John Willison · 6 of 19

Testimony · Part 4

We do here join with the church in testifying against such a boundless toleration, as being contrary to the word of God, and the practice of reforming magistrates and churches therein commended: as in 2 Chron. xxxiv. 33. Rev. ii. 2. and to these texts wherein such a toleration is reproved, as Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20. as also it is contrary to our Confession of Faith, chap. 23. and to our Larger Catechism upon the 2nd commandment.

At the same time there was another distressing bill presented in the parliament for restoring of patronages, and repealing the act 1690, which gave liberty to parishes to call their own ministers.—This also carried against the church, notwithstanding of the common’s address, which was in like manner approven by the assembly. In this address they plead and assert, That

the act 1690, abolishing patronages, is a part of our Presbyterian constitution, ratified by the acts of parliament of both kingdoms in the treaty of union, and declared to be unalterable: That, from our first reformation from Popery, patronages have still been reckoned a yoke and burden upon this church; and this is declared by the first and second books of Discipline: that the restoring of them will inevitably obstruct the work of the gospel, and create great disorders and disquiet in this church and nation; and that there is one known abuse attending patronages, viz. the laying a foundation for Simoniacal pactions betwixt patrons and those presented by them.

Though this did not avail to stop the bill, yet it was a plain testimony from the church against Patronages; which we cannot but approve and adhere to.

Likewise we approve of that noble testimony which the general assembly gave against both the toleration, and patronages, May 14th 1715, when they approved a memorial concerning them, which they appointed to be sent to the duke of Montrose principal secretary of state, most humbly entreatng him to lay it before the king, viz. King George I. The tenor of it is as follows:

The church of Scotland, being restored at the happy revolution, was by the claim of right, and acts of parliament following thereupon, established in its doctrine, worship discipline and government; and, that this legal constitution and establishment might be unalterably secured, it was declared to be a fundamental and essential condition of the union, and accordingly ratified in the parliaments of both kingdoms. But the zeal of the established church of Scotland for, and their steady adherence to, the Protestant succession, did expose them to the resentments of a disaffected party. And now they account themselves aggrieved by some acts past in the parliament of Great Britain; as 1mo, By the act granting such a large and almost boundless toleration to these of the Episcopal persuasion in Scotland, while the liberty allowed to Protestant Dissenters in England (who had always given the most satisfying proofs of their undoubted zeal and good affection to the Protestant succession) was retrenched. And though the church of Scotland hath an equal security in a legal establishment with that of England, yet there is a vast inequality as to the toleration of the respective Dissenters. In Scotland the toleration doth not restrain the desseminating the most dangerous errors, by requiring a Confession of Faith, or subscription to the doctrinal articles of the established church, as is required of Dissenters in England: it also weakeneth the discipline of the church against “the scandalous and profane; by withdrawing the concurrence of the civil magistrate. It is also an inequality and hardship upon the established church of Scotland, that these of her communion who are employed in his majesty’s service in England or Ireland, should be obliged to join in communion and conformity to the church of England; whereas conformity to this church is not required (nor do we plead that it should be) of members of the church of England, when called to serve his majesty in Scotland, who here enjoy the full liberty of Dissenters without molestation; and the common and equal privileges of the subjects of the united kingdom, stipulated by the union, do claim the same liberty to the members of the church of Scotland, when employed in his majesty’s service in England and Ireland. 2do, By the act restoring the power of presentation to patrons, the legally established constitution of this church was altered in a very important point: and while it appears equitable in itself, and agreeable to the liberty of Christians and a free people, to have interest in the choice of these to whom they intrust the care of their souls, is an hardship to be imposed upon in so tender a point, and that frequently, by patrons who have no property nor residence in the parishes; and this besides the snares of Simoniacal pactions [a “Simoniacal paction” is the buying or selling of ecclesiastical pardons, offices, or emoluments via an agreement or bargain.], and the many troubles and contests arising from the power of patronages, and the abuses thereof, by disaffected patrons putting their power into other hands, who as effectually serve their purposes; by patrons competing for the right of presentation in the same parish; and by frequently presenting ministers settled in eminent posts to mean and small parishes, to elude the planting thereof: By all which, parishes are often kept long vacant, to the great hindrance of the progress of the gospel.

