^ CS ^ {Ob 3d- )S . t w f THE VOEKS OP THOMAS M'CHIE, D. D. EDITED BV HIS SON THOMAS M'CHIE, D.D. LL.D. VOL. IV. REVIEW OF “TALES OF MY LANDLORD” ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH: AND SERMONS WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS EDINBURGH AND LONDON MDCCCLVII Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from ‘ Princeton Theological Seminary Library https ;//archive.org/details/worksofthomasmcr04mcri REVIEW OF ‘‘TALES OF MY LANDLORD.” PART I Of all the classes of readers in this hook-reading age and country, there is none more numerous, or less difficult to please, than the readers of novels. This is a very fortunate circumstance for book-makers and book-venders, or, as they may nowadays be more properly termed, the wholesale and retail dealers in books ; as it affords them an expeditious and lucrative trade, which they can carry on at small expense, and which remains steady and open, even when the market stagnates and is overstocked, for want of demand in the other articles of literature. The great object of habitual readers of novels is to kill time, and they are not very scrupulous as to the means which they employ to rid themselves of this troublesome companion. Their minds are vacant, and nature abhors a vacuum. There is nothing which they dread more than being left to serious reflection, or thrown upon their own internal resources. Their feelings, though often morbid, and requiring force to excite them, are not delicate ; nor is their taste fastidious. The task of those whose employment it is to afford them amusement is not therefore one of great difficulty. It requires no superior powers of invention, or of wit, to dress up a story which will gratify readers of this stamp, and raise the wished-for alternations of emotion in the giddy breasts, or perhaps brains, - “ of th’ unthinking rabble. Giggling, sobbing, at each frantic fable.” But the strongest and the most quick-set appetite will be palled by indulgence, and will require to be whetted and humoured by nicer food or nicer preparation. This was the origin of the art and philosophy of cookery, and a similar cause has led to the improvement of that branch of the art of writing to which we refer. When we say this, we would not be understood as meaning to insinuate that all those fictitious 6 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. works which rise above mediocrity have originated from such inferior motives. We do not consider Count Rumford as occupying the same rank with ordinary writers on the culinary art, and we do not wish to confound sober reformers with demagogues who would debauch the minds and inflame the passions of the mob, to gain their own selflsh and unprincipled ends. We are willing to allow that there are indivi¬ duals who commence novel-writers with the more generous and disin¬ terested design of reforming the public taste, and of furnishing more rational and reflned gratiflcation to a numerous class of readers. To such writers we are ready to give all the praise that is due. And indeed, when we consider the mass of insipid, stupid, and pernicious productions with which our circulating libraries are stuffed, and which are daily tossed from hand to hand until they are literally worn to tatters, we cannot but think that a man of genius and taste, who con¬ descends to join such company, displays at once a great degree of courage and of self-denial, and we are not greatly surprised to And him choosing to send the offspring of his fancy into the world without his name, or under a false one, contented with enjoying his reputation, and the other fruits of his labour, incognito, and concealing himself from the public by means of a complicated piece of literary machinery. Most of our readers must have heard of, and not a few of them, it is probable, have read those popular novels wliich lately appeared in this northern part of the island, and which, from the peculiar manners which they represented, and the ability of their execution, attracted the attention even of those who have no predilection for this species of com¬ position. The earliest of these cannot be called a finished piece of writing. The principal character in it wants those great qualities which are essential to a hero ; his conduct justly subjects him to the suspicion of cowardice ; and he becomes a deserter and a rebel, without the excuse of being actuated by principle and conviction; — a piece of management on the part of the author, which can only be accounted for on the supposition, that he was not unwilling that the chief honour should be transferred to another individual, whom, even in these times, it would not have been prudent or becoming to have proclaimed as the hero of this story. Yet, in spite of these and other faults, by his picturesque descriptions of Highland scenery, by his striking, though sometimes exaggerated, delineations of Highland manners, and, above all, by skilfully combining his fabulous narrative with the interesting history of the Rebellion, and the fates of the adventurous and unfortu¬ nate Chevalier, the author has given an interest to the work which cannot fail to make it be read with pleasure, long after the charm pro¬ duced by the novelty of its appearance has ceased. Next appeared “The Astrologer,” disdaining to derive aid from any adventitious association with real history, and scarcely deigning to symbolise with the speech and manners of common life. Trusting to the preterna¬ tural powers with which she was endowed, this heroine came forth with REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD, 7 more than Amazonian courage, and by the waving of her magic wand, and the unearthly sounds which accompanied it, enchanted and sub¬ dued all that came within the reach of her potent and irresistible spell. In truth, the picture of that singular and now nearly extinct race of beings, the gypseys, is inimitably drawn, and their character tlxroughout the piece is supported with the utmost propriety and consistency. We do not therefore wonder at the popularity of Guy M annering in Scot¬ land, where the language in which a great part of the work is written, and the manners it describes, are known ; but we must confess that we are somewhat at a loss to account for the fact, of which we have been assured, that it is equally popular in England, where we are persuaded not one word in three is understood by the generality of readers, and where we should think the entertainment derived from the story must have been in no small degree marred by the continual exercise of turn¬ ing over the two quarto volumes of Dr Jamieson’s Scottish Dictionary, or, when these were not to be had, the glossary to Allan Ramsay, or Robert Burns’s Poems. Lastly appeared The Antiquary. The popularity acquired by its predecessors was sufficient to put this work in motion ; but it became stationary as soon as the impulse which they imparted to it was spent. Whether it is that the author, having exhausted his powers by the last effort, had not allowed them sufficient time to recruit ; or whether, from certain leanings in his own mind, he was unwilling to make the Antiquary truly ridiculous j or whether (which we are rather inclined to think is the truth) antiquaries are a race of beings to whom the public are so completely indifferent, that it is impossible to interest them in a story that turns chiefly upon them and their pursuits ; — the fact is certain, that, notwithstanding all the humour of Edie Ochiltree (and it is not small), and notwithstanding the excellence of particular scenes, the story w^as deemed tame and fatiguing ; and the chief thing that will now induce any to read it (those who live on novels always excepted), is the information on the title-page, that it was written by the author of Waverley and Giiy Mannering. Vhe have chosen to introduce ourselves in this way to Tales of My Landlord, because we are convinced that they are written by the author of the works which we have just noticed. For what reason this infor¬ mation has been withheld, it is unnecessary to inquire. Perhaps it was on account of the fact stated above ; perhaps the author intended to pay a compliment to the reigning passion for novelty ; perhaps he wished merely to gratify his own humour. Our opinion as to the point of identity of original is founded on internal evidence. The resemblance is strongly marked, both on the general features and in the minuter lines. We can trace it in that wonderful talent for description which the author almost uniformly displays, whether he wishes to paint human beings or natural scenery, — the sublimity of a battle, or the brawlings of a taproom, — the movements of a hero, or the fooleries of a 8 KEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLOKD. clown. We can trace it in the different kinds of character which he brings forward for exhibition, and in the partiality with which he selects, for his more careful and minute delineation, such as are to be found in low life. We can trace it in those marks of haste and care¬ lessness which are every now and then reminding us, that he either will not, or cannot, take time to do justice to his own powers, and that he writes without having in his mind’s eye that prospective arrangement which is necessary to prevent his story from having, in some parts, an unfinished aspect, and from presenting us, in others, with very awkward attempts to obviate the difficulties that his want of foresight has occa¬ sioned. And, finally, we can trace it in the uncommon ease, and the purity, if we may use the expression, with which the Scottish language is written — a quality in which the author has no compeer among those who have made the same attempt, and which resembles, to compare small things with great, the facility and correctness with which the learned in the sixteenth century wrote in the ancient language of Rome. In the work before us we are presented with two tales. The one is comprised in the first volume ; the other occupies the remaining three volumes. The first tale will, we doubt not, be interesting to those who are admirers of the local habits and opinions which are said to have existed a century ago in that district of the Scottish borders where the scene is laid, and which are chiefly known to the public by means of the writings of Walter Scott. From the natural and easy manner in which he describes these, the author appears to be a native of that place, or one who, from his infancy, has been accustomed to the relation of its traditionary history. With respect to the story, we cannot say much. The author himself seems to have been anxious to have done with it, and hudilles it up at last in rather a careless manner ; and we may be pardoned for following his example. Hobbie Elliot is a well-di-awn character. Earnscliff, like most of the author’s principal characters, does not do much to give us a high opinion of him, although he says many good things. Of the Black Dwarf (whom some have taken for the hero of the tale) we shall say nothing, — only we do not think him a more unnatural character than Ellieslaw ; nor do any of the misan¬ thropic ravings of the former appear to us so incredible as the epistle which the latter is made to address to his daughter after the detection of his plots. The attempt to give interest to the story, by connecting it with the rebellion in 1715, fails as completely as the rebellion itself did, and serves only to embarrass the author. The undisguised manner in which the conspirators talk of their projected insurrection in the presence of Ratclifle, even before they had formally resolved on it, and when they were aware that the better and greater part of the popula¬ tion around them was friendly to the government, represents them as greater madmen than we imagine the Borderers ever were. After this, the laboured description of the revulsion of spirits felt by them when they came to the decisive step, although it would have been strik¬ ing in other circumstances, has something affected in it. At all REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 9 events, when they had taken the leap, it is quite inexcusable to make a fool of such a respectable and sensible man as Ratcliffe appears to have been, by supposing that he would make a grave and serious speech, with the view of recalling such men to their allegiance, unless the author wished to exhibit him as so puritanical in his principles as to make the affair a matter of conscience, and to think it a duty to give his testimony against such courses ; in which case (if our ideas of the character of the Borderers, especially when they were heated with wine, are not very in¬ correct) these gentlemen would have sent him, as Lauderdale did his pre¬ decessors, to make his dying speech and testimony on the nearest gallows. In short, the Black Dwarf bears sufficient marks of being a child of the same family with the Astrologer ; but, whether received before his birth or after it, he has had the misfortune to meet with some great injury, and is a dwarf. — We now go on to the second tale, or rather history as it should be called, which, from the nature of its contents, as well as its size, demands more ample and serious consideration than the pre¬ ceding one could claim. On opening the second volume, and while we hesitated in turning the first leaf, we could not but feel surprised that the author should have permitted himself to allow either the publisher or the printer to do any¬ thing in such bad taste as to repeat the foolish lines, which must have been foisted, without his knowledge, into the title-page of the first volume, and also the quotation on the reverse in Spanish and English. Having ventured to turn the leaf, we were most agreeably disappointed at not meeting, as we had dreaded, with the huge bulk of Jedediah Cleishhotham, and being overwhelmed with his somniferous eloquence. This might help to increase the pleasure which we received from reading the preliminary discourse of Mr Patrick Pattieson. We do tliink that it is written in the very best style, and that it forms an introduction to the tale at once ingenious and appropriate. With some of his reflec¬ tions towards the close of it we do not indeed entirely coincide, as will appear in the sequel ; but as we are desirous to enter upon his story in good terms with him, we shall pass them over at present. To enable our readers to understand the remarks which we are about to offer, it will be necessary to lay before them an outline of the story, wliich is called Old Mortality, to intimate, that the principal materials of which it is composed were derived from the information of an aged Presbyterian wanderer who went by that name ; although, in fact, by far the greater part of it is of such a quality as cannot be supposed to have been furnished by that or by any other zealous and venerable Covenanter. The story is supposed to commence in the summer of 1679, immediately before that rising of the Presbyterians in the west of Scot¬ land which was suppressed by their defeat at Bothwell Bridge. Henry Morton, the hero of the piece, was the son of a country gentleman in Lanarkshire, who, during the civil wars between Charles I. and the Parliaments, had borne arms for the latter, and of course was a zealous Whig and Presbyterian. By his death, young Morton was left to the 10 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. care of an uncle, a miserly Avretcli, who neglected the education and repressed the ardent spirit of his nephew. Henry Morton was a Pres¬ byterian because his father had been one before him, and he attended the sermons of a minister of that persuasion who had accepted the Indulgence because his uncle did so ; but he took no farther interest in the affairs of that religious body, than by condemning the oppressions which they suffered, which was balanced by his accusing them, in their turn, of extravagance and fanaticism. But if he was undecided and lukewarm in politics and in religion, Morton was cordial and devoted in his attachment to Miss Edith Bellenden, a young lady, of course, of great beauty and accomplishments, who lived in the neighbourhood of his uncle, under the tutelage of her grandmother. He had reason to conclude that his addresses were not indifferent to the person who wms the object of them; but the keen Tory and High-Church principles of the old lady presented a formidable obstacle to his success, which was height¬ ened by his having the accomplished Lord Evandale for a rival. Hav¬ ing gained the prize for shooting at a mark, at a weaponschaw or military review in the neighbouring village, Morton, according to custom, entertain¬ ed the company at the inn, where he met with a stranger, who requested leave to accompany him home, as he meant to travel the same road. The stranger turned out to be John Balfour of Burley, who had just escaped from Fife after being engaged in the assassination of Archbishop Sharp. Concealing this circumstance, Burley acquainted Morton with his name, and requested accommodation for the night in his uncle’s house, as he was in danger of falling into the hands of one of those bands of military who traversed the country to apprehend such as were obnoxious to Government. Although extremely reluctant to comply with it, Morton could not deny this request to one who had formerly been the intimate friend and companion in arms of his father, and he lodged him in an outhouse. A few days after, a party of soldiers paid a visit to the place, and Morton having acknowledged, rather sillily, what he had done, was made prisoner, and carried to the castle of Tillietudlem, the residence of Miss Edith Bellenden, where Colonel Grahame of Claverhouse was expected next day with his regiment. Claverhouse, after being made acquainted with the circumstances, was about to order the prisoner to be instantly shot, but finally yielded to spare his life at the intercession of Lord Evandale, whose interest Miss Bellenden had bespoke in his favour. Morton was present as a prisoner at the battle of Drumclog or Loudon Hill, where Claverhouse was defeated. Having obtained his liberty, resentment for recent injuries roused his patriotism (this is not the author’s phrase) ; he joined the victorious Covenanters, was chosen one of their officers, and admitted to their council of war. He now exerted himself in organising their army, and in accommodating the differences between the rigid and moderate Presbyterians. In this he was far from being successful ; yet he prevailed, before the battle of Bothwell Bridge, in obtaining the consent of the majority of the council EEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLOKD. 11 to a moderate proposal, whicli he presented to the Duke of Monmouth, the commander of the king’s forces, at a personal interview which he obtained with his Grace, in the presence of General Dalziel and Colonel Grahame. Having escaped after the defeat of the Presbyterians at Bothwell, and sought refuge for the night in a farmhouse, Morton found himself surrounded with a number of his late companions in arms, when (strange to tell !) instead of receiving him kindly, they resolve to 'put him to deaths as a sacrifice to avert the wrath of Heaven, and in revenge for his having thwarted their more Adolent measures. When this horrid determination is upon the very point of being carried into execution, Claverhouse bursts into the house, and rescues the devoted victim. The risk which he had run from the fanatics, and the report of several acts of generosity which he had performed to the royalists, now secure to Morton the powerful patronage of Claverhouse, who conveys him to Edinburgh, and procures his pardon from the Privy Council, with liberty for him to retire beyond seas. Having arrived in Holland, he is admitted to a private interview with the Prince of Orange, who appoints him to a command in a remote garrison. Some years after the Revolution, he returns to Scotland, and finds the Bellenden family excluded from' their property, and Miss Edith on the eave of her marriage to Lord Evandale. He pays a visit to the house of his uncle, who is now dead, and has an interview in a cave with Burley, who is made to be still alive, and whose fanaticism is represented as having issued in the most furious and confirmed derangement. By the time that he returns from these excursions, the author has arranged a plan for re¬ moving the impediment that prevented Morton’s union with Edith Bellenden, and accordingly Lord Evandale is removed out of the way by one of those violent coups-de-main which writers of novels so frequently employ, when they grow weary of their subject, or when they have in¬ volved it inadvertently in difiiculties, from which they are unable to extricate it with dexterity. This general outline is at least sutficient to characterise the class to which the tale belongs. It is by no means a story purely fictitious, but is of a mixed kind, and embraces the principal facts in the real history of this country during a very important period. The author has not merely availed himself incidentally of these facts, but they form the groundwork, and furnish the principal materials of his story. He has not taken occasion to make transient allusions to the characters and manners of the age ; but it is the main and avowed object of his work to illustrate these, and to give a genuine and correct picture of the principles and conduct of the two parties into which Scotland was at that time divided. The person who undertakes such a work, subjects himself to laws far more strict than those which bind the ordinary class of fictitious writers. It is not enough that he keep within the bounds of probability, — he must conform to historic truth. If he introduces 12 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. real characters, they must feel, and speak, and act as they are described to have done in the faithful page of history, and the author is not at liberty to mould them as he pleases, to make them more interesting, and to give greater effect to his story. The same regard to the truth of history must be observed when fietitious personages are introduced, pro¬ vided the reader is taught or induced to form a judgment from them of the parties to which they are represented as belonging. If it is per¬ mitted to make embellishments on the scene, with the view of giving greater interest to the piece, the utmost care ought to be taken that they do not violate the integrity of character ; and they must be im¬ partially distributed, and equally extended to all parties, and to the virtues and vices of each. This is a delicate task, but the under¬ taker imposes it upon himself, with all its responsibilities. Besides fidelity, impartiality, and judgment, it requires an extensive, and minute, and accurate acquaintance with the history of the period selected, including the history of opinions and habits, as well as of events. And we do not hesitate to say, that this is a species of intelligence which is not likely to be possessed by the person who holds in sovereign contempt the opinions which were then deemed of the utmost moment, and turns with disgust from the very exterior manners of the men whose inmost habits he afiects to disclose. Nor will the multifarious reading of the dabbler in everything, from the highest affairs of church and state down to the economy of the kitchen, and the management of the stable, keep him from blundering here at every step. Such, in our opinion, are the laws of the kind of writing under con¬ sideration ; and we are not aware that their justice will be disputed, or that our statement of them is open to objection. The work before us we consider as chargeable with offences against these laws, which are neither few nor slight. The guides of public opinion cannot be too jealous in guarding against the encroachments of the writers of fiction upon the province of true history, nor too faithful in pointing out every transgression, however small it may appear, of the sacred fences by which it is protected. Such writers have it in their power to do much mischief, from the en¬ gaging form in whieh they convey their sentiments to a numerous, and, in general, unsuspecting class of readers. When the seene is laid in a re¬ mote and fabulous period, or when the merits and eonduct of the men who are made to figure in it do not affect the great cause of truth and of public good, the writer may be allowed to exercise his ingenuity, and to amuse his readers, without our narrowly inquiring whether his repre¬ sentations are historically correct or not. But when he speaks of those men who were engaged in the great struggle for national and individual rights^ civil and religious, which took place in this eountry previous to the Kevolution, and of all the cruelties of the oppressors, and aU the sufferings of the oppressed, he is not to be tolerated in giving a false and distorted view of men and measures, whether this proceed from ignorance REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 13 or from prejudice. Nor should his misrepresentations he allowed to pass without severe reprehension, when their native tendency is to shade the atrocities of persecution, to diminish the horror with which the conduct of a tyrannical and unprincipled government has been so long and so justly regarded, and to traduce and vilify the characters of those men, who, while they were made to feel all the weight of its severity, con¬ tinued to resist, until they succeeded in emancipating themselves, and securing their posterity from the galling yoke. On this supposition, it is not sufficient to atone for such faults, that the work in which they are found displays great talents ; that it contains scenes which are described with exquisite propriety and truth; that the leading facts in the history of those times are brought forward ; that the author has condemned the severities of the government ; that he is often in a mirthful and facetious mood ; and that some allowances must be made for a desire to amuse his readers, and to impart greater interest to a story, which, after all, is for the most part fictitious. With every disposition to make all reasonable allowances, we are constrained to set aside such apologies. It is not upon sentiments transiently expressed, but upon the impression which the whole piece is calculated to make, that our judgment must be formed. We cannot agree to sacrifice the interests of truth, either to the humour of an author, or to the amusement of his readers. We re¬ spect talents as much as any can do, and can admire them, even when we are obliged to reprobate the bad purposes to which they are applied ; but we must not suffer our imaginations to be dazzled by the splendour of talent ; we cannot consent to be tricked and laughed out of our prin¬ ciples ; nor will we passively allow men who deserve other treatment, and to whose firmness and intrepidity we are indebted for the transmission of so many blessings, to be run down, and abused with profane wit or low buffoonery. Before proceeding to a particular examination of the characters which the author gives of the two parties, we beg leave to mention one or two instances, which go to show that he is not to be trusted as to the accuracy of the statements upon which his judgments are pronounced. Lest we should be suspected of having hunted for these, we shall take them from the two first paragraphs of his story. One charge which he frequently brings against the strict Presbyterians, is that of a morose and gloomy bigotry, displayed by their censuring of all innocent recrea¬ tions. Tliis he endeavours to impress on the imagination of his reader in the very first scene, by representing them as refusing, from such scruples, to attend the weaponschaws appointed by government. “ The rigour of the strict Calvinists,” says he, “ increased in proportion to the wishes of the government that it should be relaxed. A supercilious condemnation of all manly pastimes and harmless recreations distin¬ guished those who professed a more than ordinary share of sanctity.” Now, with respect to all that kind of information which the nntiquary possesses, we will most cheerfully acknowledge the superiority of our 14 REVIEW OE TALES OF MY LANDLORD. author; and we can assure Mm, that we listened to him with “judaical” credulity, and with as devout gravity as any of his readers could listen to the sermons of the zealous Mause, or of Habakkuk Mucklewraith, — while he described, to our great edification, the popinjay or parrot, being the figure of a bird so called, with party-coloured feathers, suspended on a pole or mast, having a yard extended across it as a mark, at which the competitors discharged their fusees and carabines, with the precise number of paces at which they stood from the mark, the exact number of rounds which they fired, and the identical manner in which the order of their rotation was settled. Also the ducal carriage, being an enor¬ mous leathern vehicle like to Noah’s ark, or at least the vulgar picture of it ; the eight Flanders mares, with their long tails, by which it was dragged ; the eight insides, with their designations and rank, and the places which they occupied on the lateral recess, or the projection at the door, or the boot, and on the opposite ensconce ; and the six outsides, being six lacqueys, armed up to the teeth, who stood, or rather hung, in triple file, on the foot-board, and eke, besides a coachman, three pos¬ tilions (the author has omitted to mention on which lateral horse they sat, or stood, or hung), with their short swords, and tie-wigs with three tails, and blunderbusses and pistols. Truly, if the rigid features of the Puritans did not relax into something of a more gentle aspect than “ a sort of malignant and sarcastic sneer ” at the sight of this moving man¬ sion-house, we must grant that they were as morose and gloomy as the author represents them to have been. With respect to all information of this kind, which the author takes every opportunity of imparting to his readers with infinite particularity, and with such evident self-satis¬ faction as to banish the suspicion that he intended to set the rhap¬ sodical jargon of modern writers over against that of the old Whigs, or to show, that, though the cant of hypocrisy is the worst, the cant of antiquarianism is the most childish and tormenting ; — of the accuracy, we say, of all such information, we never presumed to hesitate for a moment ; we are satisfied, upon his testimony, that in the seventeenth century it was customary for gentlemen of property to sit at the same table with the lowest of their menial servants, though we did not before know that this mode of promiscuous feasting ascended higher in the grade of society than the families of farmers ; and we now believe, upon the same authority, though it cost us, we confess, some pain to swallow it, that clocks or timepieces were then a common article of furniture in a moorland farmhouse. But we must acknowledge that we are not dis¬ posed to pay the same deference to the author’s opinion, in what relates to the religious sentiments and moral habits of those times ; we pre¬ sume to think that we understand these fully as well as he does ; and with regard to the scruple which he imputes to the Presbyterians respecting the lawfulness of assemblies for a show of arms, military exer¬ cises, and manly pastimes, whether he received his information from X)edlars, weavers, and tailors, or from the descendants of honourable REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 17 to think of it, there are many of as enlightened minds, and of as liberal principles, as he can pretend to, who glory in this national distinction ; and one reason why we will not suffer our ancestors to be misrepresented by him, or by any other writer of the present times, is the gratitude which we feel to them, for having transmitted to their posterity a here¬ ditary and deep veneration for the Lord’s day. The second instance which goes to prove that the author’s statements respecting the religious sentiments and customs of that period are not to be depended upon, relates to the use of the Book of Common Prayer. “ The young at arms,” says he, “ were unable to avoid listening to the prayers read in the churches on these occasions, and thus, in the opinion of their repining parents, meddling with the accursed thing which is an abomination in the sight of the Lord.” Now, though the author had not stood in awe of that dreadful name,” which all Christians are taught to venerate, nor been afraid of the threatening, “ the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain,” we would have thought that he would have at least been careful to save himself from ridicule, by ascertaining the truth of the fact which he assumes as the foundation of his irreverent jest. How, then, does the fact stand 1 Prayers were not read in the parish churches of Scotland at that time, any more than they were in the meeting-houses of the indulged, or in the conventicles of the stricter Presbyterians. The author has taken it for granted that the Prayer-Book was introduced into Scotland along with Episcopal government at the Restoration. We are astonished that any one who professed to be acquainted with the history of that period, and especially one who undertakes to describe its religious manners, should take up this erroneous notion. The English Book of Common Prayer was never introduced into Scotland, and, previous to 1637, was used only in the Chapel Royal, and perhaps occasionally in one or two other places, to please the king. The history of the short-lived Scot¬ tish Prayer-Book is well known. At the Restoration, neither the one nor the other was imposed, but the public worship was left to be con¬ ducted as it had been practised in the Presbyterian Church. Charles II. was not so fond of prayers, whether read or extempore, as to interest himself in that matter ; his maxim was, that Presbyterianism was not fit for a gentleman ; his dissipated and irreligious courtiers were of the same opinion ; and therefore Episcopacy was established. As for the aspiring churchmen who farthered and pressed the change, they were satisfied with seating themselves in their rich bishoprics. Accordingly, the author will not find the Presbyterians “ repining” at this imposi¬ tion ; and had he examined their writings, as he ought to have done, he would have found them repeatedly admitting that they had no such grievance. But surely (we hear some of our readers who have perused Old Mortality, exclaim), surely the Prayer-Book must have been read in the churches in those times. The old steward of Tillietudlem is as fami¬ liar with the commination, as the most conscientious curate in England B 18 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. could be ; and the butler is as well acquainted with the Litany, as if he had heard it every Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday. (Vol. ii. pp. 40, 267.) Cuddie Headrigg, too, very wittily observes, that this, in his opinion, formed the only difference between the Episcopalian service and that of their opponents. (Saame volume, sievint chapter, hunder an’ fifty-saxt page.) Honest Major Bellenden also vouches for the fact, and introduces it when he was very much in earnest to procure the life of Henry Morton. “ He is a lad of as good church principles as any gentle¬ man in the life-guards. He has gone to church service with me fifty times, and I never heard him miss one of the responses in my life. Edith Bellenden can bear witness to it as well as I. He always read on the same prayer-book with her, and could look out the lessons as well as the curate himself.” (Vol. ii. pp. 303, 304.) Nay, to confirm the truth of the fact, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, Morton was so habituated to the use of the Liturgy, that, in a situation of great dis¬ traction, “ he had instinctively recourse to the petition for deliverance and for composure of spirit which is to be found in the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England a circumstance which so enraged his murderers, that they determined to precipitate his fate. (Vol. iv. pp. 83, 84). There is one fault in the work, which all who have carefully read it must have observed. For the sake of giving effect to a particular scene, the author does not hesitate to violate historic truth and probability, and even to contradict his own statements or admissions. Instances of this occur in some of his best descriptions, and they show, that though he has the imagination and feeling of a poet, he is deficient in the judg¬ ment and discriminating taste of a historian. For example, at the weaponschaw, with which the story is introduced, he makes the Whigs to shout repeatedly at Morton’s success, and cry, “ The good old cause for ever ! ” although every one acquainted with the state of matters at that time, must be persuaded that this woidd have been a signal for the soldiers to disperse the crowd, and perhaps to shoot some of the offend¬ ers instantly on the spot. No part of the character of Burley will re¬ move the gross improbability, that a man in his circumstances would have engaged in a personal conflict with a soldier in an inn, which, in all likelihood, must have issued in his imprisonment, and cohsequently in his detection. We mention these instances because, as related by the author, they do not convey any degrading reflection on the character of the Covenanters, but, so far as they go, exliibit them in a favourable light ; and therefore we cannot be suspected of partiality in pointing them out as blemishes. Mause is a favourite character with the author, and out of her mouth he intended to pour the greatest quantity of his ridicule upon the Covenanters. Here, then, we might have expected consistency. But how does the case stand i Mause was an old pro¬ fessor of religion, and also an old residenter on the estate of Tillietud- lem. She had long attended conventicles, but she had conducted herself REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 19 quietly, and prudently, and inoffensively ; for, had she done otherwise, the zealous lady Margaret Bellenden, who was accustomed to visit her, and to gossip with her for half an hour at a time, must have long before discovered her principles and character. But no sooner does she fall under the management of our author, than she becomes all at once frenzied, and having lost the command of herself, and being wholly possessed by the fanatical spirit of the tale, she not only incurs the wrath of the old lady with whom she had been “ a sort of favourite,” but by her wild and uncontrollable raving, expels herself and son from every harbour, and exposes all who were so unfortunate as to receive her, to the greatest distress and peril. What must we infer from this incongruous and conflicting representation ? That the conduct of the discreet Mause, previous to “ the 5th of May 1679, when our narrative commences,” exhibits the genuine picture of the Presbyterian character, as it existed at that period, and the description of her mad behaviour after that period, is the distorted caricature of the same class of persons as now presented in Old Mortality ? “ Nec melius natura queat variasse colores : Ell tibi vera rosa est, en tibi ficta rosa !” But as we are not yet to part witli our author, and would wish to keep in the best terms possible with him so long as we must be together, we shall suspend the discussion of the points on which we are under the necessity of differing from liim, for the sake of performing the more pleasant duty of pointing out some of his beauties. These are numer¬ ous ; and all the blemishes which we have noticed, and may yet find ourselves obliged to notice, could not prevent us from observing and admiring them. It is true, that when great talents are abused, when they are exerted to confound the distinctions between virtue and vice, to varnish over oppression and injustice, and to throw ridicule upon those who resist these scourges of society, they ought not to screen the possessor from condemnation and censure. He is doubly criminal ; he sins in patronising a bad cause ; and he sins in prostituting to its sup¬ port those talents which, by the very law of his nature, he was bound to use for an opposite purpose. Still we cannot be blind to their exist¬ ence, nor would we wish to overlook one instance in which they are legitimately and laudably employed. That the general tendency of the work under consideration is unfavourable to the interests of religion and political freedom, is our decided judgment. But we, at the same time, cheerfully acknowledge, that in stating his own sentiments, the author has distinctly condemned persecution, tyranny, and military oppression ; and although he has laboured to expose that party who were most distinguished for religion and correctness of manners, and among whom, indeed, these virtues were then almost exclusively to be found, yet we are unwilling, simply on that account, to consider him as an enemy to religion, or a champion of profaneness. But whatever the 20 KEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD, moral and religious character of the work be, its literary merits are unquestionably high. The author always views nature with the eye of a poet, and his descriptions of it are uniformly vivid, strong, and pic¬ turesque. His dialogue is easy, animated, and characteristical, and is often enlivened with strokes of genuine humour, and flashes of true wit. We cannot say that we find those profound views of human nature, and those nicer dissections of the human heart, which appear in the charac¬ ters of the masters of fictitious writing who flourished during last century. They had studied mankind with a philosophic eye ; their object was to delineate men and manners as they occurred in ordinary life ; and their chief art was exerted in inventing scenes in which these might be fully unfolded, and in forming them into one piece of histori¬ cal painting, in which variety was combined with unity, and the deepest interest imparted to the subject, without the smallest violation of the limits of nature and probability. Our author, again, has surveyed man¬ kind, not carelessly indeed, but with a curious rather than a philosophic eye ; he is attracted by the singularities and eccentricities of human character ; he endeavours chiefly to amuse his readers with an exhibi¬ tion of these ; and whenever they have fallen within the reach of his observation, and he was under no temptation to distort, he has described them with uncommon, we might say with inimitable truth, naivetd, and effect. He never fails to “ carry every point,” when he brings on the scene a Highland chieftain, a moss-trooper, an astrologer, or even a dwarf ; a cunning publican, a simple clown, an artful waiting-woman, or a whimsical old housekeeper. The character of Neil Bane is painted to the life. The scene in the public-house is well described ; and the character of Sergeant Bothwell is natural, and supported throxighout, — only, we must observe that, from his education and former rank, he is not a fair specimen of the rude and brutal soldiery let loose upon the Covenanters ; and he always takes care to engross the conversation, and scarcely allows his comrades to show their faces. The shrewdness and worldly sense of Cuddie Headrigg are very amusing ; and we must praise the sagacity of the author in keeping him cheek by jowl to his mother, not to keep her within bounds (for his presence is of little ser¬ vice that way), but to divert the reader’s attention, and keep him from wearying of a character that is overcharged and unnatural. In general, we think that the author is most successful in giving the portraits of those in low life. Here he has, almost in every case, produced a fac¬ simile; so that we may justly apply the following lines, in which Martial praises the portrait of Issa, the favourite lap-dog of his friend Publius ; — “ Ill qua tarn similem videbis Issam, Ut sit tarn similis sibi nec ipsa. Issam denique pone cum tabella, Aut utramque putabis esse veram, Aut utramque putabis esse flctam.” REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 21 So true the likeness of the elf, That liker is not Issa's self. Survey together, then apart, The dog of nature and of art ; You’ll think that both the dogs are real. Or both alike are dogs ideal. On the score of common propriety, we must except the description of Goose Gibbie in the first scene. We are quite sensible that the author found it advisable to make some sacrifice of his taste to that of a large class of his readers, whom it was prudent to please ; but it was surely too much to record, with such tedious minuteness, and such marks of delight, the adventures and misfortune of a poor “ half-witted lad,” similar to those who give “ infinite satisfaction ” to thoughtless school¬ boys, gaping clowns, and giggling handmaidens. One conspicuous fault in this tale lies in its not giving a view of the state of the Presbyterians previous to the time that it commences, and of the sufferings which they had endured from the Government. It begins with an account of the assassination of Archbishop Sharp, and of the insurrection of the Presbyterians ; but it throws no light upon the causes wliich drove them to this extremity. Let them have been as fanatical, and violent, and rancorous in their political hatred, as the author represents them, still, common justice, not to speak of candour, required that the reader should have been put in possession of those facts which were of an excusatory nature, or which would enable him to judge how far these vices were inherent in the Presbyterian character, and to what degree they were to be imputed to the oppression and cruelty with which they had been treated. The necessity of this is so exceedingly obvious, that it is difficult to suppress the suspicion that the information was intentionally kept back. We certainly do consider it as an instance of glaring partiality and injustice, — the more so, as a great proportion of the readers of the work know little more of the his¬ tory of that time, beyond what they have found in the Introduction to Walter Scott’s Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, where it is described by the veiy elegant periphrasis of “ what is called the ‘ Persecution.’ ” It is no apology for this, that the author has, in a general statement, opposed the tyranny of the Government and military violence, to the turbulence and fanaticism of the Covenanters ; for he has dwelt upon the latter, and only glanced at the former in a transient manner. What .would we think of a writer who should undertake the history of a civil war, without giving the causes which led to it, leaving his reader to collect these from other works, or to guess at them from the hints which he occasionally dropt 1 We are not so unreasonable as to require that our author should have alarmed his readers by giving a dry narra¬ tion of this at the beginning of his work, or by substituting it in place of the interesting description of the weaponschaw far from it. But none knows better than he where it could have been introduced with the greatest propriety and effect. Had he only introduced the leading 22 EEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. facts in a conversation between Morton and a rational Presbyterian (if such a personage could have entered into the author’s conception), he might have given a higher tone to his work, and invested his nominal hero with the real character of a patriot, instead of making him a mere everyday person of romance — a puppet, alternately agitated by love, and jealousy, and personal resentment, and a vague and feeble wish for fame. The narrative which we are necessitated to give, to supply the author’s omission, can be but brief and general. During nineteen long years previous to the insurrection at Bothwell, the Presbyterians of Scotland had smarted under the rod of persecu¬ tion. Scarcely was Charles II. restored, when the scaffold was dyed, with the blood of the noble Marquess of Argyll, who had placed the crown on the king’s head, and of James Guthrie, whose loyalty, not of that passive, creeping, senseless kind which Cavaliers and Tories glory in, but enlightened, tempered, and firm, was proved by his refusing, during the whole period of the interregnum, to acknowledge either the Commonwealth or the Protectorate. The people of Scotland were deeply rooted in their attachment to Presbytery, from a persuasion of its agreeableness to Scripture, from experience of the advantages, reli¬ gious and civil, which it had produced, from the oaths which they were under to adhere to it, and from the sufferings which they had endured for their adherence to it, both from the court and from the sectaries of Eng¬ land. Upon the Kestoration a proclamation was sent down to Scotland, in which the king promised to preserve this form of church government in that part of his dominions. But this was merely an artifice to lull the nation asleep, until the court had gained over or got rid of the principal persons whose opposition they had reason to fear, and to prevent the general remonstrances which otherwise would have been presented from all parts of the kingdom against the intended change ; for it is beyond all doubt (whatever ignorance may assert to the contrary), that there was not then a party in Scotland, worthy of being named, which desired the restoration of Episcopacy upon religious principle. Accord¬ ingly, when the Parliament met, being packed by the court, and slavishly submissive to all its wishes, it proceeded to declare the king supreme in all causes, ecclesiastical and civil, to devolve upon him the whole right of settling the government of the Church, to condemn all resist¬ ance to the royal authority, and at one stroke to rescind all the Parlia¬ ments from 1640 to 1650, even those at which his Majesty and his father had been present, and all their acts, including many of the most enlightened and salutary which ever passed a Scottish legislature ! Thus the liberties of the nation, civil and religious, were laid at the feet of the monarch, and the foundations of all legitimate government shaken. “This,” says Bishop Burnet, “was a most extravagant act, and only fit to be concluded after a drunken bout. It shook all possible security for the future, and laid a most pernicious precedent. It was a mad roaring time, full of extravagance. And no wonder it was so, when the men of REVIEW OF TALES OF MV LANDLORD. 