Chapter XV: Part IV (3)

2. The _folly and shamefulness_ of it as to ourselves. How disgraceful and dishonorable is this public act in favor of Popery, even to the nation itself, and its representatives, who me the authors of it. How palpably inconsistent is it with our national character and profession as Protestant, and with our national establishments, civil and ecclesiastical (both which are professedly built upon reformation from Popery), to come to take that idolatrous religion under our national protection, and become _defenders_ of the _anti-christian_ faith; nay, were it competent for the presbytery as a spiritual court, and spiritual watchmen, to view this act in a civil light, they might show at large, that it is a violation of the fundamental national constitutions of the kingdom, and reaches a blow to the credit of the legal security granted to the Protestant religion at home. We need not here mention how contrary this act is to the fundamental laws and constitutions of the kingdom of Scotland, which are now set aside. But it is contrary to, and a manifest violation of the Revolution and British constitution itself; contrary to the Claim of Right, yea, to the oath solemnly sworn by every English and British sovereign upon their accession to the throne, as settled by an act of the English parliament in the first year of William III. By which they are obliged to "profess, and to the utmost of their power maintain, in all their dominions, the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel, and the true reformed religion established by law." But these things the presbytery leave to such whom it may more, properly concern. Let it, however, be observed that the presbytery are not here to be interpreted as approving of the abovesaid oath, as it designedly obliges to the maintenance of the abjured English hierarchy and popish ceremonies, which might better be called _a true reformed lie_, than the true reformed religion. Nevertheless, this being the British coronation oath, it clearly determines that all legal establishments behoove to be Protestant, and that without a violation of said oath, no other religion can be taken under protection of law but what is called Protestant religion only.

The presbytery conclude the whole of this additional remark with observing, That as in the former instances of the exercise of this Erastian power above mentioned, the present church of Scotland never gave evidence of her fidelity to Christ, so far as to testify against them; so their assembly has, in a like supine, senseless manner, conducted themselves with reference to this last and most alarming instance. Notwithstanding all that has been remonstrated against it, and in favor of the reformed religion, they have remained mute and silent, which indeed evidences them not to be truly deserving of the character of _venerable_ and _reverend_, which they assume to themselves, but rather that of an association; or, in the words of the weeping prophet, _an assembly of treacherous men_: Jer. ix, 2.]

[Footnote 3: See pages 68, 69, preceding.]

[Footnote 4: Mr. _Andrew Clarkson_ originally belonged to the community of Old Dissenters under the pastoral inspection of the Rev. Mr. _John McMillan_ senior; was educated and lived in communion with them, till upwards of the age of thirty years; during which time he wrote and published a book, entitled, _Plain Reasons, &c._, setting forth the grounds why Presbyterian Dissenters refused to hold communion with the revolution, church and state; but, having no prospect of obtaining license and ordination among them, in regard they had then no ordained minister belonging to them but old Mr. _McMillan_ alone, it appeared that, from a passionate desire after these privileges, he left his old friends, and made his application to the Associate Presbytery, who treated him as above narrated.]

[Footnote 5: Mr. _John Cameron_, then a probationer and clerk to their Presbytery.]