Although the church of Scotland was brought under the distress enough by the toleration and patronages, yet, to add to it, the oath of abjuration was also imposed upon the ministers thereof in the year 1712. This occasioned a great question among them, and much writing upon it, whether the conditions or qualifications required of the successor to the crown, in the act so of parliament settling the succession, of which this is on that he must join in communion with the church of England, be understood as any part of the oath, or not? These who were not clear to take it, apprehended these conditions might be reckoned a part of the oath, because in it they were to swear to maintain the succession AS entailed by such acts of parliament, in which these conditions were contained. Others again understood these conditions as no part of the oath, seeing when the oath was first framed in the English parliament in the year 1701, and a clause was offered to be added to it for maintaining the church of England, it was rejected, because the Dissenters could not take it: and at the union the parliament had expressly exeemed these of this church from all oaths inconsistent with their principles: and consequently, that the AS in the oath was not reduplicative upon the qualifications of the successor, but merely indicative, as only pointing out the act wherein the succession was settled, and the illustrious family and persons on whom it was entailed failing the heirs of king William, queen Anne and her heirs, g&c.g And therefore they understood that the oath brought them under no other obligation, but to allegiance to the sovereign, and to an engagement against a Popish pretender, and to the succession in the Protestant line: and, to prevent mistakes and misrepresentations they might be liable to in this matter, they resolved to give in written declarations to this purpose upon instrument, at taking of the oath, which generally they did. At this time the commission addressed the queen (as also did the assembly) in favours of these who still scrupled at the oath, as if the AS in it did some way refer to the conditions required of the successor, that such might be favourably dealt with, as her loyal subjects. As also they petitioned her, that their declarations of loyalty to the queen, their renouncing the Pretender, and engagements to support the succession to the crown in the Protestant line in the family of Hanover, as contained in their address, might be accepted by her as their sense of the said oath, without respect to the condition scrupled at.—In answer thereto, the queen, in her letter to the assembly, declared that the address of the commission did so much manifest their loyalty to her, and their true concern for the succession in the Protestant line by law established, that it could not but be acceptable. This answer did very much confirm these who judged that the AS in the oath did not reduplicate upon the qualifications of the successor, and gave freedom to many to take it.

After king George I came to the throne, and understood our difficulties by the representation of assembly 1715, and former addresses, he interposed for the relief of these who scrupled at the oath, and got the parliament to turn the AS into WHICH, as also to declare that the oath was not meant to oblige his majesty’s subjects in Scotland to any thing inconsistent with their church establishment according to law. This removed the scruples of many; but nevertheless there were not a few worthy ministers who remained uneasy and scrupulous upon account there was still mention, made in the oath of the act of parliament that required the conditions of the successor, and therefore wanted to have it wholly taken out of the oath. Which, upon application, the king was so good as to grant, by an act of parliament in the 5th year of his reign.—Thus did the Lord in his mercy settle the great commotions that were in the church by reason of that oath, and extricate her out of some of her difficulties; yea, so far, that the most strict and zealous ministers in Scotland were brought to declare both from the pulpit and the press, that the embracing or refusing the oath of abjuration did not afford the least ground for separation.

It is remarkable, that in the midst of all these grievances and pressures which the church groaned under, the Lord did not suffer her to sink.—The times indeed became very cloudy and dark; the church’s friends were turned out of place, and her enemies were exalted in power; Jacobites were put in places of highest trust, and many of them became so insolent, as to maltreat and abuse the ministers of the gospel, and sometimes to cause burn at market-crosses the acts of synods for fasts, because in them they appointed prayers to be made for maintaining the Protestant succession, and for defeating the designs and plots then forming for overturning it, and for bringing in a Popish Pretender. Yet even then the Lord inspired the commission with courage and resolution to emit their famous seasonable warning at their meeting 19th August 1713, which was read from the pulpits; wherein they obtest all good Protestants and lovers of their country to look to themselves, that they be not deluded by the subtile devices of a Jacobite party, who would bring us under the yoke of a Popish Pretender.—Here the commission mention their artifices at large; one whereof is, They with great appearance of zeal, espouse and promote the English liturgy through the land, though neither they nor their fathers would receive it heretofore; and at the same they omit all, the prayers for queen Anne and princess Sophia.—Likewise they make a great outcry, especially in distant places, of their having suffered grievous persecutions because of their being of the Episcopal persuasion though withhout ground. Blessed be God (say they) we ran appeal to the consciences of all who know our conduct, that we have never since the late happy revolution in the least returned the severities, and unparalleled cruelties, which we met with when they had the ascendant; and which we from their present temper, as well as from their former behaviour may reasonably conclude they want nothing but power to renew against the ministers and members of this church.—Wherefore they, seriously obtest and beseech all ranks of persons to humble themselves deeply under the many sad causes and tokens of the Lord’s anger, and turn to him with all their hearts, and flee to the blood of sprinkling for reconciliation, and pray earnestly to God to disappoint the designs and hopes of a Popish and Jacobite party, preserve the Protestant succession in the house of Hanover, sanctify the troubles which have afflicted our Zion, and turn us from all these sins which have procured them, &c.