23 affairs were almost 'perpetually drimlc." Had not the ancient spirit of Scotland been broken by repeated disasters, and had they not been basely betrayed, the nation would have risen at once, bound this mad crew, and thrown off the degrading yoke which was imposed on them. In the exercise of the powers with which he was invested, the king im¬ mediately restored Episcopacy by a royal edict, which was soon after confirmed by another Parliament. One principal cause of this revolu¬ tion, and of all the confusions, horrors, and crimes which it entailed upon the nation during twenty*eight years, was the base and unparalleled treachery of Sharp, who, having been sent to London by the Presby¬ terians to watch over their interests, and supported there by their money, deluded them in his letters by the most solemn assurances of his fidelity, and of the security of their cause, while he had betrayed that cause, and sold himself to their adversaries ; and who continued to practise the same consummate hypocrisy, until he had no longer any reason for con¬ cealment, and he took possession of the archbishopric of St Andrews. All the authority and all the force of Government were henceforth em¬ ployed almost solely in enforcing subjection to a form of church gov¬ ernment, and to an order of men that were odious to the nation. The Solemn League and Covenant, which was regarded with the greatest veneration, and had long been considered as one of the most sacred bonds of security for the national religion and liberties, was declared by statute unlawful, and all the subjects, as well as the king who had sworn it, were absolved from its obligation ; those who were admitted to places of power and trust were obliged explicitly to renounce it ; and this renunciation soon came to be exacted from the subjects in general under the heaviest penalties. All ministers who had been admitted to parishes after 1649, were ordered, before a certain day, to receive collation from the bishops, or else to leave their churches. In consequence of this, between three and four hundred of them were constrained to leave their charges, which were filled with men who were in general the very dregs and refuse of society. In giving them this character, we use the lan¬ guage, a little softened, of a bishop who was at that time in Scotland, and was a writer in support of Episcopacy. “ They were,” says he, “ generally very mean and despicable in all respects. They were the worst preachers ever I heard ; they were ignorant to a reproach ; and many of them were openly vicious. They were a disgrace to their orders, and to the sacred functions ; and were indeed the dregs and refuse of the northern parts. Those of them who arose above contempt or scan¬ dal, were men of such violent tempers, that they were as much hated as the others were despised.” Who can wonder that such men were despised and detested ? Who but hypocritical infidels, and profligates, and dastardly souls, would have submitted to the ministry of such men, or have abandoned their own ministers, who had been highly respected, and were highly respectable 1 Accordingly, such of the people as had any sense of religion, or of decorum, and were not slaves to the court, or to 24 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. deep prejudice, scrupled to hear the curates, and frequented the churches of those Presbyterian ministers who had not yet been ejected. When this was not in their power, they craved instruction from their ejected pastors, who, considering the relation that had subsisted between them and their flocks as not dissolved, complied with their request, at first privately, and afterwards more publicly. This was the origin of separate meetings and conventicles, against which the vengeance of the Govern¬ ment, and of the bishops and their worthless underlings, was now directed. Laws with penalties, which were gradually increased, were enacted, and every person bearing the king’s commission had the power of executing them. The Parliament had granted to the king a standing army, under the pretext of defending Christendom against the Turks, forsooth, but in reality to support his arbitrary government. The soldiers were dispersed in companies through the nonconforming par¬ ishes. The curate read over a catalogue of his parishioners on the Sabbath-day, and having marked the names of such as were absent, gave them in to the person who commanded the company, who imme¬ diately levied the fines incurred by the absentees. In parishes to wliich the nonconformists were suspected to repair, the soldiers used to spend the Sabbath in the nearest inn, and when warned by the psalm that public worship was drawing to a close, they sallied out from their cups, placed themselves at the doors of the church, told the people, as they came out, like a flock of sheep, and seized as their prey upon such as had wandered from their own parishes. Ministers who had preached at conventicles were, when apprehended, committed to prison, and banished ; those who attended their ministry were severely fined, or subjected to corporal punishment. Masters were obliged to enter into bonds that their servants should not attend these meetings, and land¬ lords to come under these engagements for all that lived on their estates. If any dispute arose respecting the fines, the person accused was obliged to travel from the most distant part of the country, and though found innocent, was often obliged to pay what was called riding-money^ for defraying the travelling expenses of his accuser, who accompanied him. Sir James Turnei', who commanded a troop which lay at Dumfries in 1666, had distinguished himself by his military exactions and plunder. A small party of his soldiers were one day ordered to a small village in Galloway to bring in one of their victims. While they were treating him in the most inhuman manner, some countrymen ventured to re¬ monstrate against their cruelty. This was resented by the soldiers, a scuffle ensued, and the soldiers were put to flight. Knowing that this act would draw on them the vengeance of the military, the countrymen, being joined by numbers who could not but applaud their generous interference, disarmed the soldiers who were in the neighbourhood, and proceeding quickly to Dumfries, took Sir James Turner prisoner, and dispersed his troops. This incident produced the rising of the Presby- REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 25 terians in the west of Scotland, which was suppressed at Pentland Hills by the King’s troops under General Dalziel. How far it was prudent for them to continue in arms, and to brave the fury of the Government, in the circumstances in which they were then placed, we shall not judge ; but that they were chargeable with rebellion, we will not easily admit. “ We leave all those who afterwards thought it lawful to join in the Revolution,” says a sensible English author, who wrote Memoirs of the Church of Scotland, “ and in taking arms against the oppressions and arbitrary government of King James, to judge, whether these good men had not the same individual reasons, and more, for tliis Pentland expedition 1 and it is answer enough to all that shall read these sheets to say, that these men died for that lawful resisting of arbitrary power which has been justified as legal, and acknowledged to be justifiable by the practice and declaration of the respective Parliaments of both kingdoms.” An unsuccessful attempt to throw off a tyrannical yoke, serves in general to rivet it more firmly, and to aggravate the sufferings of the oppressed. It was so in the present instance. Besides those who suffered for being engaged in the late insurrection, the nonconformists throughout the kingdom were prosecuted with the greatest rigour. A hone of contention, to use the phrase of their arch-persecutor, was thrown in among them by the royal acts of Indulgence, as they were called, by which a certain number of the ejected ministers were per¬ mitted to preach upon certain conditions, and were confined by twos, like galley-slaves, within their parishes. Upon this, severer laws were enacted against conventicles. To preach at a separate meeting in a private house, subjected the minister to a fine of 5000 merks ; if he preached in the fields, his punishment was death and confiscation of property. The fines of those who countenanced these meetings were increased, and were proportioned to their wealth. For example. Sir George Maxwell of Newark, and Sir George Maxwell of Nether Pollock, were fined in a sum amounting to nearly .£8000 sterling each, in the course of three years, for absence from their parish church, attendance on conventicles, and disorderly baptisms. Landlords were now obliged to make it an article in their leases, and masters in their indentures, that their tenants and apprentices should regularly attend the esta¬ blished place of worship. Recourse was at last had to one of the most detestable measures of a tyrannical government. Letters of intercom- muning were issued against a great number of the most distinguished Presbyterians, including several ladies of rank, by winch they were proscribed as rebels, and cut off from all society ; a price, amounting in some instances to £500, was fixed on their heads, and every person, not excepting their nearest relatives, was prohibited from conversing vdth them by word or writing, from receiving or harbouring them, and from supplying them with meat, drink, clothes, or any of the accommodations or necessaries of life, uncler the pain of being pursued with rigour as 26 EEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD, guilty of the same crimes with the persons intercommuned. It is to be observed, that the highest offence of those who were thus excluded from the pale of society, was preaching at, or attending field conventicles. At the same time, the Highland host was brought down upon the western counties. Those who have heard of modern Highland hospita¬ lity, or been amused with fables of ancient Highland chivalry, can form no idea of the horror produced by the irruption of these savages, to the number of 10,000, armed, besides their accustomed weapons, with spades, shovels, and mattocks, and with daggers or dirks made to fasten to the muzzles of their guns, iron shackles for binding their prisoners, and thumb-locks to oblige them to answer the questions that they pro¬ posed to them, and to discover their concealed treasure. The rapine and outrage committed by this lawless banditti, often without discrimi¬ nation of conformists from nonconformists, having obliged the Govern¬ ment to order them home, the regular troops were sent to replace them, provided with instructions to proceed with the greatest severity against those who attended conventicles, and headed by officers who had shown themselves best qualified for carrying these instructions into execution. We cannot give an account of the sufferings which the Presbyterians endured by the execution of these barbarous measures. “ They suf¬ fered,” says an author already quoted, “ extremities that tongue cannot describe, and which heart can hardly conceive of, from the dismal cir¬ cumstances 'of hunger, nakedness, and the severity of the chmate,— lying in damp caves, and in hollow clefts of the naked rocks, without shelter, covering, fire or food ; none durst harbour, entertain, relieve, or speak to them, upon pain of death. Many, for venturing to receive them, were forced to fly to them, and several put to death for no other offence. Fathers were persecuted for supplying their children, and children for nourishing their parents ; husbands for harbouring their wives, and wives for cherishing their own husbands. The ties and obligations of the laws of nature were no defence, but it was made death to perform natural duties ; and many suffered death for acts of piety and charity in cases where human nature could not bear the thoughts of suffering it. To such an extreme was the rage of these persecutors carried.” Nor can we give an account of the murders com¬ mitted under the cloak of justice ; the inhuman tortures to which the accused were subjected, to constrain them to bear witness against them¬ selves, their relatives, and their brethren, and the barbarity of sounding drums on the scaffold to drown their voices, and of apprehending and punishing those who expressed sympathy for them, or who uttered the prayer, God comfort you ! The number of prisoners was often so great that the Government could not bring them all to trial. Such of them as escaped execution were transported, or rather sold as slaves, to people desolate and barbarous colonies ; the price of a Whig was fixed at five pounds ; and sometimes they were given away in presents by the judges. REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 27 Such was the state of matters at the period when the story before us is supposed to commence. Had the author been obliged to prefix to it a narrative of these transactions, however general, we do not believe that he would have ventured on bringing forward the representation which he has given of the two parties, or that he would have presumed on its meeting with a favourable reception. What person of judgment and candour will condemn the Covenanters, or say that they acted otherwise than it became men of conscience, integrity, and spirit to act ? Men who had been betrayed, insulted, harassed, pillaged, and treated in every way like beasts rather than reasonable creatures ; and by whom ? by a perfidious, profane, profligate junto of atheists and debauchees, who were not fit for governing even a colony of transported felons, aided by a set of churchmen the most despicable and wortliless that ever disgraced the habit which they wore, or profaned the sacred function in which they impiously dared to officiate. Were these suf¬ ferers the men whom a writer of the nineteenth century would have chosen as the butt of his ridicule, by industriously bringing forward and aggravating their foibles, and by loading them with follies and vices to which they were utter strangers, while he eagerly sought to shade the cruelties which they endured, and to throw a lustre over the character of their worst persecutors ? Who, after contemplating the picture which the genuine history of these times presents, can read without scorn the pitiful complaint, that “ the zeal of the conventiclers devoured no small portion of their loyalty, sober sense, and good breeding 1” We have more respect for him, when with greater courage he avows his sentiments, and bears his testimony against “ the envenomed rancour of their political hatred.” For then we can tell him boldly in reply, that the Government, or rather the political faction usurping the go¬ vernment, which the Presbyterians hated, deserved to be “ hated with a perfect hatred.” Indignant as we felt at such conduct, we could not pre¬ vent our features from relaxing, to hear him exclaim, with affected whin¬ ing, and glaring self-contradiction, — in the language of tragedy, too, — “ Oh rake not up the ashes of our fathers ! ” Your fathers ! If you mean the Presbyterians, they acknowledge you not ; and if their persecutors, you only are to blame for the stirring of those ashes mth which time was gradually and slowly covering the memory of their infamous deeds. If the Presbyterian preachers, and the people who faithfully and generously adhered to them— -after being driven out of society, hunted from place to place, obliged to assemble on mountains, and to seek refuge in the caves and dens of the earth — had unlearned in a great degree the ordinary habits of men, and almost forgotten to speak the common language of their contemporaries if the scenes with which they were daily surrounded had imparted to their minds a high degree of enthusiasm, and even of fierceness ; — in short, if the picture drawn 28 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. by the author of the more rigid Presbyterians were just (which we can by no means admit), still a faithful and intelligent historian would not only have fairly accounted for this, but would have painted their native sense, worth, and dignity of character, as displaying itself through the darker and less pleasing, but not uninteresting hue, which peculiar circumstances had for a time impressed upon their features. Who will wonder that some of them should at times have lost command of them¬ selves, and done acts which did not accord with their general conduct and prevailing temper 1 When the oppression of the times became so indiscriminate, both in point of legal enactment and of actual execution, as to involve many others along with the immediate objects of persecu¬ tion, and when it assumed so outrageous a form as to irritate all who had any regard for the rights of men, or any abhorrence of tyranny, need we wonder that many persons, who, in point of religious and moral character, were dissimilar to the Covenanters, should have been induced to attend their conventicles, and to take part in their quarrel? Or need we be astonished that instruments should have been found to cut off so furious a persecutor, and a man so universally detested, as Arch¬ bishop Sharp ? Instead of being surprised at the insurrection of the Presbyterians, and the resistance which they made at Drumclog and Bothwell, may we not rather feel astonished that their patience held out so long under such intolerable oppressions? To those who would revive the exploded charge of rebellion, we give the same answer which we made in speaking of the rising at Pentland, and in the words of the same author whom we then quoted : “ What a shaine is it to us,” says he, addressing the English nation, “ and how much to the honour of these persecuted people, that they could thus see the treachery and tyranny of those reigns, when we saw it not ; or rather, that they had so much honesty of principle, and obeyed so strictly the dictates of con¬ science, as to bear their testimony, early, nobly, and gloriously, to the tnith of God, and the rights of their country, both civil and religious ! while we all, though seeing the^same things, and equally convinced of its being right, yet betrayed the cause of liberty and religion, by a sinful silence, and a dreadful cowardice, not joining to help the Lord, or the people of the Lord, against the mighty ; sitting still, and seeing our brethren slaughtered and butchered, in defence of their principles (which our consciences told us, even then, were founded on the truth), and by those tyrants who, we knew, deserved to be rejected, both of God and the nation, and whom afterwards we did reject ! ” We now proceed to substantiate the charge which we have brought against the work, by adducing particular proofs, Jirst, of partiality to the persecutors ; and, secondly, of injustice to the persecuted Presby¬ terians. And as we do not mean to blink the charge, we wish to be understood as accusing the work of gross partiality and injustice. In i\\Q first place, then, it gives an unfaithful picture of the sufterings which the country endured from military depredations and outrage. KEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 29 The history of that period is full of instances of these ; and the author was not only sensible that he was bound to give a view of them, but has pro¬ fessed to give it. But how faint a resemblance does the picture bear to the original ! We shall consider the scene at Tillietudlem, on occasion of Claverhouse’s first visit to it, when we examine the character of that officer. The scene at Milnwood, when Henry Morton is taken prisoner, is the only one in the work which could properly be intended to repre¬ sent the depredations of the soldiery, and is evidently given by the author as a specimen of the whole. (Vol. ii. p. 172-207.) But here every circumstance is so arranged, as to diminish the impression which the reader might have conceived of the excesses committed on such occasions. Great alarm is indeed expressed at the arrival of the red¬ coats, but it is by the miserly landlord and his timid housekeeper. Old Milnwood slips into his pocket the silver spoons, — but the soldiers testify no disposition either to pilfer or plunder. The troopers call for drink with sufficient insolence, — but the jests of the thoughtless and gay, though dissipated Bothwell, dispel the apprehensions of the reader, who is mightily pleased to see the claret of the old miser quaffed, and his musty bottles emptied. Bothwell determines to carry off young Morton as a prisoner, but it is only after discovering that he had afforded shelter to the murderer of the archbishop ; and although he asserted that he was not aware of the commission of that deed, still his assertion was not sufficient warrant for the sergeant to allow him to escape. Bothwell proceeds to put the test oath, but we are instantly told that he did it much in the same manner “ which is used to this day in his Majesty’s custom-house.” And before we have recalled our thoughts, the author has completely diverted our attention from the subject, by the struggle between Mause and her son, and the ridiculous, extravagant, and raving rhapsodies with which the former assailed the astounded ears of the soldiers. In short, the party carry off Henry Morton, leaving the impression upon our minds that they had con¬ ducted themselves with great moderation, and disposing us to join heartily in the reproaches which the incensed housekeeper pours upon the head of Mause, as the sole cause of the misfortune that had befallen the family. Thus the tragic scenes of military violence, described by the faithful page of history, sink, in the mimic representation of our author, into a mere farce ! And the moral of the fable, good reader, if it be necessary to state it more plainly, is, that the evils which the Covenanters suffered from the soldiers were chiefly owing to their own indiscretion and extravagance. In the midst of this scene, so calculated to give a false idea of the then actual state of matters, the attentive reader could not fail to observe the mean attempt made to bribe him to think lightly of the whole persecution, by putting a laughable and ludicrous description of the sufferings of the Covenanters into the mouth of old Mause. “ Accipe nunc Danaum insidias, et crimine ab uuo Disce omnes.” 30 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. In the second place, we bring the same charge against the repre¬ sentation made of the judicial procedure against the Covenanters. We allude particularly to the torture of Macbriar in the presence of the Privy Council. The use of that infernal mode of punishipent at that' period is so well known, that it could scarcely have been omitted, and it afforded, besides, an opportunity to the author to display his powers of description. We readily allow that the operation, and the behaviour of the counsellors who witnessed the spectacle, are described in such a manner as to excite our horror at both. But what we complain of is, that even here the author has introduced a circumstance wliich is cal¬ culated most materially to diminish this feeling. As if the Privy Council had not been in the habit of torturing innocent men, the person selected as an example of their unfeeling severity, is not simply a Covenanter, a field-preacher, and one who had been in the rebellion at Bothwell ; but one whom the author had previously made a murderer, and one of the most atrocious kind, — we say a murderer, because his intention was fully manifested, and on the eve of being carried into execution, and because “the bitterness of death was past” with the victim, before he was rescued. (Vol. iv. p. 68-100.) Macbriar is made to act a principal part in that horrid scene (more horrid by far than that of the torture), and the description of it is wrought up to the very highest pitch of which the author’s fancy was capable.* Both scenes were of his creation. It will scarcely be denied, that in forming the one, he had his eye upon the other ; and the tendency of the association upon the mind of the reader is too obvious to require illustration. A third instance of partiality to the persecutors, is the excessive tenderness and delicacy shown to the Episcopal clergy, contrasted with the manner in which the Presbyterian ministers are treated through the work. It is most undeniable that they acted a very important part in the transactions of that period; yet they are concealed and kindly kept out of view by the author. Preachers of the Presbyterian persuasion, both indulged, and non-indulged, moderate and rigid, are brought forward by name ; the reader is introduced to their acquaintance, and made to listen to their conversations, and prayers, and preachings. But not one bishop or curate is introduced on the scene, and we seldom even hear of 1 The scene here referred to is that at of some of the wilder spirits who mingled Drumshinnel, when Morton, having fallen with their ranks, it was quite preposterous among some of the Cameronian party, was to put such bloody sentiments into the adjudged to die, “ as an offering to atone for mouth of any of their ministers, and espe- the sins of the congregation,” as soon as the cially of Macbriar, who is evidently intended clock struck twelve on Sabbath night, and for Mr M'Kail, one of the most amiable suf- was opportunely saved from this fate by the ferers of the period. But the worst feature arrival of Claverhouse and his dragoons, in the whole scene is the attempt to gloze The author informs us, in the notes to his over the horrid massacre which followed, — last edition of the Tales, that the incident the reader being fully prepared, by the pre- was suggested to him by a similar story vious scene in the drama, for welcoming the about a gang of smugglers. Allowing that approach of “ the Bloody Claverso,” and such a scene might have taken place with feeling anything but sympathy when he sees some of the Covenanters, and that Sir Walter that “ the Camerouians, «o lately about to be was fully warranted, as he insists in his vin- the willing agents of a bloody execution, were dicatory articles, in drawing such a picture now themselves to undergo it.” tl* REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD, 31 them, except when we are told of their being religiously employed in reading 'prayers ! What is the reason of this 1 The reader may take the following until he can find a better. The gross ignorance of the greater part of them, the vices with which their morals were stained, and the violence with which they instigated the Government to perse¬ cution, were so glaring as to be undeniable. The character given of them by Presbyterian writers is so strongly confirmed by Bishop Burnet, that it was impossible to outface it ; and to have presented them in their true colours, would not only have displeased the right reverend friends and informers of the author, but woidd also have tended, in no small degree, to have relieved the dark picture given of the Covenanters. We do not recollect to have seen prudence enumerated among the quali¬ fications of a historian, but henceforward let it occupy a chief place among the historic virtues. “ Cave arguendum faciims hoc, lector, putes : Causam rogas? Probanda virtue omnis est ; Ergo et probanda (quis neget ?) prudentia. ” We now come to the character of Grahame of Claverhouse, after¬ wards known by the name of Viscount Dundee, which the author has laboured with the greatest art. Claverhouse was not in Scotland at the beginning of the persecution, but he had been employed in it as the captain of an independent troop at least two years before the affair of Drumclog. His behaviour soon recommended him to his employers. Officers not distinguished for humanity, and sufficiently disposed to execute the orders which they received with rigour, had been previously employed by the Court. But the deeds of Turner, Bannatyne, Grierson of Lagg, and General Dalziel, were soon eclipsed by those of Grahame, who long continued to be known in Scotland by the name of Bloody Claverhouse. His actions, as recorded in the history of these times, do certainly prove that he was not undeserving of this appellation. A brief reference to some of these will assist us in judging of the charac¬ ter which the author has given of him. We shall not speak of the blood wantonly shed by him in the pursuit of the Covenanters after their rout at Bothwell, nor of the ravages and cruelties which he com¬ mitted in Ayrshire and in Galloway, during that and the succeeding year ; as it may be alleged that revenge for the disgrace which he had suffered at Loudon Hill, prompted him to acts not congenial to his natural disposi¬ tion. But this feeling had sufficient time to subside before 1684. During that year he had the chief command in the west of Scotland, and he em¬ ployed the most disgraceful and barbarous measures to discover those that were intercommuned, and if possible to exterminate the whole party. He sought out and employed persons who could, with the greatest address, feign themselves to be pious men, and friendly to Presbyterians, and by tliis means discovered their retreats, or drew them from places where they could not be attacked by his troops. Having divided the country 32 EEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. into districts, he caused his soldiers to drive all the inhabitants of a district, like so many cattle, to a convenient place. He then called out a certain number of them, and while his soldiers surrounded them with charged guns and bloody threatenings, he made them swear that they owned the Duke of York as rightful successor to the throne. If they had formerly taken the test or abjuration oath, he interrogated them if they had repented of this, and then caused them to swear anew that they would not, under pain of losing their part in heaven, repent of it for the future. If any hesitated to swear, he was taken out a few paces from the rest, his face was covered with a napkin, and the soldiers ordered to fire over his head, to terrify him into compliance. At other times, he gathered together all the children of a district, from six to ten years of age, and having drawn up a party of soldiers before them, told them to pray, as they were going to be shot. When they were suffi¬ ciently frightened, he ordered them their lives, provided they answered such questions as he proposed to them concerning their fathers, and such as visited their houses. Claverhouse scrupled not to take an active part in these disgraceful scenes, so far as to fire his own pistol twice over the head of a boy of nine years of age, to induce him to discover his father. He frequently shot those who fell into his power, though they were unarmed, without any form of trial ; and when his soldiers, sometimes shocked at the wantonness of his cruelty, hesitated in obeying his orders, he executed them himself The case of John Brown, in the parish of Muirkirk, affords an example of this kind. He was a man of excellent character, and no way obnoxious to Government, except for nonconformity. On the 1st of May 1684 he was at work in the fields near to his own house, when Claverhouse passed, on his way from Lesmahago, with three troops of dragoons. It is probable that infor¬ mation of his nonconformity had been given to the colonel, who caused him to be brought from the fields to his own door, and, after some interrogatories, ordered him to be instantly shot. Brown, being allowed a few minutes to prepare for death, prayed in such an affecting strain, that none of the soldiers, profane and hardened as they were, could be prevailed upon to fire, upon which Claverhouse, irritated at the delay, shot him dead with his own hand, regardless of the tears and entreaties of the poor man’s wife, who, far gone in her pregnancy, and attended by a young child, stood by. The afflicted widow could not refrain from upbraiding the murderer, and telling him, that he must give an account to God for what he had done ; to which the hardened and remorseless villain proudly replied, — “ To man 1 can he answerable, and as for God, I will talce him into my own hand."' The apologists of Claver¬ house have been obliged to notice the fact of his becoming the execu¬ tioner of his own sentences, in the exercise of militaiy discipline. But, with their usual fertility in inventing excuses for his most glaring faults, and with their wonted ignorance of human nature, they impute such REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 33 deeds of cold-blooded severity to a desire on his part to do honour to the individuals on whom the punishment was inflicted ! Thus Dalrymple, after telling us that the only punishment which Olaverhouse inflicted was death, and that all other punishments, in his opinion, dis¬ graced a gentleman, states, that a young man having fled in the time of battle, he brought him to the front of the army, and saying that “ a gentleman’s son ought not to fall by the hands of a common execu¬ tioner,” shot him with his own pistol. Those who recollect the case of poor Brown, who was neither a soldier nor a gentleman, will know how to treat this absurd and ridiculous allegation. The most hardened and irreligious persecutors do not always feel, upon reflection, that ease of mind which they affect. It is said that Olaverhouse acknowledged to some of his confidential friends, that Brown’s prayer often intruded on his unwelcome thoughts ; and it is not improbable that some degree of remorse at his late deed made him show an unwonted reluctance to a murder which he committed only ten days after. In one of his marauding expeditions, he seized Andrew Hislop, and carried him prisoner along with him to the house of Sir James Johnston of Westerraw, without any design, it would appear, of putting him to death. As Hislop was taken on his lands, Westerraw insisted on passing sentence of death upon him. Olaverhouse opposed this, and pressed a delay of the execution ; but his host urging him, he yielded, saying, “ The blood of this poor man be upon you, Westerraw ; I am free of it.” A Highland gentleman, who was traversing the country, having come that way with a company of soldiers, Claver- house meanly endeavoured to make him the executioner of Westerraw’s sentence ; but that gentleman, having more humanity and a higher sense of honour, drew off his men to some distance, and swore that he would fight Colonel Grahame sooner than perform such an ofiice. Upon this, Olaverhouse ordered three of his own soldiers to do it. When they were ready to fire, they desired Hislop to draw his bonnet over his face, but he refused, telling them that he had done nothing of which he had reason to be ashamed, and could look them in the face without fear, and holding up his Bible in one of his hands, and reminding them of the account which they had to render, he received the contents of their muskets in his body. — Say, reader, who was the hero, and who the coward, on this occasion 1 We have no doubt that every person of genuine feeling, and whose judgment is unwarped by prejudice, will pro¬ nounce, that this man met his death with truer and more praiseworthy courage, than Olaverhouse afterwards did, when he died “ in the arms of victory,” to use the canting language of certain historians, “ and wiped off the stain which he had contracted by his cruelties to the Cove¬ nanters,” — a stain which no victory, however brilliant, could efface, and which all the art and labour of his most elocpient apologists, instead of covering, will only serve to bring more clearly into view. In spite of these indisputable facts, which the friends of Claverhouse G 34 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. have never dared to deny, he is a great favourite with our author, who has made him not only a hero, but a profound politician, and a disinter¬ ested patriot ! What cannot genius effect 1 And what will conffdence in talents, provided it is propped by prejudice, and elevated by popular credulity, not undertake to perform 1 The author is not contented with holding out the character of Claverhouse in this light, — he employs all his art, and all the powers of his eloquence, to impress it on the imagi¬ nation of his readers. This he does, partly by the description which he gives of it in his own name, partly by what he puts into the mouths of his most respectable characters, and partly by the manner in which he represents this hero as speaking and acting in the interesting scenes in wliich he is made to figure. It is not from any one of these taken singly that we must judge of the character, but from all of them taken together, and particularly from the last, of which extracts cannot con¬ vey an idea, although no reader can for a moment doubt of its effect from the impression left on his mind. We shall, however, quote the description which the author has given of Claverhouse upon his first appearance, as an introduction to the remarks which we have to make upon the character given of him throughout the work. After a minute description of his person — the elegance of his shape— the gracefulness of his gesture, language, and manners — the feminine regularity of his features — the delicacy of his complexion, with other marks of beauty, which “ contributed to form such a countenance as limners love to paint, and ladies to look upon,” and his “ tone of voice of that happy modula¬ tion which could alike melt in the low tones of interesting conversa¬ tion, and rise amid the din of battle, loud as a trumpet with a silver sound the author adds, — “ The severity of his character, as well as the higher attributes of undaunted and enterprising valour, which even his enemies were compelled to admit, lay concealed under an exterior w'hich seemed adapted to the court or the saloon, rather than the field. The same gentleness and gaiety of expression which reigned in his features, seemed to inspire his actions and gestures ; and, on the whole, he was generally esteemed, at first sight, rather qualified to be the votary of pleasure than of ambition. But under this soft exterior was hidden a spirit mibounded in daring and in aspiring, yet cautious and prudent as that of Machiavel himself. Profound in politics, and imbued, of course, with that disregard for individual rights which its intrigues usually generate, this leader was cool and collected in danger, fierce and ardent in pursuing success, careless of death himself, and rathless in inflicting it upon others. Such are the characters formed in times of civil discord, when the highest qualities, perverted by party spirit, and inflamed by habitual opposition, are too often combined with vices and excesses which deprive them at once of their merit and of their lustre.” — (Vol. ii. pp. 287, 288.) To this may be added, the comparison which the author afterwards states between the characters of Dalziel and Claverhouse. Having de¬ scribed the exterior appearance of the former (almost in the words of Captain John Creighton, or rather of Dean Swift, except that he men- EEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 35 tions the antique fashion of his boots, an article of dress which that re¬ spectable authority tells us he never wore), the author says, — “ His high and wrinkled forehead, piercing grey eyes, and marked features, evinced age, unbroken by infirmity, and stern resolution, unsoftened by humanity. Such is the outline, however feel)ly expressed, of the celebrated General Thomas Dalziel, a man more feared and hated by the Whigs than even Claverhouse himself, and who executed the same violence against them out of a detestation of their persons, or perhaps an innate severity of temper, which Grahame only resorted to on political accounts, as the best means of intimidating the followers of Presbyteiy, and of destroying that sect entirely.” — (Vol. iv. pp. 25, 26.) lu the first place, here is a glaring contradiction in terms. We are told that the violences which Claverhouse executed on the Whigs, he “ only resorted to on political accounts,” as contradistinguished from “ an innate severity of temper.” And yet the author had before given a conspicuous place to the “ severity of his character,” and described him as “ careless of death himself, and ruthless in inflicting it upon others.” Or, did he mean to impute Claverhouse’s disregard of his own life to political considerations, and thus to divest him of personal courage and a martial spirit (the only quality to which he had an undisputed claim), that he might shield him from the charge of inhumanity ? Again, after having gravely told us that Dalziel was actuated by the innate severity of his temper, and Claverhouse solely by political considerations, “ as the best means of intimidating the followers of Presbytery,” the author within a little represents the latter as continuing “an unwearied and bloody pursuit,” under the impidse of his “ fiery and vindictive ” temper, while the former is represented as urging the pursuit entirely on political accounts, and as a means “to mi these desperate rebels.”