[Footnote 6: These people, referred to above, very unjustly designate themselves such _who adhere to the testimony for the kingly prerogative of Christ_. They did at first, before their agreement with the Presbytery, and ever since their elopement, do still profess to appear for what they call _An Active Testimony_, conform to the rude draft of a paper commonly known by the name of the _Queensferry Paper_ or _Covenant_ (see _Cloud of Witnesses_, Appendix, page 270). After their _activity_ had carried them the length of avouching the most inconsistent anti-predestinarian, Arminian schemes of universal redemption, and not only to a total separation from the Presbytery, and rejection of their judicial authority, but even to an open denial of the protestative mission of the ministers therein, and of all others; the most part of them were, in God's holy and righteous justice, left to receive and submit to the pretended authority and ministrations of _William Dunnet_, a deceiver, destitute of all mission and authority, whom they were afterward obliged to abandon In 1771, they published a pamphlet entitled, _A short Abstract of their Principles and Designs_. In this they cunningly evade the acknowledgment of our Confession of Faith and Catechisms, decline to own the doctrine of the holy Trinity in _unity_, and do professedly adopt and avow the hypothesis of the famous modern Socinian, Dr. _Taylor, of Norwich_, anent the person of Christ. According to which he is no more than "a glorious being, truly created by God before the world." This pre-existent creature they call a _superangelic_ spirit; which spirit, coming in time to be united to a human body, makes according to them, the person of Christ. A person neither truly God nor truly man, but a sort of being different from both. The absurdity and blasphemy of this hypothesis needs no elucidation. Thus they idolatrously worship _another_ god than the Scripture reveals, and blasphemously substitute and trust in _another_ savior than the gospel offers unto sinners. In the same pamphlet they declare and publish their resolution to take some of their number under formal trials, whom, upon being approved, they might appoint and send forth to preach the gospel and administer the ordinances of it. And all which they have accordingly done, to the great dishonor of God, reproach of religion, and the profession of it.

And now, from the above principles and practices, the reader may justly conclude how unworthily these Christians (if they may be called such) profess to stand up for the royal prerogatives of Christ. What an arrogant and presumptuous invasion upon, and usurpation of, the powers and prerogatives of this glorious King, for any mortal to assume "to appoint and call men," not to the _work_ (which yet is all that the Church of Christ, according to the will of God, and her privileges from Christ her head, ever claimed), but to the very _power_ and _office_ of the holy ministry, "and to _install_ them in it." Besides, that their doctrine as to Christ's person, which denies his divine nature and sonship, saps the very foundations of _that_ and all his other offices. We would, therefore, yet beseech them, by the mercies of God, "to repent them of all their wickedness, and to pray God, if perhaps the thoughts of their heart may be forgiven them."]

[Footnote 7: It has been complained by some, that the sense of both the members of this particular paragraph is obscure, and not so intelligible as it should be to many readers; but this complaint seems rather to arise from the want of proper attention and consideration, than from any other cause. As to the first branch of the sentence, Among--"Such actions and things as are necessary, and in themselves just and lawful by a moral obligation"--may be reckoned the payment of county tolls on highways and bridges, for the benefit of an easy and commodious passage--keeping watch in cities which have no settled or regular guard, to prevent public damage by fire or otherwise. In like manner, the payment of custom in public markets or fairs, or of town dues, all of which, being intended for the benefit of public corporations, are given or paid as the price of liberty and privilege of trade and commerce. And to this may be added, such necessary instances of _self-defense_ as a person may be obliged to, when maliciously and villanously attacked in his character or goods, by persons perhaps designedly taking advantage of his Christian temper, or profession. Or when perhaps a person may be maliciously charged with, and prosecuted for crimes not only peculiarly dishonorable to religion, but even capital, as has been the case with some individuals. In all such cases, self-defense at law becomes necessary before the ordinary courts and judges of any nation, or place of the world whatever, when such defenses are admitted without the formal and explicit acknowledgment of the lawfulness of unjust or usurped authority (when such happens to be in place, as in the instance of Paul's appeal to Caesar, Acts xxv), or acting any otherwise contrary to justice and charity. And with regard to the other branch of the sentence where it is observed--"That a difference ought to made between those things that cannot be had, nor yet the value and equivalent of them, unless the person actually give it," &c.: This is sufficiently explained in a paragraph, page 163, near the foot. Prayers for God's blessing on any government--enlisting and bearing arms in their service--accepting offices and places of power from them--swearing oaths of fidelity to them, &c.--are such things as can by no means be got, nor yet the equivalent of them, unless the party actually consents and grants them. These, therefore, and, such like, are the only instances of action which, the Presbytery judge, do, in their own nature, contain and express a proper and explicit acknowledgment of the lawfulness of that authority which they immediately respect.]