And glory be to a prayer hearing God, who soon blasted all the Jacobites’ plots and hopes, and made the Protestant succession take place, by the accession of K. George I within less than a year, to the of this poor oppressed church, and of all true Protestants.

Towards the end of the queen’s reign the Jacobites turned so uppish, that they encouraged Episcopal ministers to intrude into vacant churches, and ministers and preachers who were sent to preach in them were rabbled. They and their preachers did publicly solemnize the Pretender’s birth day, set up bonfires, drink his health as king before great multitudes, and confusion to all the Presbyterians. But upon the accession of king George I these riots and insults were suppressed, and the laws and good order began again to take place. The church represented her grievances from the laws lately made; but the breaking out of the rebellion in 1715 put a stop to designs of that sort for a time. Until then, there were a good number of Episcopal ministers continued in churches through the North; but they, joining with others in that rebellion, were soon afterwards turned out. The Lord was pleased again to pity us, and work a great deliverance for us: for though the Jacobite and Popish party rose of a sudden, and gathered together in great numbers, threatening to carry all before them, to cut off our sovereign king George and all the friends of the Protestant succession, attacked the king’s forces, and killed many; yet the Lord soon brake all their measures, poured shame upon their attempt, and made many of them flee their native country: so that in a wonderful manner God delivered us from the bloody sword, and the cruel designs of Papists and Jacobites, and restored peace in all our borders, in the year 1716.

It might have been expected, that such astonishing mercies and deliverances would have produced humility and thankfulness to God, have led us to repentance and reformation, and have animated our zeal for God and his truths, and our activity to get the church’s grievances redressed, when such a fit opportunity seemed to offer.—But, alas! we became unthankful to God, and soon for got his goodness; we turned secure and confident under king George’s protection and favour, and began to lose that zeal for preserving the purity of doctrine and worship, for suppressing error and immorality, and for the advancement of religion and godliness, which former assemblies manifested. Now our old zealous suffering ministers were generally gone off the stage, and a woeful lukewarmeness and indifferency began to seize upon the following generation.

At this time there was a great noise of Mr. John Simson, Professor of Divinity at Glasgow, his venting and teaching Arminian doctrine and gross errors. The worthy Mr. James Webster, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, having conversed with him thereupon, was the first that complained of him: And he was therefore appointed to process him before the presbytery of Glasgow; though it seems hard that Mr. Webster should have been burthened with an affair which was the common cause of the church. But Mr. Webster’s appeal, the libel he gave in against Mr. Simson, and Mr. Simson’s answer thereto, came before the assembly 1716, who remitted the same to a committee to consider the whole process, and to make a full and distinct report to the next assembly. In Mr. Simson’s answer to this libel, and his letters to Mr. Rowan, there were found several very dangerous errors, contrary to the word of God, and our Confession of Faith and Catechisms; such as,

That there is nothing to be admitted in religion, but what is consonant to reason.— That regard to our own happiness in the enjoyment of God ought to be our chief motive in serving him; and that our glorifying God is subordinate to it.—That the Heathen may know by the light of nature, that there is a remedy for sin provided; and if they would pray sincerely for the discovery of the way of salvation, God would grant it to them.—That if men would with diligence, sincerity and faith use the means for obtaining saving grace, God has promised to grant it: and that the using of the means in the foresaid manner is not above the reach of our natural powers.—That there was no proper covenant made with Adam for himself and his posterity; and that he was not our federal head.—That it is inconsistent with God’s justice and goodness to create souls wanting original righteousness; and that the souls of infants since the fall are created pure and holy.—That it is probable there are more of mankind saved than damned; And it is more than probable that baptized infants, dying in infancy are all saved.—That there is no sinning in hell after the last ‘judgment,’ &c.

All which erroneous scheme of doctrine is fully refuted and exposed by the reverend Mr. John Flint and Mr. John M’Claren, both ministers of Edinburgh, in two different books, the one written in Latin, and the other in English, to which Mr. Simson never offered any reply.—Mr. Simson, when before the assembly and their committee, declared his adherence to our Confession of Faith, and studied to put senses upon his doctrine to make it seem to agree therewith, and made use of very subtile distinctions for that end: but such hath been the zeal sometimes of our assemblies against error and for purity of doctrine, that they would have had no great difficulty to have agreed that Mr. Simson, or any man that vented or taught such doctrine as above, was not fit to be continued a professor of divinity, to instruct and train up young men for the holy ministry.—But, when his process came to be finished by assembly 1717, there were so many members in it, who either had been his scholars, or were his relations, comrades or acquaintances, who stood up for saving him, that the assembly were brought to dismiss him with a very gentle censure, by their 9th act; wherein they only say,