— (Vol. iv. p. 62-64.) “ Quo teueam vultus mutantem Protea modo?” The author frequently quotes proverbs, and he may perhaps have heard of one which is not without its meaning, — “ Better a black devil than a white.” Where two characters are noted or even suspected for cruelty, we would far sooner throw ourselves on the mercy of him who is of severe brow and harsh manners, than of him whose real disposi¬ tions are concealed under a smiling countenance and the most fawning address. We have in our eye facts directly bearing upon the case under consideration. Dalziel was guilty of great cruelties ; yet there is at least one instance which shows that his innate severity, hardened by a long course of barbarous service, was not altogether unsusceptible of hiimane impressions, and that he could treat even a puritanical prisoner with generosity. John Paton was a captain in the Presbyterian army at Pentland, and on that occasion had fought sword in hand with Dalziel, whom he had encountered on the field. When he was brought into Edinburgh as a prisoner after the battle of Bothwell, a soldier upbraided him with being a rebel, to whom he mildly replied, “ I have done more for the king than perhaps you have done,” referring to the 36 KEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. battle of Worcester, where he had fought for Charles. Dalziel overhear¬ ing the conversation, said, “ Yes, John, that is tme,” and turning to the soldier, struck him with his cane, and told him he would teach him other manners than to abuse such a prisoner. He then expressed his sorrow for Paton’s situation, said he would have set him at liberty if he had met him on the way, and promised that he would yet write to the king for his life. Paton thanked him, but added, “ You will not be heard.” “ Will I not 1 ” replied the General ; “ if he does not grant me the life of one man, I shall never draw a sword for him again.” It is said that he obtained a reprieve for Paton ; but he was not able to procure his life. Now, we know of no instance of Claverhouse doing an action of this kind, except in the fictions of the tale before us. We have men¬ tioned it to show that the Presbyterian writers, who have recorded it, were not disposed to overlook any act of clemency towards them on the part of those who had been the instruments of their greatest sufferings, and also to show how grossly our author has blundered in the com¬ parison which he has drawn between the characters of these two officers. Whether the author took the likeness from limners or ladies, we shall not inquire : we are willing to allow that Claverhouse’s features were feminine, and his complexion almost effeminate. All that we maintain is, that this soft and prepossessing exterior no more proves that he was not cruel, than it proves that he was courageous. Without having re¬ course either to the physiognomical theory of Lavater, or the cranio- logical system of Spurzheim, or examining either “ a Grecian statue” or a Gothic, the author might have learned from plain history, that individuals distinguished for their personal beauty and blandishing manners, have been hardened, relentless, and savage in their dispositions. Wliile the facts which we have mentioned remain undisputed, what has he done but described a 'beautiful bloodhound, “ cool and collected in danger, fierce and ardent in pursuing success, careless of death him¬ self, and ruthless in inflicting it upon others V’ But let iis examine the second trait in the character of Claverhouse, by which the author attempts to throw a shade over his cruelties. He was, it seems, profoundly versed in politics, and having imbibed the creed of Machiavel, he had recourse to severe and violent measures, not from any propensity to these, but from a cool conviction, deliberately formed, that they were the means best adapted to promote the public good, and even ultimately to lessen the effusion of human blood. This has at least the merit of novelty. None of the former historians or biographers of the brave Dundee ever conceived such an ingenious thought as this. They could represent the impetuosity of his courage as hurrying him into excesses, or they could insinuate, that the orders which he received, or the conduct of the people whom he was employed to suppress, rendered it necessary for him to be severe and unrelenting ; apologies which readily suggest themselves to the lowest and most REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 37 illiterate ruffian that plunders and murders under the protection of a red coat or a commission. But it never entered into their barren con¬ ceptions to send him to study in the schools of Italy, or to represent him as initiated into all the refined and deep mysteries of the Florentine politician. Sir John Dalrymple has told us, without alleging a single authority, but with as great confidence and minuteness as if he had been copying from memoirs by Dundee himself, or by his secretary, that he “ had inflamed his mind, from his earliest youth, by the perasal of ancient poets, historians, and orators, with the love of the great actions they praise and describe. He is reported to have inflamed it still more, by listening to the ancient songs of the Highland bards.” But our author goes another way to work, and represents his hero as spending his youth in poring over the dark pages of Machiavel, and in threading the intricate mazes of political disquisition — an employment not very congenial to a mind that was enraptured with the songs of ancient and modern bards. Such are the inconsistencies and improbabilities in which writers involve themselves, who, in describing a favourite character, - “diseutaugle from the puzzled skein, In which obscurity has wrapp’d them up, Tlie threads of politic and shrewd design. That ran through all his purposes, and charge His mind with meanings that he never had.” To describe Claverhouse as “profound in politics,” appears to us ridiculous in the extreme. It is not sujiported by anything in his character or conduct. The qualities of a profound politician are very rarely found combined with those of a brave and enterprising officer ; — we speak of state politics, not those of the camp. Even as to the latter, we have never been able to see good grounds for the eulogiums that certain writers have passed upon Dundee, although we are not disposed to contest a point which lies without our sphere. But sure we are, that he could have no claim to political sagacity, unless its maxims are all comprised in the words which the author puts into his mouth, after the victory of Both well, — Kill, kiU — no quarter,” which, with due modifi¬ cation to the state of a country not in actual insurrection, will exhaust the whole of his political creed. To what purpose talk of “ a disregard to individual rights, as generated by political intrigues, with reference to a man whose whole conduct was a trampling on general and national rights, both in his treatment of the Presbyterians, and in his attempts to maintain a tyrant on the throne 1 Claverhouse is introduced as boasting of his disinterestedness, and it is evidently intended that he should be believed. Ambition, we believe, was liis ruling passion, and we feel no inclination to urge the allegation which has been brought against him, as equally eager to share in the fines exacted from the Covenanters as any of his brethren in arms. But ambition is a selfish passion as well as avarice, and more destructive of public good. Our author represents fidelity as a striking trait in Claver- house’s character. Thus he makes him to say, “ Faithful and true, are 38 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. words never thrown away upon me, Mr Morton.” Had he entertained just notions of fidelity, or respected that virtue in others, he could not have acted as he did to the Covenanters, against whom no accusation could be brought but fidelity in adhering to the most sacred engagements that ever any people were brought under. The fidelity with which he adhered to the interests of James cannot be viewed as highly meritorioiis, when it is considered how obnoxious and odious he had made himself by his cruelties to the opposite party. Nor should it be forgotten, that the Viscount Dundee made proposals to King William, and employed a bishop to ascertain the conditions upon which he might make his peace with the new Government, although the terms offered to him were such as to be irreconcilable with his restless and ambitious spirit. The Earl of Melfort may be presumed to have been better acquainted with Dun¬ dee’s character than any modern author, who appears to have formed his judgment of it chiefly from the work of a portrait-painter. We are informed by Lord Balcarras, that this statesman wrote to the General, that James had drawn up lus declaration of indemnity and toleration in such ambiguous terms, that he might break his promises whenever he pleased. And so far was Melfort from fearing that this would shock Dundee’s nice sense of honour and fidelity, that lie communicated it as a piece of information which he knew would be Inghly gratifying to him. Are the words “ faithful and true” synonymous, in our author’s vocabu¬ lary, with an approbation of one of the most detestable principles of the Machiavellian school 1 or did he expect his readers to believe that these opposite qualities were blended in the same character? In fine, is it alleged, in extenuation of his cruelties, that lus character was formed “ in times of civil discord, when the highest qualities” are “ perverted by party spirit, and inflamed by habitual opposition?” We reply, that among all the actors in these bloody scenes, Claverhouse had the least claim to this apology. He left his native country at an early period of life, before he could be supposed to have taken any particular interest in the strife of its parties ; his character, so far as it depended on external circumstances, was formed in France and Holland ; and when he returned to Scotland, he entered at once into all the severe and bar¬ barous measures of the Government. It will be said that the author has allowed that Claverhouse was one of those characters, whose high qualities are “ combined with vices and excesses, which deprive them at once of their merit and of their lustre.” We know that he has ; and if he had said nothing of a contrary tendency, althoxrgh we think his language an extremely inadequate expression of the atrocities to which it relates, still we should not have reckoned it necessary to animadvert upon it particularly. But what we complain of is, that he has not exhibited, as was his duty, these vices and excesses, so as to excite a due detestation of them in the minds of his readers. We complain, that in the representation given of him in the tale, Claver- house’s vices are shaded, and his excesses diminished, with the most REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 39 glaring partiality. We complain, that excuses are made for his conduct, to which he had no claim, or which ought to have been urged in aggra^ vation, and not in extenuation of his guilt. We complain, that his good qualities are industriously brought forward, and unduly blazoned, and that others are ascribed to him which he did not possess. And we com¬ plain, that by these means, a bloody, unrelenting, and remorseless persecutor, and one of the most active and unprincipled supporters of arbitrary and despotic power, is exhibited in such flattering colours, as to attract admiration to a character, which, had its features been delineated with the pencil of truth, would have excited little else than feelings of indignation and horror. So that the author, by his description, practi¬ cally contradicts what he had admitted in general terms, and has done what was in his power to restore to the character that merit and lustre, to use his own phraseology, of which its vices and excesses had justly deprived it. A very cursory survey of the scene at Tillietudlem, when Morton’s fate depended upon the determination of Claverhouse, will show that our complaints are not groundless. This is evidently introduced by the author as a fair representation of the cruelties with which Grahame was chargeable. But how unlike to the truth ! Does Claverhouse shoot Morton with his own hand 1 0 horrid ! No. Is Morton shot at all? No. How, then, does he escape with his life ? Is he rescued from death by the sudden advance of his friends, the Whigs ? Not at all. The author is more sparing and judicious in the use of poetic machinery than old doting Homer, who is ever depriving his heroes of the glory of a victory, or of an act of clemency, by imputing these to the intervention of one or other of his officious gods. Something of tliis kind was highly proper, and it is not withheld, when Morton was afterwards to be saved from the bloody fangs of the savage fanatics at Drumshinnel. But it was quite unnecessary and superfluous to have recourse to any such expedient on the present occasion. Morton is perfectly safe under the protection of his good friends, the Tories ; and Claverhouse, after a struggle with his sense of the duty which he owed to his superiors, and the severe measures which he deemed necessary to repress the mutinous spirit that was spreading through the country. Anally yields to spare the life of Morton, though he was charged with resetting the murderer of the archbishop, and though his spirit and talents might afterwards prove dangerous to the Government. But is all this easily accomplished? No, not quite easily either. It has cost the author four whole chapters, consisting of considerably above a hundred pages of as good paper and letter-press as any in the whole work. Let us look into them, and examine their contents. The tenth chapter prepares us for being admitted into “ the presence of the dreaded chief,” by an interesting conversation on his character between Miss Bellenden and Morton. The former, indeed, speaks with great dread and horror of the inexorable severity of Claverhouse’s 40 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. character. But then we recollect that aiDprehensions for the fate of her lover have raised her fears to an undue pitch, and if we participated for a moment in her fears, we are relieved by Morton’s reply, “ Claver- house, though stern and relentless, is, by all accounts, brave, fair, and honourable.” This would have allayed the fears of even Miss Bellenden herself, had it not been for a circumstance mentioned in a letter which her grandmother had that morning received from the grieved and in¬ censed colonel. “The unhappy primate was his intimate friend and early patron !” And on that account he threatened, that, “ no excuse, no subterfuge, shall save either those connected with the deed, or such as have given them countenance and shelter, from the ample and bitter penalty of the law.” Morton was in this way placed in very peculiar circumstances of danger. We should like to know something of the history of the letter which contained this piece of new and important information. It would be curious to know whether it had fallen into the hands of the Cameronians, and being suppressed by them, was dis¬ covered upon Old Mortality when he was “ found on the highway near Lockerby, in Dumfriesshire, exhausted and just expiring ;” or whether we owe it to the researches of some of the non-jurant bishops, who kindly communicated it to the author. The public may afterwards be gratified with this piece of history. In the mean time, as no doubt can be entertained of the genuineness of the letter, it unquestionably throws new light upon the character of Claverhouse. We now cease to wonder at the reluctance which he showed to spare Morton at the intercession of Major Bellenden ; and if we cannot just approve of all the severities which he afterwards practised on the Covenanters, we must at least feel a respect for the motive which prompted him to inflict them. In the eleventh chapter, the reader is conveyed to the battlements of the tower of Tillietudlem, and is presented with a most charming pros¬ pect of the surrounding scenery. While he is feasting on this enchant¬ ing landscape, his ears are attracted by the distant sounds of martial music. The expected body of cavalry make their appearance, and the long and imposing train, and “ the glancing of the swords, and waving of their banners, joined to the clang of their trumpets and kettle-drums,” have “ at once a lively and awful effect upon the imagination.” They present themselves in front of the castle ; and while the standard is lowered “ amid the fanfare of the trumpets and the stamp and neigh of the chargers,” “ Claverhouse himself alighted from a black horse, the most beautiful perhaps in Scotland — he had not a single white hair upon his whole body” — and he was shot-proof, according to the opinion of “ the superstitious fanatics,” — and the heroic chief is instantly at the feet of the ladies, whom he salutes “ with military politeness.” The twelfth chapter introduces us into the presence of Claverhouse, and we are enamoured with his personal accomplishments and captivat¬ ing manners. We are then made to listen to an account of Morton’s danger and escape, which is continued in the succeeding or thirteenth REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 41 chapter. As to this, it might suffice to say, that we never once feel any apprehension for his fate, nor think that he is in the least danger from the severity of Claverhouse. We hear the author (not Olaverhouse) exclaim, “ Bothwell, why do you not bring up the prisoner 1 And hark ye,” as if he knew that he was not listened to, or believed, “ let two files load their carabines.” We are told that a prisoner has entered the room heavily ironed ; but we hear not the clank of his chains. This may arise from our dulness ; but the feelings of Edith Bellenden are not widely ditferent. “ Her blood, which rushed to her brow, made a sudden revulsion to her heart, and left her as pale as death.” But was this from dread of her lover’s life 1 By no means ; it arose merely from the consciousness that he had overheard her, as he passed, use an expression which would create jealousy in his breast. “ Cautious and prudent as Machiavel himself,” she guards against dropping a word which may either betray the real state of her affections, or encourage Evandale’s hopes, while she requests his intercession in behalf of Morton ; and with great coolness and self-command she adheres to her first expression, “ Try it for my uncle's sake.” Indeed, it is with the greatest difficulty that the author can get her to go through her part of the farce with any degree of tolerable decency — by all his prompting — by uttering a sigh for her — and at last, in utter despair, by giving her a concealed but sure blow, which would have made her to have “ fallen flat upon the pavement, had she not been caught by her attendant ; ” upon which Lord Evandale very coolly leaves her, and, taking Claver¬ house into another apartment, restored his chafed commander to his usual reason and moderation. But we may appeal to the manager of the piece himself in support of the justness of our feelings. What does he do 1 When he has placed the prisoner at the bar of Claverhouse, and when, if there is any truth in history, the trial could not be long, nor the execution of the sentence distant, he takes the reader aside, and very gravely commences a tedious discourse, in which he unfolds the true character of Morton — states his religious and political principles — gives an account of his courtship — opens up the cause of his jealousy — draws a character of Miss Bellenden’s waiting-woman — mentions how she used to tease the poor lover — and tells a story respecting Lord Evandale,- — not omitting to introduce, under these heads, appropriate illustrations from Mrs Quickly and Uncle Toby. The chapter in which all this information is contained (for it has a new chapter allotted to it) begins in the following manner ; — “ O my lord, beware of jealousy.” — Othello. “ To explain the deep effect which the few broken passages of the conversation we have detailed made upon the unfortunate prisoner, by whom they were over¬ heard, it is necessary to say something of his previous state of mind, and of the origin of his connection with Edith. Henry Morton was one of those gifted char- actei’s, which possess a force of talent unsuspected by the owner himself.” — And so on to the middle of the chapter. 42 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. “ What an absurd and disgusting digression ! Sure, Poundtext, Eumbleberry, Kettledrummle, Heathercat, Gumblegumption, nor any other of the gifted brethren among the Presbyterians, ever made a ser¬ mon more out of place or more wearisome than this is !” Softly, simple enthusiast ; thou penetratest not the secret of the author, nor perceivest the perplexities from which he must extricate himself. It is necessary to give some feasible account of a “ singular and instantaneous revolu¬ tion ” in Morton’s character, of which the author needs to avail himself “ for the moment.” It is necessary that Morton should conduct himself in a rude, imprudent, and outrageous manner, in order that he may be a fit representative of those who felt the severity of the judge before whom he stands. Can we believe, on any other supposition, that the polite, brave, generous, fair, and honourable Claverhouse, would have con¬ demned him to die 1 No ; he needed to be baited, bayed, challenged, and insulted, and that by a prisoner charged with a capital offence, and expected, as their leader, by a body of rebels, then in arms at a little distance. And this prisoner he, after all, generously pardons at the intercession of Lord Evandale. Say now, “ descendants of those enthu¬ siasts whom he persecuted, among whom the name of the Bloody Clavers is held in equal abhorrence, and rather more terror, than that of Sa'tan himself,” — say, if you can now accuse him of cruelty, or even undue severity ; and if you are not forced to admit and admire the uncommon clemency with which he spared the lives of your fanatical fathers ! The character of Claverhouse having passed this ordeal, is hencefor¬ ward held forth as entitled to almost unlimited admiration and applause. His patriotism and disinterestedness, as well as his bravery, are talked of ; and on one occasion the reader is persuaded that he sees the tear of humanity trickling down his soft cheek (vol. iii. p. 139). If he is seen at Bothwell Bridge, “ like a hawk perched on a rock, and eyeing the time to pounce on its prey,” he descends on Drumshinnel, like a pro¬ tecting angel, to save the innocent. Morton, having fallen into his hands, is treated by him rather as a friend and companion than a pri¬ soner ; and while he enjoys the company of “ this remarkable man,” is delighted and astonished “ by the varied play of his imagination, and the depth of his knowledge of human nature !” We may perhaps have dwelt too long on this flattering and fallacious picture ; but we judged that we were performing a sacred duty to the cause of truth, humanity, and public good, in exposing such a flagrant attempt to recommend a character which deserves almost unqualified detestation. We intended to have subjoined some reflections upon the bad tendencies of a practice which has of late become too general among our popular writers, who exert all their eloquence to exalt the military character above every other, to invest it with “the highest qualities,” and to throw such a dazzling glare over the display of per¬ sonal valour and martial abilities, as to conceal the cruelties with REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 43 which it is accompanied, and in a great measure to reconcile the mind to it, even when it is employed to enslave mankind, and to rear or up¬ hold the empire of despotism and tyranny. But we must conclude that part of our review which relates to the partiality shown by the author to the oppressors of the Presbyterians ; and we cannot do this better than by quoting a passage from a beautiful little poem which has appeared in the Poetic Mirror, and which we should have liked to have seen in a separate form. It is said to be written by Walter Scott. It certainly would have done no discredit to the talents of that celebrated poet ; but some of its most prominent sentiments — not to speak of the style — bear so very little resemblance to his, that very few, we appre¬ hend, will be disposed to give him the merit of being its author. We are happy, however, to perceive, by looking into his late edition of Swift’s Works, that Mr Scott is now convinced that the treatment of the Presbyterians, between 1660 and 1688, was a “ persecution,” of which he appeared formerly to entertain some doubts ; and we are not alto¬ gether without hopes that at some future period his sentiments may undergo such a revolution as to induce him to admit the justice of the following character of Claverhouse, although he should not be able to claim the lines in which it is so well drawn. “ There, worthy of his masters, came The despot’s champion, bloody Grahame, To stain for aye a warrior’s sword, And lead a fierce, though fawning horde. The human bloodhounds of the earth. To hunt the peasant from his hearth ! — Tyrants ! could not misfortune teach. That man has rights beyond your reach ? Thought ye the torture and the stake Could that intrepid spirit break, Which even in woman’s breast withstood The terrors of the fire and flood ! ” 44 PART 11. “ Yes; though the sceptic’s tongue deride Those martyrs who for conscience died, — Though modish history blight their fame, And sneering courtiers hoot the name Of men who dared alone be free, Amidst a nation’s slavery, — Yet long for them the poet’s lyre Shall wake its notes of heavenly fire ; Their names shall nerve the patriot’s hand. Upraised to save a sinking land ; And piety shall learn to burn With holier transports o’er their urn ! ” Epistle to R. S. There is something extremely fascinating in all that is done by a man of genius. Persons of minor talents are irresistibly attracted by his motions, and follow him even in his eccentricities, and greatest aberra¬ tions from good sense and propriety. Since the days of the Spectator, it has been an invariable jiractice with the authors of all periodical works of the same literary complexion, to begin each paper with a motto in Latin or in Greek. The author of the Tales having struck out a new species of fictitious writing, which, it is expected, will continue as fashionable during the nineteenth, as that of the Spectator was during the eighteenth century, has given it a distinctive mark, by prefixing to each chapter a select piece of English poetry. This has already become so popular, that a friend of ours lately addressed us on the propriety of our following the example, and prefixing a few lines of poetry to each paper of our prosaic instructions. We could not help demurring to this unexpected proposal, and signified, that the practice appeared to us to savour very strongly of affectation and puerility, and that our readers would certainly take it into their heads that we were a company of con¬ cealed poets or poetasters, who, being forced out of employment by the badness of the times, had betaken ourselves, for the sake of making a little money, to the business of editing religious communications, and who would leave them and return to our old work as soon as trade revived. “ Not at all, not at all,” said he, in a tone of decision which rather embarrassed us ; “ you must allow me to know these things better than you. The public are not so jealous nor so far-sighted as you think them to be. I can tell you that the practice in question has contri¬ buted as much as anytlung to the popularity of the Tales ; and I could not help smiling in my sleeve, to see you very gravely and philosophic- REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 45 ally assigning a number of reasons for concluding that they were written by the author of Waverley and Guy Mannering, while you passed over the most palpable and convincing of all. Ask the publisher, and I am persuaded he will tell you that the uniform practice of purchasers, on taking up the book, is to look at the title-page and beginning of the chapters, and upon perceiving the poetical impress on these, they at once draw the conclusion, and throw down the money. I can assure you that it forms one of their leading beauties, and exhibits, in fact, that ‘ variety combined with unity,’ which you insinuated was awanting in them. It has a most wonderful effect upon the mind of the reader — an effect which may be compared to that of the chorus in the ancient Greek tragedy, or of a song between the acts of a modern comedy, or of the tuck of the drum during the intervals of evolution at a military review, or the sound of the himtsman’s horn upon the dogs at a fox chase ; or, not to multiply figures on a topic so evident, and to compre¬ hend all in one, like the effect of the stroke of an auctioneer’s hammer at the end of every article of sale.” Here our friend began to recommend to us the imitation of the style and manner of a periodical work recently begun in this city j but on our exhibiting strong symptoms of disgust, he desisted, and resumed his former theme. “ Well,” continued he, “I shall undertake to provide you with a motto for the title-page of your present volume, as appropriate as that of the Tales, from Burns’s ‘ Cot¬ tar’s Saturday Night,’ or from the Gude and Godly Ballates of Grseme Dalyell ; — be not afraid, I do not mean Grahame of Claverhouse, or Dal- ziel of Binns, but John Dalyell, Esq., advocate, who edited the ballads ; and I shall also select for you an extract from Chateaubriand’s Beauties of Christianity, to be placed in the original French, with a translation, opposite the title ; both of which will continue to stand as a perpetual frontispiece to all your subsequent volumes. In the mean time, lay you in a sufficient quantity of extracts for the interior departments of your magazine.” Not willing to differ altogether with our adviser, of whose intelligence, as well as friendly dispositions, we have had many satisfy¬ ing proofs, we resolved to yield so far as make the trial in one in¬ stance ; and accordingly, in imitation of the Tales, we have begun the second part of our review with a reasonably long extract from the poem from which we quoted at the close of the preceding part. In justice to ourselves, we must, however, observe, that neither the example of the author of the Tales, nor the persuasions of our friend, would have induced us to this compliance, if we had not been convinced of two things. The first is, the intrinsic excellence of the lines which we have prefixed, and their extreme suitableness to our purpose. They exhibit, in a succinct form, and with much beauty and force, what we wish to lay before our readers in greater detail in the following pages. And indeed it would not have been easy for us to have conveyed, in so few words, the ideas which we have of our persecuted ancestors, and of those who made it their business to deride and calumniate them. This 46 EEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. being the case, we stand acquitted of the charge of puerile affectation. Secondly, we are completely satisfied of the justness of the character which they give to the sufferers. If we had entertained any doubts on this head, or been afraid that we might not be able to vindicate our fathers from the slander with which they are aspersed in the work under review, we would certainly have given a less conspicuous place to the lines in praise of them ; for we make no pretensions to that high quality of the author of the Tales, by which he takes the liberty of saying whatever sounds well, and is calculated to make an impression for the moment, without considering if he can prove it, or make it consistent with what he may afterwards advance. We do not write for the readers of novels, nor will our ambition be gratified by gaining the approbation of the children of credulity and the slaves of prejudice. We flatter ourselves that we have, in the preceding part of this review, sufficiently proved that the author, in his representation, has discovered glaring partiality to the persecutors of the Presbyterians, by veiling their cruelties, and by presenting their characters in a favourable but false light. We now go on to show that he is guilty of injustice, equally glaring, in the view which he has given of the character and conduct of the oppressed and persecuted Presbyterians. In drawing the character of the persecutors, the author used no small art ; and we found it necessary to attend to the nicer touches of his pencil, by which he blended light and shade together, and softened the harsher features of his portraits. But here he has in a great measure saved us the trouble of minute inspection. No one can be at a loss to perceive, at a single glance, the characters in the Covenanting group. They are not greatly diversified ; their features are few, they are strongly marked, and the colours are laid on with no sparing or delicate hand. In general they are either fools or madmen, or hypocrites and rogues, and for the most part they are a compound of both. Look upon them, and you instantly recognise the Puritan and precisian. Approach nearer and examine them more narrowly, and you find them to be wild enthusiasts and gloomy fanatics. They express themselves, even in their ordinary conversation, in a strange, ridiculous, and incoherent jargon, compounded of Scrip time phrases, and cant terms peculiar to their own party opinions in ecclesiastical polity. They are utterly destitute of all knowledge of civil rights, and of any enlightened regard to the principles of political liberty. They are of disloyal principles, and rancorous in their political hatred. They are enemies to all elegant studies, as well as innocent recreations. Amidst all their affected pre¬ ciseness, and claims to superior godliness, they are selfish, and do not scruple to have recourse to base and wicked means to advance the good cause, or to promote their own interest. They are as much dis¬ posed to persecute as their adversaries. They are destitute of military talents, and show themselves as incapable of vindicating their claims in the field as of recommending themselves to the Government by the moderation and mildness of their behaviour. In fine, many of them REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 47 have imbibed the principles of assassination, and are prepared to act upon them. Except in the last-mentioned particular, this is the character whicli the author gives of the Presbyterians, both indulged and non-indulged, — the only ditference between the two classes consisting in the higher degree of extravagance and enthusiasm displayed by the latter. To relieve the mind in some degree in contemplating this bloated and unsightly picture, the author, by a singidar exertion of candour or of compassion, has condescended to admit, at some distance from the gloomy group, one rigid recusant who yet retains the humane and social affections, in the person of a poor widow. Morton cannot be considered as an exception. He was a Presbyterian neither in principle nor in spirit ; he joined them from accident and irritation ; he was never happy till he was delivered from their society, and found himself under the protection of the amiable and accomplished Claverhouse ; and as long as he was among them, he was unable to find an individual with whom he could sympathise, except the liberal-minded Cuddie Headrigg, who often, “ though with less reffnement, was following out a similar train of ideas,” and who alone was capable of understanding his “ chartered rights as a freeman.” To give his summary account of the Covenanters—" One party declares for the ravings of a blood¬ thirsty madman ; another leader is an old scholastic pedant ; a third ” — • the poor child durst not proceed farther for fear of Balfour, who ffnished the sentence for him — “ is a desperate homicide, thou wouldest say, like Jolm Balfour of Burley.” Did we tliink the author as weak as he has made his hero, and had we been alone with him, as Burley was with Morton, we would have been disposed to have taken our leave of him with the words that follow in his narrative — “ I can bear this miscon¬ struction without resentment.” But as he has said more than he has put into the mouth of his silly " stripling,” and as the cause is before the public, we must have a few serious words with him on this subject before we can agree to separate. The good people of Scotland, who inherit any portion of the spirit of their fathers, will, no doubt, be amazed to see those whom they have been accustomed to revere as patriots, and to venerate as confessors and martyrs for truth, now held up to derision as mad enthusiasts, and reviled as hypocritical and murderous ruffians. Even those who, from their peculiar sentiments, do not sympathise deeply with these feelings, will be shocked at the profane levity with which the most sacred sub¬ jects are exposed to ridicule, and will feel themselves at a loss to account for such a singular and daring attempt. But such as are acquainted with the history of former times, and have been attentive observers of the changes that public opinion has lately undergone, will not be surprised, nor think that any strange thing has happened. They have for some time anticipated an attack of this kind, and therefore are not altogether unprepared for meeting it. They know that it is only the overffowing of that gall and spite against the Reformation principles of Scotland, 48 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. religious and political, which has always lodged in the breasts of a certain faction, and which has burst forth in consequence of the removal of those restraints by which it was long reluctantly pent up, or forced to vent itself in secret. They can trace the causes which have led to this eruption. They see them in the force with which the current of public opinion, impelled by recent events, has been directed into the old channel of hereditary rights and royal legitimacy, to the overbearing and carrying away of all well-grounded jealousies of arbitrary power and slavish non-resistance. They see them in the progress of infidelity, which natively generates a contempt for religious reformers, and which disposes its votaries, whatever their political sentiments be, secretly to rejoice at whatever lowers the reputation of such men, and to view with indifference, if not with hostility, all struggles for the rights of con¬ science, provided they are combined with zeal for the preservation of a particular creed or form of ecclesiastical polity. They see them in the adoption, by different parties, of religious opinions very different from those which were once almost universally embraced in Scotland, and especially of that opinion, common to almost all of them^ — that religious and civil concerns ought to be completely separated — a principle which lays the proceedings of our reforming and suffering ancestors open to easy attack, and upon which it will be found impossible satisfactorily to vindi¬ cate their conduct. In fine, they see them in the overweening conceit of the present age, by which it is disposed to wrap itself in its own fancied acquire¬ ments and doings, and to undervalue those that preceded it ; as if there had been nothing good and great before we were born ; and as if all the knowledge and all the privileges, both political and religious, which we possess, had been acquired by our own exertions or communicated to us immediately from heaven, instead of being transmitted to us by the faithful contendings and the blood of those who lived in former times. All of these causes, we are of opinion, have contributed to induce the public to favour or wink at the more partial and sparing attacks which the author of the work under review, along with other writers of the same stamp, has formerly made on the character of our religious fore¬ fathers. And having felt his ground, and ascertained that the danger is not great, he has been encouraged to make the present attempt. Wliether it shall succeed altogether according to his wishes, or whether the event may prove that he has been too sanguine in his expectations, it is not for us to determine. We repeat it — we were not startled at the picture of our persecuted ancestors presented to us in the Tales. It was not new to us. We had often seen it before. We could recognise every feature. There is only an alteration in the costume and border work, and a slight softening of the colours, to adapt it to the taste of the age. In all other respects the author has faithfully copied his great originals. This is not the first time that the enemies of the Wliigs or Presbyterians have “ said all manner of evil falsely against them.” None can be ignorant of this who is acquainted with the writings of court sycophants during the REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 49 reigns of the two last Stuarts, and of the High Church and Jacobitish faction after the Kevolution in England, Ireland, and Scotland — who has read the speeches of Jefireys and Mackenzie, or consvdted the pages of Butler, Dryden, and Swift, of Colvil, Pitcairn, and Ehind. “ ’Tis difficult to name that ill thing which a Heylin, a Hicks, a Lessley, a Sacheverel, a Calder, or some other very reverend divine of the like probity, has not writ of them, or imputed to them. Who were the in¬ struments that procured the Spanish Armada to invade England in 1588 1 The Whigs. Who burned London in 1666 1 The Whigs. Who piloted in and assisted the Dutch to burn the English fleet at Chatham ? The Whigs. Nay, who crucified Jesus Christ 1 Who but the Whigs ? The very children are taught to lisp out that. Calves-head feasts are with these authors true history. Why ? Because one of themselves wrote it, and the rest cite it, and who dares doubt it after that ^ In support of the justness of his statements, and even of the very language which he has employed, our author can appeal to high and learned authority. “This I am sure of,” said Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys, “ lying is as much the talent of a Presbyterian as it can be of a Papist, nay more ; for it is as inseparably incident to a Presbyterian (and such snivelling, whining, canting knaves) to lie as to speak. They can no more forbear lying than they can forbear speaking ; for, generally, as often as they do the one, they do the other.” ^ — “We know well enough,” said the same enlightened and liberal-minded judge, on another trial, “ you snivelling saints can lie. When people come to gild over their bitter pill of sedition, it is always under the pretence of religion. It is well Icnown these (the preachers) are the belwethers of the faction, that, under pretence of religion, come there to incense the people to commit all these villanies that sometimes they are incited to do, as we know. How many of them stand now convicted, by outlawry, for that bloody treason (the Rye-house Plot) 1 I won’t say all parsons, but generally all of them dissenters ; and we know these are those base profligate villains, always made use of in these base sinks of rebellion. And they are the common sewers of faction, these conventicles are, and of treason and conspiracy against the government in church and state.” ® — “Wlien once they had begun to pick and cull the men that should be returned for a purpose, and got this factious fellow out of one corner, and that pragmatical, prick-eared, snivelling, whining rascal out of another corner, to prop up the cause and serve a turn, then truly people’s causes were tried according to the demureness of the looks on the one side or the other, not the justice of the cause. So, if I have a mind to talk against the Government, I wdll not do it aloud, and speak what I mean openly, but I will whine, and snivel, and cant ; and under this sort of snivelling, canting, sly rate, do a man any injury whatever.” * On the trial of Algernon Sidney, the same judge said, “ This book con- 1 Anderson’s Defence of tbe Presbyterians, ^ Howell’s State Trials, vol. x. pp. 224, p. 4, where the authorities are given. 240, 257. 2 Howell’s State Trials, yol. x. p. 1804. ^ Ibid. pp. 366, 370. D 50 KEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LAFTDLOED. tains all the malice and revenge and treason that mankind can be guilty of ; — and the way he makes use of, he colours it with religion, and quotes Scripture for it, too ; and you know how far that went in the late times,- — how we were for holding our king in chains, and our nobles in fetters of iron.” * Mr Baxter having pleaded, on his trial, that he was moderate in his principles respecting Episcopacy, his Lordship ex¬ claimed, “ Baxter for Bishops ! that is a merry conceit indeed ! ” And his counsel having referred to a part of his writings, Ay !” said J effreys, “ this is your Presbyterian cant, ‘ tndy called to be bishops,’ that is him¬ self, and such rascals, called to be bishops of Kidderminster, and other suchlike places ; bishops set apart by such factious snivelling Presby¬ terians as himself ; a Kidderminster bishop he means, according to the saying of a late learned author, ‘and every parish shall maintain a tithe- j)ig metropolitan.’- — Ki chard, Richard, dost thou think we will hear thee poison the court ? Richard, thou art an old fellow, an old knave ; thou hast written books enough to load a cart ; every one is as full of sedition (I might say treason) as an egg is full of meat ; hadst thou been whipt out of thy writing trade forty years ago, it had been happy.- — He is as modest now as can be ; but time was when no man was so ready at, ‘ Bind your kings in chains, and your nobles in fetters of iron ;’ and, ‘To your tents, 0 Israel !’ Gentlemen, for God’s sake, don’t let us be gulled twice in an age !” * Nor does our author want worthy and pertinent precedents in Scot¬ land. It would be easy to produce numerous examples to show that our Scottish statesmen, and judges, and prosecutors, were not behind J effreys in moderation and clemency, and elegance of mind and manners. Rebels, fanatics, and madmen, were the mildest words which they em¬ ployed in speaking of the Presbyterians. The indulged they called moderate fanatics ; the non-indulged, wild or m ad-cap fanatics. When they dealt with the latter, they aggravated their offence by referring to the conduct of their more moderate brethren ; and when the former in¬ curred their displeasure, by transgressing any of their arbitrary restric¬ tions, or scrupling at any of their ensnaring oaths and bonds, they with great liberality told them, that the mad-caps were the most consistent men, and that they ought to betake themselves to the hills. We find the Lord Chancellor telling a prisoner on his trial for life, though a gentleman by birth, that he was “ not a Scotsman, but a Scots beast.” We find him inveighing against a respectable minister, who had done nothing against the laws, as guilty of “ a mortal sin, a crime that was sufficient to damn him,” because he hesitated to own that the Prince of Wales was the son of James, and heir to his crowns. And when the minister said, “ I hope there is more mercy with God than to damn me for ignorance and weakness,” we find him replying : “ It is enough to damn you, and a thousand with you ; for by your caUing this in ques¬ tion” (he had not even called it in question), “ you are guilty of their 1 Howell’s State Trials, vol. ix. p. S93. * Ibid. vol. xi. pp. 499, 501. KEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 51 sin and damnation who follow your example.” ^ “ Linlithgow’s soldiers ’’ were declared to be good enough jurymen “ for fanaticks and we find Sir George Mackenzie, the King’s Advocate, threatening that he would have recourse to them, when certain juries did not find the prisoners guilty at his dh’ection.^ On the trial of Sir Hugh Campbell of Cesnock, a wit¬ ness, upon whom the court chiefly depended, having retracted, when put to his oath, what he had said against the prisoner in his precognition, the gentlemen present could not refrain from expressing their joy. Upon which the Lord Advocate said, “ that he had never heard such a Protestant rore, except on the trial of Shaftesbury ; that he had always a kindness for that persuasion, till now that he was convinced, in his conscience, it hugs the most damnable trinket in nature.” * Nor are the author’s precedents and authorities confined to the period anterior to the Kevolution. When they were restrained from torturing and murdering the Presbyterians, the Scottish Episcopalians and Jacob¬ ites, abusing the lenity of a new and tolerant government which they eagerly sought to overturn, took up the pen, and, with hands yet besmeared with the blood of their countrymen, employed it in writing against them calumnious invectives, and scurrilous lampoons, which they industriously circulated in England, where the facts were not known, with the view of instigating the English Church to take part with them, first in preventing, and afterwards in overturning the establishment of Presbytery in Scotland.* The authors of these pamphlets were so im- 1 Cloud of Witnesses, p. 54. Wodrow, Tol. ii. p. 642. 2 Howell, vol. viii. p. 384. s Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 384. — There was a close correspondence between the Lord Chief Justice of England and the Privy Council of Scotland, who reckoned it incumbent on them to express a formal approbation of his Moody campaigns, and to request his aid in apprehending and delivering up to them such Scotsmen as escaped from their ven¬ geance. This appears from an act of Coun¬ cil, December 3, 1684: “The Advocate re¬ presenting how ready Judge Jeffreys was to join with the Council for support of the Government, it is recommended to him to signify to the judge, the great resentments [sense] the Council had of his kindness to¬ wards this kingdom, in giving his concur¬ rence against such pernicious rogues and villains who disturb the public peace, and desiring he may cause apprehend the per¬ sons of hiding and fugitive Scotsmen, and deliver them securely, on the Soots Border, to stich as shall be appointed to receive them.” — Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 350. ■* “ That wtiich is determined concerning ‘ all them that will live godly in Christ Jesus,’ th.at they ‘ must suffer persecution,’ is and hath been the lot of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland ; and a generation of men have thus exercised her for many years, by severities hardly paralleled among Pro¬ testants. And now when their hands are tied that they can no more afflict her, their tongues and pens are let loose to tear her without mercy, by the most virulent invec¬ tives, and the most horrid lies and calum¬ nies that their -wit can invent. Besides this pamphlet, several other prints have been emitted by these men, containing partly liis- torical passages full of lies and reproaches, and partly false and spiteful representations of our principles and way ; to w'hich an answer, such as they need and deserve, shall ere long be given, if the Lord permit. That this hath not sooner been done, hath been in a great measttre caused by the multitude of matters of fact narrated in them, said to be done in divers places of the nation, far re¬ mote from one another, to all which it was necessary to send for getting a true account of these things, and there being but one copy of each of these books that we could find in all Scotland, the several passages for the diverse parts of the country behoved to be transcribed and disjiersed. In this mat¬ ter our adversaries have used a piece of cun¬ ning, which is, that these books were spread in England only, where the things contain¬ ed in them could not be known nor examin¬ ed ; but in Scotland (where most readers could have discovered the falsehood of their allegations) there never was one of them to be found in a bookseller’s shop. But veritas non quoerit angulos." — Vindication of the Church of Scotland (by Principal Rule), Pre¬ face. Second edit., 1691. When one of the party endeavoured to 52 ■REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. pudent and brazen-faced as to deny that Presbyterians had been sub¬ jected to persecution for their religious opinions, and, at the same time that they were pleading for a toleration for themselves, to justify all the intolerant and barbarous measures of the two preceding reigns. “ He relates,” says one of them, “ the sufferings of the Presbyterians in the late reigns ; and this indeed is the general cant and grand topic of many of their former and present pasquils against the Episcopal clergy; whereas they should rather reflect on the then state. Such as suffered were criminal in law ; and even hundreds were winked at, and pleaded for by the clergy, who might have divulged and accused them. I coidd enlarge on this head ; but Sir George Mackenzie has so baffled the Pres¬ byterian plea, in his “ Vindication of the Reign of King Charles II.,” that it is needless to say anything till that book be answered, in which, if I remember right, he hath this passage, ‘ None died for a principle of religion, unless it be a religious principle to die for actual rebellion.’ ” ^ “ Leaving England to answer for itself,” says another, “ our author can adduce no instance in Scotland of either man or woman, who, after the Restoration until the Revolution, was either severely used, or put to death, merely on account of their persuasion.” ^ Indeed, this last writer very plainly intimates, that Presbyterians might expect the renewal of the severities which they had lately endured, if ever Episcopacy was restored. “ Though a toleration be granted,” says he, “ perhaps Prelacy will not be restored ; and although Prelacy should be restored, yet Presbyterians (if they please) may forbear to rebel, and so save them¬ selves from scaffolds, imprisonments, and banishments. And so all the author’s large harangue on this head is nothing else but ridiculous stuff.”