John Willison · 7 of 19

Testimony · Part 5

4to, For patrons to impose ministers upon Christian congregations, is a plain incroachment upon the natural rights of mankind, and upon the laws of free societies; as much as it would be for them to impose physicians and lawyers upon societies, to take care of their bodies or estates. The churches of Christ are as free societies as any in the world, having their liberties from Christ to chuse their own pastors; and ought not to be brought in bondage to any in this matter.

5to, It is cruel imposition to oblige societies of men, who duly value their immortal souls, and would place them under proper spiritual guides, to intrust the edification, comfort, and eternal concerns of these precious souls, to the care of patrons; many, whereof are indifferent about the concerns of their own souls, being negligent, erroneous or profane; and so are not like to be much concerned to chuse proper pastors to take inspection of the souls of others. How can serious Christians be easy who it be that chuse their pastors, or these who know that patrons cannot secure them against the bad consequences of a wrong choice, nor be responsible for their souls at the great day.

Lastly, Patronage by long experience has been found to be an open door for a corrupt ministry to enter into the church; and this is sadly exemplified in these churches where this corruption doth reign without controul.

Upon all which accounts, we judge it our duty to hear testimony against the usurpation of patronage, as most sinful in itself, and injurious to the church of God; and to pray that God may open the eyes of all patrons, that they may be convinced and repent of it, and cease from in oppressing Christ’s church any more.

And as we bear testimony against patrons and their usurpation, so we judge ourselves bound to testify against all these who encourage and voluntarily comply with this Sinful usurpation, and particularly by accepting or declaring their willingness to accept of presentations from patrons, which, alas! is now become the common practice; and, being so common and general, both preachers and people are like to lose all sense of the evil of it.—But that these acceptances are sinful, and provoking to a holy God, is evident from these considerations:

1mo, If a patron be guilty of a sinful usurpation over the church of God, in spoiling her of the right she hath from Christ to chuse her own officers (as certainly he is) then the accepter of a presentation doth become partner with the patron in his sin, by homologating [approving of] his usurped power, and strengthning him in it. Now, the scripture expressly forbids us to be partakers of other mens’ sins

2do, As the law now stands, the accepter is more guilty of robbing the church of her right than the patron is: for the legislature have been so tender of the church by their act 1719, as to put it absolutely in the power of ministers and preachers to accept or reject the usurpation of patronage as they please; so that a patron can give no trouble to the church, if he be not encouraged and assisted in it by an accepter. His presentation would be but like a dead serpent, altogether lifeless and harmless to the church, if an accepter did not come and inspire it with life, and put a sting in it. Though patronage be a grievous usurpation and burden on the church, yet it is now so limited and tied up in Scotland by law, that the church would not feel the burden of it, if it were not pulled down upon her by accepting presentees; so that now the accepters are properly the oppressors of the church of Christ. If Christ condemns the Pharisees for binding heavy burdens, grievous to be borne, and laying them upon other mens’ shoulders; how condemnable must accepters of presentations be, who bind such a grievous burden as patronage on the shoulders of Christ’s church?

3tio, The minister or preacher, who accepts of a presentation, doth not only bring sin upon himself, by oppressing the church, and spoiling her of her just right; but also takes the ready way to encourage and harden a patron in his guilt and sinful usurpation, and to obstruct his conviction, repentance and reformation: for he will readily think that his conscience needs not be more strait-laced than theirs, who should inform his. Wherefore we earnestly wish and pray, that God would bring accepters, with their advisers and supporters, calmly to consider what a sinful hand they have in ensnaring patrons in a corrupt course and in hardening them in their usurpation over the church of God.

4to, This way of accepting presentations doth open a door to many sad evils, such as Simoniacal pactions and intrigues, unchristian contentions and divisions in judicatories, oppressive concussions in parishes, vexatious prosecutions and appeals, and many scandalous intrusions into churches, to the great discredit of religion, and reproach of the ministerial character: hereby congregations are robbed of their just rights to call their own ministers, and very often Christ’s flock is scattered and broken in pieces, the godly are grieved, and the wicked hardened: hereby ordinances come to be neglected, the Lord’s day profaned, ignorance and vice encouraged, and church-discipline weakened. Yea, this pernicious practice has given occasion to many violent settlements, and to a wofull schism in the church, to the deposing of several worthy ministers, and to the discouragement of many pious students and preachers from serving the church: so that our accepters have need to consider how they will answer for all these direful consequences of their practice, and whether the commonness of it will excuse the sinfulness of it; O that we could look to God, who only can open their eyes!