He hath given offence, and hath vented some opinions not necessary to be taught in divinity, and that hath given more occasions to strife, than to the promoting of edification: That he hath used some expressions that bear and are used by adversaries in a bad and sound sense, though he doth disown that unsound sense. And, for answering more satisfyingly, (as he supposeth) the cavils and objections of adversaries, he hath adopted some hypothesis different from what we commonly used among orthodox divines, that are not evidently founded on Scripture, and tend to attribute too much to natural reason, and the power of corrupt nature; which undue advancement of reason and nature is always to the disparagement of revelation and efficacious free grace. The general assembly, for the reasons above mentioned, prohibits and discharges the said Mr. John Simson to use such expressions, or to teach, preach, or otherwise vent such opinions, propositions, or hypothesis as foresaid.

But, as a just rebuke upon the assembly for their lenity, Mr. Simson persisted in his unsound doctrine, contemned their sentence, and still went on in a course of error, till in a few years he is arraigned before the assembly for Arianism.

About this time there arose debates and great noise, as if some ministers were bringing in a new scheme of doctrine, because in their sermons they disused and censured several old approven words and phrases as too legal, and affected some new modes of speaking; and because they recommended to their people an old book called the Marrow of modern Divinity.—This book was laid before the assembly 1620, as containing gross Antimonian [Antinomian] errors; and several passages and propositions being excerpted from it by a committee, the assembly proceeded in a hurry to pass a condemnatory act against them all in cumulo; and, among the rest, they condemned as erroneous two propositions, viz. That believers are altogether set free from the law as a covenant of works;—And that they are set free both from the commanding and condemning, power of the covenant of works. Which two are surly sound and orthodox propositions in themselves.—Likewise that same assembly, by another act, recommended to ministers to insist in preaching several doctrines, and among others,—the necessity of a holy life in order to the obtaining of everlasting happiness. This certainly was very ill worded, however sound their meaning was.

Although there were several stumbling and unjustifiable expressions in that book called the Marrow, g&c.g yet before the assembly had proceeded to pass their acts concerning them, it had been their wisdom, to have first remitted them (as in other cases) to the consideration of Presbyteries; which happy step would have prevented the oversight or mistakes of the assembly aforementioned, and consequently the Twelve brethrens’ representation against the foresaid acts, given in to the assembly 1721, which was once likely to have landed in a schism. But it must be owned, that, when the assembly 1722 came to review and explain these hasty acts past in 1720, they did justice to truth, and declared their minds, concerning, the acts and propositions quarrelled, in very sound and orthodox terms.—And particularly, as to the necessity of holiness for obtaining everlasting happiness, they declare the expression is meant of obtaining the enjoyment and possession, of everlasting happiness, but not of the right and title to it, which (they say) all justified persons have already attained, viz. through the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Thus peace and truth were preserved in the church at that time.

No doubt it had been much for the interest of truth, as well as the honour of our assemblies, that they had manifested as much zeal against other erroneous books which have been published or recommended before or since that time by other ministers of this church, and some of them far more dangerous than the Marrow, such as Dr. Whitchcot’s sermons, &c. Oh that our ancient and trite zeal for truth and purity, and against all kind of error and corruption, were again happily revived in the land!—But, alas! how little ground have we in an ordinary way to expect any national reviving or reformation in the church and land, while the flood gates of error and corruption are still kept wide open by the laws for the Toleration and Patronages?

In consequence of applications to the king by the church, some amendments were made upon these laws by the parliament in 1719; As, 1mo, They discharged any person to preach or pray in any Episcopal meeting house in Scotland, that did not pray for king George, and take the abjuration oath, under the pain of six months imprisonment, and having the meeting house shut up. This act, had it been executed, would have put a stop to many of the erroneous Jacobite preachers; but not being executed against them, they still went on in disseminating many popish errors through the land.

2do, The parliament enacted, That presentations given by patrons to vacant churches shall be effect, if the person presented do not accept or declare his willingness to accept of the presentation given him.—By which act the parliament put it (as it were) in the church’s power to ease herself of the great grievance of patronage; which was ground of joy to many: for, at that time, it was generally thought that this limitation was equivalent to plain repealing of the patronage act, and that no Presbyterian would ever expressly declare his accepting of a presentation, or go so far to approve or comply with patronage, which Presbyterians had always declared heavy yoke and burden on the church of God. And accordingly there was no man that presumed to take, accept or make use of a presentation to a church for several years after this act was past; and so the church was easy, and continued to settle vacant churches upon the call of congregations, without any molestation from patrons.