® As Dryden had ridiculed the English Puritans on the stage, our Scottish Episcopalians thought it necessary to attempt something in the same style, and therefore got up a comedy. In their preface to this piece, they say, “ It may be objected, that for all our pretences to truth and sincerity in matters of fact, yet we talk at random in the last scene, where we make the Presbyterian ministers speak basely and maliciously of all kings. This is easily answered. It may be considered that the apologise for this by alleging that they liad not the liberty of the press, nor of import¬ ing books, the same author replied, “ Those of their railing pamphlets which have been imported were never challenged, none ever came to trouble for them, though we well know who brought them into the kingdom.” — A just and modest Keproof to a pamphlet called the Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence, p. 34. 1 A Short Character of the Presbyterian Spirit, 1703, p. 6. 2 Toleration Defended, 1703, p. 10. A wi-iter alre.ady quoted has said with great justice, that such assertions are made “with the same brow that Maimburg and other French Popish writers do affirm, that all the Protestants who lately in France turned Papists did turn voluntarily with¬ out any compulsion ; and that no rigour nor persecution hath been used to move them to this change. This is a degree of effronted- ness, of bidding defiance to truth and the God of it, of bold imposing on the reason, yea, and the common sense of mankind, that the world doth purely owe to this age, and to Jesuitical obduration of mind. Woe to posterity if they be abused with such false history ! It is little honesty to transmit such things to after ages ; but it is the height of impudence to jHiblish them among such as were eyewitnesses of them, and among whom the sad effects of them remain with grief and smarting to this day.” — Viudic., ut supra, p. 20. 3 Toleration Defended, pp. 18, 19. REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 53 Presbyterians are enemies to monarchy ; for this is the third time that Presbytery has been establislied in Scotland, and still upon the death or banishment of some of their lawful sovereigns.”- — “ The Chorus is as pertinent as anything can be, since they, are a set of men who never forgive an injury, and, instead of praying for conversion, they pour down curses for the confusion of their enemies. Our design in this essay is fully to represent the villany and folly of the fanatics, that so, when they are in sober mood, they may seriously reflect on them, and repent for what is past, and make amends for the future, if it he 2yossihle ; or else, that the civil government may be awakened and roused to rid us of this gang, who injuriously treat all good and learned men, and are enemies to human society itself.” i The writers were abundantly sang-uine in their expectations of success, and dreamed of nothing but blowing up the Presbyterian Church by their well-contrived plot. To use their own language, — “ True Comedy should humour represent, — I think for once we’ve well enough hit on’t, No character’s too wild, nor yet extravagant, — For there is nothing treated in our play But what all know the Whigs do act and say ; Thus, you’ve a taste of their new gospel way.” They were, however, disappointed; the Scots saw no truth, and the English no humour in it ; those which they had “ laid up in store ” were not called for ; and the authors were obliged to console themselves with the excuse, — “ Our northern country seldom tastes of wit ; The too cold clime is justly blamed for it.” The truth is, they had mistaken their own talent, which did not lie in . comedy, but in tragic scenes ; and luckily for the Presbyterians, they did not obtain an opportunity of reacting these. “ I’ll tell thee, man, to believe a Presbyterian protestation, is as much as to think a man cannot cheat because he lies. I’m resolved ne’er to trust a fanatic, till I get him on his chair of verity, the stone i’ the Grassmarket ; the villain is then tempted to tell sometliing of the truth, — that is to say, that he dies a rogue and a rebel. ‘ And now, since prayers are so much in vogue. We will with one conclude this epilogue. Let the just heav’ns our king and peace restore. And villains never vex us any more. ’ ” " Passing over at present “ The Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence,” and “ The Whigg’s Supplication,” we shall finish this chain of authorities by an extract from a work of sober argumentation, in which the following character is given of Presbyterians : “ They are naturally rigid and severe, and therefore conclude that God is such a one as themselves. 1 The Assembly, or Scotch Reformation, a ^ The Assembly, or Scotch Reformation, a comedy. comedy, p. 4, and epil. 54 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. They damn all who differ from them, and therefore think that God does the same. And because they love themselves, they are pleased to per¬ suade themselves that they are his special favourites. Hence, they con¬ clude, that they owe them no civilities whom God neglects, nor kind offices whom he hates. He neglects and hates all who are not capable of his grace, which none are (say they) who are not of their way. This wicked persuasion sanctifies not only the ill manners, but, which is worse, the ill nature of the party towards all who differ from them. It contradicts the ends of society and government, and is only calculated to advance the private interest of a partial and designing set of men.” ^ In the same work it is shown that the Presbyterian spirit is enthusias- tical — an animal or mechanical spirit — a partial spirit — a narrow and mean spirit — a malicious, unforgiving spirit — an unconversible spirit — a disloyal, rehellious spirit — a spirit of division — an unneighhourly, cruel, and barbarous spirit.^ We have not made these extracts for the purpose of amusing the reader, nor can we be charged with wantonly or unnecessarily exposing the violence of the individuals or the party from whose speeches or writings they have been taken. So far as this may be the consequence of the disclosure, it is chargeable on the aggressor, and not on those who act on the defensive, and who are allowed, nay bound, to make use of every legitimate weapon of defence. In the first place, it is of the greatest consequence, in judging of the truth or falsehood of a charge, to inquire exactly into its origin, and to ascertain the character and probable motives of the person or persons who gave rise to it. And this is still more necessary in the case of general prejudices and vague accu¬ sations, which are not supported by reference to specific facts. In the second place, we are of opinion, that the quotations which we have made, while they lead to the source of the calumnies circulated against Presbyterians, at the same time discover the grounds on which they rest, and must dispose every candid person to regard them with the strongest suspicion. For example, when we find Jeffreys and Sache- verell emplo3dng the same language in speaking of the friends of civil and religious liberty in England, which Mackenzie and Ehind applied to the Scots Presbyterians and field-preachers, does not this afford a strong presumption, that both were actuated by the same motives, and that, whatever circumstantial differences might exist, the grounds of offence given by the objects of persecution and calumny in the two nations, were radically and substantially the same ? In the third place, we have quoted from the very authorities upon which the author of the Tales has depended in forming his representation. To these he must be understood as referring, when he tells us, in the enigmatical style of his preliminary discourse, that he has been enabled to “ qualify the narra¬ tives of Old Mortality and his Cameronian friends by the reports of more than one descendant of ancient and honourable families, — more than 1 Bhind’s Apology, p. 208. * Ibid, passim. REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 55 one non-juring bishop, — here and there a laird or two, — and the game¬ keepers of these gentlemen for surely he did not intend his readers to understand him as intimating, that he had been guided literally by traditional reports, either on the one side or the other. Lastly, although the author has not brought forward all the charges contained in these extracts, and has in general expressed them in more temperate language, yet was it necessary to give them at large. It was necessary, because almost every one of them will be found to be insinuated or involved in some part of his representation. It was necessary, to show that some of the authors are totally inadmissible as witnesses in this cause, owing to the malice which they discover against the Presbyterians, and the injuries which they had done them. It was necessary, to show that the evidence given by others of them ought to be received cum nota, because they discover deep prejudice, and bear testimony to many things which are utterly incredible, or notoriously false. And it was necessary, to put the reader in possession of the notions which they attached to the words puritanism, fanaticism, and rebellion, with which they have so liberally aspersed their adversaries.— We now proceed to a more particular examination of the character which the author of the Tales has given of the Covenanters. And, first, of their puritanism. On this topic the author talks quite at ease and, we dare say, never dreamt that his representation would be controverted, or that a single question would be put to him on the sub¬ ject. Accordingly, in speaking of Presbyterians, the use of the epithets puritanical and precise is just as much a matter of course with him, as it is in the West Indies to speak of whites, mulattoes, and people of colour. We are not among the niunber of those who are disposed to pay much regard to such names, — we can hear them applied to ourselves with indifference, and contemn the ignorant and uncivil sneer with which they may be accompanied. But we know the influence which they have upon the vulgar, both great and small ; and we beg leave to offer the author an advice or two on this point. First, It is not very consistent or becoming in one who has ridiculed the Covenanters for calling their opponents Erastians and Papa-Prelatists, to commit the same fault, by bandying terms which are equally reproachful, and of still more loose and indeterminate signification. Secondly, We would advise him not to employ, or, at least, not to repeat names of whose meaning he may not have a distinct and definite idea. We strongly suspect that, if interrogated, his ideas on tliis subject would be found as vague and shifting as those of the vulgar are respecting the extreme points of north and south. What is it that constitutes a puritan, or wherein does precisianism lie? Does it lie in scrupling to be present at a weaponschaw, and to shoot at a mark ? Does it lie in repining at the use of the Common Prayer-Book, the surplice, or the sign of the cross ? Or does it consist in laying claim to perfect spotlessness, or in confining saintship within the pale of a particular church or party ? If so, let it 56 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. be proved that this ever was the sentiment of Presbyterians. Or were they puritans because they pretended to greater strictness in practice than the court and clergy who persecuted them? This, surely, they might do without being “ religious overmuch,” or proudly arrogating to themselves any uncommon degrees of holiness. Again, we would remind the author, that the injudicious use of this senseless term of opprobrium was in former times productive of the most ruinous conse¬ quences to those who were so foolish as to encourage the practice. James, who had unadvisedly applied it to the principles of Presby¬ terians in his Basilicon Doron, found it prudent to retract the imputa¬ tion, even after he had ascended the English throne. Charles I. was not equally wise. His parasitical and aspiring clergy were encouraged to load his best subjects with this obnoxious charge, until they filled the parliament and the army with Puritans, and brought the misguided and unhappy monarch to the block. Untutored by adversity, and incapable of reaping instruction from their father’s fate, the two sons of Charles pursued the same infatuated course ; while they proscribed and perse¬ cuted the most sober and conscientious part of the nation as seditious and disaffected persons, they employed hireling preachers, poets, and drolls, to deride them as precise bigots and fanatical knaves ; and the result was, that the Stuarts were driven from the throne, and, by their merited misfortunes, proclaimed at last to tne world who were the real bigots and fanatics. It is no good omen of the present time that a spirit of the same kind should have been revived. On this subject we beg leave to quote thewords of asensible author, who wrote immediately before the breaking out of the civil war in England, and who was no Presbyterian. “ Let us, then,” says he, “ a little farther search into the mysterious abuse and misapplication of this word puritan. Those whom we ordinarily call Puritans are men of strict life and precise opinions, which cannot be hated for anything but their singularity in zeale and piety ; and certainly the number of such men is too small, and their condition too low and dejected ; but they which are the devil’s chiefe artificers in abusing tins word, when they please, can so stretch and extend the same, that scarce any civil, honest Protestant, which is hearty and true to his religion, can avoid the aspersion of it ; and when they list againe, they can so shrink it into a narrow sense, that it shall seem to be aimed at none but monstrous abominable heretickes and miscreants. Thus, by its latitude it strikes generally, by its contraction it pierces deeply, by its confused application it deceives invisibly. Small scruples first entitle me to the name of Puritan, and then the name of Puritan entitles me further to all mischiefe whatsoever.” — “ There are many men amongst us now which brooke bishops and ceremonies well enough, and perhaps favourably interpret our late innovations ; and yet these may be too grave to escape the name of Puritans. To be a Protestant may be allowed, but to dispute against Papists smells of preciseness; to hold the Pope fallible is tolerated, but to hold him Antichrist is abominable REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 57 Puritanisme ; to goe to cliurcli is fashionable, but to complain of the masse, or to be grieved at the publick countenance of Popery, whereby it entwines our religion, and now drinks up that sap which is scarce afforded to Protestantisme, or at all to take notice how far some of our divines are hereat conniving, if not co-operating, is a symptome of a deepe infected Puritan. He that is not moderate in religion is a Puritan ; and hee that is not a Cassandrian, or of Father Francis Syncter’s faith, is not moderate ; he savours too much of Calvin’s grosse learning, exploded now by our finest wits. But I passe from this kinde of Puritan to another, whom I shall call my political Puritan ; for the bounds of Puritanisme are yet larger, and inclose men of other condi¬ tions. Some there are yet which perhaps disfavour not at all either ecclesiastical! policy, or moderate Papists ; and yet, neverthelesse, this is not sufficient to acquit them from the name of Puritans, if they ascribe anything to the lawes and liberties of this realme, or hold the prerogative royall to be limitable by any law whatsoever. If they hold not against parliaments and with ship-money, they are injurious to kings ; and to be injurious to kings is proprium quarto modo to a Puritan. “ This detested odious name of Puritan first began in the Church presently after the Reformation, but now it extends it selfe further, and, gaining strength as it goes, it diffuses its poysonous ignominy further ; and being not contented to gangrene religion, ecclesiasticall and civill policy, it now threatens destruction to all morality also. The honest strict demeanour, and civill conversation, which is so eminent in some men, does so upbraid and convince the anti-Puritan, that even honesty, strictnesse, and civility it selfe must become disgraceful!, or else they which are contrary cannot remaine in grace. But, because it is too grosse to deride vertue under the name of vertue, therefore other colours are invented, and so the same thing undergoes derision under an other name. The zealous man is despised under the name of zealot, the reli¬ gious honest man has the vizard of an hypocrite and dissembler put upon liim to make him odious. My Lord of Downe professes, that the first tluiig which made him distest the religion of Puritans (besides their grosse hypocrisie) was sedition. So, grosse hypocrisie, it seems, was the first. What is grosse or visible hypocrisie to the bishop, I know not, for I can see no windowes or casements in men’s breasts, neither doe I thinke him indued with St Peter’s propheticall spirit, whereby to perceive and search into the reines and hearts of hypocrites; but let him proceed. ‘ It is a plausible matter,’ sayes he, ‘ with the people to heare men in authority depraved, and to understand of any liberty and power appertaining to themselves. The profession, also, of extraordinary zeale, and as it were contempt of the world, workes with the multitude. When they see men goe simply in the streets, and bow down their heads like a bull-rush, their inward parts burning with deceit, wringing their necks awry, shaking their heads as if they were in some present griefe, lifting up the white of their eyes at the sight of some vanity, giving 58 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. great groanes, crying out against this sin and that sinne in their supe- riours, under colour of long prayers devouring widowes’ and married wives’ houses ; when the multitude heares and sees such men, they are carried away with a great conceit of them; but if they should judge of these men by their fruits, not by outward appearance, they should find them to be very farre from the true religion.’ See here the froth of a scurrilous libeller, whereby it is concluded that he that is of severe life, and averse from the common vanities of the time, is an hypocrite. If these descriptions of outward austerity shall not onely show what is an h3q)ocrite, but point out also who is an hypocrite, our Saviour himselfe will hardly escape this description. Doubtless our Saviour, and many of his devoutest followers, did groane, shake their heads, and lift up their eyes at the sight of some publick sins and vanities, and did not spare to taxe the vices of superiours, and to preach too and admonish the meaner sort of the people ; yet who but an Annas or Caiphas will infer from hence, that therefore their inward parts burne with deceit, and that their end is meerely to carry away the multitude — such as judge onely by outward appearance, and have not their senses exercised to disceme betwixt good and evill ? “ ’Tis a miserable thing to see how farre this word puritan, in an ethical sense, dilates it selfe. Heretofore it was puritanicall to abstain from small sinnes ; but now ’tis so to abstaine from grosse open shines. In the mouth of a drunkard, he is a Puritane who refueseth his cups ; in the mouth of a swearer, he which fears an oath ; in the mouth of a libertine, he which makes any scruple of common sinnes ; in the mouth of a rude soldier, he which wisheth the Scotch warre at end without blood. It is sufficient that such men thinke themselves tacitly checked and affronted by the unblameable conversation of Puritans.” — “ The Papist, we see, hates one kind of Puritans, the hierarchist another, the court sycophant another, the sensual libertine another ; yet all hate a Puritan, and under the same name many times hate the same thing. In the yeare of grace 1588, when the Spanish Armado had miscarried, not¬ withstanding that his Holinesse of Rome had so peremptorily christened it, and as it were conjured for it, one of that religion was strangely distempered at it, and his speech was, as ’tis reported, God himself was turned Lutheran ; by which, for certaine, he meant hereticall. ’Tis much therefore that my Lord of Downe, now that Episcopacy is so foiled in Scotland, has not raged in the like manner, and charged God of turning Puritan ; but surely, if he has spared God, he has not spared any thing else that is good ; and if he has spared to call God Puritan, he has not spared to call Puritan devill. But, to conclude, if the con¬ fused misapplication of this foule word puritan be not reformed in England, and that with speed, we can expect nothing but a suddaine universall dovmfall of all goodnesse whatsoever.”^ The author of the Tales is not more sparing in the use of this term of 1 A Discourse concerning Puritans, pp. 8, 41, 60, 54, 57. Printed 1641. REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 59 reproach, and others of similar import, than his predecessors were. The Puritan whom he exposes, is not one who scruples at a few indifierent ceremonies, or who superciliously condemns all harmless recreations — he is one who refuses conformity to any kind of religion which may be enjoined by his superiors, or who is so squeamish as to stickle at occa¬ sionally transgressing the rales of decency, or laws that are vulgarly reckoned divhie. Thus he introduces his hero as saying to Burley, “ My uncle is of opinion, that we enjoy a reasonable freedom of conscience under the indulged clergymen, and I must necessarily be guided by his sentiments respecting the choice of a place of worship for his family. (Vol. ii. p. 92.) This is passive obedience with a witness ! to the utter prostration of the rights of conscience, and leading to all the extent of the wicked principle of Hobbes ! The disciples of that philosopher boasted of his discovery as calculated to put an end to religious perse¬ cution. Yes, it is so ; but it is at the expense of banishing all religion and all morality from the world, and reducing man to the level of a brate. Upon this principle, a person not only may, but “ must neces¬ sarily” be, a Papist at Borne, a Mahommedan at Constantinople, and a Pagan at Pekin ; for surely it will not be pleaded, that less obedience is due to the supreme government of a country than to an uncle. If the author really meant what his words natively suggest, and if he intended to express his own sentiments by the mouth of his hero, then we cease to wonder at the partiality which he has shown to an oppressive Government, and his want of sympathy for the objects of persecution. There is another instance to which we must refer as a commentary upon the author’s sentiments respecting puritanism and precision. In describing the scene at Milnwood, when visited by a military party, he informs us, that “ the agony of his avarice,” at the thoughts of parting with his money, overcame old Morton’s “ puritanic precision.” And how did this appear 1 By his making use of one of the most vulgar, gross, and indecent words which one can apply to a woman — so indecent, that the author, or his printer, could express it only by giving the initial and final letters, and, ^when he afterward introduces a trooper as using the same word, judged it fit to drop one of these ! (Vol. ii. pp. 189, 243.) Ex ungue leonem. Such are the refined and liberal notions of the author of the Tales ! It is “ puritanic precision ” to boggle at an indecent expression ; and it argues the same weakness of mind, no question, to scrapie at taking the name or word of God in vain. And yet this is the gentleman who complains that the Covenanters wanted “ good manners ”■ — who derides the coarse and vulgar dialect of their preachers, and is the advocate for elegant studies and accomplishments ! The author seems to have forgotten that he is not living in the days of Charles II., and that the religion of the Covenanters has now obtained the sanction of the national laws, and is the established religion of his country. We beg leave to inform him, if he does not already know it. GO REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. that everything for which the Covenanters contended, both in point of principle and of practice, is contained in the standards of the national Church. These were composed in pursuance of the Solemn League and Covenant by the Assembly of divines, which met at Westminster, under the authority of the Parliament of England, and during the civil war. They explicitly contain the Calvinistic tenets, and the doctrine con¬ cerning wdiat he is pleased to denominate “ a judaical observance of the Sabbath ; ” they assert the parity of ministers of the Gospel, in opposi¬ tion to Prelatic hierarchy ; and, in opposition to Erastian encroachments by civil rulers, they assert that Christ is the alone King and Head of His Church, and that He has appointed a government in it distinct from the civil magistrate, who “ may not assume to himself the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” These, according to the author’s own showing, embrace all the leading articles which the Covenanters main¬ tained, and for adhering to which they suffered. If, therefore, there is any justice or force in his ridicule, the weight of it must fall upon the established religion of Scotland. It is this which he has aU along been deriding under the name of puritanism and precisianism. If he disap¬ proves of it, he is at liberty to do so : let him bring forth his strong reasons, and they shall be examined ; but whether it is decent and becoming in him to hold up its principles to derision, as if they were unworthy of serious argument, we shall leave the public to judge, when the cause is fairly before them. If he shall say, that he has not ridiculed these principles, but merely the conduct of those men who maintained them in former times, — we deny this ; and we add, that these constitute the merits of the cause ; and, provided they are cleared from misrepresentation, the portion of ridicule which remains in the Tale will turn out to be excessively trifling and childish. What did our Presbyterian ancestors do, but maintain their religious profession, and defend their rights and privi¬ leges, against the attempts which were made to wrest these from them 1 This was the body and front of their offending. And were they not entitled to act this part 1 Were they not bound to do it ? What although, in discharging this arduous duty in times of unexampled trial, they were guilty of partial irregularities, and some of them of individual crimes 1 What although the language in wliich they expressed themselves was homely, and appears to our ears coarse, and unsuitable to the subject 1 What although they gave a greater promin¬ ence to some points, and laid a greater stress on some articles, than we may now think they were entitled to ? What although they discovered an immoderate heat and irritation of spirit, considering the barbarous and brutal manner in which they had long been treated 1 What although they fell into parties, and quarrelled among themselves, when we consider the crafty and insidious measures employed by their adver¬ saries to disunite them ; and when we can perceive them actuated by honesty and principle, even in the greatest errors into which they were EEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD, 61 betrayed ? These, granting them to be all true, may form a proper subject for sober statement, and for cool animadversion ; but never for turning the whole of their conduct into ridicule, or treating them with scurrilous buffoonery. No enlightened friend to civil and religious liberty— no person, whose moral and humane feelings have not been warped by the most lamentable party prejudices, would ever think of treating them in this manner. They were sufferers — they were suffering unjustly — they were demanding only what they were entitled to enjoy — they persevered in their demands until they were successful — and to their disinterested struggles, and their astonishing perseverance, we are indebted, under God, for the blessings which we enjoy. And we can assure our author, that his statements are not so correct, nor his ridicule so well directed and powerful, as to deter us from their vindication. We may add, though the observation is of inferior moment, that the author is here guilty of a violation of propriety, in a literary point of view. He has been pleased to send his book into the world as the work of the usher of one of our parochial schools, edited and arranged by his patron, the “schoolmaster and parish-clerk.” Now, all our parochial teachers are bound by law to subscribe the Confession of the national Church. Yet the schoolmaster of Candercleugh publishes, with high encomiums, a work which is intended to ridicule, as puritanical, the principles of that Church of which he is a member, and of those stand¬ ards to which he is supposed to have given the seal of his approbation. If decorum of character is thus sacrificed to the gratification of a freak, we need not be surprised to find it violated for the sake of gaining higher ends. But we proceed to consider the charge of enthusiasm and superstitious fanaticism. The judicious reader will perceive, that several of the remarks already made are applicable to this topic of declamation. We shall separate the charge of superstition from that of fanaticism. There can be no doubt that the author intended to ridicule the superstitious and puritanical preciseness of the Covenanters, by imposing Scripture names upon the fictitious characters of the i^arty that he has introduced. Thus, we have Silas Morton, Gabriel Kettledrummle, Ephraim Mac- briar, Habakkuk Mucklewrath. He borrowed this from the English plays written in derision of the Puritans. But if he had taken time to examine into the fact, he would have found that the Presbyterians of Scotland were not then addicted to this practice any more than they are at present. This was perhaps beneath his notice, moreover it would have spoilt a great part of his humour ; for it is evident that the sound of a name is with him a high point of wit. Of the same species of just ridicule and accurate representation is his practice of making his covenanting interlocutors thee and thoto one another, and withhold the title of Mr from those whom they address, as if they had adopted the precise principle of Quakers on this head ! (Vol. iii. p. 152-8, et jxissim.) Yet, in his usual self-contradictory way, he introduces them in other 62 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. places as declaiming against Quakerism. This he does, to be sure, to ridicule them as persons who were continually inveighing against all sects but their own ; without knowing, or at least without letting his readers know, that they were necessitated to be more explicit in such disavowals, by the artful malice of their adversaries, who imputed the tenets of Quakerism to them, because they refused the ensnaring oaths imposed by Government. But the author has in reserve a stronger proof of the superstition of the Covenanters, which we may not be able so easily to set aside or evade. They firmly believed that certain men, if not also beasts, were gifted by the enemy of mankind with preternatural means of defence, and that it was impossible to shoot them, at least with lead ! While Burley reacted in his dream the bloody scene of Archbishop Sharp’s murder, he exclaimed, “ Fire-arms will not prevail against him — Strike —thrust with the cold iron.” (Vol. ii. p. 123.) But the best description of this trait in the covenanting character is in the account of Claver- house’s behaviour at the battle of Drumclog. “The suiter stitious fanatics, who looked upon him as a man gifted by the Evil Spirit with supernatural means of defence, averred that they saw the bullets recoil from his jack-boots and buff-coat like hailstones from a rock of granite, as he galloped to and fro amid the storm of the battle. Many a Whig that day loaded his musket with a dollar cut into slugs, in order that a silver bullet (such was their belief) might bring down the persecutor of the holy kirk, on whom lead had no power. ‘Try him with the cold steel,’ was the cry at every renewed charge — ‘ powder is wasted on him.’ — Ye might as weU shoot at the old enemy himself.” — (Vol. hi. p. 69.) Before replying to this, we shall make the author’s case a little stronger. We learn from “ Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence Displayed,” that the Presbyterian preachers made the people believe that “the bishops were all cloven-footed,” and that “the generahty of the Presbyterian rabble in the west will not believe that bishops have any shadows as an earnest of the substance, for their opposing of covenant work in the land.” It is true that Dr Gilbert Kule affirms, that he never before heard that any Presbyterian entertained such a thought. But we shall be more liberal to our author, and shall take it for granted that what he has stated is true. He must be understood, then, as meaning, that the belief of such preternatural powers was peculiar to the Covenanters, else it could be no reason for characterising them as “ superstitious fanatics.” But what will he say, if we can produce the example of a whole parliament at that period gravely giving their sanction to an opinion at least equally incredible ? In the attainder of the Marquess of Argyll for high treason, one of the heaviest articles of charge against him is supported by the following miraculous proof : “ Insomuch that the Lord from heaven did declare his wrath and displeasure against the aforesaid inhuman cruelty, by striking the tree whereon they were hanged, in the said month of June, being a lively fresh-growing ash REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 63 tree, at the kirkyard of Denoone, amongst many other fresh trees with leaves, the Lord struck, the same tree immediately thereafter, so that the whole leaves fell from it, and the tree withered, never bearing leaf thereafter, remaining so for the space of two years ; wliich being cut down, there sprang out of the very heart of the root thereof a spring like unto blood popling up, running in several streams, all over the root, and that for several years thereafter, until the said murderers, or their favourers, perceiving that it was remarked by persons of all ranks (resorting there to see the miracle), they did cause houck out the root, covering the whole with earth, which was fidl of the said matter like blood.”^ If this example does not suffice, we shall give another, from a writer whose principles are akin to those of our author. Mr Scott, in a note to the Lady of the Lake after adducing a great number of facts in support of the Taisch, or preternatural gift of Second-Sight, con¬ cludes rather reluctantly, and not without some symptoms of scrupu¬ losity : “ But, in despite of evidence, which neither Bacon, Boyle, nor Johnson, were able to resist, the Taisch, with all its visionary proper¬ ties, seems to be now universally abandoned to the use of poetry.”^ It certainly was not the design of Mr Scott to represent the philosophers to whom he alludes as men of weak and superstitious minds, merely because they had not emancipated themselves from a popular prejudice. And we are inclined to thmk, that the author of the Tales will now be sensible of the rashness of his censure. But if he shall still be disposed stoutly to affirm that the Covenanters were “ superstitious fanatics,” we shall leave him to contest the point with the shades of “ Bacon, Boyle, and Johnson.” “ The eagle saw her breast was wounded sore, She stood and weeped much, but grieved more : But when she saw the dart was feather’d, cried. Woe’s me, for my own kind hath me destroyed.” Among aU the terms of reproach which are ordinarily employed to excite contempt or odium against an individual or a party, there are none more vague, or used with less sense and discretion, than enthusiasm and fanaticism. They serve the same purpose against the friends of religion, that sedition and leasing-making have often done against the best friends of the state, when employed by profligate minis¬ ters and their base supporters to stigmatise and run down all who oppose their corrupt measures and pernicious plans. Every pert infidel, every superficial sciolist, every conceited witling, every elegant trifler in prose or in verse, thinks he has a right to apply the names of enthusiast and fanatic to persons who are greatly superior to him in intellect, and in all rational and useful information. While such persons “ set their mouth against the heavens ” in affronting God, ‘‘ their tongue walketh through the earth ” in reviling those who bear his image, who seek to obey Him, and are zealous for his rights and honour. Were they to 1 Howell’s State Trials, vol. v. p. 1384. * Note vi. to canto first. 64 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. think rationally but for a moment, they would be ashamed to “ speak evil of the things which they know not.” No sensible and modest per¬ son will be forward in interposing his judgment as to any art or science of which he is ignorant, which he has not made it his business to study, and for which, instead of having a relish, he may feel a repugnance, especially in relation to a point contested among those of the same pro¬ fession. And why should it be otherwise in religion, to the obligations and feelings of which there are so many who are notoriously and lamentably insensible and dead 1 What right can he, who perhaps never looked into the Bible except for the purpose of turning it into a jest-book, who never performed an act of demotion except from hypo¬ crisy or for fashion’s sake, who during the whole course of his life never spent a serious moment on the subject of religion, — what right can such a person have, or what capacity has he, to judge between the genuine though ardent emotions of a devout breast, and the reveries and irregular fervours of a heated or disturbed imagination ? Nor is this incapacity confined to those who labour under an absolute destitution of religious principle and feeling. A man may not be blind, and yet he maybe incapable to judge correctly of the imitative beauties of the pencil ; he may not be deaf, and yet he may have no ear for musical harmony ; he may be a parent, a brother, and a citizen, and yet be exceedingly deficient in parental, generous, and patriotic feeling. To such a person, the emotions expressed, the zeal that is testified, the interest that is taken, the sacrifices that are made by the devoted lover of painting, music, kindred, and country, will appear to be dispropor- tioned, extravagant, unreasonable, ridiculous, and, in one word, enthusi- astical. And he would say so, i^rovided he was not restrained by habit, or by prudential deference to general feeling, and provided he was taught to correct his erroneous conclusions by attentive observation, and the rigid exercise of his reasoning powers. Let a person whose ear is not attuned to harmony join a company of musical inamoratos — let him listen to them while they converse in the dialect peculiar to their art, and while they give an unrestrained vent to their emotions — let him attentively observe them while they are enjoying the indescrib¬ able charms of the full and varied concert — let him mark their gestures — the expressions of their countenance — the signs of ravishment which they exhibit, while they now lift up their eyes to the heavens, as if they were totally abstracted from sublunary things, and anon quench and seal up their visual orbs, as if they were determined never again to open them to the light of day^ — the tremulous thrill which pervades and agitates their whole frame — their soft susurrations, gradually rising into more audible murmurs, or abruptly bursting into an ecstatic peal — the languishing attitudes in which they throw themselves, and their dying falls — not to mention the grimaces, the contortions of feature, the antic airs and gesticulations, or the whining tones which some of them are accustomed to assume ; — let the spectator who nas no accordant EE VIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLOED. 65 or sympathetic feeling, and who has never thought seriously on the sub¬ ject, observe all this, and let him express his genuine sentiments, and we have no doubt that they will correspond to the statement wluch we have given. — But we must leave it to the intelligent reader to apply this illustration to the expressions of devout feeling and evangelical experience, under the modifications which the nature of the subject will suggest. Do we, then, deny that there was any enthusiasm or fanaticism among the Covenanters 1 We do not. None who is acquainted with human nature, or with the liistory of mankind and of the Church, would expect this in the circumstances in wdiich they were placed. We know that, during the latter part of the persecution, a small sect arose called Gibbites, or Sweet Singers, whose opinions and practices were in a high degree extravagant and impious ; but they were disowned by the whole body of Presbyterians, were always few in number, and soon melted away. And it is much to the credit of the people of Scotland, in point of intelligence and soundness of religious principle, that not only at this time, when their spirits were much heated, but also during the interregnum, when innumerable sects, many of them holding the most fantastic opinions, sprung up in the neighbouring kingdom, none of these appeared (a few converts to Quakerism excepted) in this country. We know also, that, after the battle of Bothwell Bridge, a number of Presbyterians, under the conduct of Cameron and Cargill, proceeded formally to disown the government, and advanced opinions respecting the essential qualifications of magistrates in a reformed land, and respect¬ ing the extraordinary execution of justice by private individuals, which were unjustifiable and dangerous. But if we examine the matter with candour, we will find that they were driven to these extremes by the intolerable oppression of government ; and that their errors proceeded from their understandings being perplexed by intricate questions, which were in some respects forced upon them, in circumstances certainly not favourable to cool and dispassionate investigation, and not at all, as their adversaries alleged, from principles of disloyalty and insubordina¬ tion, or any desire to gratify their passions, by involving the nation in anarchy and blood. We will find them retracting, explaining, or modify¬ ing their declarations, or particular expressions in them, which were most obnoxious to blame, or of whose dangerous tendency they became convinced — a behaviour no way resembling that of fanatics, who are infiamed by contradiction, and plunge from one excess into a greater. In fine, they were in other respects, as a body, sober and pious men, desirous of living peaceably, and who afterwards did live peaceably under a government which knew how to treat them with lenity. “ Oppression makes a wise man mad,” but it does not convert him into a madman ; as the torture does not make an honest man a liar, although it may extort from him a falsehood. Let the violent pressure which, for the moment, overcame him, be removed, and he will return to his wonted E 66 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. sobriety and self-command, and act like any other man. Besides, the followers of Cameron formed but a very small part of the Covenanters of Scotland. With respect to the field-preachers in general, and those who adhered to them, it may be allowed that their religious feelings were wound up to a high pitch. Everything in their situation contributed to produce this efiect, — the sutferings that they had endured — the dangers to which they were exposed — the jeopardy in which their life stood every hour — the hairbreadth escapes which they made— the wild scenery of the spots on which they assembled to perform their religious services, with the many affecting recollections with which it was associated — all served to raise their minds to an uncommon degree of fervour-. But still this was not enthusiasm in the bad sense of the expression. It was a high tone of excitement which has been felt by the noblest, the purest, and the most enlightened minds — by patriots, who have stood forth, in times of danger, to defend the injured rights of their country; and by con¬ fessors, who have been raised up, in times of defection, to plead for the more sacred rights of their God. Such were the feelings of the Prophet when, in similar circumstances, he said, “ I have been very jealous for the Lord God of Hosts ; for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life to take it away.” Weaknesses or excesses are often mingled with the best and most pious feelings — the exercise of Elijah was not exempted from these — but still they are too sacred to be rudely touched by the profane hand. How differently does the same subject affect different minds ! The author of The Sabhath selected the character of the Covenanters for the warmest encomium; the author of “ The Tales” has fixed on it as deserving the most unsparing censure. To the eye of the former, a conventicle pre¬ sented a subject for the finest poetic description; in the eye of the latter, it is an object of derision and merriment. The former viewed it as an assembly of men who were met to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, at the peril of all that was dear to them on earth ; the latter can see nothing in it but a tumultuary gathering of discontented and fiery spirits, held in defiance of law, and with the in¬ tention of resisting the lawful exercise of authority. The former describes the field-preachers as dividing “ the bread of life” to their hearers, and administering to them those heavenly consolations which were peculiarly adapted to the situation of hardship and peril in which they were placed ; the latter represents them as fosterers of the wildest fanaticism, and trumpeters of sedition and rebellion. The former was charmed with the ardent and sincere piety that breathed from the lips of the speaker, and beamed on the delighted countenances of his hearers, as “ o’er their souls his accents soothing came ;” the latter seeks entertainment by discovering matter for ridicule in the preacher’s tones and gestures, and in the coarse garb and humble appearance of the greater part of his REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 67 audience. The picture exhibited by the former is solemn, pleasing, and deeply interesting ; that which is held out by the latter is mean, vulgar, and disgusting. Both cannot be genuine representations. No one will doubt, for a moment, which of the two displays the finest feelings in the artist ; and whether the poet or the humourist has kept most closely to the truth of nature, may appear in some degree from what follows. The character given of the Covenanters, in the persons of Mause and Kettledrummle, is in a style of such glaring and extravagant caricature, that we would not have deemed it necessary to notice such misrepresenta¬ tions, farther than by expressing our astonishment that any writer should have risked his reputation by publishing them, had it not been that we are aware of the ignorance that prevails on this subject, even with many who are otherwise well-informed persons. On this account we con¬ descend to enter on the subject. The author’s ridicule turns chiefly upon the following points ; — that their ordinary conversation was interlarded with Scripture phrases — that they were guilty of gross and ludicrous misapplications of these — that they were constantly harping upon cer¬ tain cant phrases, expressive of their party-opinions, or relating to tlieir ecclesiastical disputes — and that the style in which their preachers usually indulged was mean, coarse, incoherent, and rhapsodical. The people of Scotland, since the Reformation, have been always well acquainted with their Bible, and it was the natural consequence of this that its language should mingle with their speech, and give a tone to their conversation and mode of thinking. This, instead of being dis¬ creditable, is highly honourable to them, and has contributed, more than many are aware of, to raise their character, in point of intelligence, above tiiat of the lower orders in any other country. Strangers have remarked the fact, and have been astonished at it, while they were ignorant of the cause. A ploughman in Scotland is not, what he is everywhere else, a clown, according to the idea which that term usually suggests ; and this distinction he owes chiefly to his familiar acquaint¬ ance with his Bible, which he has been accustomed to read, or to hear read, from his childhood. When he has been so much indebted to it, why should he be hindered from quoting it, or exposed to ridicule for employing its phraseology, provided this is done without an intention or a tendency to burlesque or profane it 1 With this qualification, we may assert that the Bible is to the common people what the writings of Homer are to the learned ; and every person of good feeling will be as much pleased to hear them adopting a phrase, or quoting a verse, with propriety, from the Scriptures, as to hear a person of literature making the same use of the Greek or Roman classics. By 'propriety we mean, not elegance and point, but such justness as may be expected from persons in tlieir condition. Among the better informed part even of the English nation, during the 17th century. Scripture language was so far from being uncommon, that we find it used very liberally in both Houses of Parliament. The speech of Lord Falkland on the question 68 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. respecting Episcopacy, and of Lord Shaftesbury respecting the state of Scotland, in which he not only quoted, but commented on a passage in the Song of Solomon, are well-known proofs of this.