6. The presbytery testify against both church and state, for their sinful a.s.sociations 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 friends.h.i.+p to a covenanted reformation. And, moreover, all along since the late Revolution, the nations have been the most earnest pursuing after friends.h.i.+p with the grossest idolators; and, in express contradiction to the word of G.o.d, have confederated in the closest alliance with G.o.d'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 with _England_: 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 superst.i.tious 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 be _custos et vindex utriusque tabulae_; the minister of G.o.d, 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 superst.i.tious observation of holy-days, even in _Scotland_, is so much authorized, that on some of them the most considerable courts of justice are discharged to sit. Stage-plays, masquerades, b.a.l.l.s, a.s.semblies, 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 superst.i.tion: and though Prelacy, as well as Popery, is growing apace in the lands, and organs publicly used in that superst.i.tious wors.h.i.+p; yet no testimony is given against them, but new modes introduced into the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, for carnal ends, as a gradual advance toward that superst.i.tion. 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 const.i.tutions Erastian and anti-scriptural, including the subst.i.tution 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 const.i.tution 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 a.s.sociation as that G.o.d'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."

SUPPLEMENT TO PART SECOND.

For as much as a good number of people in the north of _Ireland_ have 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 of _Scotland_), there needs nothing be further said anent it.

And as those called Presbyterians in _Ireland_, are equally enemies to the true covenanted Presbyterian cause with those of the Revolution Church of _Scotland_; so the above testimony equally strikes against them with the other. There seems, however, to be this considerable difference betwixt the Presbyterians in _Scotland_ and _Ireland, 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 in _Ireland_ neither having, nor claiming any other security or foundation for their different mode of religious wors.h.i.+p 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 G.o.d 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 of _Libertines_, a club of _Socinians, 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 called _Newlight_, 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 d.a.m.nable 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.dly, blameless and harmless as the sons of G.o.d, without rebuke, adorning the gospel of Christ with a conversation becoming the same; so shall they thereby glorify G.o.d, 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.

PART III.

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 wors.h.i.+p, 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 the _Secession_, 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 of _Scotland_; 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 G.o.dliness among not a few. But as _Paul_ withstood _Peter_ to 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 G.o.dly, and such as may have been very useful to the church in many respects, in so far as they have not showed themselves _earnest contenders for the faith once delivered to the saints_, but have dealt treacherously with G.o.d 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 t.i.tle of _The a.s.sociate Presbytery_ (and then that of _The a.s.sociate 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 princ.i.p.al ground of their secession therefrom. But by taking a narrower view of the principles and doctrines which they have roundly and plainly a.s.serted, 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 G.o.d, and the real good of human and religious society, or the church of G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sages, to be found in a print ent.i.tled, _Answers by the a.s.sociate Presbytery to reasons of dissent, &c.--Page_ 70. "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.--_Page_ 74. Whatever magistrates any civil state acknowledged, were to be subjected to throughout the same.--_Page_ 50. 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 it _sine 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 the _next_ place, it cannot be a condition of it _sine 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d.--_P._ 88. The precepts already explained (_Prov._ xxiv, 21; _Eccl._ x, 4; _Luke_ xx, 25; _Rom._ xiii, 1-8; _t.i.t._ 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 pa.s.sages, 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, const.i.tute a lawful magistrate, without regard had to the divine law. 2.