During this lucid interval, the church seemed to turn secure, as if she feared no danger from the acceptance of presentations; and therefore was at no pains to shut or bar the door against such acceptances. Had this been done, the church was effectually delivered by the foresaid favourable act from the yoke of patronage. Now was the proper juncture for our assemblies to have made a new declaration, in corroboration of what former assemblies had done, concerning the woful corruption and evil consequences of patronage; and to have warned all the members of this church of the evil of encouraging or promoting the same, and particularly all ministers and preachers of the sin and danger of complying with this corruption, by accepting of presentations; especially seeing there was no law requiring it as necessary, but, by the late act of parliament, an open door was left for their entering into churches in a gospel way, if they pleased to chuse and accept of it. No doubt, if things had been set in such clear light by our general assemblies, the authority of the church would have restrained these woful acceptances.—But, alas! while the church slept, the enemy was busy sowing his tares, and prompting some to devise subtile conditional acceptances, wherein they might disapprove of patronages, and declare for Presbyterian principles with respect to the people’s rights, and yet, in the mean time, take such hold of the stipend presented to, that another could not make a legal title to it. When this was complained of to superior judicatories, some leading men, alas! were found to patronize these accepters, till at length they proceeded to the most open and barefaced acceptances. For these practices indeed some preachers were censured and silenced, but they were reponed [replaced] by superior courts; whereby at length acceptances went on without controul. So that, by such defections, the yoke of patronage is faster wreathed upon the church than ever, and her condition under it more lamentable than in any former period: for informer times all honest men groaned under patronage as a burden; and though they were presented by patrons to churches, yet they neither said nor wrote any thing in favour of the patron’s deed, but silently submitted the presbyteries proceeding to their settlement, when they had parishes concurring in it: but, alas! By such active written acceptances as now in use, the whole church shall in process of time be involved in approving of patronages, in such away as was never done by the church of Scotland since the reformation.

Wherefore we judge it the duty of all the lovers of truth and purity in the church of God, to bear open testimony against the yoke of patronage, and the acceptance of presentations, as we herebv desire to do, especially seeing they have been productive of such dreadful evils in this church of late years.

It is well known that the church of Scotland hath ever since her reformation remonstrated against patronages, and asserts in her 2nd book of Discipline, chap. 12. That patronages have flowed from the pope, and the corruption of the canon law; and the intruding of persons this way into churches, hath no ground in the word of God, but is contrary thereto, &c.—Likewise the parliament 1649, in their act abolishing patronage, do say, It is an evil and bondage under which the Lord’s people and ministers have long groaned; and that it is a custom popish, brought into the church in times of ignorance and superstition; and that it is contrary to the 2nd book of Discipline, &c.—Also the assemblies 1712 and 1715 give plain testimonies against patronages to the same purpose, and assert, That they lay a foundation for Simoniacal pactions, and many other evils. To these testimonies we do adhere, and likewise shall add some further reasons against patronages;

1mo, Patronages are neither agreeable to the rules of God’s word, nor to the apostolical practice: seeing it is evident from the word, that it was only the church herself, with her officers, that exercised the power of nominating and electing ministers and officers to the church, according to the authority derived to them from Christ their Head and Founder, Acts i. 15—vi. 2—viii. 14.—xiii. 3.—xiv. 23.—xvi. 9—1 John iv. 1—2 John 10. So that a patron’s right of nominating the officers of the church, is nothing but a manifest usurpation over the church of God.

2do, Patronage is also contrary to the practice of the primitive and purest ages of the church, and was not known in the church until true religion and Christianity began to decline, and then it came in gradually with other Popish corruptions and abuses. We find Cyprian, Athanasius, the apostolical constitutions, with many ancient councils and fathers, declaring in the plainest terms for the free liberty and power of the church to chuse her own pastors, without any extrinsic influence whatsomever [whatsoever].

3tio, As it is disagreeable to Scripture and antiquity, so it is contrary to reason, and to the interest and safety of the church, that the power of chusing her pastors should at anytime be lodged in the hands of heretics and profane men, as frequently the right of patronage is, being conveyed to them with their earthly inheritances. Can there be any thing more unreasonable and absurd than that the power of chusing officers to the church, should fall into the hands of the declared enemies of the church! or that this power, which is a spiritual and ecclesiastical privilege, should be conveyed, disponed [given to another], sold, or bought with money, like other civil rights or heritages, and so be lodged frequently with infidels and the worst of men.