^ Nor is the practice altogether gone into desuetude in the present time, among persons who would not take it well to he ranked with enthusiasts or fanatics. We could mention more than one of our modern poets who have borrowed some of their finest passages from the Bible, and made their descriptions “ more impressive by the orientalism of Scripture,” although they have not thought it proper to make those acknowledg¬ ments of the debt which they are forward to render to every old ballad or musty play. Our Poet Laureate, too, can scarcely compose three sentences in prose without a Scripture phrase or allusion. And his example has been imitated of late among ourselves, accompanied with an evident attempt to excel him in this quality of style. In the follow¬ ing extracts, we have specimens of typical, allegorical, and prophetical applications, — an enumeration which nearly comprises all the senses of Scripture allowed by Popish interpreters. “ It seemed that Buonaparte, on his retirement to Elba, had carried away with him aU the offences of the French people, like the scape-goat which the Levitical law directed to be driven into the wilderness, laden with the sins of the children of Israel.”^ “Still, from the disaffection of the soldiers, and the discontent of the Eevolutionists, there arose, even in the halcyon months of the restoration, a cloud on the political horizon, at first as small as that seen by the prophet from Mount Carmel, but wliich ceased not to increase, until the Monarch of France, like the King of Israel of old, betook himself to his chariot and horses, and was fain to seek for shelter until the storm had passed away.” ® “ The shower of honour and emoluments fell above, below, and around, but it reached not Sir Thomas Picton, whose name and fortunes, like the fleece of Gideon, remained unmoistened by the dew that distilled on all others.”^ After speaking of the miserable result of all that has been done for Spain, the author adds, “ But deeply convinced, as we are, that as yet ‘ the end is not,' we proceed to detail those unexpected and deplorable events,” (kc.® If not intended, it is a striking coincidence that the Tales of My Landlord should have appeared so seasonably as an antidote to this disposition to puritanical enthusiasm ; and we can scarcely help suspecting, that the sermon of Ephraim Macbriar, in particular, is a concealed satire upon the following passage of an Address of the City of Edinburgh : — “ It is with far other thoughts, and far happier prospects, that we now again lay our duty at the feet of your Royal Highness, with feelings which can be likened to none but those of the survivors of the primeval world, when, looking forth from the vessel in which they had been miraculously preserved, they perceived that God had closed, 1 Bushworth, vol. i. part 3, p. 182. Wodrow, vol. iL App. No. 4. - Edinburgh Annual Register, vol. vii. p. 290. 3 Ibid. vol. vii.,p. 293. < Ibid., p. 255. ^ Ibid. p. 317. REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD, 69 in His mercy, the fountains of the deep which He had opened in His wrath ; that the wind had passed over the waters and assuaged the force ; while the reappearance of ancient and well-known mountains and land-marks, hidden so long under the billows of the inundation, warranted a just and purer confidence that the hour of its fury had passed away.”* But perhaps the fault of the Covenanters did not lie in their liberal use of Scripture, but in the unnatural, extravagant, and ridiculous applica¬ tions which they made of it. We are afraid that it will be difficult to exculpate some of the extracts which we have given above from this charge ; and it would be easy for us to produce recent examples of a still more glaring kind. What would the reader think of a passage of Scripture relating to the redemption of mankind, and the exaltation of our Saviour, being formally applied to the conclusion of the late war, and the restoration of the Bourbons 1 Yet this has been done by one who is neither a Whig nor a Presbyterian.^ With respect to the ludi¬ crous perversions of Scripture by the Covenanters, they are the pure fictions of the author of the Tales. We do not recollect to have any¬ where met with a more barefaced attempt to impose upon the public. All unprejudiced persons, even those Avho have no favour for Presby¬ terians, have been obliged to admit the exaggeration ; and those who are acquainted with the subject know that, with the exception of a few phrases which have been gathered from the books of the Covenanters, and inserted as best served the author’s purpose, the whole representa¬ tion is fanciful and false. We have particularly in our eye at present the speeches put into the mouth of Mause and the preacher on the road to Loudon hill ; although the remark is by no means confined to that scene. We have selected it because it affords us an opportunity of bringing the autlior’s statement to the test, and enabling the reader to judge of its truth or falsehood. Two years after the period to which the Tales relate, when persecution had inflamed themincls of the sufferers to a much higher degree, two women, who had embraced the sentiments of Cameron and Cargill, were executed at Edinburgh. Let the reader peruse their examinations and dying speeches, which are preserved, and compare them with the speeches and behaviour of Mause, and he will perceive at once the truth of our averment.® The language of these sufferers is such as might be expected from unlettered females, but it is such as does not disgrace the common people of Scotland. The inquisi¬ torial interrogatories of the court discovered that they had imbibed one or two opinions of an extravagant and dangerous nature ; but their manner of avowing these was sober, and even dignified, compared with the behaviour of their judges and accusers. The following is part of the examination of Isabel Alison, written by her own hand with an artless 1 Address of the City of Edinburgh to the James Walker, StPeter’sChapel, Edinburgh, Prince Regent, in December 1813. 7th July 1814. 2 Sermon on Psalm oxviii. 23. By the Rev. 3 cloud of Witnesses, pp. 77, 78, 70 EEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. simplicity. “ The bishop said, Wherein is our doctrine erroneous 1 I said, That was better debated already than a poor lass could debate it. They said. Your ministers do not approve of these things ; and ye have said more than your ministers ; for your ministers have brought you on to these opinions, and left you there. I said. They had cast in baits among the ministers, and harled them aside ; and although ministers say one thing to-day, and another to-morrow, we are not obliged to follow them in that. Then they said they pitied me ; for (said they) we find reason and a quick wit in you ; and they desired me to take it to ad¬ visement. I told them, I had been advising on it these seven years, and I hope not to change now. They inquired, mockingly, if I lectiired any ? I answered, Quakers used to do so. They asked if I did own Presby¬ terian principles 1 I answered, that I did. They asked if I was distempered ^ I told them I was always solid in the wit that God had given me. Lastly, they asked my name. I told them if they had staged me they might remember my name. Then they caused bring Sanquhair Declaration, and the pajoer found on Mr Eichard Cameron, and the papers taken at the Queen’s Ferry, and asked if I would adhere to them 1 I said I would, as they were according to the Scriptures, and I saw not wherein they did contradict them. They asked if ever Mr Welsh or Mr Riddell taught me these principles 1 I answered, I would be far in the wrong to speak anything that might wrong them. Then they bade me take heed what I was saying, for it was upon life and death that I was questioned. I asked them if they would have me to lie. I would not quit one timth though it would purchase my life 1000 years, which ye cannot purchase, nor promise me an hour. They said. When saw ye the two Hendersons and John Balfour 1 Seeing ye love ingenuity, will ye be ingenuous and tell us if ye saw them since the death of the bishop. I said, They appeared publicly within the land since. They asked if I conversed with them within these 12 months I at which I kept silence. They urged me to say either Yes or Nay. I answered. Yes. Then they said, Your blood be on your own head ; wm shall be free of it. I answered. So said Pilate ; but it was a question if it was so : but ye have nothing to say against me but for owning of Christ’s truths and His persecuted members ; to Avhich they answered nothing. Then they desired me to subscribe what I owned. I refused, and they did it for me.”^ We have appealed to a case the most favourable to our author, in order that we might prove, a fortiori, the falsity of his representation; for otherwise we do not allow that the principles of these women afford a fair speci¬ men of those which were held by the great body of the Covenanters who attended field conventicles at the period to which the Tales refer. We can bring the matter to a still more direct and decisive test, with respect to the character of Gabriel Kettledrummle. Under this name there can be no question that the author had his eye upon Mr John King. For we know, from his history, that he was the minister taken ^ Cloud of Witnesses, p. 7S 80. REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 71 prisoner by Claverliouse on the morning of the battle of Dmmclog, led as a prisoner to the field, and released by the victorious Covenanters in the manner described by the author. Now, King was again taken prisoner after the battle of Bothwell, and was executed ; and we have an account of his trial, and the speech which he wrote and delivered before his death.^ The perusal of these will convince every reader that the author has been guilty of most inexcusable and outrageous misre¬ presentation. The author describes him as one of the boute-feus of the party, as infiaming the multitude to the highest pitch, defending “ the mingled ravings of madness and atrocity,” and supporting those who insisted on disowning the authority of Charles. — (Vol. iii. pp. 102, 162, 178, 188 ; iv. 10.) Contrast with this the following declaration by King immediately before his execution ; “ The Lord knowes, who is the Searcher of hearts, that neither my designe nor practice was against his Majesty’s person and just government, but I alwayes in¬ tended to be loyal to lawful authority in the Lord. I thank God my heart doth not condemne me of any disloyalty ; I have been loyal, and do recommend it to all to be obedient to higher powers in the Lord. And that I preached at field-meetings, which is the other ground of my sentence, I am so far from acknowledging that the Gospel preached that way was a rendevousing in rebellion (as it is termed), that I bless the Lord that ever counted me worthy to be a witness to such meetings, which have been so wonderfully countenanced and owned, not only to the conviction, but even to the conversion of many thousands ; yea, I do assert, that if the Lord hath had a purer church and people in this land than another, it hath been in and among these meetings in fields and houses, so much now despised by some, and persecuted by others. That I preached up rebellion and rising in armes against authority, I bless the Lord my conscience doth not condemn me in this, it never being my designe ; if I could have preached Christ and salvation in His name, that was my work, and herein have I walked according to the light and rule of the word of God, and as it did become (though one of the meanest) a minister of the Gospel. I have been looked on by some, and misrepresented by others, that I have been of a divisive and factious humour, and one that stirred up division in the Church ; but I am hopeful that ye will give me charity, being within a little to stand before my Judge, and / tke Lord that He will forgive them that did so misrepresent me : But I thank the Lord, whatever men did say of me concerning this, I have often diswaded from such wayes, and of this my conscience bears me witness.” His last words were : “ Now I bid farewel with all my friends and dear relations. Farewel, my poor wife and child, whom I leave on the good hand of Him who is better than seven husbands, and will be a father to the fatherless. Farewel, all creature comforts, and welcome everlasting life, everlasting glory, everlasting love, and everlasting praise. Bless the Lord, 0 my soul, ^ Naphtali, p. 466, edit. 1693. Wodrow, vol. ii., p. 83-86. 72 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. and all that is within me.”^ If it should be alleged that the author did not intend to confine himself to a description of the character of King, this shift will avail little. For Mr Kid, another minister who suffered along with him, expressed himself in the same terms.^ Nay, of all the ministers who were at Both well (and there were at least fourteen there), there were not above two who differed from Mr King in this respect, and the high and violent measures proposed were urged chiefly by a few private gentlemen, and especially by Robert Hamilton, a forward young man, who had got himself introduced to the chief command of the Covenanting army. We may afterward advert to this fact more particularly, but we cannot omit at present calling the attention of our readers to it, because it is of very considerable importance ; and it has, we apprehend, been misstated, not only by the author of the Tales, but also by several of our historians. Even when the author wished to relieve his picture, and intended to describe individuals among the Covenanters as displaying some talent, or possessing some good qualities, he has blundered and betrayed his ignorance. Thus, in the sermon of Macbriar, he has made the preacher utter a sentiment which was universally rejected by Presbyterians, while he makes him tell his audience, — “ Whoso will deserve immortal fame in this world, and eternal hapinness in that luhich is to come, let them enter into Cod’s eternal service,” &c.^ — (Vol. iii. p. 110.) A similar breach of decorum of character occurs in his description of the humane Covenanter, Widow Maclure, whom he introduces as repeatedly bann¬ ing and mincing oaths in her conversation ! — (Vol. iv. pp. 275, 278, 281.) Far be it from us to derogate from the talents of our great author ; but the truth is (and he should have been aware of it), whatever talent a person may possess for buffoonery, he will not succeed in mimicking those with whose manners he is unacquainted. He has seen and conversed with old gentlewomen of Tory principles, gallant officers, drunken soldiers, butlers and innkeepers ; but he has not fallen into the company of religious people ; and, accordingly, he has failed com¬ pletely in taking off' their likeness, and in imitating their language and manners. To cull a few phrases from Scripture, and scraps from this sermon and that dying speech, and to form the whole into a cento, has doubtless something ludicrous in it ; and we do not question that it will move the laughter of the good friends whom the author professes himself to have been so much indebted to for his materials, as well as the surviving old maidens of the ever-memorable Forty-Jive, especially if he should himself recite it in that snuffling, whining, canting tone which Judge Jeffreys erst acted so admirably in the Court of King’s Bench. But we can scarcely persuade ourselves that he ever seriously thought it would pass in the world either for wit or humour. If the persons whom he intended to expose were to rise up and be desired to 1 Naphtali, pp. 46S-470, 476. - Ibid., p. 458. EEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 73 look upon their picture, they would smile at his failure, provided it were possible for them not to be shocked at his profaneness. We have declined hitherto calling the author to account for his pro¬ fane use of the Sacred Writings, because we wished, before doing this, to show that our censure did not proceed from displeasure at his wit, and to anticipate an apology which we knew would be made for his conduct. It is frequently urged, that such freedoms with sacred sub¬ jects are necessary to preserve propriety of character ; and it may be alleged on the present occasion, that the author has only represented the abuse which was made of Scripture by the Covenanters, and that they, and not he, must be answerable for the profanation. We cannot admit the justice of this apology. Those who talk most about sustain¬ ing propriety of character, can neglect it on very slight occasions. It is no plea for indecency, and why should it be so for profaneness ? There may sometimes be a propriety in exposing the extravagant and ridiculous misapplications of Scripture made by individuals, or by a religious sect ; but we do not know that this can ever be justifiably done in a work for amusement, intended for aU classes of readers, and ordinarily perused in a state of mind which unfits persons for discriminating between the abuse and the thing abused, and for coolly judging whether the author’s ridicule is well or ill founded. The author of the Tales has placed at the head of one of his chapters a quotation from the Alchemist, which we presume he regarded as a prototype and authority. We beg leave to quote, as well worthy of his attention on this subject, the opinion of one whose authority stands deservedly high both in law and in morality. “ I remember,” says Lord Chief Justice Hale, “that when Ben Jonson, in his play of the Alchymist, introduced Anartus in derision of the Puritans, with many of their phrases taken out of Scripture, in order to render that people ridiculous, the play was detested and abhorred, because it seemed to reproach religion itself ; but now, when the Pres¬ byterians were brought upon the stage in their peculiar habits, and with their distinguishing phrases of Scripture exposed to the laughter of spectators, it met with approbation and applause.” ^ 1 Neal’s History of the Puritans, vol. iv. p. 440. The excess to which profaneness and blasphemy were carried in the days of Charles II., we could scarcely credit, wei'c it not attested by the most unexceptionable autho¬ rity. And all under the pretext of with¬ standing fanaticism ! A letter from Dr John Wallis to the Hon. Mr lioyle, giving an ac¬ count of the opening of Archbishop Shel¬ don’s theatre at Oxford, contains the follow¬ ing particulars : “ Then a letter of thanks to be sent from the University to him, where¬ in he is acknowledged to be both our creator and redeemer, for having not only built a theatre for the act, but, which is more, de¬ livered the blessed Virgin from being so pro¬ faned for the fuaire; He doth (as the words of the letter are) non tantum condere, hoc est creare, sed etiam redimere. These words (I confess) stopped my mouth from giving a placet to that letter when it was put to the vote. I have since desired Mr Vice-chancel¬ lor to consider, whether they were not liable to a just exception. He did at first excuse it : but, upon further thoughts, I suppose he will think fit to alter them, before the letter be sent and registered. After the voting of this letter. Dr South (as university orator) made a long oration ; the first part of which consisted of satirical invectives against Cromwell, fanaticks, the royal society, and new philosophy. The next of encomia-sticks ; in praise of the archbishop, the theatre, the vice-chancellor, the architect, and the painter. The last of execrations ; against fanaticks, conventicles, comprehension, and new philosophy ; damning them ad inferos, ad gehennam. The oration being ended, 74 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD, But we are under no necessity of having recourse to this argument in the present case. The author is guilty of wantonly abusing Scrip¬ ture, not in a few but in numerous instances throughout his work, without his being able to justify himself by an appeal to the practice of the Covenanters. We may refer to the exclamations of Mause (vol. iiL ]). 77), and to Langcale’s summoning the castle of Tillietudlem “with the but-end of a sermon,” by “ uplifting, with a stentorian voice, a verse of the 24th Psalm,” in metre, which is given at length. (Vol. iii. p. 143.) Such descriptions are quite out of nature, and so extravagant as to be mere ludicrous applications of Scripture language, such as no person who had any due reverence for it could indulge in, and as will give pleasure to an infidel reader, not because they afford a true or spirited delinea¬ tion of character, but because they gratify his disposition to laugh at the Bible. Still worse, if possible, are the exclamations put into the mouths of Mause and Kettledrummle on approaching Drumclog. (Vol. iii. pp. 32, 33.) The prostitution of Scripture in the first of these instances, is accompanied with a display of great want of delicacy and feeling for an old woman in the circumstances described ; and, in the last instance, it is aggravated by the consideration, that the words used are part of a description expressly and repeatedly applied in the New Testa^ ment to the sufferings of the Saviour of men. We believe that the author was not aware of this ; but what stronger proof can be given of his rashness in intruding into things which he knows not, and under¬ taking a task which he is incapable of performing well ? He tells us, that “these exclamations” of the two prisoners, “excited shouts of laughter among their military attendants ; but events soon occurred which rendered them all sufficiently serious.” He no doubt expected that his description would excite similar shouts of laughter among his readers ; and we have only to express our wish, that he may soon seriously reflect on the subject, and expunge those passages from his work, which other¬ wise will remain as a stain upon it, which all the applause of the thoughtless and unprincipled will not be able to cancel. “But what do you say to the charge against the covenanting jireachers, and the coarse, vulgar, and incoherent strain of their ser¬ mons 1” We say that we are not ashamed of them. We say, that if we had been then alive, we would have been among their hearers. We say that the Presbyterians in general were incomparably the best preachers at that time in Scotland. And with respect to such of them as were forced to preach in the fields, we think we can say enough to silence the silly clamour which has been raised as to their sermons. Who would require polish, or expect accurate and laboured composition, from men who were driven from their hoi.nes, and destitute of all accom¬ modations ; who were obliged to remove from one part of the country some honoi'ary degrees were conferred, and composed in praise of the archbishop, the the convocation dissolved. The afternoon theatre, &c., and crying dowir fanaticks.” was spent in panegyrick orations and re- — Neal’s History of the Puritans, vol. iv. pp. citing of poems in several sorts of verse, 442, 443. REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 75 to another, to escape the unremitting search of their persecutors ; who durst not remain above one night in a house, and had often to conceal themselves in woods and caverns '? The covenanting preachers were not in the habit of preaching extempore ; they maintained no such principle as that the extraordinary aids of the Spirit rendered study or prepara¬ tion unnecessary ; but they would have acted a criminal and a weak part, if, in the circumstances in which they were then placed, they had refused to preach upon premeditation, or even extemporaneously, pro¬ vided an unexpected opportunity offered itself. The conventicles were a principal means of preserving the cause of religion and liberty in this country ; and it was of the greatest consequence that they should be maintained. It has been well said, that when the banners which the field preachers kept waving on the mountains of Scotland, and which, when dropped by one, were taken up and displayed by another, were descried in Holland, they convinced William that the sjiirit of freedom and of resistance was not extinct, and encouraged him to hazard the attempt which issued in the deliverance of Britain. Contracted and “ cold are the selfish hearts” which can perceive nothing to admire in the conduct of such men, and which can only indulge in puling com¬ plaints that their sermons did not display good taste, and were devoid of elegant frippery. Such as excel most in these sujierficial accom¬ plishments, are often deficient in firmness and fortitude, and are ready to act the part of those effeminate soldiers who deserted their colours lest the sword of the enemy should disfigm’e their pretty countenances. Had they been present, the dread of concealed informers, or apprehen¬ sions of the approach of the military, would have dissipated all the fine flowers of rhetoric which they had collected, and made “ their tongue to cleave to the roof of their mouth.” These were not the men for the times. It was not elegant diction, apt similes, well-turned periods, or elaborate reasonings, that the people who frequented conventicles needed. They needed to be taught the Word of God, to be confirmed in the truths for which they were called to suffer, and to have their minds prepared for that death with which they were daily threatened. What they wanted they obtained from their preachers, to whom they listened with emotions of delight, and with a tone of high feeling, to which those who ignorantly deride them have no pulse that beats re¬ sponsive. “ In solitudes like these Thy persecuted children, Scotia, foil’d A tyrant’s and a bigot’s bloody laws: There, leaning on his spear, - The Ij'art veteran hoard the Word of God, By Cameron thundered, or by Renwick poured In gentle stream. . . . . “ Over their souls His accents soothing came, — as to her young The heathfowl’s plumes, wdieu at the close of eve She, mournful, gathers in her brood, dispersed 76 EEVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. By murderous sport, and o’er the remnant spreads Fondly her wings ; close nestling ’neath her breast They cherished cower amid the purple blooms.” We do not admit tliat the sermons of the field preachers were ridicu¬ lously mean and incoherent. If this had been the case, we do not believe that our Melvilles, our Crawfords, our Cardrosses, our Loudons, our Maxwells, our Cesnocks, our Pol warts, and our Jerviswoods, gentle¬ men of good education, and some of them possessed of very cultivated minds, would have countenanced them, and subjected themselves to fines for hearing them preach, or allowing them to preach in their houses. The field preachers had all received a liberal education; several of them were gentlemen by birth, ^ and others of them are known to have been highly respectable for their talents. One of the first acts of William, after he was established on the throne, was to appoint Mr Thomas Hog, whom he had known in Holland, one of his chaplains, and Mr Forrester was about the same time made a professor in one of our universities. The sermons preached at conventicles which are ordinarily circulated, are a very unsafe rule by which to judge of the talents of the preachers, and the quality of the discourses which they actually de¬ livered. We have never been able to ascertain that one of these was published during the lifetime of the author, or from notes written by himself. They were printed from notes taken by the hearers, and we may easily conceive how imperfect and inaccurate these must often have been. We have now before us two sermons by Mr Welsh, printed at different times ; and upon reading them, no person could suppose that they were preached by the same individual. The one has little sub¬ stance, and abounds with exclamations and repetitions ; the other is a sensible and well-arranged discourse, and free from the faults of the other. We have no doubt that the memory of Mr Peden has been injured in the same way. The collection of prophecies that goes under his name is not authentic ; and we have before us some of his letters, which place his talents in a very different light from the idea given of them in what are called his Sermons and his Life. It was natural, though injudicious, in well-meaning people, after the Eevolution, to publish whatever came in their way, bearing to have been preached or spoken by men whom they revered so highly for their zeal, piety, faith¬ fulness, and constancy in suffering. And it is well known, that many eminent persons have suffered severely in their reputation from similar conduct on the part of their warm and rash admirers. We do not mean by this to retract what we formerly conceded, nor to deny that some of the field preachers indulged in a style too familiar and colloquial, and were apt to employ phrases and comparisons which suggest ideas that are degrading. But we maintain that this fault was not peculiar to them or to the Presbyterian Church, and that it is less disgusting and 1 Mr Archibald Riddel, son of Sir Walter Bryce Semple, Mr Blackadder of Tulliallan, Riddel, Mr Gabriel Semple, son of Sir and Mr Fraser of Brae. REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 77 less hurtful to the great ends of preaching than either the scholastic pedantry, or the affected finery and florid bombast which have more frequently infected the pulpit, and disfigured the sermons of those who have been most disposed to exclaim against Presbyterian vulgarity.^ Here we intended to have closed this part of our review, when the British Critic for January was put into our hands. This contains a review of the Tales of my Landlord, which induces us to make an addition to what we have said on the sermons of the Covenanters. From the known High-Church tone of this journal, we were prepared to expect that the tale of Old Mortality would be greeted by its conductors with a cordial and affectionate welcome, and that they would be pre¬ pared at once to subscribe to all its statements, and to become the heralds of its praises. They have even outdone our expectations ; for they have improved upon the author’s representation, and have pointed out the practical apphcation of his instructions to the present times, which he was either not aware of, or too prudent and too modest to notice. After a circumstantial account, “ collected from the best his¬ torians,” of the assassination of Archbishop Sharp, — “ a murder which, for cowardice and cruelty, has scarcely a parallel in the history of the civilised world,” — the dispassionate and well-informed critic goes on to say : “ Emboldened by the success of their first enterprise in blood, they began to preach (for all their leaders were preachers) the general assassi¬ nation of their enemies, and every pulpit rang with the examples of Jael and Sisera, ofEhud and Eglon." The Duke of Monmouth “ met them on Bothwell Bridge in full force, their army being now increased to 8000 men. After a desperate resistance they were repulsed,'’’ &c. “Such was the rebellion, of which the tale of Old Alortality is an historical sketch.” Having given various extracts from the tale, in which the anecdote respecting “ the barn fanners ” is not forgotten, and having panegyrised Claverhouse, whose character is said to be “ drawn with no less spirit than fidelity,” the critic makes the following general remarks, to which we beg the particular attention of our readers : — “ In times like these, when the spirit of fanaticism is abroad, and gathering the most fearful strength, the tale before us will be read with a deep and a foreboding interest. With the Bible in the one hand, and the sword in the other, did these wretched victims of enthusiasm march forth to slaughter and to blood. Fraud, rapine, and murdei’, in their minds, were consecrated by the cause in which they were engaged, and by the Gospel, under whose banners they supposed themselves enlisted. To the knowledge of Christ, hke the fanatics of modem days, they laid an exclusive claim, and that claim they enforced by the breach of every command of charity and love which their heavenly Master so earnestly inculcated. “ To many of our readers, the sermons and speeches which these volumes con¬ tain, may appear a caricatme rather than a portrait. We can assure them, how¬ ever, that they are a very faithful transcript of the cant of those times. We have now before us a book published in 1719, entitled ‘ Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence,’ 1 We had formerly occasion to make some remarks on this subject. — Christian Instruc¬ tor, voi. viL p. 415-417. 78 REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD, &c., another of nearly the same date, called ' A Century of Presbyterian Preachers,’ in wliich will be found many discourses of the same nature. In the latter of these, extracts are given from published sermons, a few of which we will present to our readers.” — (P. 94.) Having given short extracts from two or three sermons preached before the Long Parliament, the critic adds : — “ From these few specimens of real covenanting eloquence, our readers will not imagine the picture before them to be a distortion ora caricature ; the portrait is executed by too faithful and too well instructed a pen.” — “ We must pronounce it to be a tale, which, from the spirit of the composition, the truth of the colouring, and the warning which it holds out to this church and nation, demands a most serious and attentive consideration.” — (Pp. 95, 97.) If there are any of our readers who doubted as to the pernicious ten¬ dency of the Tales, or as to the propriety of the notice which we have taken of them, the extracts which we have now given must have removed their doubts. Here we perceive that the old spirit of malignancy was not dead, but only asleep, and ready to spring up whenever the least encouragement was given to it. The war-whoop is sounded against fanaticism — the fanatics of former times are identified with those of the present day — and the mad attempt is renewed of accusing persons hold¬ ing certain religious principles of abetting designs of the worst kind. Before reading this article, we were apprehensive that we had dwelt too long upon some of the topics treated in the preceding pages ; but now we are satisfied that there was need for enlarging instead of retrench¬ ment. We do not mean to expose the gross misrepresentations of historical fact in the review, and we may afterwards have an opportu¬ nity of considering the charges attecting the moral character of the Covenanters. At present, we confine ourselves to what the critic says of their sermons. We had previously looked out a number of passages in the sermons of Episcopalians, English and Scots, to set in opposition to the representation which the author of the Tales has given of Presbyte¬ rian preaching. But although we were fully aware of the tendency of his work, and the handle that would be made of it, yet, being averse to recrimination, and aware of the delicacy of the subject, we laid them aside, and resolved to suppress them. But after the attack which has been made by the organ of the High-Church party, we consider ourselves as imperiously called upon to bring them forward. It may be of some use in cheeking their disposition to have recourse to this method of abuse to show them that Episcopalians have preached from the pulpit, and published from the press, things far more unsuitable, ridiculous, ex¬ travagant, vulgar, and violent, than ever were uttered by Presbyterian preachers. We shall begin with the Lord Bishop of London. The following extraets are from a sermon which his Lordship preached, on occasion of the marriage of the Princess Eoyal, and which accordingly may be supposed to have been none of his worst. The text is Psalm cxxviii. 3 : REVIEW OF TALES OF MY LANDLORD. 79 “ Thy wife shall be as the fruitful vine by the sides of thy house.” — “ Uxor tua may well be the subject of the proposition, for it is the subject, the prior terminus, the vnoKfiiievov, that is substantial!, fundamental! terme of all mankind, rrjs ets rov jSiov eiaoSov 6vpa, the gate of entrance into living. Hence began the world : God huilded the woman {cedificat costam, finxit hominem ; man was figmentum, woman wdijicium, an artificial! building), and from the rafter or planke of this rib is the world built. Therefore was Heva called mater viventium, the mother of the living ; quia mortali generei immortalitatempaxit — she is themeanes to continue a kind of immortalitie amongst the mortali sonnes of men. No sooner was man made, but presently also a woman, not animal occasionatum, a creature upon occasion, nor mas Icesus, a male with maime and imperfection, &c.”— “ Vir and uxor, man and wife, are primum par,fundamentumparium, the first original match of all others. All other couples and paires, as father and sonne, maister and servant, king and subject, come out of this paire. The beginning of families, cities, countries, continents, the whole habitable world, the militant, yea and triumphant church, mater matris ecclesice, the mother of the mother church, of no small part of the kingdome of heaven, is tixor tua, this subject of my text, out of this combination, it all springeth. No marriage, no men ; no marriage, no saints. The wife is the mother of virgins that are no wives {Laudo connubium quia generat virgines, saith Hierome, ywaiKopaa-TiUj ; nogeneration, no regeneration, no multiplying beneath, no multiplying above ; no filling the earth, not so much filling the heavens ; if not f Hi seculi, neither will there be flii cceli.” — “ We have found the treasure, wee must adde the cabinet to keep the treasure. Thg wife, not 'uxor vestra, one woman to many men, against the doctrine of the Nicolaitans ; not uxores tuce, many women to one man, against the encroachment of Lamech; not uxor tua et non tua., to take and leave, put on and put off, as thou doest thy coat. Uxor tua is as much to say, as tu et uxor, uxor et tu, no more, no fewer, no other, (kc.” — “ Sicut vitis ahundans. If there were nothing more than sicut, that word alone might suffice. The woman at her first creation was made to be a sicut, &c.” — “ {Sicut vitis.) A tree and a man or a woman, how nearly do they symbolise. The roote of the tree is the mouth to convey it nourishment ; the pith or heart of the tree is the matrice, belly, or bowels ; the knots, the nerves ; the fissures or concavities, the veines ; the rinde, the skinne ; the boughes, the armes and limms ; the sprigges, the fingers ; the leaves, the haire ; the fruit, unlesse the tree be barren, the children, (fee., cfe:c.” ^ Our next extracts shall be from “ The Merchant Koyall,” preached at the marriage of a Scots nobleman, the Right Hon. the Lord Hay. The text is Proverbs xxxi. 14 ; “ Shee is like a merchant ship, she bringeth her food from afarre.”- — “ She is like a ship, W. .- • • 'f 83fca00'»fiKi uY/'j' VV. f . i/ EtijiuHo 3UT p;'a'tt'[ ^E'l; ; *'$'■'■ %Y('))pr!i ■flctw 0*4 .fe,^'i>i'r:^!^f ^V. ’.. MmLo I 4ft -(Ml . ' * » /^U- ‘tLAt ' ' J /t fi^I* f V i~- «• . '-'^ir '^‘ ^ -,. ' .v .i '4i *-4 -- */ ' i j i. , I , -V.. .. . . ^iu. ■ -»3 a , 44 TlW/iJa*! rJ.iA^*!l0T4O- “fti! fc '^. -* • iftit ' • » ' •»' V* V ^ . t* • r I ■ 1 ' 'W' 'V * ’'^■' * Jfn ‘ *- *»«'^ 4' ’V^* *••!-■' HP .N-. .f.«i,.hM.^ ^ '.', ■•■■.'( ' % (U^f 3|,»- *• ■ (<*. t ■ ' • * ^ ‘*. y j.v ".' ISIWM % t TWO DISCOURSES ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. DISCOURSE I. " They shall he one %n mine hand.” — Ezek. xxxvii. 19. The reduction of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity was one of the most signal deliverances wrought in behalf of the ancient people of God. It was not, indeed, immediately affected by miraculous power and the exhibition of visible signs and wonders, like the eduction of their fathers from the house of bondage ; but it was attended with the most convincing proofs of extraordinary providential interposition. And such was the magnitude of the mercy itself, the change on the national character which accompanied it, and the connection in which it stood with the ulterior plans of Heaven, that it so far threw into shade, and took the place of that deliverance which had hitherto been commemorated in the sacred invocations of every pious and patriotic Israelite. “ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said. The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt ; but. The Lord liveth that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them.”^ This joyful event had been announced by the prophet Isaiah, who named Cyrus as the prince who should “say to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the temple. Thy foundation shall be laid.” The period at which it would happen was defined in the prophecies of Jeremiah, which contain a magnificent description of the overthrow of Babylon. The predictions of Ezekiel, while they confirm those wliich had been previously given out, add to them facts which are deeply interesting and 1 Jer. xvi. 14, 15 ; comp. Isa. xliii. 18, 19. 132 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. permanently instructive. In the preceding chapter we are told that God would not restore Israel to their own land, but also produce a change on their hearts and conduct. The whole house of Israel were polluted with guilt, and especially with the sin of idolatry. Neither mercies nor judgments had hitherto been sufficient to divorce and sepa¬ rate them from their idols. But their captivity and release should be sanctified and blessed for producing a real and lasting reformation. They should be made the objects of pardoning mercy, and the subjects of renewing grace. “ Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I wiU give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judg¬ ments, and do tliem.”i Two objections of great force would present themselves to the minds of the Jews when told that their captivity should be turned back ; and these are removed in the chapter before us. Crushed under the irresis¬ tible power of their conquerors, trodden under foot, scattered, exani- mated, they could only sigh out, “ Our hope is lost ; we are cut off for our part !” To enable him to meet this objection, Ezekiel was “ carried in the spirit ” into the midst of a valley full of bones, bleached and dry ; and while he prophesied to them by divine direction, “ Behold, the bones came together, bone to his bone,” and on a sudden the appear¬ ance of the valley was changed from that of a field of slaughter into the site of a grand military review. Those whose “ bones were scattered at the grave’s mouth ” stood up not only in the attitude of living men, but “ every man in his own order,” and all together united and mar¬ shalled — “an exceeding great army.” The prophet then addressed the captives in God’s name : “ Behold, 0 my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, — and shall put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live.” This emblematical vision went far to solve the second objection, which is completely removed in the words of our text. He who believes in the resurrection of a dead people will not despair of the cure of a divided people. He who has seen “ the bones come together, bone to his bone,” is prepared to witness the congregating of living men, every one to his fellow. The second objection was founded on the dissension which had subsisted among the people of Israel since the death of Solomon, when ten tribes were violently rent from the royal house of David, and formed themselves into a separate and independent kingdom. What was at first a political division soon produced an ecclesiastical schism, and led to the establishment and practice of a worship at Dan and Bethel, different from, and opposite to, the worship of God at Jeru¬ salem. This dissension between the families of Judah and Israel stiff 1 Ezek. xxxvi. 25—27. THE UNITY OF THE CHUECH. 133 remained; and was there no reason to fear, if they were restored to their own land, that, like “ a root bearing wormwood and gall,” it would again “spring up and trouble them?” Against the fears of this, the prophet was instructed to comfort the “prisoners of hope,” first by exliibitiug a sign, and then by explaining its meaning. In the instruc¬ tions which God has been pleased to convey to men, sublimity is blended with condescension : the emblem formerly presented to the prophet was grand ; the sign which he now showed to the people was familiar. He was directed to take two sticks, or, as the word also signifies, tkin plates of wood, so fashioned as that, when brought into contact, they should unite into one piece ; and having inscribed on them severally the distinctive names of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, he was to join them in his hand before the people. To their inquiry, “ Show us what thou meanest by these,” he was to answer ; “ Thus saith the Lord ; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, and put it with the stick of Judah, and they shall be one in mine hand ; — they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.” They were to become one nation in respect not only of civil polity, but also of religious communion and privileges. For it is added : “ I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore : — my tabernacle also shall be with them ; yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” This promise was fulfilled on the restoration from the captivity, when the inveterate schism between Judah and Israel was perfectly healed. Some interpreters regard it as a prediction of what was to happen in New Testament times ; and we can scarcely doubt that the blessings promised, in all their extent, could only be enjoyed during this period : For it follows, “ David,” a name often given to Messiah by the pro¬ phets, “ my servant shall be King over them, and they shall have one shepherd.” And again : “ My servant David shall be their prince for ever.” But without resting on this, we mean to take the primary appli¬ cation of the passage as a foundation for the subsequent discourse. There is a wonderful analogy in the divine dispensations towards the church at ditt'erent periods. The duties, the temptations, the sins, the punishments, and the deliverances of the people of God in former times, are all instructive and admonitory. The Spirit of wisdom has selected for insertion in the inspired records, with more or less detail, those facts which were calculated to be most generally and parmanently use¬ ful. In the New Testament the name of Babylon, and the language and imagery employed by the prophets in describing the power and the overthrow of that idolatrous and persecuting empire, are transferred to the reign and ruin of the Antichristian kingdom ; and upon the same principle, are not we warranted to apply, for “ doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness,” the description of a con¬ temporary mercy bestowed upon the church of God, which was inti¬ mately connected with her internal and most vital interests ? 