5to, Accepters of presentations, act contrary to the known principles of Presbyterians, and to their own engagements; and so are chargeable with sad defection and breach of faith. Our second book of Discipline, which is sworn to in our national covenant, declares patronages to be contrary to the word of God, chap. 12. And it was the general opinion of this church in the year 1719, that accepting of presentations was inconsistent with Presbyterian principles, and with the rights and rules of this church, which all ministers and preachers oblige themselves to maintain; upon which account, none adventured to meddle with them for a good many years thereafter. In our opinion, they act contrary to their engagements which they come under by the assembly’s formula 1711; wherein they subscribe and promise, that they will never directly or indirectly endeavour the prejudice or subversion of the discipline and government of this church, but that they will to the utmost of their power maintain and support the same. Now, it was still reckoned a branch of our discipline and government, for parishes to have the liberty of free elections, and for Presbyteries to have access to free moderations in the calling of ministers. And it is visible to all, that accepters of presentations do stop and hinder this free liberty and access, contrary to their engagements by the formula, and also by the national covenant.

6to, Seeing it is notour [well known] that the design of accepting, presentations is to secure the stipend to the presentee, so as another cannot have a title to it; it is plain that the accepter doth hereby invert the order, which Christ hath appointed in his church, viz.—That a minister’s right to maintenance should be consequential to his ordination to the ministry: whereas, by the method he takes, he would make a minister’s ordination to the ministry consequential to his having a right to the maintenance; which is contrary to Christ’s stated order, and the nature of things.

7mo, By accepting presentations, ministers do sadly prejudge the success of the gospel and their own ministry, by offending and stumbling the parishes concerned, besides many others, at their conduct. And is it any wonder though a parish he offended with a man for going about to secure a title to their stipend, before they have access to know him, or shew any inclination for him; and for his binding the yoke of patronage upon them, and spoiling them of their just right of chusing their own pastor; and for hindering them to get another worthy pastor whom they dearly love? What must they think of a man that tells a reclaiming parish by word or deed, I’ll be your minister in spite of your teeth, I’ll have the charge of your souls whether ye will or not; and, if ye refuse ordinances and means of salvation from me, ye shall have none? Nay, come of your souls what will, though they should perish in a state of ignorance and prejudice, I’ll possess the kirk, manse and benefice, and hold out another minister from you. Have they not too good ground to suspect such a man, of earthly-mindedness, greed of filthy lucre, or of being more concerned for his own things, than for the, things of jesus Christ, and the salvation of their souls? Which apprehensions are sufficient to stuff the breasts of people with prejudice against him at his entry, and to blast his ministrations to them for many years thereafter. For it is no wonder, though they think such language or practice is not like that of one who sincerely designs to advance Christ’s kingdom, and win souls to him, as a faithful minister ought to do; but rather of one that hath base worldly ends in view! The language of a pastor, whom Christ sends, is that in 2 Cor. xii. 14. I seek not yours, but you; whereas that of an accepter seems to be the very reverse, I seek not you, but yours.