That the law of G.o.d in the scriptures of truth, has no concern with the inst.i.tution of civil government, but only adds its precept in forcing obedience upon the conscience of every individual, under the pain of eternal d.a.m.nation, 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 the _primores 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 G.o.d also, in regard that G.o.d, 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 unbia.s.sed 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, respecting the inst.i.tution, const.i.tution, 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 G.o.d, and ordained of G.o.d. The divine ordination of magistracy is the alone formal reason of subjection thereto, and that which makes it a d.a.m.nable sin to resist. So the apostle teacheth, _Rom._ xiii, 1, &c.: "There is no power but of G.o.d; the powers that be, are ordained of G.o.d." Not only is it the current sentiment of orthodox divines upon the place, but the text and context make it undeniably evident, that by _power_ here, 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 G.o.d, as importing, not merely the proceeding of the thing from G.o.d providentially, but such a being from G.o.d, as carries in it his inst.i.tuting or appointing thereof, by the warrant of his word, law, or precept. So that that power which is to be owned as of G.o.d, includes these two particulars, without which, no authority can be acknowledged as G.o.d's ordinance, viz., inst.i.tution and const.i.tution, so as to possess him, who is G.o.d's minister, with a moral power. In the divine inst.i.tution 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 const.i.tution of the power, or the determination of the form, and invest.i.ture of the particular person with the government, is of G.o.d: hence our Savior, _John_ x, 35, in his application of these words in the _Psalms_, "I said, ye are G.o.ds," to magistrates, shows how they were G.o.ds, "because unto them the word of G.o.d came;" that is, by his word and warrant he authorized them; his const.i.tution is pa.s.sed 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 G.o.d. But that government that is not consonant to the divine inst.i.tution, 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 G.o.d. It is not merely the conveying the imperial dignity by men unto any particular person, that const.i.tutes the power to be of G.o.d; but because, and in so far as this is done by virtue of a warrant from G.o.d and in agreeableness to his law that the action has the authority of G.o.d 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 G.o.d's ordinance: this must needs be granted, unless it is maintained that G.o.d 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 const.i.tute a lawful magistrate, such as can be acknowledged G.o.d's ordinance. That power which in its inst.i.tution and const.i.tution is of G.o.d, 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. _Seceders_ maintain, 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 G.o.d, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers." This counsel of Jethro, was G.o.d'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 G.o.d's direction, that the person advanced to rule, must be _a man in whom is the spirit; Numb._ xxvii, 18; which _Deut._ x.x.xiv, 9, interprets to be _the 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 G.o.d 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 of _Israel_, not such as are known to be haters of, and disaffected to the _Israel_ of G.o.d. 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 circ.u.mscribed in their choice to him, whom the Lord their G.o.d 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 G.o.d pointed out to them in his law, particularly in the text before cited (for whatever G.o.d's word approves of and chooses, that G.o.d 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 const.i.tution, and in the most positive manner, restricts not only the people of the _Jews_, 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 2 _Sam._ xxiii, 2, 3, 4: "The spirit of the Lord spake by me--the G.o.d of _Israel_ said,--he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of G.o.d."--So _Job_ x.x.xiv, 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 unG.o.dly?" In which words, while _Elihu_ is charging _Job_ with blasphemy, in accusing G.o.d of injustice, declaring that if he made G.o.d 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 a.s.serted and affirmed, that he that hateth right should not govern. Again, 1 _Cor._ 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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. _Seceders_ indeed grant, that G.o.d 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 G.o.d, in regard it must not be supposed, that a G.o.d of infinite wisdom and goodness, who does nothing in vain, has inst.i.tuted 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 ill.u.s.tration, far less for a proof of their doctrine. Nor is there any comparison, unless they can prove, that G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d's ordinance inst.i.tuted in his word; or then says, that he hath inst.i.tuted ordinances in his revealed will, without prescribing any qualifications as essential to their being, but entirely left the const.i.tution of them to the will of man. But how absurd is this, and derogatory to the glory of G.o.d, in all his perfections, who is a G.o.d 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 unG.o.dly 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, _t.i.t._ i, 7, 8; 1 _Tim._ 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d,--have subjection and obedience equally, under the same pains, required to them respectively, (as _Deut_. xvii. 9 to 13; 2 _Chron_. 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 how _Seceders_ will reconcile their principles anent civil government, with their principle and practice, in separating from an established church or ministry, whose const.i.tution 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 G.o.d, they would have acted in this case agreeably to their declared principle, page 79th of their pamphlet, viz.: "The pa.s.sages 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." _Seceders_ must 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 n.o.ble 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 G.o.d has required, while they are acknowledged and submitted to by their const.i.tuents, must be equally regarded as G.o.d'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 G.o.d; and what is this (_absit blasphemia_), but to exalt man above G.o.d, in giving unto the universal Sovereign and Supreme Lawgiver, only a consultative power in the const.i.tution of magistracy, while it ascribes unto man an absolute and definitive power, whereby they have power to receive or reject the law of G.o.d (at least respecting magistracy) at pleasure, and their deed of const.i.tution 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 G.o.d, 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 s.h.i.+fts _Seceders_ are driven to in defense of their favorite notion, they say, that scriptural qualifications cannot be essential to G.o.d's ordinance of magistracy, or necessarily required as a condition of it _sine 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 G.o.d'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 of _Adam_, that ever exercised that office, but themselves also, of any real mission, as ministers, unless they have a.s.sumed the Pope's infallibility, and are advanced to the _Moravian_ perfection. 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 const.i.tution 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 G.o.d's inst.i.tution, who are in some measure possessed of these qualifications. It is therefore an anti-scriptural tenet, that nothing is requisite to const.i.tute 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d." 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 G.o.d, while the distinction thereof is clearly and inviolably established in the word of G.o.d! 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 G.o.d in the scriptures of truth is silent, there providence regulates not, is neither inst.i.tutive, nor declarative of G.o.d'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. (See _Gee_ on 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d infallibly brings to pa.s.s, 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 be _perfect_: _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._ x.x.x. 1, 2, 3, 11. It is therefore daring presumption to set up providence for a rule in opposition to the written law of G.o.d. Hence it must be concluded, either that the preceptive will of G.o.d 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 G.o.d is to be overthrown, then providence must be expressive of G.o.d's approbative ordination, equally as his revealed will is. For, without this (viz. the divine approbation), there can be no lawful t.i.tle to what is possessed. But this is what providence of itself cannot do; it cannot without the precept discover either G.o.d's allowance or disallowance. If then this distinction is denied, and the providential will of G.o.d a.s.serted 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 G.o.d for such an end, an end that is by the Spirit of G.o.d denied unto it: _Eccl._ ix, 1, 2, 4. If this distinction is to be overthrown, then either the providential will of G.o.d, without any regard to the precept, in every case, and in every sort of tenure, gives a just and lawful right and t.i.tle; or G.o.d 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, G.o.d'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 G.o.d hath made such a law touching magistracy? But how big with absurdities, to say, that a holy G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 of _Rome_, the devil's captain-general, to display his h.e.l.lish 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 for _Seceders_ to 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 const.i.tution 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 d.a.m.nable sin, _Rom._ xiii, 2, must be justified and made the foundation of subsequent duty, if patronized by a mult.i.tude. 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 the _primores regni_, is rebellion against G.o.d. 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 G.o.d's minister, next day hath no t.i.tle 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 the _primores regni_, and thereby mounted the _British_ throne; _Seceders_ must then, of necessity, either have quit their present principles, or then have subjected to his yoke for conscience sake, under the pain of eternal d.a.m.nation. His being a professed Papist, and enslaved va.s.sal of _Rome_, 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 G.o.d, making the t.i.tle 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, const.i.tute a lawful magistrate, then (though he rules ever so agreeable to G.o.d'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 t.i.tle 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 the _anti-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, const.i.tutions 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 G.o.d 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 const.i.tutions, if this vague principle is once admitted, which cancels and disannuls all such provisos and acts? Why should _Moses_ have been so solicitous about his successor in the government of _Israel, Numb._ xxvii, 15-17, if G.o.d had ordained the inclinations of the people alone should determine? Or to what purpose did _Israel_, after the death of _Joshua_, ask of G.o.d, who should be their leader, if their own inclinations alone were sufficient to determine it? If G.o.d has declared, that the corrupt will of the people is the alone basis of civil power, then, not only are all state const.i.tutions 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 G.o.d 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 which _Seceders_ have 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 const.i.tutions 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 const.i.tution, none could be admitted to the place or places of civil authority, but such as professed, and outwardly practiced, according to reformation principles.