134 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. On a text of this kind there is a danger of tracing analogies that are more fanciful and ingenious than real and solid, and of rearing general principles on the basis of accidental circumstances. We shall endeavour to guard against this, by keeping in eye the analogy of faith, and the lights thrown on the subject of our text from other parts of Scripture. The subject of discourse is the Divisions of the Church, and the remedy of tliis mournful malady. I propose not to treat it at large, but only to lay before you a few observations, which, through the blessing of the divine Spirit, may be useful for establishing your faith, and directing your exercise. The subject is not only of great extent ; it is also of very delicate discussion. When we are beside the waters of strife, 0 how needful the perfect illumination — the mystic Urim and Thummim which was upon Levi, whom God “ proved at Massah, and strove with at the waters of Meribah !” May we have our ears attent to “the word behind us,” the Daughter of a Voice, ^ saying, “ This is the way, when we turn to the right hand, and when we turn to the left and may you have wisdom to “ consider what we say,” and to “ judge of your ownselves what is right.” For the sake of order I shall arrange what I have to say under the following heads : — I. Of the Unity of the Church. 11. Of its Divisions. III. Of the Removal of these, and the Restoration of its violated Unity. I. I begin with the consideration of the Unity of the Church. For ages previous to the announcing of the oracle in our text, Judah and Israel had been divided into two nations in respect of civil concerns and of religious faith and practice ; but God at first made them one. The Church of Christ has been divided for a still longer period, and to a still greater degree ; but “ from the beginning it was not so.” Origi¬ nally it was one, and it ought still to be one, according to divine will and institution. The Unity of the Church is implied in the most general view we can take of its nature, as a society instituted for religious purposes. True religion is essentially one, even as God, its object, is one. It, as its name imports, hinds its professors to one another, as well as to the sole and common object of their supreme homage and service. It is indeed the great bond of human society in all its various and graduated rela¬ tions ; preserving the unity and peace of families, neighbourhoods, and nations, strengthening the subordinate ties by which they are connected, and preventing men from becoming a prey to each other, “ as the fishes 1 The.Tewish writers say that God revealed his mind during the standing of the taber¬ nacle by Urim and Thummim; during the first temple by the Prophets ; and during the second by Bath-kol, or the Daughter of a Voice. This last, they suppose, is referred to in Isaiah xxx. 21. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 135 of the sea, and as the creeping things that have no ruler.” Hence, from the violation of the bonds of humanity, consanguinity, and mutual faith, so general among his countrymen, a prophet infers that they must have previously renounced the relation in which they stood to tlieir common Parent : “ Have we not all one father 1 hath not one God created us ? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by pro¬ faning the covenant of our fathers'?”^ If such is the remote and (if I may so call it) extrinsic influence of religion, what must its direct operation be within the pale of its own sacred enclosure 1 Consider the church again in its more speciflc form, as a society con¬ sisting of men called out of the world lying in wickedness, and it will be still more evident that oneness is its attribute. It is founded on supeniatural revelation — on the promise of a Saviour, and a divinely instituted worship. By their profession of faith in the former, and their observance of the latter, “ the sons of God” were united in the patri¬ archal age. When an extensive system of ceremonial and sacriflcial service, intended to preflgure the redemption to be procured by “ the seed of the woman” and “ of Abraham,” as well as to preserve the know¬ ledge of the one true God in the world, was superinduced on the original revelation, the nation of Israel was embodied into a church or sacred confederation, to be a peculiar people unto God, a holy nation, a kingdom of priests, God delights to speak of that people, as well as of himself, in the singular number : “ Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord. — Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God ; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.”^ “ I will say, It is my people, and they shall say. The Lord is my God.”® The stranger who embraced the true religion, in “joining liimself to the Lord,” did at the same time “ cleave to the house of Jacob,” and “ surname himself by the name of Israel.”^ “ One law and one manner, and one ordinance shall be for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you : as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord.”® By the death of Christ, “the middle wall of partition — the law of commandments contained in ordinances,” which was at the same time a token of the enmity between God and sinners, and an occasion of distance and alienation between Jews and Gentiles, was abolished; and believing Jews and Gentiles were reconciled to God and united into one body. But by being diffused the church was not divided ; she did not lose her unity by becoming ecumenical, and being no longer confined to a single nation. When she received a command to “ enlarge the place of her tent, and spread forth the curtains of her habitations,” to receive the converts who came under her shelter, she was at the same time instructed to “ lengthen her cords and strengthen her stakes.” * Divine wisdom made such changes on the external form of her worship 1 Mai. ii. 10. " Deut. vi. 4. X. 20. 3 Zech. xiii. 1. * Isa. Ivi. 3. Comp. chap. xix. 1 ; xliv. 5. 5 Numb. XV. 15, 16. * Isa. liv. 9. 136 THE UNITY OF THE CHUKCH. and communion as were adapted to the extended and continually en¬ larging ground which was now allotted to her. There was no longer to be a sacred house to serve as a visible centre of unity ; nor a material altar on which alone it was lawful to sacrifice ; nor a single family whose right it was exclusively to minister in the temple and at the altar. But still there remained visible bonds and badges of unity among the members of the Christian church. “ There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism ; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”^ “For we being many are one bread, and one body : for we are all partakers of that one bread.” ^ The unity of the ehureh, in profession, worship, and holy walking, was strikingly exemplified in the primitive age of Christianity. Those who “ gladly received the word were baptised and added to the church,” consisting of the apostles and other disciples ; and they “ continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” And, after their number was still farther aug¬ mented by the addition of many thousands, “ the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.”® Tlfis union was not confined to those who lived together, but all of them in every place formed one sacred “ brotherhood.” How solemn, earnest, and reiterated are the apostolical injunctions to preserve this unity, and to avoid everything that has a tendency to violate or mar it ! “ Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you ; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judg¬ ment.”^ “ I, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love ; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”® “ If there be any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like- minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind : — that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the Gospel.”® “ Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded one toward another according to Christ Jesus; that ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”^ It wiU assist us in forming correct notions on this subject, if we attend to certain distinctions which are commonly made in treating it. We usually speak of the church of the Old and of the JVew Testament, or the Jewish and Christian churches. But the difference between these is only in degree, not specifical or essential. The change made on her external form and institutions, at the coming of Christ, though great, 1 Eph. iv. 4 — 6. ^ 1 Cor. i. 10. 6 Philip, i. 27 ; ii. 1, 2. 2 1 Cor. X. 17. 5 Eph. iv. 1 — 3. ^ Eom. xv. 5, 6. 8 Acts ii. 41, 42 ; iv. 32. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 137 did not destroy the oneness of the church ; just as our personal identity is not aftected by the changes which we undergo, in body and mind, while we pass from childhood to maturity. She remained the same, as the heir does after reaching majority, although no longer under tutors and governors ; and as the olive tree does after a great part of its natural branches have been broken off, and others, taken from a wild tree, have been grafted in their room.^ — Again, it is usual to distinguish between the invisible and visible church. The former consists of such only as are true believers and real saints ; the latter of all who make a public profession of the true religion. But this does not imply that there are two churches, but only that the same society is considered in a different point of view. Nor is it a division of the whole into its parts. It does not mean, that one part of the church is visible and the another invisible ; but it means, that all who make a profession of the faith compose the church considered as visible, while those among them who are endued with true faith constitute the church considered as in¬ visible. The former includes the latter ; and it is sometimes spoken of in Scripture under the one and sometimes under the other view. But whether the church of Cluist be viewed in its internal or external state, unity is still its attribute. All genuine saints are invisibly and vitally united to Christ, and to one another, by the indissoluble bond of the Spirit and of faith ; and in virtue of this it is that they increase in love and holiness, and are at last made “ perfect in one.” Some of the par¬ ticulars specified in the passages of Scripture quoted above refer more immediately to this invisible union ; but others of them are as evidently descriptive of the character and privileges of a visible society, actuated by the spirit of true religion, and subsisting in a state of due subjection to the word and laws of Christ. Again, the church may be considered either as catholic or as particular. This distinction is not inconsistent with its unity any more than the former. The visible church considered as catholic or universal, consists of all those throughout the world who profess the true religion, together with their children. The variety of particular churches, when regularly constituted, does not imply any separation from, or opposition to, one another. The cathohc church subsists in, and is composed of, the several particular churches, of larger or less extent, in the different parts of the Christian world •, and none of these are to be excluded from it as long as they retain the true and distinctive characters of such a society as the Word of God describes it to be. That these particular churches should be sometimes found dis¬ united, and in many respects opposed to one another, is an accidental circumstance arising from their imperfect state and corruption. So far as this is the case catholic unity is marred ; yet this does not prevent them from having still some common points of union, and a common relation to the universal body — the one great diffusive flock, family, and kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. » Gal. iv. 1—3, 8, 9. Rom. xi. 17—24. 138 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. Christianity, being intended for general diffusion through the world, must in its nature be adapted to all countries and people. It would be extreme weakness to suppose, that its being embraced by people of different garbs, colour, and language, of different manners and customs, barbarous or civilised, or formed into distinct civil communities, and living under different forms of government, produces different religions, or a diversity of churches, provided their faith and practice are intrin¬ sically the same. Their formularies of faith and religious service may be differently expressed or arranged, and they may vary from one another in different circumstances in external administrations, which are not, and could not be, prescribed by positive rule in Scripture, and which (to use a much abused word) may be called circumstantial, without marring that unity of faith and that fellowship which belongs to different Christian societies, as parts of the same general body. Nor is simple ignorance in some and knowledge in others, with respect to some things which belong to the Christian system, or greater and less degrees of advancement in different churches, or iu the members of the same church, necessarily inconsistent with religious unity and peace. But there must be no denial or restriction of the supreme authority by which everything in religion is ruled ; no open and allowed hostility to truth and godliness ; and no such opposition of sentiments, or con¬ trariety of practices, as may endanger the faith, or destroy the consti¬ tution and edification of churches, or as may imply, in different churches, or in different parts of the same church, a condemnation of one another. As there were synagogues among the Jews, so there must be assemblies among Christians for divine worship and instruction, and for the exercise of discipline. The unity of the church requires that we join in communion with our fellow Christians, in the place where pro¬ vidence has cast our lot, provided they are found walking by the com¬ mon rule of Christianity, and as long as no sinful bar is laid in the way of such a conjunction. And our statedly holding communion with a particular church is the ordinary way of manifesting our communion with the catholic church. But as individual Christians are not at liberty to walk and act singly, so neither are particular congregations at liberty to act as independent and disjointed societies. For the ordinary perfor¬ mance of religious duties, and the ordinary management of their own internal affairs, they may be said to be complete churches, and furnished with complete powers. But extraordinary cases will arise among them¬ selves from time to time ; and there are, besides, duties, dangers, and interests, which do not properly or exclusively concern one congrega¬ tion, or a few congregations, and which require the joint cognisance and co-operation of many. This is taught by the light of nature itself, it flows from the oneness of the church of Christ, and is clearly exempli¬ fied in the New Testament. Being similar parts of the same general body, it is the duty of particular churches to draw together, to combine, THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 139 and to co-operate, according as this may be practicable, and as provi¬ dence may open a door for it, with a view to mutual help and the promo¬ tion of the common cause in which they are all engaged. They may agree in explicitly approving of the same articles of faith and rules of discipline, and in yielding a scriptural subjection to a common authority in the Lord. Such confederations, on the Presbyterian plan, are fully warranted by the Word of God, and are most congenial to the spirit of Christianity, which is catholic and diffusive ; they may include all the churches in the same neighbourhood, in the same nation, or even in many nations ; and by means of them that unity which belongs essen¬ tially to the whole church of Christ is formally recognised, and its bonds are strengthened and drawn more close. Is it then asked. What is the bond of unity in the church ? the reply may be given in one word— The true religion. Eeligion as communi¬ cated by God to men in the Bible, is its grand comprehensive bond. This specificates and distinguishes it from the unity which belongs to other societies. The sacred Scriptures not only exhibit the model after which the church is to be constructed ; they also furnish that which gives it substance, and stability, and order, and proportion, and unity. It is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone ; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord. ” ^ But, before leaving this part of the subject, it may be proper to specify more particularly some of the scriptural bonds of unity in the church. 1. This unity consists in her having one Head and Lord. This is Jesus Christ, whom the “one God and Father of all” has appointed over his house. “ Holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.”^ All real believers are internally joined to the Lord, and derive their spiritual life and growth from Him ; and in like manner must Christians, in their associated capacity, be in professed subjection to Him, in his divine mediatorial authority, as the one uni¬ versal Pastor, and sole Head of government. To admit a temporal head of the church, whether pope or king ; to call any man master in religion ; or to enlist ourselves under the banners of any human leader, is to sin against the first precept of Christian unity. 2. The unity of the faith. “ There is one body,” because there is “ one faith.” A system of faith or of revealed truth, as well as of duties, has in every age formed an essential and important part of true religion. By embracing this the church is distinguished from other societies, and it belongs to her faithfully to confess and hold it forth to the world. An owning of the whole faith is implied in her reception of the Scriptures ; she is bound to obey the calls of providence in explicitly confessing and contending for particular articles of it ; and there is no article of divine truth that may not at one time or another become the object of this duty, 1 Eph. ii. 20, 21. 2 Col. ii. 19. 140 THE UNITY OF THE CHUKCH, and consequently a test of her fidelity. Hence, she is called “ the city of truth,” as well as “the habitation of righteousness;” her gates are open to receive “ the righteous nation that keepeth the truth ;” and truth is inscribed on her columns, and on the banners which float on her walls and bulwarks. When this is not the case, Christian societies are destitute of the unity of the church of Christ, by whatever ties they may be kept together. 3. “ One baptism,” and fellowship in the same acts of worship. Baptism is a solemn badge of Christian profession, as well as a sign of the grace and privileges of the New Covenant. According to the proper and original design of this ordinance, and the profession accompanying it, all the baptised are made one, and a foundation is laid for their mutual fellowship in all acts of worship. The institutions of the Gospel were intended as a bond of union among Christians, and by the joint celebration of them their communion is maintained and expressed. “ By one Spirit we are all baptised into one body.” “ And being many we are one bread, and one body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread,” in the sacramental communion.^ It is not necessary to this unity that Christians should all meet for worship in the same place. This is physically impossible ; nor are we to conceive of church com¬ munion as local. It consists in their celebrating the same holy ordi¬ nances — in their performing acts of worship the same in kind, wherever they assemble, and in their being disposed and ready to embrace every proper occurring opportunity to join with all “ those who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ, the Lord, both theirs and ours.” Thus it was, as we have seen, in the primitive church ; and thus it would still be, if catholic unity were preserved, and if the institutions of Christ, along with the faith to which they relate, were everywhere preserved pure and entire. 4. Unity in respect of external government and discipline. Christ, the Head of the church, “gave pastors and teachers — helps, governments, for the work of the ministry, for the gathering together of the saints, for the edifying of the body, till they all come in the unity of the faith, and knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man.” ^ The exercise of authority and government is necessary as a bond of union and a basis of stability, in all societies. By means of it the largest communities, and even many nations, may be made to coalesce and become one, under the same political government. And can any good reason be assigned for supposing that the church of Christ should be destitute of this bond, or that it should not be necessary to her union as a visible society 1 If every family has its economy and discipline, if every kingdom has its form of government and laws, shall we suppose that the most perfect of all societies, “the house of the living God,” and “ the kingdom of heaven,” should be left by her divine Head without that which so evidently tends to the maintenance of her faith, the purity and regu- 1 1 Cor. X. 17 ; xii. 13. * Eph. iv. 11 — 13; 1 Cor. xii. 28. THE UNITY OP THE CHURCH. 141 larity of her administrations, and the order, subordination, unity, and peace which ought to reign among all her members ? Whatever is necessary to her government, and the preserving of her order and purity, either is expressly enjoined in Scripture, or may be deduced, by native inference, from the general rules and the particular examples wliich are recorded in it. 6. The bond of mutual charity and peace. This is the silken cord which ought to be thrown over all the others, and which makes Christian union complete. Hence, charity, or love, is called by an apostle a perfect bond : “ Above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.” ^ A vague and erratic charity, which soars above fixed principles of belief, looks down with neglect on external ordinances, and spurns the restraint of ordinary rules, whether it seeks to include all Christians within its catholic embrace, or confines itself to those of a favourite class, is a very feeble and precarious bond of union. True Christian charity is the daughter of truth, and fixes on her objects “ for the truth’s sake which dwelleth in them.” On the other hand, a bare and cold agreement in the articles of a common faith, and external uniformity in the acts of worship and discipline, will not pre¬ serve the unity of the church. To “be perfectly joined together,” Christians must be of “ the same mind,” or affection, as well as of “ the same judgment.” It is by “ speaking the truth in love ” that they “ grow up in all things to their Head, even Christ.” Love must cement the union which faith has formed ; and it is by the joint influence of both that Christians “ cleave to the Lord,” and to one another in Him, “ with purpose of heart.” Without mutual affection, and its kindred graces, mutual consideration, and condescension, and compassion, for¬ giveness will not be extended towards injuries, forbearance will not be exercised towards unavoidable infirmities, offences will arise, alienations will be produced, and “the brotherly covenant will not be remembered.” Hence the frequency and the fervour with which the cultivation of a loving and peaceful temper is enjoined upon Christians. “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering ; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any ; even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.” ^ “ Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking, be put away from you, with all malice ; and be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.”® “ Let nothing be done through strife or vain-glory ; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.” * “ Finally, brethren, — Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace ; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.” ® 1 Col. iii. 14. 2 Col. ill. 12, 13. = Eph. iv. 31, 32. 4 Philip, ih 3, 4. ® 2 Cor. xiii. 11. 142 THE UNITY OF THE CHUECH. II. I now go on to speak of the Divisions by which the unity of the church is marred. Judah and Israel, originally one, and bound together by the most sacred ties, were rent asunder, and formed into two inde¬ pendent nations, divided in worship, as well as in secular and political interests. And this was followed by the usual effects of such breaches — rivalship, hatred, and mutual hostilities. “ Ephraim envied Judah, and Judah vexed Ephraim.” ^ The same thing has happened to the Christian church. 1. God has permitted the unity of his church to be broken in different ways. It has been marred and interrupted when her members continued to meet together, and to keep up the external forms of fellow¬ ship as one society. This is the case, when, instead of glorifying God with one mouth, and striving together for the faith of the Gospel, they entertain jarring and discordant sentiments about the articles of religion, and one is eager to destroy what another is building ; when they do not walk by the same rule nor mind the same things ; when they fall into factions and parties, and when contention and every evil work— hatred, variance, jealousies, heartburnings, and evil surmisings, rage among them. The spirit of division had begun to produce these bitter and pernicious fruits in the church at Corinth, even in apostolical times. “ It hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, that there are contentions among you. Every one of you saith, I am of Paul ; and I of Apollos ; and I of Cephas ; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided ? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptised in the name of Paul?”* “ First of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you, and I partly believe it.” — “I fear, lest when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, — lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults.”^ Disorders and animosities of this kind may abate and gradually settle into a calm, without the restoration of true peace. When a church no longer holds the Head, but suffers the supreme authority of Christ in his spiritual kingdom to be invaded or shared by any creature ; when the liberties and immunities which he has conferred on her, as an inde¬ pendent society, are usurped or surrendered ; when her faith is subverted, her worship corrupted by human inventions, or her order and discipline overthrown ; in such a case the bonds of scriptural unity are dissolved. Resistance may be overcome by the despotical exercise of usurped authority, opposition may die away under the paralysing influence of an irreligious indifference and neutrality ; but the union which is brought about by such means is an ungodly confederacy, and the tranquillity which is enjoyed by such a society is like the calm which binds the stagnant and deleterious waters of the Dead Sea. At other times, the dissensions which arise in the church prevail and grow to such a height as to produce an open rupture, and the forma¬ tion of separate and opposing communions. Even those who live in 1 Isaiah, xi. 13. ^ 1 Cor. i. 11, 12, 13. 3 i Cor. xi. 18 ; 2 Cor. xii. 20. THE UNITY OF THE CHUECH. 143 the same place, and who had formerly “ taken sweet counsel together, and walked to the house of God in company,” no longer join in the same acts of public and social worship. Altar is reared against altar, as if they did not serve the same God. One house can no longer con¬ tain them. One name can no longer serve them ; but they must be dis¬ tinguished from one another, as well as from the world. This has hitherto been the state of the Christian church almost in every age. In reviewing her history she appears not as one great army marshalled under the banner of “ the Captain of salvation,” but as “ the company of two armies,” yea, often of many armies, with banners bearing differ¬ ent and opposite inscriptions, and engaged in hostilities with one another as well as with the common enemy of the church of the living God. Thus, in ancient times, not to mention various lesser sects, the church was divided into Greeks and Latins ; in more modern times, Protestants have been divided into Lutherans and Calvinists, and in our own land into Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Independents, with a great variety of other denominations, which it would be painful and impossible to enumerate. While we survey these mournful facts, my brethren, we must not overlook the hand of God ; and it is proper to advert to this before proceeding to inquire into the immediate and proper sources of the evil. The malignant spirit could not sow the seeds of dissension and divi¬ sion, nor coidd they grow up and spread, without the permission of the Lord of the vineyard. He has wise and holy ends for permitting them ; and among others we ought to be deeply affected with this, that he sends them as a punishment to a people called by his name. Do any ask. How comes it about that those who are joined by so many sacred bonds, should be so broken and divided in judgment and affection 1 The answer is : “The anger of the Lord hath divided them.” ^ Yes; when they fall from their first love to the Gospel, receive the grace of God in vain, do not bring forth fruit unto holiness under his ordinances, become conformed to the world, and have little more than a name to live — when they become vain of their numbers and their strength, and convert a holy union into a criminal combination. He permits the demon of discord to enter among them, “ confounds their language, that so they cannot understand one another’s speech,” — “ divides them in Jacob and scatters them in Israel.” “It is my desire,” says he, “that I should chastise them, when they shaU bind themselves in their two furrows alluding to the practice of the husbandman who corrects a ' refractory steer when caught in the situation described in the metaphor , which is employed. The conduct of God toward his ancient people is ' described under a beautiful allegory in the prophecies of Zechariah. When he saw his flock a prey to their possessors, and sold by their own pitiless shepherds, he exclaimed, “ I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, 0 poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves ; the 1 Lam. iv. 16. * Hos. x. 10. 144 THE UNITY OF THE CHUKCH. one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock.” But they requited him ungratefully ; their soul abhored him, and his soul loathed them. “ Then said I, I will not feed you : that that dieth, let it die ; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off ; and let the rest eat every one tlie flesh of another. And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.” And a little after : “ Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brother¬ hood between Judah and Israel.”^ The grand schism by which ten tribes were rent from the house of David was expressly denounced as a punishment for the sin of Solomon and his people in forsaking God.2 And when the flame, instead of being extinguished, has fresh fuel added to it, and continues to spread and burn from age to age with increasing fury, it is a proof that God’s “ anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still,” as it was when “ Manasseh devoured Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasseh, and they together Judah.” ^ 2. Divisions in the church are owing to various causes. In permitting them God overrules the instrumentality of men who are actuated by different motives and principles, for which they are entirely responsible. It is incumbent on all Christians to “ endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” The violation of it must be traced to a sinful cause. When dissensions arise in the church of God, and it is divided into parties, whatever the occasion or matter of variance be, there must be guilt somewhere. The rules of truth, peace, and holy fellowship, have been transgressed ; and those who are justly charge¬ able with tliis cannot be blameless. Amid the keen contests and oppos¬ ing pretensions of parties, it may often be difficult to determine where the blame lies ; but it must attach to one side or another, and perhaps to both. It will not always attach to the minority, or those who may be forced to withdraw from the assemblies and external communion of particular churches : the major and prevailing party may be the real schismatics, though not the formal separatists. This, however, we know, that Scripture has affixed a mark of disapprobation on those who “ cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine wliich we have received.” ^ The dissensions which prevail in the church, like those which distract and break the peace of other societies, may be traced in general to the workings of human corruption. “Whence come wars and fightings among you 1 Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members V’ ® They spring from the ignorance, error, unbelief, prejudice, pride, passion, selfishness, carnality, which are predominant in the minds of some of the members of the church, and are but partially subdued and mortified in the minds of the best. To specify all the ways in which these principles operate to the disturbance of the peace of the church is impracticable. 1 Zech. xi. 7 — 14. 2 j Kings, xi. 11 ; xii. 16. s iga. jx. 21. * Bom. xvi. 17. ® James, iv. 1. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 145 They lead to the adoption and patronage of errors, by which the purity of the faith and institutions of Christ is depraved. This in itself, as we have seen, loosens the scriptural bonds of union. But as the faithful consider themselves bound to resist everything of this kind, the propagation of errors cannot fail to excite contention and strife in the bosom of the church. Some of these errors strike against the principal and leading articles of the faith, and are in their very nature damnable and destructive to the souls of those who embrace them. Others consist of uncertain, vain, and unprofitable opinions, the offspring of an unsanctified fancy or of the love of novelty, calculated to unsettle the minds of the hearers, and inducing perverse disputings and endless questions. Others again strike more immediately against the unity and peace of the church — loose and extravagant notions respecting private judgment, conscience, and Christian liberty, by which these rights, invaluable when duly understood and regulated, are explained and stated in such a way as to convert all religion into a matter of indivi¬ dual belief and concern, to render union and co-operation among its professors impracticable or precarious, and to contradict the important truth, that “ the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another.” This is the case, when the duty of Christians at large is explained in such a way as to encroach on the office of a regular Gospel ministry ; when the lawful¬ ness of confessions of human composure, as public declarations of the faith of a church, and their usefulness as tests of orthodoxy, though conformable in their matter to Scripture, and necessary in times of abounding error among persons professing Christianity, are impugned ; when ecclesiastical office-bearers are stripped of that authority which is competent to them, and necessary for preserving order and subordi¬ nation, and the supreme power of finally determining every cause is lodged with the whole people in every worshipping congregation ; when the combination of particular congregations, as parts of an extended and organised body, with a duly limited submission to a com¬ mon judicatoiy for taking cognisance of differences which may arise in any part of that body, and judging of what concerns the good of the whole, is opposed ; and, in fine, to pass over other tenets of a similar description which are rampant in the present age, when the lawfulness of the settlement of a system of religion in a nation, by the joint con¬ currence of ecclesiastical and civil authority, and with the general con¬ sent of the people, is contradicted and opposed. Sectarianism, as the class of opinions referred to is usually called, is inimical to the unity of the church, as it has a direct tendency to foster diversity of sentiment and practice in religion, and to multiply schisms. If the common sense and experience of mankind did not check its operation, and pre¬ vent its keenest abettors from acting rigidly and consistently on their 1 Westm. Conf. of Faith, chap. xx. § i. K 146 THE UNITY OF THE CHUECH. own principles, it would lead to the dissolution of all religious society, or at best to the rearing of a Babel, the foundations of which would be laid on its first-born, and the gates of it set up on its youngest and most favourite sou. To these may be added rigid notions respecting ecclesiastical communion, incompatible with the imperfect state of the church in this world, whether these manifest themselves in requiring that all Christians should reach the same degree of the scale in their acquaintance with divine things, or in withdrawing from the communion of a church on account of particular acts of maladministration, or because discipline may not, in some instances, be exercised on offenders with faithfulness, or with all that severity which they may think pro¬ portioned to the nature of the offence ; which was the error charged on the ancient Novatians and Donatists. Divisions in the church may often be traced to a spirit of vanity, pride, and ambition. Than this, nothing can be more repugnant to the spirit of Christianity, or prejudicial to ecclesiastical peace. It is often found combined with a spirit of error, and has formed a very prominent feature in the character of heresiarchs and the founders of sects. It displays itself sometimes in an overweening fondness for their own private opinions, and at other times in the love of pre-eminence, or an impatience of contradiction, by which they are instigated to the adop¬ tion of factious and divisive courses. Others are impelled to divide the church by the base desire of gratifying their avarice, and procuring a livelihood from the disciples whom they draw after them. Such are the “unruly and vain talkers and deceivers” described by Paul, “who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake,” and those whom another apostle charges “ with beguiling unstable souls, — following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness.” ^ Tyranny and unreasonable imposition has been one fruitful source of division in the church. To gratify the lust of dominion, those calling themselves clergy have assumed a power of decreeing articles of faith and imposing forms of worship, contrary or additional to those enjoined in Scripture; have, like the Pharisees, “bound heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and laid them on men’s shoulders, while they themselves would not move them with one of their fingers ; ” and have enforced the rigid observance of these commandments of men, by all the force and terrors which they possessed or could command. Like the shepherds of ancient Israel, they have scattered the flock by ruling over it “with force and with cruelty.” Forgetting the nature and limits of the power with which they have been intrusted, and their own complaints against papal and prelatical usurpations, Protestant and Presbyterian courts have acted “ as lords over God’s heritage,” trampled on the sacred rights of conscience, stripped the Christian people of liberties which their divine Master had conferred on them, and which 1 Tit. i. 11 ; 2 Pet. ii. 14, 15. THE UNITY OP THE CHURCH, 147 they were in the undisputed possession of for several centuries after his ascension, intruded hirelings on them for overseers, and driven those who resisted their arbitrary measures to seek the food of their souls in separate communions. The policy of statesmen has often combined with the ambition of churchmen in measures which have tended to divide the church. Jeroboam erected his schismatical worship at Dan and Bethel to keep himself and his family on the throne of Israel ; for, said he, “ if this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah.”* The support which civil rulers have given to corrupt systems of religion and to oppressive administrations in the church, may very frequently be traced to this origin. While the church has been frequently divided by a spirit of unwarrant¬ able and arbitrary impositions, so, on the other hand, the same effect has been sometimes produced by aversion to the strictness of ecclesiastical communion, and impatience of that submission which is fully warranted by the Word of God. When a church has been constituted conformably to the Scripture pattern, makes a faithful confession of the truth, and maintains good order and discipline agreeably to the laws of Christ, a divisive spirit is evinced by those who factiously exclaim against its severity, enter into schemes, open or covert, for relaxing its bonds, or form themselves into another society connected by looser and more general ties ; whether this be done to obtain greater latitude to them¬ selves, or with the view of uniting persons of opposite religious senti¬ ments and practices in one general and catholic communion. This follows from the doctrine already laid down respecting the true bonds of ecclesiastical unity. In like manner the peace of the church may be broken by the insubordination and turbulence of the Christian people, refusing subjection to those pastors who are regularly set over them, and who act within the due limits of their authority, and setting up the ancient cry, “ All the congregation are holy, every one of them.” In this case the event often remarkably verifies the prediction of the apostle : “ The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine ; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears ; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth to fables.” ^ 3. Divisions in the church sometimes become inveterate, and it is a work of extreme difficulty to heal them. It is easy to divide, but not so easy to unite. A child may break or take to pieces an instrument which it will baffle the most skilful to put together and repair. If Rehoboam had listened to the advice of “ the old men that stood before Solomon his father,” he might have preserved his kingdom entire ; but all their wisdom and authority could not cure the schism which had been caused by his following the rash and foolish counsel of “ the young men who were grown up with him.” 1 1 Kings, xii. 27. 2 2 Tim. iv. 3, 4. 148 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. Attempts to reunite must encounter the resistance of those corrupt principles and passions which led to division. The force of these is sometimes greatly increased by indulgence, and parties become more and more alienated from one another by mutual injuries and recrimina¬ tions ; for “ the beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water If time has served to allay the heat and fierceness of controversy, and to smooth down the harshness and asperities of personal animosity, it • has perhaps contributed to widen the breach in another way. It has added to the original grounds of difference and separation. Parties at variance are inclined to remove to a distance from each other. They are apt not only to magnify the real point in dispute, but also to create or discover new ones, with the view of vindicating their separation, and enlarging the charges which they bring against their opponents. The adoption, too, of one error, and the defence of one sinful practice, leads to the adoption and defence of another, and that of a third ; so that when an individual or a society has turned from the right way, every step they take carries them farther astray, and removes them to a greater distance from those who have been enabled to keep the path of truth and duty. The consequence is, on either of these suppositions, that, when proposals of accommodation come to be made, and a treaty of reunion is set on foot, the original cause of the breach forms perhaps the smallest matter of difference between the parties, and instead of one point, twenty may require to be disposed of and adjusted in the pro¬ gress of the negotiations. This was strikingly verified in the attempts made in the seventeenth century to reconcile the Lutheran and Oalvin- istic churches. If the law of Patronage had been abrogated soon after its imposition, the peace of the Church of Scotland might have been pre¬ served, and many of those dissensions and separations which have since occurred would have been prevented ; but who that knows anything of the state of matters will say, that the adoption of such a measure at this late period, however desirable on many accounts, and whatever good results it would lead to in the issue, would put an end to our present divisions, or even unite all those who are the friends of evan¬ gelical doctrine and presbyterian principles 1 — Sometimes, indeed, matters take a different direction. Two parties, after separating and pursuing for some time opposite courses, receive a new direction from the common impulse of the spirit of the age, and the prevailing current of religious sentiment and feeling, by means of which they are made gradually to approximate, and at last to meet at a point very remote from that from which both of them set out. In this case, if they were right before they parted, they must now be wrong. When defection from the purity of religion has become general, and indifference about truth abounds, such coalescences are easily brought about. If political considerations had not intervened, it would have been no difficult matter to have joined Judah and Israel in religious fellowslnp during I Prov. xvii. 14. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 149 the reign of Ahaz. It is upon a principle of the same kind, I am afraid, that we must account for the union which has lately been elfected in some parts of the Continent between the two great bodies of Protestants. It is particularly difficult to heal the divisions which subsist among those who are intermingled and live together in the same country and vicinity. If distance of place, by preventing intercourse, keeps Chris¬ tians in ignorance of one anotlier’s sentiments and characters, and fosters misapprehensions and groundless prejudices, neighbourhood gives rise to other and greater evils. It is a species of intestine warfare which is carried on between religious parties who reside together. The irritation produced by the frequent opportunities which individuals find for agitating their disputes is an evil which ordinarily cures itself in process of time. But their interests as separate societies, founded on opposite principles, necessarily interfere and clash. A spirit of prose- lytism is engendered. They draw disciples from one another ; mutual reprisals are made ; advantages are oftentimes taken which would be held not the most honourable in political warfare ; and each may be said to flourish and grow by the decay and decrease of the rest. The subject of litigation among Christians, and even the relation which they stand in to one another as such, render the adjustment of their differences more delicate and embarrassing. It is always a work of difficulty to reconcile hostile parties, whatever the matter of strife may happen to be. Once involved in litigation about civil rights and property, men, not of the most contentious or obstinate tempers, have been known to persevere until they had ruined themselves and their families. Wlien unhappily discord and contention arise between those who are allied by blood, or who were united by the bonds of close friendship, their variance is of all others the most inveterate and deadly. “ A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city ; and their contentions are like the bars of a castle.” i If “ love is strong as death, jealousy is cruel as the grave.” Of all the ties which bind man to man, religion is the most powerful, and when once loosened or burst asunder, it is the hardest to restore. Keligious differences engage and call into action the strongest powers of the human mind. Conscience comes to the aid of convictions of right, and zeal for the glory of God combines with that jealousy with which we watch over everything that is con¬ nected with our own reputation. It has often been remarked, that religious disputes are managed with uncommon warmth and acrimony ; and this has been urged as an argument against all controversies of the kind, and even as an argument against religion itself. It cannot be denied, that, amid the din of disputation, that important truth, “ The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God,” has often been forgotten by the contending parties ; and the personal altercations, the railing accusations, the uncharitable judgments, the rash censures, the 1 Prov. xviii. 