8vo, It increaseth the prejudice of many against such accepters, when they see there is no necessity for their accepting of presentations. Indeed, if there were no coming to a church or stipend but by the Patron’s right, something might be said to alleviate the crime: but at present there is no necessity from the law to accept of them; nay, on the contrary, the law leaves an open door, by which ministers and preachers may have an orderly gospel access, both to churches and benefices, without having any dealing with Patrons at all, if they would but exercise a little patience till six months elapse. Now, how can people think charitably of these who refuse to enter by the safe gospel-door, and chuse, rather to climb up by the window of presentations and violence, when they cannot but see their so doing tends to blast their own ministry, and bring a, heavy yoke on their mother-church, after she was in effect freed of it by the tenderness of the legislature in 1719? Now, seeing these acceptances were unnecessary, and of the most pernicious consequence to the church and the interest of the gospel, it cannot but be surprising that our general assemblies were at so little pains to discourage or prevent them, when it might have been easily done at the beginning. We find indeed that the assembly 1724, referred it to their commission, to think of an overture thereanent [concerning or in reference to anything], and lay it before the next assembly; but it doth not appear that there was any more done, notwithstanding of repeated instructions from Presbyteries concerning the same. We know no reason can be assigned for the assembly’s indolence in this matter, but their pusillanimity [cowardice], or sinful fearfulness of offending the government: but this fear of man hath brought a woeful snare upon the poor church. Several synods indeed shewed a willingness to restrain these acceptances but, Presentees knowing where to have recourse, their acts were soon disregarded. At first one or two probationers began to mint at accepting presentations; but the outcry against them was so great, that they soon retracted, and past from them again. But sometime after, when Principal George Chalmers adventured to accept a presentation to the church of Old-Machir, several young men took courage and followed his example; and though at first they qualified their acceptances with having the peoples’ consent, yet they would not retract them after the people shewed their aversion to them; which occasioned many intrusions and violent settlements through several places of the church, contrary to our known principles, these intrusions came gradually into the church, but were act commonly practised, nor countenanced by superior courts, till after the year 1728. For we find the assembly 1725, after a great struggle about calling a minster to Aberdeen, appointing, that besides the voting of the magistrates, town-council and elders in the call, the inclination of heads of families shall be consulted about it. And the assembly 1725 censured the commission for proceeding to transport Mr. James Chalmers from Dyke to Aberdeen, without having due regard to the inclinations of the people of that city, who opposed his call. But, alas! our assemblies did not continue long in such a dispostion; for they and their commission began soon afterwards to pay more regard to patrons and heritors in planting of churches, though few of these were hearers, than they did to the whole body of the people that attended ordinances. The crown having the patronage of most of the churches of Scotland, this melancholy turn of affairs was thought to be brought about by strong court influence, and by the activity of several leading ministers, who had their dependence upon or expectations from that airth [probably “direction”]. These began to vent themselves in judicatories against the rights of the Christian people and to assert that there were no stated rules nor directions in Scripture about the calling of ministers, or who should be the electors. Some of them wrote pamphlets against the peoples’ rights, pretending to answer the Scripture-arguments for them; and maintained that the clergy or judicatories were the proper electors. These were sufficiently answered by Mr. Currie, Mr. Hill and others; but their opponents had the ascendant in judicatories, and carried things there as they pleased.

At this time the church of Scotland was in a most lamentable condition, and the wrath of the Almighty seemed to be kindled against her, in letting loose many adversaries at once to attack and destroy her: for at the same time we find her many ways dreadfully tossed and shaken: as by patronages, and intrusions pushed on by the court and great men;—By Independent schemes and constitutions of churches zealously promoted by Mr. Glas and Mr. Archbald;—By Arian errors taught and propagated by Professor Simson;—By many gross errors vented by others, both Presbyterian and Episcopal;—And by legal sermons and moral harangues (to the neglect of preaching Christ) introduced by many of the young clergy. All these evils, working and fermenting through the land at once, occasioned dreadful shocks and convulsions in this national church, likely to rend her in many pieces. Yet, alas! We were not sensible of, nor suitably affected with our danger and misery, nor with the sins which were the procuring cause of all.—Turn us, O God of our salvation, and cause thine anger towards us to cease. Oh, wilt thou be angry with us for ever? wilt thou draw out thine anger to all generations?—Whatever the Lord think fit to do with this backsliding church and land, we Judge it incumbent upon us to bear witness against the foresaid evils.

As to the impugning and invading the rights which congregations have to chuse and call their own ministers, and the intrusions made upon them, which, alas! still continue to be practised; we shall give our reasons for testifying against them, and for the rights of the people. And the first and great reason is, because by the rule and pattern of God’s word, and by the dictates of sound and sober reason, the Christian people have an unquestionable interest in the choice of these pastors to whom they are to intrust the care of their souls: and particularly, this right of the people is established by several passages of the Acts of the Apostles, a book intended to give us the apostolical practice and pattern in the settlement of the Christian church.

1 mo, In Acts i. 13, 14, 15, &c. when the eleven apostles met for the choice of an apostle, the laity present with them, were allowed a share in the election of two, of which God did chuse one to fill the vacancy of the apostolical college. From which we infer, That ministers should much more consult them in the choice of ordinary pastors, who are to have the stated inspection of their souls, and that this condescension of the apostles to the people in this case, doth condemn their practice who violently impose ministers upon Christian congregations, while they are dissenting and reclaiming against them, and willing to receive others every way as fit for them. And we find our reformers and Protestant divines, such as Calvin, Beza, Junius, Zanchy, Chamier, Voetius, Amesius, Turretine, Cartwright, Calderwood, Gillespie, Forrester, Lauder, and many others, improving this passage for the, peoples’ rights against Papists, Prelatists and patronages.

