revolt, by the instigation, and under the conduct ofSheba; 2 Sam. chap. xx. But although, according toSeceders, he must also have been their lawful magistrate, the Spirit of God discovers the reverse, still acknowledging the right of government in all these changes to be inDavid. Another example is in the case ofSolomon, who was ordained or designed by God expressly for the kingdom ofIsrael.Adonijahhad obtained the ascendancy, both in respect of actual possession, and the inclinations and consent of the majority of the nation; the consent was general; 1 Kings, i, 5, 7, 9, 11, 18, 25, and ii, 15. He had all to plead for himself, whichSecedersmake essential to the constitution of a lawful king. He had got to the throne by providence, and had full admission and possession, by the inclinations of the people. If then there is no distinction to be made of those who are acknowledged by civil society, into such as are so by the preceptive will of God, and such as are so by his providential will only—thenSolomonhad no right nor title to the crown; and the enterprise ofDavidandNathan, &c., of setting him on the throne, was utterly unlawful. Both they andSolomonought to have acquiesced in the duty of subjection toAdonijah, as being the ordinance of God. But this would have been opposite to the express direction of the Lord, appointing the kingdom toSolomon, "It was his from the Lord," asAdonijahhimself confessed. To the same purpose might be adduced, the instance ofJoash, the son ofAkaziah, who was kingde jure, even whenAthaliahhad not only the countenance of providence, but the consent of the people, in the possession of the kingdom; 2 Chron. xxii, 10, 12. Again, the practice of nations, in owning those for their lawful sovereigns, who, by providence, were put from the actual exercise of their rule and authority, contributes to confute this absurd notion. Thus, the people ofIsrael, who had risen up forAbsalom, do even, whenDavidwas out of the land, own him for their king. So, during theBabylonishcaptivity, there are several persons noted as princes ofJudah, whom the people owned, as having the right of government over them. With a variety of other instances, all discovering, in opposition to their anarchical system, that it is not by the dispensations of providence, that the right and title of the lawful magistrate is to be determined. Moreover, as the Associate Presbytery have so barefacedly belied the scriptures of truth, as to assert that there cannot be so much as an instance found in all the history of the Old Testament, of any civil members refusing, either by word or deed, an acknowledgment of, or subjection unto the authority of any magistrate actually in office, by the will of the civil body: besides what have been already adduced, take these few following examples of many. After thatSaul, by his disobedience to the commandment of the Lord, had forfeited his title to the kingdom, he was no more honored as king, bySamuel, the prophet; but, on the contrary, he openly testified to his face, that the Lord had rejected him from being king; 1 Sam. xv, 26-35. Though he mourned over him as one rejected, yet he no more acknowledged him as clothed with the authority as a lawful king; nay, the Lord having rejected him, reproves his prophet for mourning for him, 1 Sam. xvi, 1. From which, and the command he received to anointDavidin his stead, and that even while the civil society did acknowledge, and was subject untoSaul, it appears, that the throne ofIsraelwas then regarded, both by the Lord and his prophet, as vacant, untilDavidwas annointed; from which time, in the eye of the divine law, he was the rightful king, and ought, in consequence of the public intimation made by the prophet ofSaul'srejection, to have been acknowledged as the Lord's Anointed by the whole kingdom ofIsrael. In agreeableness whereto, the scripture informs, that not onlyDavidin expectation of the Lord's promise, resistedSaulas an unjust usurper, but many among the tribes ofIsrael, whom the Spirit of God honorably mentions, rejected the government ofSaul, and joined themselves to him that was really anointed of the Lord; 1 Chron. xii, 1-23. Now, if the Lord did command, under pain of damnation, to give loyal obedience to all in the place of supreme authority, however wicked, while acknowledged by the body politic, he would not reject such, nor command to set up others in their room, nor approve of those who disowned and resisted them. But all this is done in this instance, which of itself, is sufficient to overthrow their scheme. Another instance is in 2 Chron. xi, 13, 16, where the authority ofJeroboamis rejected and cast off, even when acknowledged and submitted to by the nation ofIsrael, by the priests andLevites, and after them, by all such as did set their hearts to seek the Lord God ofIsrael, through all the ten tribes; and this, because of his abominable wickedness. Whereby it appears a commendable duty to refuse the lawfulness of the authority of wicked occupants, though acknowledged by the majority of a nation. A similar example there is in the reign ofBaasha, who could not by all his vigilance prevent many from casting off his government; 2 Chron. xv, 9. Again, there is an express example ofElisha'sdisowning the king ofIsrael, even when the civil society owned him; 2 Kings, iii, 14, 15. He did not regulate his conduct by providence, and the will of the people, but, in opposition to both, refused him that honor that is due to all that are really kings. To these may be added that notable example ofLibnah, a city of the priests, who could not but have knowledge by the law of their God what was their duty; 2 Chron. xxi, 10. Here is an instance of a people's casting off allegiance to a king, properly because of his apostasy and intolerable wickedness, whereby they bore testimony against him, and discovered what was the duty of the whole nation, on account of his apostasy from the Lord. Their so doing was a most positive, actual and express condemnation, both ofJehoramfor his wickedness, and of the people for concurring, joining with him, and strengthening his hands in it (even asNoahby his faith and obedience is said to have condemned the antediluvian world; Heb. ix, 7.) And this their conduct and testimony the Spirit of God justifies, and records to their honor. These few of many that might be adduced, declare the impudence, as well as fallacy and imposture ofSecedersin this matter, and also justify the principles which they maliciously nick-name the anti-government scheme; and that for no other reason, but because it establishes the ordinance of magistracy among a people favored by God with divine revelation, upon his preceptive will, in opposition to their anarchical notions of setting it wholly upon the tottering basis of the corrupt will of man. And, to conclude this particular, how ridiculously absurd is it in them to insinuate, that, in the examples above, or others to be found in sacred history, those persons did, notwithstanding their own practice in rejecting the authority of wicked rulers, still view it as the duty of the rest of the nation, to acknowledge them? This is pure jargon and nonsense, contrary both to reason and religion. By what law could the opposite practices of those that disowned, and those that still continued to own the authority of unlawful rulers, be justified? It could not by the divine law, which never condemns that as sin in one, which it approves as duty in others in the same circumstances. Seeing therefore these, in the instances above, are justified, the practice of those who continued to acknowledge the lawfulness of these wicked rulers, must be regarded as condemned, both by the divine law, and also by the practices of the above persons, which do all jointly concur in witnessing, that they viewed it the duty of all the rest of the nation, to have done as they did. And from the whole, it appears a commendable duty for the Lord's people to disown the right and lawfulness of rulers set up in contradiction to the divine law.