19. 150 THE UNITY OF THE CHUKCH. wilful misrepresentations, the injurious calumnies, which have too often infused their malignant and poisonous virus into these debates, have, it must be confessed, contributed to bring great scandal on religion ; though this sacred cause can never justly be made responsible in any degree for excesses so inconsistent with its spirit and its precepts. But let us not be unjust in seeking to be liberal. Genuine moderation and candour are not to be confounded with indifference and lukewarm¬ ness. Religion is of paramount importance, and we ought not to wonder that those who are in earnest about it should display a warm and fervent zeal in the cause. They do not feel themselves at liberty to make the same sacrifices to peace in the “ matters of the Lord,” which they may be warranted and willing to make in their own. They must “ buy the truth, but not sell it.” True religion is an entailed in¬ heritance, which they are bound to preserve and transmit, unalienated and unimpaired, to their posterity, “ that the generation to come may know it, even the children that shall be born, who shall arise and declare it to their children.” They are only “ stewards of the mys¬ teries of God, and it is required in stewards, that they be found faith¬ ful.” In proportion, therefore, as they are persuaded that the honour of God, and the interests of truth, and the welfare of souls are con¬ cerned in the subjects which are litigated, and enter into the grounds of difference between them and other Christians, it may be expected that they will show themselves firm and tenacious. And, as this must be supposed to be the persuasion of persons of different parties, and indeed of all who maintain a separate communion on conscientious principles, it is easy to perceive what an obstacle it presents in the way of conciliation and union. Feelings of personal offence and injury form no inconsiderable obstacle in the way of removing divisions in the church. In one degree or another these are unavoidable, when religious differences arise and grow to a height. They are no proper ground of separation, and the recollection of them ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of a desirable reunion. If in any instance personal injury has been combined with injuries done to truth, those who have been the sufferers need to exert the utmost jealousy over their own spirits. Self-love will lead us insensibly to confound and identify the two ; and what we ffatter ourselves to be pure zeal for religion and hatred of sin, may, in the process of a rigid and impartial examination, be found to contain a large mixture of resentment for offences which terminated on ourselves. Perhaps we have, while endeavouring to act faithfully, been evil entreated by those with whom we were connected in church fellow¬ ship. If we permit a sense of this to rankle in our breasts, or even to live in our recollections, if by recurring to it in our conversations, although without any angry or revengeful feelings, we transfuse it into the minds of others, this will infallibly operate in preventing or embarrassing any negotiation for peace, however fair and promising in THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 151 itself. Or, let us reverse the case. Perhaps we have behaved our¬ selves unkindly and harshly to our brethren ; we may have been instra- mental in spoiling them of their goods for conscience’ sake j we may, from mistake or misapprehensions of them, have cast out their names as evil — reproached, misrepresented, calumniated them. Let not the consciousness of this keep us at a distance from them ; let us not do them farther injury by harbouring the thought that they cannot forgive or forget the offences which they have received. They are men “ of another spirit ; ” they know how much need they themselves have of forgiveness ; and will be forward to prevent our acknowledgments, and dissipate our apprehensions, by saying to us, not in the spirit of assumed superiority, but in the bowels of brotherly kindness, “ Be not grieved, neither be angry with yourselves.” In surveying the causes which obstruct a desirable reunion of Chris¬ tians, we cannot overlook the influence of party-spirit, and unreason¬ able respect to the credit of particular sects and denominations. The only thing that can warrant the establishment of separate communions is their being necessary for asserting and maintaining the purity of the truths and institutions of Christ. As soon as this object is gained, they become unnecessary and useless, and ought to cease and disappear. It is not the name of any party, or of its founder or leader, but the name of Jesus Christ, that must “endure for ever,” and every true lover of Him will be disposed to say with his harbinger, “ He must increase, but I must decrease,” and will rejoice in seeing the saying verified. Pro¬ vided the scriptural doctrines which they have been honoured to main¬ tain be acknowledged and embraced, the enlightened friends of religion will cheerfully consent that the names of Protestants, and Calvinists, and Presbyterians, and Seceders, together with the parties designated by them, should be forgotten and sunk in the more honourable and catholic name by which “ the disciples were first called at Antioch.” But is this spirit common, even in an age advancing high claims to liberality 1 How ready are we to associate our own honour with that of the religious society to which we belong, and under the influence of this compound feeling to forget the paramount homage we owe to that “ Name which is above every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come !” How much does this enter into our public contendings ! What regard is often shown to it in ne¬ gotiations for union ! Victory, not truth, is too often the object of litigant parties ; and provided they can gain this, though it should be achieved by over-reaching one another, and by practising the low tricks of a worldly policy, they will boast of a religious triumph. Every candid and observing person will admit, too, that, in those religious denomina¬ tions which have truth and right on their side, there are persons whose choice has not been determined by enlightened views of the impor¬ tance of the cause which they have espoused, and who would stoutly resist every conciliatory measure from attachment to certain venerated 152 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. names, from early associations, and preference of some external forms, which have varied in different periods and places without any infringe¬ ment of the laws of Christ, or any real injury to Christian edification. Even those who are not averse to sacrifice truth to peace often show themselves keen sticklers for the credit of a party, and rather than compromise it in the slightest degree, or admit the most distant reflec¬ tion on themselves or their associates, would break off or endanger the success of the most promising and reasonable overtures. With them the question is not. Can we make such concessions and accede to such terms, without relinquishing truth, and acting unfaithfully to God? but. Can we do this without constructively confessing that we have been so far in an error, and acknowledging that others have been more righteous, or honest, or intelligent than we ? My brethren, these things ought not so to be. So long as a spirit of this kind prevails, every attempt at healing divisions in the church will prove abortive, or will lead to such general, ambiguous, or contradictory arrangements, as merely cover over the disease, while they plant the seeds of future dis¬ quiet and disunion. In fine, self-interest will be found a hinderance to this desirable event. How general the influence of this principle is among professed Christians in the best of times, appears from the apostle’s exclamation, “All seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ!” When undefined and sinful schemes of union and comprehension happen to be popular, self-interest will prove a powerful temptation to unfaithfulness. But it has, in every age, clogged the wheels of those noble undertakings which had for their object the public good of human society. When religious parties are established in great numbers, and have subsisted for a long period of time, the interests of individuals may come in various ways to be involved in their support and maintenance. Liberal notions often float in the head, while the heart is contracted with self¬ ishness ; and many who exclaim loudly against bigotry would not dis¬ arrange their connections, nor'sacrifice their worldly interest, to promote a measure the most decidedly advantageous to religion, and to the general welfare and peace of the Church of Christ. If these considerations be duly weighed, we will not be greatly sur¬ prised that so little progress has been made in the work of composing differences among Christians. Since the period of the Reformation, attempts of this kind have been frequently made in reference to various parties ; some proposing to unite the denominations commonly called evangelical, or which differ only as to forms of government and worship ; others extending their views to Armenians and Calvmists ; while others have engaged in the preposterous undertaking of effecting a reconciliation between Papists and Protestants. But though these designs have been prosecuted with great zeal, and sometimes by men of acknowledged talents and piety, whose exertions have been backed by those who had great influence with the contending parties, they THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, 153 have generally failed altogether, or led to no permanently good results ; and sometimes they have tended to inflame the quarrel, to place the parties at a greater distance from one another, and to create new con¬ fusions and divisions. Sensible of these difficulties, and despairing of being able to remove them by the ordinary mode of conference, explanations, and discussion, many have come to adopt the opinion that there is but one way of putting an end to the divisions of the church ; that is, by abstracting totally the points of difference, consigning all the controversies which have arisen to oblivion, and bringing together the separate parties on the undebatable ground which is common to all. A remedy which would prove worse than the disease — an expedient which would lay the basis of union on the grave of all those valuable truths and institu¬ tions which have been involved in the disputes of different parties, and which constitute the Arm and sacred bonds of ecclesiastical confedera¬ tion and communion. Is this desirable event, then, altogether hopeless 1 Is it vain to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, or to make any attempts for its restoration? Is there no balm by whose virtue, no physician by whose skill, the bleeding wounds of the church may be closed? Every person who “ loves the truth and peace” wiU reply, God forbid that this should be the case ! 154 DISCOURSE 11. “ They shall be one in mine hand.” — Ezek. xxxvii. 19. Having taken a view of the scriptural unity of the church, and of the nature and causes of those divisions by which it is broken, let us now turn our eye to a more agreeable and cheering prospect. III. Of the Eemoval of the Divisions of the Church, and the Resto¬ ration of her violated Unity. 1. A happy reunion of the divided church is promised in the Word of God. It is implied in those promises which secure to the church the enjoyment of a high degree of prosperity in the latter days — in which God engages to arise and have mercy on Zion, to be favourable to his people, pardon their iniquity, and hear their prayers, cause their reproach to cease, and make them a praise, a glory, and a rejoicing, in all the earth ; in one word, in which he promises to pour out his Holy Spirit and revive his work. God cannot be duly glorified, religion cannot triumph in the world, the church cannot be prosperous and happy, until her internal dissensions are abated, and her children come to act in greater unison and concert. But when her God vouchsafes to make the light of his countenance to shine upon her, and sheds down the enlightening, reviving, restorative and sanctifying influences of his Spirit, the long delayed, long wished-for day will not be far distant : it will have already dawned. But there are, in the Bible, promises that bear directly on this part of the church’s felicity, and pledge the divine faithfulness for the restoration of her lost peace and violated unity. Some of these I shall lay before you as grounds of your faith, and encouragements to your hopes and endeavours. I begin with the declaration of the evangelical prophet, which has been often re-echoed in the prayers of the friends of Zion, and which deserves your particular attention from its occupying a place in the midst of promises referring immediately to the times of the New Testament : “ Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing : for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion.” ^ The divisions and distractions of the church have, in every age, been greatly owing to the conduct of her overseers and guardians. If they “ follow their own spirit,” and see 1 Isa. lii. 8. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 155 a “ lying divination,” how can it be expected that they shall “ go np into the gaps, to make np the hedge, or stand in the battle in the day of the Lord ^ If in giving forth instructions respecting sin and duty, danger and safety, their voices be dissonant and contradictory, must they not cause great distress and perplexity to their people, and prove, instead of messengers of peace, “ the snare of a fowler in all their ways, and hatred in the house of their God V’^ How cheering, then, the assurance that they “ shall see eye to eye” in the matters of God, and lift up their united voice in “ publishing salvation, and saying to Zion, Thy God reigneth !” To this may be added another passage from the same prophecy which bears an equally undoubted reference to the latter days, although clothed in Old Testament language ; “ He shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the enmity* of Judah shall be cut off : Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.” Then, instead of waging an unnatural war, and forming ungodly alliances to enable them the more effectually to harass one another, they shall, with united strength, assail the avowed enemies of religion : “ They shall ffy upon the shoulders of the Philistines : they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab ; and the children of Ammon shall obey them.”^ The remark made as to the period referred to in the above predictions may be applied to the following, although some parts of the description relate more immediately to the deliverance from the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities : “ At the same time, saith the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people. — For there shall be a day, that the watchmen on the mount Ephraim shall cry. Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the Lord our God.”* — “ Behold, I will bring it health and cure, and I will cure them; and will reveal unto them the abundance of peace and truth. And I will cause the captivity of Judah, and the captivity of Israel, to return, and will build them, as at the first.” ® Suffice it to add these two evan¬ gelical promises : “ Then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.” “ It shall yet come to pass, that there shall come people, and the inhabitants of many cities : and the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying. Let us go speedily to pray before the Lord ; I will go also. Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before him. — And the Lord shall be king over all the earth : in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.” ® These, brethren, are “ exceeding great and precious promises ;” and do they not amply secure the attainment, in due time, of the blessing to ? Zeph. iii. 9. 8 Zeoh. viii. 20 — 22 ; xiv. 9. 1 Ezek. xiii. 3, 5, 6. 2 Mio. vii. 4 ; Hos. ix. 8. * See Bisliop Lowth’s Note on the passage. 4 Is,x xi. 12, 13, 14. 5 Jer. xxxi. 1, 6. 8 Jer. xxxiii. 6, 7. 156 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. which they all so evidently refer? Yes : “these are the true sayings of God” — of Him who cannot lie, nor change nor call back his words. They are the sayings of Him “ that frustrateth the tokens of the liars and maketh diviners mad ; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish ; that confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers.” i They are “ written for the generation to come, and the people that shall be created shall praise the Lord” for the fulfilment of them. Give him glory by placing your hope and confidence in his promises ; and let the cheering prospect which they hold forth console and animate your hearts, amidst all the distress which you feel in contemplating the present disordered and divided state of the church. Are you still disposed to say, “ How can these things be ?” Do you find it difficult “ against hope to believe in hope?” Consider what I have farther to say. 2. The removing of divisions, and the restoring of unity and peace to the church, is the work of God. What “ the mouth of the Lord hath spoken,” His hand will perform. He has not only predicted that the event shall happen, but He has promised to bring it to pass. He may employ men as “ workers together with him,” but He has not left the success to depend on their exertions, and with His own irresistible and all-powerful arm will He redeem the pledge which He has given by the interposition of His sacred and inviolable word ; “ I will take the stick of Joseph which is in the hand of Ephraim, and put it with the stick of Judah, and they shall be one in mine hand. I will make them one nation in the land.” God is the great pacificator and repairer of the breach. This is the name by which He is repeatedly called, and the trath of which He will evince, “The Lord God who gathereth the outcasts of Israel.” The disorders which break out among Christians, and which destroy the unity and peace of the church, are, as we have seen, sure marks of His divine displeasure. Because they have moved Him to jealousy and provoked Him by their vanities. He permits the hot burning bolts of mutual jealousy and provocation to be thrown among them. It is impossible that the fire thus kindled can be extinguished — it will continue, in spite of all exertions, to “burn with a most vehement flame,” until He is reconciled, and shall have pardoned their sins. “ 0 God, thou hast cast us off", thou hast scattered us, thou hast been , displeased : 0 turn thyself to us again. Thou hast made the earth to tremble ; thou hast broken it : heal the breaches thereof ; for it shaketh.”^ When He has “taken away all his wrath, and turned himself from the fierceness of his anger,” He will “ speak peace to his people and to his saints ;” He will smile success on those measures which He formerly blasted with His frown ; and those who wept to see “the city of their solemnities” a scene of confusion and strife, 1 Isa. xliv. 25, 26. - Psal. lx. 1, 2. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, 157 shall behold it “ a quiet habitation ” — the city of peace. “ He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.” ^ He will establish unity on the solid and immovable basis of immu¬ table truth and eternal righteousness. This distinguishes the work of God from the coalitions formed by the wit and policy of men. They are often so intent and eager to reach the end, that they overlook and pass by the means proper for gaining it, and are ready to sacrifice truth and communion with God, for the sake of peace and fellowship with creatures. But his “ eyes are on the truth,” and he bears an invariable love to judgment and righteousness. The “ prophets” of the church may be “ light and treacherous” men, and “ her priests” may do “ violence to the law ; ” but “ the just Lord is in the midst thereof ; he will not do iniquity : every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not.” * And as He cannot, consistently with his moral perfections, do what is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to any of His laws and ordinances, so He is never reduced to the necessity of having recourse to methods which involve this, in order to fulfil His designs and promises. “ Wonderful in counsel and excellent in working,” He can devise and execute a plan for accomplishing the highest ends by the best and holiest means. Call to your minds the amazing plan, conceived by “ wisdom dwelling with prudence,” for reconciling the world to himself, and for repairing and closing up the wide and tremendous breach opened by the apostasy of man from his Maker. Survey this “ wisdom of God in a mystery,” as it is now unfolded by the Gospel. Consider the disposition of its parts, the perfect adaptation of the means to the end, and the nice adjustment of each of these means to the rest. See how it tends to vindicate the authority of the divine law, to assert the honour of the supreme lawgiver, and to stamp heaven’s broadest, blackest brand of infamy on sin, at the same time that it provides a way of escape and salvation to the rebellious sinner. See those attributes of Deity, whose claims were apparently conflicting and irreconcilable, harmonising and conspiring together to promote the gracious design, reflecting lustre upon one another, mingling their rays and concentrating their lights, until at last they burst fortli in one united blaze of glories more effulgent ! and overwhelming than is to be seen in all the other works of God. : See “ mercy and truth meeting together ; righteousness and peace kissing each other ; truth springing out of the earth, and righteousness looking down from heaven.” ® Surely the God of Peace, who has dis- : played such “ manifold wisdom” in restoring us to His favour by Christ Jesus, can be at no loss to reconcile His followers, and to terminate their minor differences, in such a way as shall be fully consistent with the claims of truth and holiness. 1 Jer. xxxi. 10. * Zeph. iii. 4, 5. 3 Psal. Ixxxv. 10, 11. 158 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 3. God will bring about this happy event under the administration of his Son, and by the influences of his Spirit. “ I will make them one nation ; — and David my servant shall be king over them : and they all shall have one shepherd.” * Christ is “ the Prince of Peace ; ” and “ having made peace by the blood of his cross,” it is fit that He should have the honour, and He is qualified for the task, of terminating all the variances which may arise among those whom He has reconciled to God. As the High Priest of our profession. His prayer for them that have believed on Him is, “ That they all may be one, as thou. Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us;” and when at any time, in their present imperfect state, they kindle the anger of God against them by their discontents and seditions, “ he stands,” like Aaron with his golden censer, “ between the dead and the living ; and the plague is stayed.” ^ As the King of the church He will confer this blessing on her. Though we do not yet see that “ abund¬ ance of peace” which was predicted of His reign, we have the best grounds to believe, that, in the progress of His wise and righteous and beneficent administration, the ecclesiastical feuds which have prevailed among his followers, and even the political wars which have raged among the nations, will gradually subside, and issue in a state of peace, concord, and amity, which, thnugh not so perfect and uninterrupted as some have sanguinely anticipated, has hitherto been unexampled in the world. “ He shall speak peace unto the heathen.” ® “ He shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off ; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning- hooks ; nation shall not lift uj) a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”^ He will accomplish this chiefly by the influences of his Spirit accompanying his word ; — enlightening, regenerating, humanising, puri¬ fying the hearts of men, and thus uniting them in love to Himself, and subjection to His laws. The conversions, the revivals, the reformations, the unions, the enlargements of the church, are all ascribed in Scrip¬ ture to this secret, irresistible, all-subduing agency. When God had begun to bestow on His people the blessings promised in our text and context, the prophet Zechariah was presented with the sight of a golden candlestick, having a bowl on its top, with seven lamps and seven pipes, and two olive trees which furnished the bowl with a constant supply of oil. And this is the explanation of the emblem, as given by the angelical interpreter who stood by it : “ Hot by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.” ^ “ The briars and thorns” of con¬ tention, and all the bitter fruits that have spnmg from the old curse, will continue to “ come up upon the land of God’s people,” “ until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high.” ® When, at His ascension, Christ shed down the Holy Spirit, and “the appearance of cloven 1 Ezek. xxxvii. 22, 24. 2 Num. xvi. s Zech.. ix. 10. * Mic. iv. 3. Isa. ii. 4. 5 Zech. iv. 6. ® Isa. xxxii. 13 — 15, THE UNITY OP THE CHURCH. 159 tongues, as of fire, sat on the disciples,” the strangers who were collected heard each in his own language the wonderful works of God, and “ the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul.” Nor is it to be expected, my brethren, that we shall emerge from our con¬ fusions, worse than those which invaded mankind in the plain of Shinar, or that we shall regain primitive unanimity, until we are blessed with a new and liberal effusion of the influences of that Spirit who descended on the day of Pentecost. In order to our becoming again “ one body,” we must be “ all baptised by one Spirit, and all made to drink into one Spirit.” ^ It is “ the unity of the Spirit” that we are to “ endeavour to keep in the bond of peace.” Without His gracious aid we shall not be able to regain it when lost : our counsels will be foolish and carnal, and our endeavours feeble and abortive. Without this, it will want the essential characters of a scriptural and godly union. Ought it to be a union in the tmth 1 He is “ the Spirit of truth,” and it is His work to “ lead unto all truth.” Ought it to be holy ? He is “ the Spirit of holiness.” In fine, it is He who produces and cherishes all those dispositions by which Christian union is cemented, and who counteracts all those principles which tend to its dissolution : “ The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffer¬ ing, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekoess, temperance. If we live in the Spirit,” we shall “ not be desirous of vain-glory, provoking one another, envying one another.” ^ 4. God prepares the way for union by reformation, and the revival of real religion. Abuses, and a course of corrupt administration, in a civil state, excite discontent and sedition, and sometimes lead to open re¬ bellion and anarchy. The corruption of the word and ordinances of God is one great cause of divisions and offences in the church. The only way of effectually curing the evil is to remove the cause. Hence, the false prophets are severely reproved for “healing the hurt” of God’s ancient people “ slightly,” and promising peace to them, while they re¬ mained impenitent and unreformed. When a wicked king asked, “ Is it peace 1” the only reply which he could obtain was, “ What hast thou to do with peace? — what peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother J ezebel, and her witchcrafts are so many ? ” ® If religious societies are in a corrupt or declining state, their conjunction could only tend to aggra- ' vate their corruption and accelerate their decline. I When God intends to restore unity to His church. He begins with re- ; forming her, and removing those evils which are offensive to Himself, i and to His faithful people. He gives commandment to “ cast up, to pre- 1 pare the way, to take up the stumbling-block out of the way of his people.” * He, as “ the Breaker, goes up before them.” He enters His house, and His eyes, as a flame of fire, survey every apartment and every corner in it : He sees what is awanting and needs to be supplied and set in order, as well as what is superfluous and ought to be removed — all ^ 1 Cor. xii. 13. 2 (Jal. v. 22—26. * 2 Kings, L\. 19, 22. < Isa. Ivii. 14; Ixii. 10. 160 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. error, will-worship, prostitution of sacred things, tyranny, disorder. He ascends His judgment-seat, fences His great court of inquest and review, calls His servants before Him, and institutes an inquiry into their con¬ duct ; reproving their mismanagement, reversing their unjust sentences, correcting every abuse, redressing every wrong, and deciding impartially and finally every quarrel and controversy that may have arisen among the members of His household. This judicial process is often very severe— to many it may prove ruinous and destructive ; but to His church its issue is most beneficial and salutary. “ Who may abide the day of his coming ? or, who shall stand when he appeareth ? He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver ; he shall purify the sons of Levi, that they may offer a pure offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years.” ^ Examine those promises which hold forth the prospect of reunion to the church : you will find this in every instance associated with her reformation. Does God promise, “ they shall all serve me with one consent f ’ This is the fruit of a previous promise, “ I will turn to the people a pure language.” Does He say, “ I will give them one heart ? ” He will do so, when “ they shall take away all the detestable things and all the abominations from thence.” ^ Does He say that “ Israel shall be the third with Egypt and Assyria?” It is in the way of these two heathen nations being made to “ speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts ;” that is, profess the true religion, and de¬ vote themselves to the service of God.® I ask your attention parti¬ cularly to the predictions of the event immediately referred to in our text. The following declaration summarily announces the divine plan : “ Thus saith the Lord ; In the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities, I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the waste places shall be built.” * How this purification shall be effected is declared in these words : “ I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean ; — a new heart also will I give you, and I will put my Spirit within you.”® The permanent effects of this reformation are predicted in a verse subsequent to the text : “ Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions ; but I will save them out of all their dwelling-places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them ; so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.” ® The process is described in different language, but of the same import, in a preceding part of the prophecy : “ I Avill cause you to pass under the (tithing) rod,^ and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant ; and I will 1 Mai. iii. 2 — 4. * Ezek. xxxvi. 33. tithing master. Lev. xxvii. 32. The follow- 2 Ezek. xi. 18, 21. ® Ib. ver. 25 — 27. ing is, in my opinion, the meaning of the 3 Isa. xix. 18, 21, 24. ® Ib. xxxvii. 23. passage. The persons more immediately re- 7 This is, I believe, commonly understood ferred to are those Jews, who before the of the rod of correction: I am inclined to final destruction of Jerusalem by Nebu- think that the allusion is to the rod of the chadnezzar, had fled and taken refuge in 4 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 161 purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me — they shall nob enter into the land of Israel.” When this has been executed : “ In mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me ; there will I accept them.” ^ It shall be as of old, “ The tenth part shall be holy to the Lord.” Sometimes, indeed, the process of refinement is not carried so far, and the residue is reduced only to a third. “ It shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die ; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried ; They shall call on my name, and I will hear them ; I will say. It is my people ; and they shall say. The Lord is my God.” * Run over the page of the church’s history, and you will find the facts corresponding to the language of prophecy : her unions have been pre¬ ceded by reformations. This was the case in the days of Hezekiah. That pious and reforming monarch not only removed the monuments of idolatry, but also “ brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made,” because “the children of Israel did burn incense to it he opened the house of the Lord, and excited the priests and Levites to sanctify it, to offer the burnt-offering upon the altar, and to celebrate the praises of God, “ according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the King’s seer, and of Nathan the prophet.” After this he sent “ posts with letters through all Israel and Judah,” inviting the people of both kingdoms to turn again to the Lord, enter into his sanctuary, and keep the solemn passover which he had indicted. The following is the account of his success : “ Divers of Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulon humbled themselves, and came to Jerusalem. Also in Judah the hand of God was to give them one heart to do the commandment of the king and of the princes, by the word of the Lord. So there was great joy in Jerusalem ; for since the time of Solomon the son of David king of Israel there was not the like in Jerusalem.” ‘ — This was the case also at the return from Babylon, when the schism between Judah Phoenicia, and other countries bordering up¬ on Judea, who flattered themselves that they should soon be able to return to their own laud, though they still cherished their ido¬ latrous inclinations, and who had sent their elders to Ezekiel, to obtain, if pos¬ sible, a response from God favourable to their wishes. (Ver. 1 ; comp. chap. xiv. 1 — 4). The prophet is directed to inform them that what “ cometh into their mind shall not be at all’’ — that they shall be forced out of the countries where they now reside, and brought into “the wilderness of the people ’’ (Chaldea), and there God will plead His controversy with them, as He had done with their fathers “ in the wilderness of the land of Egypt,’’ or into which they came after being brought out of Egypt. (Ver .33 — 36). More jiarticularly. He will “ cause them to pass under the (tithuig) rod,” setting aside a tenth part of them for himself, and for this part He will ‘ ‘ remember his covenant in the days of their youth, and establish unto them an everlasting covenant. ’’ (Chap. xvi. 60 — 63). The nine parts He will treat as He had treated the bulk of the generation that came out of Egypt : He will “ juirge them out as rebels ” — they shall not “ enter into the land of Israel,” but may “ go serve every one his idols, ’’where he chooses. (Verses 38, 39). But the tenth part, which remains after “ the rebels and transgressors have been purged out from among them,” shall be restored to Judea, and “all of them in the land ” shall serve God acceptably, and He will be sancti¬ fied in them before the heathen.” (Ver. 40^4). 1 Ezek. XX. 35 — 40. * Zech. xiii. 8, 9. s 2 Kings, xviii. 4. * 2 Chron. xxx. 11, 12, 26. L 162 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. and Israel was about to be completely cured. They were both cured of their disposition to idolatry; “the altar was set upon his bases the temple built “after the manner thereof;” and “ whatsoever was com¬ manded by the God of heaven diligently done for the house of the God of heaven.” ‘ — It was at a period emphatically called “the time of refor¬ mation,” that Jew and Greek, Barbarian and Scythian, bond and free, were made one, after the labours of the greatest of all reformers as well as peacemakers, and of His forerunner, of whom it was said ; “ Many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just ; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”^ — Subsequently there have been times of reformation in the church, and especially in our land, which were accompanied by a happy and uncommon spirit of unanimity and conjunction among the friends of religion. And to those measures which once and again put a premature stop to the progress of religious reform in England, and which at one time overturned, and afterwards defaced and marred, a more perfect reformation attained in Scotland, must we principally attribute those ecclesiastical divisions and feuds which have arisen at different periods, and still prevail in both countries. The ways and thoughts of the Almighty are very different from ours. We seek great things : He seeks those which are good. We look on the outward appearance of a cause or a measure : He looks into the heart of it. We “ despise the day of small things,” and nothing will satisfy us but an attempt upon a great scale : He, on the contrary, de¬ lights in a work which is in its “beginning small;” in its progress, gradual, noiseless, and often imperceptible ; but in “ its latter end doth greatly increase.” We would unite large masses, and afterwards set about reforming them: His plan is the reverse. “Turn, 0 backsliding children, and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion : and I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. And it shall come to pass, Avhen ye be multiplied and increased in the land— they shall call J erusalem the throne of the Lord; and all nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord.”' 5. God sometimes facilitates and prepares the way for union by re¬ moving the occasions of offence and division. In righteoiis judgment He permits stumblingblocks to fall in the way of professors of religion, which he afterwards mercifully removes. As long as the two kingdoms of J udah and Israel subsisted, they were rivals, and policy concurred with a passion for idolatry in keeping up their religious dissensions. In overturning the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians, He whose views are not limited to the accomidishment of a single end, intended not only to punish that people for their defection from His worship, but also to 1 Ezra, pawtm. * Luke, i. 16, 17. ® Jer. iii. 14 — 17. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, 163 prepare the way for their coalescing with Judah into one holy society. “ Yet a little while,” says He, “ and I will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel he gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land.”^ Even the kingdom of Judah be¬ hoved to be dissolved, that every obstruction might be removed out of the way and that “ the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem might not magnify themselves” over their brethren. A long and violent quarrel had subsisted between the Jews and Samaritans, which turned chiefly on the question whether Jerusa¬ lem or Mount Gerizzim was the divinely appointed place of sacred service. The Jews were in the right on the merits of this question, though they allowed their zeal to carry them to a vicious extreme, in not only refusing to symbolise with a corrupt worship, but in also declining to have any civil or friendly dealings with the Samaritans. This was our Saviour’s judgment ; and yet he intimated to the woman of Samaria, that God was about to put an end to the dispute in a way which neither of the contending parties looked for. “ Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what : we know what we worship : for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers of the Father shall wor¬ ship him in spirit and in truth.” ^ It pleased God, who “made peace by the blood of the cross,” at the same time to reconcile Jews and Gentiles, and to abolish the ceremonial law, which was a wall of partition between them, that they might become one holy family. Though the virtual abrogation of this law by the death of Christ set the consciences of Christians free from its observance, their union was not yet complete ; the temporary regulations made by divine direction for preserving com¬ munion between Jews and Gentiles, though they allayed, did not put an end to all offences and divisions arising from this quarter ; and there¬ fore God provided for the consolidation of the union by destroying the temple, and thus rendering the peculiar service connected with it physi¬ cally impossible. Instances of the same kind, or at least analogous, might be pointed out in the subsequent history of the church. Dissensions, which had arisen among the early Christians during the severe and numerous per¬ secutions which they suffered, were terminated on the overthrow of pagan Rome. The law known by the name of the Interim, enacted in Germany soon after the Reformation, was not only the cause of much suffering, but also of violent disputes and great disunion among Protest¬ ants ; while some of them pleaded the lawfulness of complying with its regulations, and others, more firm and consistent, condemned this as a sinful conformity. Of the same kind, during the last and sorest perse¬ cution in this country, were the disputes among Presbyterians, excited * Hos. i. 4, 11. * John, iv. 21 — 23. 164 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. by the various ensnaring oaths and tests imposed by government ; and the indulgences and tolerations which flowed from an Erastian supre¬ macy, were clogged with sinful conditions, and intended to pave the way for the establishment of Popery and arbitrary power. All of these were abolished at the Revolution. I do not mean to say that the simple abolition of these or similar impositions will in itself heal the divisions which they had occasioned, or, that it is a sufficient or proper reason for the immediate restoration of interrupted communion and harmony. As no external circumstance ought to mar the unity and peace of the church, nor can it have this effect without the intervention of human imperfection and sin, so no change of external circumstances can restore what was lost without the co-operation of the grace of God, inclining the hearts of the parties to their duty and to one another. All that is meant is, that this is one of the means which Providence is some¬ times pleased to employ and bless ; and that by removing temptations on the one hand, and occasions of offence on the other, it has a tendency to facilitate arrangements for peace, in which a regard to faithfulness and the public interests of religion is combined with a due respect to the convictions of brethren, and an enlightened consideration of the circumstances in which they may have been placed. I cannot help viewing the present non-imposition of that oath, which at first occa¬ sioned a breach in the Secession body, as a dispensation of this kind, and which admits of being improved in the way just mentioned ; pro¬ vided the parties concerned were cordially attached to the common cause espoused by their fathers, and at one as to the great ends and objects of their original association. 6. God prepares the way for union in his church by causing the divided parties to participate of the same afflictions and deliverances. Having described the judgments inflicted on the kingdom of the ten tribes, God says to Judah : “ Thou shalt drink of thy sister’s cup deep and large ; thou shalt be fiUed with drunkenness and sorrow, with the cup of thy sister Samaria.” i Both the punishment and the deliverance of Israel and Judah are often spoken of by the prophets as one ; and as intended equally for their reformation and reunion. “By this therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged; and this is all the fruit to take away his sin. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall beat along 2 the channel of the river unto the stream of Egypt, and ye shall be gathered one by one, 0 )"e children of Israel.” » Providence blesses their communion in suffering, to fit them for com¬ munion in love and holy living. How can fellow-sufferers but have a fellow-feeling for one another Having drunk of the same cup of suf¬ fering, must they not desire to drink of the same cup of blessing and thanksgiving 1 The process by which they are refined also prepares 1 Ezek. xxiii. 32, 33. wild beasts which took refuge there. Heuce 2 A metaphor borrowed from the practice the phrase, Excutere cubilibus /eras. of hunters, who beat the bushes along the s isa. xxvii. 9, 12. See also Jer. 1, 17 — 20,33. banks of rivers to rouse and dislodge the * 2 Cor. i. 7 ; 1 Thess. ii. 14. THE UNITY OF THE CHUECH. 165 them for uniting, by consuming or separating the dross and tin and clay of corruption which kept them asunder. “ Put many pieces of metal together into the furnace, and when they are melted, they will run to¬ gether,” says a pious writer.^ When the Hebrews in Egypt smote and strove with one another, and spurned the mediatory offices of Moses, who “ would have set them at one again,” it was a proof that the time of their deliverance was not yet come, and that they needed to be kept longer in the iron furnace. It was when the sons of J acob were sus¬ pected as spies in Egypt, and harshly treated, and thrown into prison, that they remembered their treatment of Joseph with whom they had dealt cruelly as a spy on their conduct, and feelingly expressed their compunction in the presence of their offended but forgiving and tender¬ hearted brother. Bishops Hooper and Ridley had a warm contest in the reign of Edward VI., but when, in the time of the bloody Mary, they were thrown into the same prison, and had the prospect of being brought to the same stake, they lovingly embraced, and Ridley readily professed his contempt for that ceremony which, with intolerant eagerness, he had imposed on his reluctant brother. The affair of the Public Resolutions, during the Second Reformation in Scotland, caused a very hurtful schism in the Presbyterian church, and those who protested against the mea¬ sure had church censures inflicted on them by the ruling majority ; but after the Restoration, when the religion and liberties of the nation were overturned, and the arm of persecution was stretched out against both parties, some of the leading promoters of the Resolutions had their eyes opened, and candidly confessed that their protesting brethren had acted a wiser and more upright part than themselves, — a confession honour¬ able to faithfulness, and a thousand times more creditable to the per¬ sons who made it, than if they had stood stiffly to the defence of their conduct after the event had shown its faultiness, or if, covering self-love with the cloak of forbearance, they had insisted on consigning the affair to silence and oblivion. When God grants a common deliverance to those who were exposed to similar sufferings and dangers, he throws around their hearts “ the cords of love,” and draws them together as with “ the bands of a man.” The powers of hell and earth combined could not have severed the three young captives, after they came up from the burning fiery furnace, linked together in chains of a very different kind from those which the flames had recently consumed. “ Lovely and pleasant in their lives,” what a spectacle must they have afforded, “ in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation among whom they walked as lights ! ” In the held of modern church history, I do not know a spot on which the mind rests with a more pleasing emotion, than that which describes the depu¬ tation sent by the Waldenses of Bohemia to congratulate and establish concord with the first reformers of Germany and Switzerland ; the candour with which that interesting and simple body of Christian con- 1 Henry, on Ezekiel xxxvii. 