2do, In Acts vi. the apostles called the multitude, or body of the disciples to the choice of first standing church-officers which they appointed, viz. the deacons for taking care of the poor; from which we infer, If the disciples have a right to chuse these officers who are to dispose of their charity, then much more these who are to oversee their souls. And if these apostles reckoned the people competent to judge who had the qualifications for deacons which they prescribe, viz. who were most eminent for honesty, wisdom, and the gifts of the Holy. Ghost;. why are they not competent to give their judgment of the like qualifications in those who are to be their pastors? The apostles being under immediate Divine direction, were abundantly capable to chuse these officers without the people; yet they will needs have them concurring in it, as a pattern to the church in their after chusing of church-officers. And it is observable, the apostles took this method, to silence the complaints among the people about providing for the poor. Which loudly calls upon judicatories to follow their example, in order to silence peoples’ complaints of violent intrusions made upon them, contrary to the apostles practice and our acknowledged principles, to the great hindrance of the gospel and the edification of souls. Likewise we have the forecited Protestant divines concurring to improve this passage of the deacons for the peoples rights: and it might be expected that the ministers of the church of Scotland would not oppose them, or join with the Papists in this question.

3tio, The apostles practice in the election of church-officers being sufficiently evident by the foresaid two instances, the sacred penman of the Acts insists no more upon this subject, save that he hints at their known practice in ordinations. Acts xiv. 23. In cur version it is, And when they had ordained them elders in every church. Now, the word here rendered ordained, is but half translated; for in the original it is Cheirotonesantes, which Erasmus renders cum suffragiis creassent; and Beza, agreeing with him, hath it per suffragia creassent: So that according to these learned men, and many others, the passage should have been rendered, When they had by suffrages appointed to them elders in every church. So it is in all old English translations, and so it was brought in by our last translators, until the version was committed by king James to some of the English bishops to be revised, who altered no less than fourteen passages of the New Testament, and this among the rest, to make them speak the language of the church of England; but the original language, being that of the Holy Ghost, is to be our rule. The word here is not Cheirothesia, which signifies the action of ministers in ordaining; but it is Cheiro tonia, which is expressive of the peoples act in electing of pastors, by stretching or lifting up the hand, as was the custom: and in this sense doth the apostle make use of the word Cheirotonia, and ascribe it to the people, 2 Cor. viii. 19.

4to, The spoiling congregations of their right of calling their ministers, and imposing pastors upon them, is not only against the example of the apostles, but also contrary to the commands of our glorious Head, to our own prayers, and to the very spirit of the gospel. Doth not Christ enjoin us in his word to glorify him in all things, to do all to the glory of God, and to do all things to the edification of his people! to condescend to men of low estate, and to be gentle towards all men? Doth he not forbid us to exercise dominion over the church, to set at nought our brother, and rule over his people with rigour? Doth he not command all Christians to judge of what they hear, to try the spirits, to beware of false prophets? Are not all ministers and others bound to pray that God’s name may be hallowed, that his kingdom may come, and that the whole earth may be filed with his glory? And do not they act the very reverse of these commands and prayers, who would in a magisterial way intrude ministers upon Christian congregations, and thereby stop the spreading of his gospel, the conversion of souls, and the increase of his kingdom upon earth? Are forced settlements agreeable to the meekness and gentleness of Christ our Master and Pattern? Or are they like the mild disposition and condescensions of the apostle Paul, who used the most tender, soft and condescending methods to advance the gospel among men, and was willing to become all things to all menfor their spiritual good? and, when he saw it needful to for the winning of their souls, he laid aside his authority, and fell to intreaties and beseechings with them, Rom. xii. 1. 2 Cor. v. 20.—x. 1. Philemon 9, 10. And observe what he says, I Thess. ii. 7, 11. We were gentle among you as a nurse cherisheth her children; And (saith he) we exhorted you as a father doth his children. Now, as a tender nurse or father will not impose any upon weak children to feed them at whom they have the greatest aversion, nor tell them that they shall have no food unless they take it from such hands; so neither ought judicatories to intrude pastors upon dissenting or reclaiming parishes. They pray for the spreading of Christ’s glory and kingdom, and therefore should not counteract their prayers, as they manifestly do by violent settlements; for thus they lay the foundations of strong prejudices in peoples breasts against ministers and the success of the glorious gospel, and frequently drive people quite away from the gospel-net, to the great increase of ignorance and immorality. This course is directly against the Bible, that forbids us to give any occasion of stumbling or prejudice unto others, whereby their edification may be hindered, Rom. xiv. 13, 19, 21. Alas! people have naturally strong enough prejudices against the gospel itself, be the pastor never so acceptable; and what a pity it is that occasion should be given them to conceive prejudice also against the preacher of it? seeing thereby the strong holds of Satan are rendered more impregnable. For how can it be expected that a parish will be free of stumbling or prejudice against a man, that makes it his first business to obtain a right to their stipend, and will not part with it when they shew the utmost aversion to him, but gets himself viis & modis thurst [sic] in upon them? Will they not be ready to look upon him as an earthly-minded man, greedy of filthy lucre, that thrusts himself into the priest’s office for a piece of bread, that seeks the fleece more than the flock, and minds his own things more than the things of Jesus Christ? Is not this the way to bring both the person and ministry of such a man into contempt among the people, to shut their ears against his admonitions, and render his labours among them unsuccessful? Whereas, should a minister come among a people by their call, he has a fair door opened to him to promote their salvation: they think themselves bound to attend his ministry, receive him into their houses, hearken to his counsels, and submit to his reproofs; and so the gospel hath free course among that people.