See _Act_ 15th, _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 G.o.d'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 what _Seceders_ would have us caressing, embracing and (with them) blessing G.o.d for, under the notion of a present good; and so bless G.o.d 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 G.o.d of our fathers; to bless him (for what is matter of lamentation) that the adversaries of _Zion_ are 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 const.i.tution, 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 const.i.tution of a lawful sovereign in _Britain_. From all which it is plain, that this principle of _Seceders_ is 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, _page_ 55th) 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 h.o.m.ologate the united const.i.tution." But seeing they acknowledge that every const.i.tution 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 G.o.d, 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 const.i.tution 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 const.i.tution to which they bind (which const.i.tution 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 certainly _Seceders_, who have found it duty to alter and model the covenants, according to the circ.u.mstances 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 h.o.m.ologates the united const.i.tution." But is not this const.i.tution according to the will, and by consent of, the body politic? and is it not ordained by the providential will of G.o.d? therefore, according to them, has all the essentials of a lawful const.i.tution, which claims their protection, under pain of d.a.m.nation. How great the paradox! they cannot swear allegiance, because they would bind them to acknowledge and defend a lawful const.i.tution. Is not active obedience, is not professed subjection for conscience sake, an h.o.m.ologation of the const.i.tution?

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 h.o.m.ologate or acknowledge the const.i.tution, 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 G.o.d; and, for the same purpose, they will impose this distinction on the generation--a mere s.h.i.+ft 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 G.o.d. It is plain, that as a power, both civil and ecclesiastical, belongs to the essence and const.i.tution of an English diocesan bishop, so the same is declared to belong now to the essence and const.i.tution 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 of _Seceders_ here, 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.

_Seceders_ indeed 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 nonent.i.ty, 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 emba.s.sador, 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 G.o.d. 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 no _Seceder_, or of their mind, in this particular; and _second_, that, at the time, there were some who did cheat and impose upon their own consciences, by distinguis.h.i.+ng (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, than _Seceders_ now have. And, _third_, from these words it is also clear, that Mr. _Cargill_ and that poor, distressed and persecuted people that adhered to him, rejected and disclaimed the then authority, not so much because of their