5to, Seeing the right of Christians to judge for themselves in matters of religion, is undeniably secured to them both by the light of nature and of revelation; they must consequently have an interest in the choice of their teachers. For if a man may judge for himself concerning the schemes of doctrine and ways of salvation laid before him, and may prefer one to another; it must follow, that he hath also a right to judge who is fittest to instruct him according to it; otherwise he might fall into the hands of these who would lead him into schemes quite opposite to what he hath chosen. It is evident that both Scripture and reason allow men a judgment of discretion about the pastors to whom they are to commit the instructing, guiding, and edifying of their precious souls. That text is plain for it, in I John iv. 1. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world, Likewise that text, Mat. vii. 15, 16. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. And that in 2 John, ver. 10. If there come any to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not. From all which texts it is evident, that Christians have right to judge concerning these who bring them true gospel doctrine, and whom they are to receive, and whom not. The Bereans are highly commended for their using this right, Acts xvii. 11. And Christ declares it to be the privilege of his people to distinguish the voice of a stranger or hireling from the voice of a true shepherd, and to flee from the one, and follow the other, John x. 4, 5.

6to, The consent of parishes to the settlement of a minister is requisite to constitute the pastoral relation betwixt him and his flock, and the obligation of mutual offices and duties one to another. It was anciently a received maxim among Presbyterians, That the consent of the flock is as necessary to fix the pastoral relation, as the consent of the minister; seeing the tye is mutual and reciprocal.

7mo, The apostles’ example in ordaining pastors by the choice and consent of the people, was followed by the primitive church for many centuries after them, as Eusebius and others testify. And the learned Turretine, vol. 3. ques. 24. De jure vocationis, quotes many of the ancient fathers and councils as maintaining the peoples’ right. And Mr. Petrie in his church history, pag. 63, 65. observes, That the church of Rome in the 7th century had not given up with this principle of Christianity. It hath been the fixed principle of this church, and of our reformers from the very dawning of the reformation, That congregations ought to have ministers settled among them with their own consent. This can be made evident from our books of discipline, and many acts of assemblies; and this is confirmed by assembly 1736, act 14. Wherein in they declare, that it is and hath been since the reformation, the principle of this church, that no minister shall be intruded into any parish contrary to the will of the congregation; and therefore they seriously recommend to all the judicatories of this church, to have a due regard to the said principle in planting vacant congregations, as they regard the glory of God, and the edification of the body of Christ.—But it is to be regretted, that neither the ancient principles of this church, nor the recommendation of assembly, 1736, are much regarded in the settlement of churches at this day, more than the Scriptural arguments aforementioned for the peoples’ right. O how great ground hath this backsliding church to imitate that famous general assembly 1596, who made the thrusting of men into congregations one special cause of their keeping a day for solemn fasting and humiliation before the Lord! Likewise it is to be noticed, what they observe of these intruders, That they manifest thereafter, that they were not called of God. O that judicatories would keep in mind the apostle’s warning against being Partakers of other mens’ sins, by laying hands suddenly upon them; and would consider how far they may be accountable for these souls, who may perish in an ignorant and Christless condition during the scatterings and prejudices of congregations intruded upon! Surely that text hath an alarming sound to all concerned in intrusions, Jer. xxiii. 1, 2. Wo be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pastures, saith the Lord. Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel, against the pastors that feed my people, Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them; behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord. Likewise the 34th chapter of Ezekiel hath some very awful things relative to this case. O that the Spirit of God would carry them home to the hearts of men, with such power and efficacy, that their eyes may be opened in time; so that intrusions, scatterings, and contempt of Christ’s flock, may not issue in the destruction of vital religion, and of this once famous national church!