21. 166 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. lessors stated the faith and religious practice which they had so long retained and held fast in the jaws of persecution ; and the ingenuous and meek spirit with which they received the advice and admonitions of their more enlightened brethren. The Harmony of Confessions in the Protestant churches, and their mutual correspondence and co-opera¬ tion, evince the unanimity and goodwill by which they were actuated at the era of the Reformation from Popery. It is true that a dispute early arose between some of the leading reformers, which was managed with unbecoming violence and obstinacy by at least one of the parties ; but it was confined to a single article, and did not lead to an irreparable breach, until after their death, when there had arisen a generation which knew not the mighty works which the Lord had done in rescuing their fathers from Antichristian darkness and bondage. I need not dwell on the effect which emancipation from a popish and hierarchical yoke had, at different periods, in uniting the friends of religion and reformation in our native land, and in exciting them to seek the extension of this “ blessed union and conjunction” to other Christian churches. It were presumptuous to limit divine sovereignty, or to prescribe an invariable mode of action to the Almighty and All-wise ; but brethren, as often as I reflect on these things, and survey the present state of the church of Christ, the thought still recurs forcibly to my mind. Surely we must be made to pass through some fiery trial before we shall be refined from those corruptions which have defaced the beauty and eaten out the power of religion, and before we shall be fitted for becoming “ one in the hand of the Lord.” Lastly, In healing the divisions of the chureh, God has cemented and consecrated the parties by disposing them to give the most solemn pledges of their fidelity to Himself, and to one another. It was predicted that the return from the captivity and the conjunction of Judah and Israel should be distinguished by such exercises. “ In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together, going and weeping ; they shall go, and seek the Lord their God. They shall ask the way to Zion, with their faces thitherward, saying. Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual cove¬ nant that shall not be forgotten.” ^ How exactly the event corresponded to the prophecy, you may see by consulting the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Public vows and religious covenants formed no part of Jewish peculiarity. They did not belong to the ceremonial law ; and it would be something worse than an absurdity to describe them as oaths of allegiance to Jehovah, as the political head of the nation of Israel. They are not more unsuitable to the character of the Christian church than they were to that of the Jewish. Accordingly it is expressly foretold in many prophecies, that such solemn exercises shall take place in New Testament times.^ These predictions have been verified and 1 Jer. 1. 4, 5. 2 Isa. xix. IS, 21 ; xliv. 3—5 ; xlv. 23 ; Jer. iv. 2, Zech. ii. 11 ; xiii. 9. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 167 fulfilled at different periods and in different countries. And in none have they been more eminently fulfilled than in our own land, especially in times of reformation and union. When peace has been restored between contending nations, it is common for them to renew their former compacts of amity, and to repeat the solemnities by which they were originally ratified. What more seasonable for those who have long been divided by their own sins and the divine anger, than to humble themselves before God, and to ask of Him a right way ? And what more fitted for expressing their gratitude and cementing their union, than a joint dedication of themselves to God, accompanied with solemn pledges of mutual fidelity ? I shall now state some inferences from the doctrine that has been laid down. 1. You may see from this subject the extensive and permanent utility of Old Testament Scripture. Not only was it “given by inspiration of God,” but it still “ is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” ^ Its utility is not limited to those parts which contain prophecies relating to the New Testament, or which afford us instruction by means of types and figures. It abounds with direct information respecting the great tniths of religion, the worship of God, and the exercises and experiences, the conflicts and comforts, of a holy and godly life. It conveys important instruction concerning the divine dispensations to individuals, nations, and the church, and concerning the duties which men owe to God and to one another, in their individual or collective capacity, and in their different stations and relations, natural, civil or ecclesiastical. The permanent authority and usefulness of the Scriptures of the Old Testament rest on such principles as these ; that the Author of both great divisions of the Bible is one and the same ; that He has in all ages governed the world of mankind by moral laws, as well as ruled over a peculiar people ; and that true religion, and the church of God professing it, have ever been substantially the same under subordinate varieties of external dispensation. Even those parts of the inspired record which refer to the Jewish, admit of an application to the Christian economy, in the way of analogy — by setting aside whatever was peculiar to the former and seizing on the points of agreement or resemblance between the two economies, and on those principles and grounds which are common to both. This is a key to the Old Testament which appears to be much neglected, and whose value has not been sufficiently appreciated : although our Saviour and his apostles have set us examples of its use and importance.^ Erroneous, mistaken, or defective notions on this subject are very injurious to the unity and peace of the church. They are common in 1 2 Tim. iii. 16. 2 Matt. xii. 3 — 8; 1 Cor.ix. 8 — 14 ; x. 1 — 11, 17 — 22 ; James v. 16 — 18 ; with many other places. 168 THE UNITY OF THE CHUECH, the present time ; have given rise to “ diverse and strange doctrines,” and an endless variety of novel opinions ; have produced distorted and partial views of morality ; have sapped the foundation, and impaired the evidence of many religious institutions ; and, under the name of Christianity, have led to the adoption of a faith and practice not only different from, but, in its genius and spirit, opposite to that religion which God revealed from the beginning, and which was professed and followed by the fearers of His name for four thousand years. Many who maintain the divine origin and inspiration of this part of the sacred volume, show a disposition unduly to abridge that authority which they acknowledge in general, while they resist, as impertinent and inconclu¬ sive, every argument brought from it, unless it is supported and con¬ firmed by the writings of the New Testament. The principles, com¬ munion, and practice of Christians must necessarily be defective and wrong, when they are formed and regulated, not by the whole, but a part only of the perfect and divinely authorised standard. How can it be expected that parties will come to one, if they are not agreed on what constitutes the supreme judge of all their controversies, and the infallible canon by which they are bound to walk together ? 2. We may hence see what constitutes the evil of schism, and wherein this differs from warrantable separation. Though all parties nearly agree in the general notion of schism, yet, when they come to explain and apply it, they are found to differ very widely in their opinions. Few subjects have been involved in greater obscurity, and have given occasion to such opposite charges and severe recriminations. Some, both in ancient and modem times, have described it in the most exagge¬ rated colours, and represented it as the most heinous of all sins. Papists have grossly perverted the meaning of the word, and made it, along with heresy, a constant topic of declamation and unjust reproach against all who have left their communion ; and in this part of their conduct they have been followed by the warm admirers, and undiscriminating advocates of some national churches among Protestants.' Others have erred on the opposite extreme, have extenuated its evil, and narrowed the Scripture meaning of the term, by confining it to one kind or branch of it, and excluding or overlooking all others. The original word in the New Testament translated schism or division, signifies any rent or breach, by which that which was formerly one is divided ; and when applied to the church, it is always used in a bad sense. Christians are reprehended for giving way to schism, and exhorted to avoid those who cause it. It is a relative term, and cannot be understood without just views of that unity and communion of which it is a violation. Schism does not consist, as some have preposterously maintained, in 1 In their declamations against schism, tion can be so important as the sin of schism such expressions as the following have been is pernicious : No multitude of good works, used by Protestant writers (let them be no moral honesty of life, no cruel death, nameless); “An offence so grievous that endured even for the faith, can excuse any nothing so much incenses God ; No reforma- who are guilty of it from damnation.” THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 169 separation from the church, considered as invisible. It is not to be restricted to separation from the catholic body, or whole community of Christians ; as if none could be justly chargeable with this sin, for with¬ drawing from the communion of particular churches. It is often displayed in fomenting factions within a church, and accompanied with an uncharit¬ able, bitter, or turbulent spirit : but there is no good reason for confining it to one or both of these ; and neither the proper meaning of the word nor the scriptural use of it, supports the favourite opinion of some modern critics and divines, that “ no person who, in the spirit of candour and charity, adheres to that which to the best of his judgment is right, though in his opinion he should be mistaken, is, in the scriptural sense, either schismatic or heretic.”^ Dishonesty and uncharitableness are not essential qualities either of heresy or schism, but aggravations which are sometimes found cleaving to them. On the other hand, schism and separation are not convertible terms, nor are the things signified by them necessarily of the same kind. Schism is always evil ; separation may be either good or evil, according to circumstances. To constitute the former, there must be a violation of some of the scriptural bonds of unity in the body of Christ. It pre¬ supposes a church formed and constituted by the authority and accord¬ ing to the laws of Christ, and an administration corresponding to the nature, character, and design of such a society, at least so far as that persons may belong to it without sin, and hold communion with it con¬ sistently with that regard which they owe to their spiritual safety and edification. The Christian church is not an arbitrary institution of men — not a mere voluntary association of any number of people, for any purpose, and on any terms, which to them may seem good ; nor has its communion been left vague and undetermined by the laws of its founder. It is not schism to refuse submission to human constitutions, though they may be called churches, and may have religion some way for their object, nor to refuse conformity to such terms as men may be pleased to impose without warrant from the Word of God ; whether these constitutions and terms proceed from the lust of power, or from the pride of wisdom, and whether they be intended to forward the policy of statesmen, to feed the ambition of churchmen, or to flatter the humours of the populace. That churches once pure and faithful may degenerate so far, and fall into such a state as will warrant separation from them, is evident from the injunctions and examples of Scripture, and from facts compared with the nature and ends of religious fellowship. Nor can this be denied by any consistent Protestant. To “ cleave to the Lord,” to culti¬ vate fellowship with Him in the way He has prescribed, and to “ follow him whithersoever he goeth,” constitute the primary object to be kept 1 Dr C.aTnpbeU’s Dissertation on Heresy opinion, on the principles either of sound and Schism ; prefixed to his New Transla- criticism or sound divinity, have heen ad- tion of the Gospels. Some of the positions mitted with surprising facility in this in that dissertation, indefensihle, in my country. 170 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. ( in view by Christians : to this, fellowship with men is secondary and subordinate ; and we are bound to forego and relinquish the latter, whenever it is found incompatible with the former. We are exhorted to “ follow peace with all men,” not absolutely, but so far only as it is consistent with “ holiness,” and maybe lawfully practicable. No par¬ ticular church has any promise securing her continuance in the faith and in purity of communion ; and, consequently, none can have a right to claim a perpetual or inviolable union with her, or to denounce per¬ sons schismatics simply on the ground of their withdrawing from her pale and declining her authority. Separation may be either negative or positive. A negative separa¬ tion consists in withdrawing from wonted communion with a church, either in the way of not participating with her in some ordinances, on the ground of corruptions attaching to them, or in the way of suspend¬ ing all public communion with her. A positive separation consists in the formation of another church, and the holding of other assemblies, in contradistinction from those with which we were formerly connected. In all ordinary cases the former ought to precede the latter ; as it is our duty to try every means for removing evils before adopting the last resource. But when the prospect of recovering our Christian privileges, consistently with our duty to God, may be distant and doubtful, when many may be placed in the same situation with ourselves, and when the public interests of religion are involved in the matter of our grievances, the same reasons which warranted a negative separation will, by their continuance, warrant that which is positive ; for none are at liberty to live without public ordinances when they have access to enjoy them. I need scarcely add, that if in providence we can find a church already constituted to which we can conscientiously accede, regard to the communion of saints, and aversion to unnecessary division, ought to induce us to prefer this course to the formation of a new society. I do not mean to determine the delicate question, how far or how long communion may be maintained with corrupt churches, nor to state the causes which may render separation from them lawful and neces¬ sary. The decision of such questions must always depend much on the state of particular facts and actual circumstances occurring at the time. Some general points are almost universally conceded, such as, that it is warrantable to separate from a church which obstinately maintains gross and destructive errors, or is chargeable with idolatry, or adul¬ terates the ordinances of Christ, or exercises a tyrannical authority over the souls of men, or has established sinful terms of communion, or whose fellowship we cannot enjoy without being involved in sin, and living in the neglect of some necessary duty. When a church once re¬ formed and faithful not only departs from what she had professed and received, and persists in this by a series of public acts, but also restrains all due freedom in testifying against her defection ; or when she adopts doctrines inconsistent with her former scriptural profession and engage- THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 171 meiits, and imposes these by the perverted exercise of authority and discipline, — separation from her communion is lawful. When the pub¬ lic profession and administrations of a church have been settled con¬ formably to the laws of Christ, and sanctioned by the most solemn engagements, if the majority shall set these aside, and erect a new con¬ stitution sinfully defective, and involving a material renunciation of the former, the minority refusing to accede to this, adhering to their engage¬ ments, and continuing to maintain communion on the original terms, cannot justly be charged with schism. But while the lawfulness and duty of separation in certain cases is to be asserted and vindicated, we must not overlook the evil of schism, nor forget to warn you against unwarrantable or rash separations. It cannot admit of a doubt, that in the present time there is a strong tendency in the minds of many to run to this extreme ; and to this they are inclined in no small degree by the incorrect and loose notions which they entertain on the subject. Many can assign no grounds for their leaving the communion of a church which will stand the test of Scrip¬ ture or reason. They are actuated by mere arbitrary will or obstinate humour, by selfishness or unsociability of disposition, by capriciousness or levity of spirit, and by dislikes which they cannot explain to others and perhaps cannot account for to themselves. Others are infiuenced by indifference to the benefit of religious fellowship, weariness of the offices and duties connected with it, love of carnal liberty, aversion to some of the doctrines or institutions of Christ, and impatience of faith¬ ful admonitions and the due exercise of church discipline. Others, who show a regard for divine ordinances, and profess a concern to preserve their purity, may relinquish the fellowship of a church from personal offences and grudges, from pride, envy, or disappointed ambition, or on account of debates and differences which have no immediate relation to the terms of ecclesiastical communion. A church which has received the doctrines of Christ, and in which the office-bearers and ordinances instituted by Him, and all the privileges conducive to salvation, may be enjoyed, may nevertheless be chargeable with various defects and evils. I think myself warranted by Scripture, and supported by the sentiments of the soundest divines who have treated this subject, when I state, that separation from such a church cannot be vindicated when it proceeds on such grounds as the following : Personal offences given by the mis¬ conduct of individual church members ; wrong decisions in personal causes or particular acts of maladministration, when they are not of lasting injury to the whole body ; differences of opinion among the members of a church about matters that cannot be shown to be posi¬ tively determined in the Word of God, and have not been received into the public profession of that church ; diversity of practice in some points of mere external order, or in prudential regulations as to the form of divine worship ; the venting of errors by particular teachers, while the instances of this are infrequent, and not openly countenanced 172 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. by authority in the church, and the relaxation of discipline by admitting improper persons into communion in particular cases, or by not duly censuring those who are guilty of scandals, provided the ordinances themselves are retained in purity, the rules of discipline are not set aside, and there is access to have grievances on this head heard and redressed in due time : in fine, irregularities or abuses of different kinds in a church which is panting after reformation, endeavouring to free herself from restraints and hindrances that prevent her attaining it, and disposed to allow the use of those means which tend to further this desirable object. 3. We may hence see ground for lamentation on account of the dis¬ sensions and divisions which at present abound in the church of Christ. When, of old, one tribe in Israel was divided from the rest, or was pre¬ vented by intestine dissensions from “ coming to the help of the Lord against the mighty,” it was matter of deep distress and bitter regret to every lover of religion and the public welfare. “ For the divisions of Reuben there were great thoughts of heart : — For the divisions of Reu¬ ben there were great searchings of heart.” ^ And, surely, we ought to be affected in the same way in contemplating the dissensions of the Christian commonwealth, and of the particular provinces and sections of which it is composed. It is true, that, in the complex and extensive arrangements of divine Providence, they are necessary ; and they will be overruled for the production of ultimate and superabundant good. But this does not prove that they are not evil in themselves, nor that they may not be productive of manifold and great evils during a long series of years. It is also true, that they have prevailed in every age, and that the Church was not altogether free from them when she appeared in virgin purity and with angelical power on her head. The presence of inspired apostles, and the possession of miraculous gifts, did not prevent division ; nay, these gifts became the occasions of foment¬ ing the evil, and by their abuse the members of the church were “ puffed up one against another.” But at no former period, and in no other country, has division prevailed to such an extent, as it does at present in our own land, which exhibits a countless variety of religious per¬ suasions, and groans under endless divisions and subdivisions of parties. We have societies maintaining contradictory sentiments on almost every article of faith that can be named, and pursuing opposite practices respecting every institution of religion and every form of its celebration. Nor are the members of these societies in many instances more united among themselves than the different parties are with one another. Every one hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Such a wanton use have we made of our liberty as to have almost brought the very name into disgrace, and to tempt men to think that there is no certainty in religion. Scotland was long distinguished for her religious unity, as weU as purity. But, 1 Judg. V. 15, 16. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 173 alas ! it is to be lamented that, in both respects, there is reason for saying, “ The glory is departed ! ” First the staff of Beauty, and after¬ wards that of Bands, has been broken in our land. We are now as much disunited as our neighbours ; sects have multiplied among us ; and those who were most firmly united, and under the highest obliga¬ tions to abide by a common profession, once solemnly embraced by the whole nation, have been divided and sore broken in judgment. Whether we consider the causes or the consequences of our divisions, they call loudly for mourning. What reason have we to humble our¬ selves under the mighty hand of Glod, whose displeasure they so strongly indicate ! to inquire, “ what meaneth the heat of this great anger 1 ” to smite on our breast and say, each for himself, “ what have I done ” to kindle or to keep alive the flame ? What a humiliating spectacle of human weakness and depravity to see Religion, which is calculated to unite men together “ even as with a band of iron and brass,” and Christianity, which breathes nothing but “ peace and goodwill,” and the Bible, expressly given by God as a common rule of faith and manners, become the occasion of so much division and discord and strife in the world ! What matter of triumph to the infidel and the idolater ! What cause of stumbling and offence to the weak and doubting Christian ! How much has it contributed to mar the influence of the Gospel at home, and to obstruct the propagation of it abroad, or to weaken the efforts that are made for this purpose ! But I refrain from a theme which has been copiously treated by many pious and eloquent writers. Some, perhaps, may see no reason for such deplorations. They rejoice in the mitigation of that spirit of keenness and asperity with which religious disputes were formerly carried on, and anticipate the happiest results from the associations which have lately been formed among Christians of almost all denominations. But a little consideration may serve to lower the exultation which these facts are calculated at first view to raise. The general object of some of these societies, and the distant field of exertion chosen by others, remind us of our existing differences. Under the combinations, too, which have been forming, a process of decomposition has been secretly going on in the minds of Christians, by which their attachment to various articles of the faith has been loosened. A vague and indefinite evangelism, mixed with seriousness, into which it is the prevailing disposition of the present age to resolve all Chris¬ tianity, will, in the natural progress of human sentiment, degenerate into an unsubstantial and incoherent pietism, winch, after effervescing in enthusiasm, will finally settle into indifference ; in which case, the spirit of infidelity and irreligion, which is at present working and spreading to a more alarming extent than many seem to imagine, will achieve an easy conquest over a feeble and exhausted and nerveless adversary. “ When the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith in the earth ? ” Let wise men judge whether these forebodings are fanciful. 174 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 4. The danger of latitudinarian schemes of union and fellowship. Mournful as the divisions of the church are, and anxious as all its genuine friends must be to see them cured, it is their duty to examine carefully the plans which may be proposed for attaining this desirable end. We must not do evil that good may come ; and there are sacrifices too costly to be made for the procuring of peace with fellow Christians. Is it necessary to remind you, that unity and peace are not always good, nor a sure and infallible mark of a true and pure church 1 We know that there is a church which has long boasted of her catholic unity not¬ withstanding all the corruptions which pollute her communion ; and that within her pale the whole world called Christian once enjoyed a profound repose, and it could be said, “ Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language.” It was a union and peace founded in ignorance, delusion, implicit faith, and a base subjection to human authority ; and supported by the arts of compulsion and terror. But there are other methods by which Christians may be deceived, and the interests of religion deeply injured, under the pretext or with the view of uniting its friends. Among these I know none more imposing, nor from which greater danger is to be apprehended in the present time, than that which proceeds on the scheme of principles usually styled latitudinarian. It has obtained this name because it proclaims an undue latitude in matters of religion, which persons may take to themselves or give to others. Its abettors make light of the differences which subsist among religious parties, and propose to unite them on the common principles on which they are already agreed, in the way of burying the rest in silence, or of stipulating mutual forbearance and charity with respect to everything about which they may differ in opinion or in practice. Some plead for this on the ground that the several professions of religion differ very little from one another, and are all conducive to the happiness of mankind and the honour of God, who is pleased with the various and diversified modes in which men profess their regard to him, provided only they are sincere in their professions ; a principle of dif- formity, which, however congenial to the system of polytheism, is utterly eversive of a religion founded on the unity of the divine nature and will, and on a revelation which teaches us what we are to believe concerning God, and what duty He requires of us. But the ground on which this plan is ordinarily made to rest is a distinction made among the articles of religion. Some of these are called essential, or funda¬ mental, or necessary, or principal ; others circumstantial, or non-funda¬ mental, or unnecessary, or less important. The former, it is pleaded, are embraced by all true Christians; the latter form the subjects of difference among them, and ought not to enter into the terms of eccle¬ siastical fellowship. ^ On this principle some of them would conciliate and unite all the Christian denominations, not excepting Papists, Arians, * The distinction is variously expressed, munion adhere to the distinction between Sonae modern writers on the subject of com- what is essential or not essential to salva- THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 175 and Socinians ; while others restrict their plan to those called evan¬ gelical, who differ mainly in their views and practice as to the worship, order, and discipline of the church. The distinction on which this scheme rests, is itself liable to objec¬ tions which appear insuperable. It is not warranted by the Word of God ; and the most acute of its defenders have never been able to state it in a manner that is satisfactory, or which renders it subservient to any practical use. The Scripture, indeed, speaks of certain truths which may be called the foundation, because they are first laid, and others depend on them — first principles, or elementary truths, which are to be taught before others. But their priority or posteriority in point of order, in con¬ ception or instruction, does not determine the relative importance of doc¬ trines, or their necessity in order to salvation, far less does it determine the propriety of their being made to enter into the religious profession of Christians and Christian churches. There are doctrines, too, which intrinsically, and on different accounts, may be said to have a peculiar and superior degree of importance ; and this, so far as known, may properly be urged as a motive for our giving the more earnest heed to them. It is not, however, their comparative importance or utility, but their truth and the authority of Him who has revealed them, which is the formal and proper reason of our receiving, professing, and main¬ taining them. And this applies equally to all the contents of a divine revelation. The relations of truths, especially those of a supernatural kind, are manifold and incomprehensible by us ; it is not our part to pronounce a judgment on them ; and if we could see them, as God does, in all their extent and at once, we would behold the lesser joined to the greater, the most remote connected with the primary, by neces¬ sary and indissoluble links, and all together conspiring to form one beautiful and harmonious and indivisible whole. Whatever God has revealed we are bound to receive and hold fast; whatever he has enjoined we are bound to obey ; and the liberty which we dare not arrogate to ourselves we cannot give to others. It is not, indeed, neces- I sary that the confession or testimony of the church (meaning by this I that which is explicitly made by her, as distinguished from her declared I adherence to the whole Word of God) should contain all truths ; but ' then any of them may come to be included in it, when opposed and J endangered ; and it is no sufficient reason for excluding any of them I that they are less important than others, or that they have been doubted and denied by good and learned men. Whatever forbearance may be i exercised to persons, “ the word of the Lord,” in all its extent, “ must ! have free course and be glorified ; ” and any act of men — call it for- ‘ bearance or what you will — which serves as a screen or protection to error or sin, and prevents it from being opposed and removed by any tion. Others, aware of what has been urged for security’s sake, they would add a few against it, choose to substitute the word other articles to the fundamental. But what fundamental in the room of essential ; and, the one or the other are they do not tell. 176 THE UNITY OF THE CHUECH. proper means, is contrary to the divine law, and consequently is desti¬ tute of all intrinsic force and validity. There are truths also which are more immediately connected with salvation. But who will pretend to fix those propositions which are absolutely necessary to be known, in order to salvation^ — by all persons— of all capacities — and in all situa¬ tions ; or say how low a God of grace and salvation may descend in dealing with particular individuals 1 Or, if we could determine this extreme point, who would say that it ought to fix the rule of our deal¬ ing with others, or the extent of a church’s profession of faith 1 Is nothing else to be kept in view in settling articles of faith and fellow¬ ship, but what may be necessary to the salvation of sinners ? Do we not owe a paramount regard to the glory of God in the highest, to the edifying of the body of Christ, to the advancing of the general interests of religion, and to the preserving, in purity, of those external means by which, in the economy of providence and grace, the salvation of men, both initial and progressive, may be promoted to an incalculable extent from age to age ? In fine, there is reason for comjjlaining that the criteria or marks given for determining these fundamental or necessary articles, are uncertain or contradictory. Is it alleged that they are clearly taught in Scripture ? This is true of others also. “ That they are few and simple 1 ” This is contradicted by their own attempts to state them. “ That they are such as the Scripture has declared to be necessary 1 ” Why then have we not yet been furnished with a catalogue of them? “ That they are such as are embraced by all true Christians ?” Have they a secret tact by which they are able to discover such cha¬ racters 1 If not, can they avoid running into a vicious circle in reason¬ ing, by first determining who are time Christians by their embracing certain doctrines, and then determining that these doctrines are funda¬ mental because they are embraced by persons of that description ? Many who have contributed to give currency to this scheme have been actuated, I have no doubt, by motives which are in themselves highly commendable. They wished to fix the attention of men on matters confessedly of great importance, and were anxious to put an end to the dissensions of Christians by discovering a mean point in which the views of all might harmoniously meet. But surely those who cherish a supreme regard for divine authority will be afraid of contem¬ ning or of teaching others to think lightly of anything which bears its sacred impress. They will be disposed carefully to reconsider an opinion, or an interpretation of any part of Scripture, which seems to imply in it, that God has given to men a power to dispense with some of His own laws. And they will be cautious of originating or counte¬ nancing plans of communion that may involve a principle of such a complexion. These plans are more or less dangerous according to the extent to which they are carried, and the errors or abuses wliich may prevail among the parties which they embrace. But however limited they may be, they set an example which may be carried to any extent. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 177 So far as it is agreed and stipulated, that any truth or duty shall be sacrificed or neglected, and that any error or sin shall be treated as indilferent or trivial, the essence of latitudinarianism is adopted, room is made for further advancements, and the way is prepared for ascend¬ ing, through successive gradations, to the very highest degree in the cale. Another plan of communion, apparently opposite to the former, but proceeding on the same general principle, has been zealously recom¬ mended, and in some instances reduced to practice, in the present daj^ According to it, the several religious parties are allowed to remain sepa¬ rate, and to preserve their distinct constitution and peculiarities, while a species of partial or occasional communion is established among them. This plan is liable to all the objections that lie against the former, with the addition of another which is peculiar to itself. It is inconsistent and self-contradictory. It strikes against the radical prin¬ ciples of the unity of the church, and confirms schism by a law ; while it provides that the parties shall remain separate, at the same time that it proceeds on the supposition that there is no scriptural or con¬ scientious ground of difterence between them. By defending such occasional conformity, English Dissenters at a former period contra¬ dicted the reasons of their dissent from the establishment, and exposed themselves to their opponents : for where communion is lawful, it will not be easy to vindicate separation from the charge of schism. The world has for some time beheld annually the spectacle of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Methodists, and Seceders, sitting down together at the Lord’s table, and then going away and maintaining com¬ munion, through the remainder of the year, on their own separate and contradictory professions. Nay, it has of late become the practice to keep, in the same church, an open communion-table for Christians of different denominations on one part of the day, and a close one for those of a particular sect on the other part of the day ; while the same minister officiates, and many individuals communicate, on both these occasions. And all this is cried up as a proof of liberality, and a mind that has freed itself from the trammels of party ! ^ 1 In America, “ A plan of Brotherly Cor- sure in the one church are not to he received respondence” has recently been agreed to into the other. The members of presby- between the General Assembly of the Pres- teries and synods of one of the churches byterian Church and the General Synod of may be invited to sit as corresponding mem- the Associate Reformed Church. The first bers of the same judicatories of the other : article of agreement is, “The churches are but if not invited, they must not be offended, to remain entirely separate and iudepend- And a minister or elder from each of the ent.” By the remaining articles it is pro- supreme judicatories shall sit in tlie other, vided, that members of either church may but without a vote. be admitted to communion with the other; Though I consider this plan as obnoxious and that the officers in any congregation of to the censures in the text, I would not be either church, may invite to their pulpit understood as condemning all intercourse or any minister or probationer in the other, correspondence between separate churches. “ who preaches in their purity the great On the contrary, I think that in some in¬ doctrines of the Gospel, as they are stated stances it may be of great utility, for paving in the common Confession of Faith, and the way for the removing of subsisting dif- have generally been received and taught in ferences, and preventing or remedying of- the Reformed Churches.” Those under cen- fences, hurtful to the general interests of M 178 THE UNITY OF THE CHUKCH. It is difficult to say which of these plans is most objectionable. By the former, that church which is most faithful, and has made the greatest progress in reformation, must always be the loser, without having the satisfaction to think that she has conveyed any benefit to her new associates ; it behoves her profession and managements to yield, and be reduced to the standard of those societies which are defective and less reformed ; and thus, by a process opposite to that mentioned by the apostle, those who have built on the foundation “ gold, silver, precious stones,” are the persons who shall “ suffer loss.” By the latter, all the good effects which might be expected from warrantable and necessary separations are lost, without the compensation of a rational and effective conjunction ; purity of communion is endangered ; persons are encouraged to continue in connection with the most corrupt churches ; and a faithful testimony against errors and abuses, with all consistent attempts to have them removed or prevented, is held up to odium and reproach, as dictated by bigotry, and as tending to revive old dissensions, and to defeat the delightful prospect of those halcyon days of peace which are anticipated under the reign of mutual forbearance and charity. 5. We may learn from this subject what is the temper ^of mind which becomes Christians in a time of abounding divisions in the church, and what are the qualities required in those who attempt to heal them. All have it in their power to contribute, in some degree, to the promoting of this work, and therefore ought to cherish the dispositions which correspond to it ; although this is in a more eminent manner the duty of such as possess superior influence, or who, from their station, may be called to take a leading part in the negotiations. And here I do not hesitate to name, as the primary qualification — an inviolable love to truth and supreme regard to divine authority. That person is totally disqualified for being a negotiator, or for acting the most subordinate part in such a sacred treaty, whose pulse does not beat high with this honourable and divine feeling. He will betray those interests which are in themselves the highest, and ought to be the dearest to all parties, whenever they are found irreconcilable with the attainment of an infe¬ rior object which he is determined to gain. When genuine, and pure, and enlightened, the feeling which we are recommending, so far from obstructing, as is often mistakingly imagined, will greatly facilitate and forward any negotiation to which a good man would wish success. — The next place is due to — a pacific disposition. He who has said, ‘‘ Love the truth and peace,” intended to teach us, what we are some¬ times disposed to disbelieve, that a regard to the former is not incom¬ patible with a regard to the latter. In settling religious differences, the nice and difficult task is, to find out a way by which to adjust the claims of the two — to “ seek peace and ensue it,” without “ erring from religion, wliicli may arise from the manage- ing into communion of those who have fled ments of either i)arty ; such as, the receiv- from discipline in the other. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 179 the truth ; ” and who so fit for this as “ the peaceable and faithful in Israel,” who are endued with “ the wisdom that is first pure, then peace¬ able, gentle, and easy to be entreated 1” ^ If in any, surely in religious contests the maxim should be constantly kept in mind, the end of all war is peace. He is not a good Christian who does not sigh for it in the heat of the conflict, who does not court it in the moment of victory, who does not enjoy a triumph in sounding the trumpet which shall “ bid the people return from following their brethren.” ^ The man who loves to live in the fire of contention, who feeds on debate and contro¬ versy, whose thoughts are never turned to peace, but are “like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, ■whose waters cast up mire and dirt,” who is prepared to contest every point of common order as if it con¬ cerned the common salvation, is ever ready with his dissent, backed with its many reasons, against any ordinary measure which may not have obtained the sanction of his siiperior wisdom, and who flies off as soon as he finds that he cannot obtain his will in all things — this man is unfit for religious society, and though he may pretend to a zeal for God and religion, his zeal, like Iris wisdom, is not from above. — Chris¬ tian candour is another quality which is requisite. This displays itself in an openness of mind to con-vdction, a readiness to hear whatever may be advanced, a disposition to give and receive explanations, and to pay all becoming deference not only to the reasons, but also to the difficulties and scruples of brethren on the points of difference, and to relieve these so far as may be practicable, safe, and consistent with public duty. It is also opposed to concealment, dissimulation, and all tlie crooked arts by which worldly politicians conduct their negotiations, and endeavour to obtain the best terms for their constituents. Far from those who engage in this holy work be all such Italian and Romish stratagems ! Every one ought to speak the truth to his neighbour as he thinketh, ■without equivocation or mental reservation : there ought to be no masked proposals — no ambiguous declarations — no secret articles — no understood agreement among leaders — no imposition on the credulity or the confidence of the Christian people. Genuine and unaffected candour has a powerful influence in inducing persons to persevere in a treaty when there may be great difficulties in the way of bringing it to a happy termination ; whereas duplicity and art excite jealousy in the breasts of the intelligent, and if successfully practised, lay a foundation for future repentance and disquiet. — The gift of knowledge and wisdom is requisite. This work requires a union of the qualities of the men of Zebulon and Naphtali who came to David, “ to turn the kingdom of Saul to him according to the word of the Lord they were “ not of a double heart,” and they “ had understanding of the times to know what Israel ought to do.” ^ That dexterity and knowledge of mankind which qualifies some indi^nduals for settling ordinary disputes about the things of this life or in the church, will avail little in the work of which we 1 2 Sam. XX. 19 ; James, iii. 17. ^ 2 Sam. ii. 26. ® 1 Chron. xii. 180 THE UlSIITY OF THE CHURCH. speak. It requires an accurate acquaintance with the subjects of dis¬ pute in all their bearings — of the signs of the times, their duties, sins, and dangers, — of the real character and dispositions of the parties, and other circumstances which may go to determine the call we have to engage in such an undertaking, or to persevere in it not to mention an acquaintance with attempts of the same kind which have been made in former periods, with the effects which they produced, or the causes of their ill success. — Lastly, a public and disinterested spirit is indis¬ pensably requisite. Those individuals whom God has raised up in different ages to “ do good to Zion in his good pleasure,” have been eminently endued with this disposition. Such was Moses, who showed himself fit for composing the strife of his afflicted brethren, when he “ refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter ; ” and proved him¬ self worthy of “ standing in the breach to turn away God’s anger ” from Israel, when he magnanimously declined the offer of Heaven to “ make of him a great nation.” Such also was Paul, who not only “ became all things to all men,” and “a servant to all,” in things lawful and indifferent, but “could wish himself accursed from Christ for his brethren.” There are no sacrifices which are in their power, which persons of this spirit will not be disposed to make for accomplishing so good and great a design — their worldly interests, their reputation and honour, their station in the church of God, provided it prove an obstacle, they will cheerfully relinquish and lay at the feet of their brethren. If these dispositions were more generally and more strongly displayed, there would be no ground for despairing of the abolition of many of our religious differences. Some of them no doubt imply a diversity of views so radical and extensive that it would be unreasonable to look for their speedy removal. But the cure of others may be said to be more within our own power. In vindication of the perspicuity of the Scriptures, and of the certainty of the standard of religion, it ought to be acknow¬ ledged that we often err from the path of duty, not so much because we cannot discover it, as because we are averse to it. “ The light of the body is the eye : if thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.” ^ If those who were once united had been true to their light and single' in their aims ; if they had lived together as became brethren ; if they had been at one as to the ends of their Christian profession, and continued resolved, through grace, to prosecute them, “ notwithstanding of whatever trouble or persecution they might meet with in essaying the faithful discharge of their duty,” fewer differences would have arisen among them, and these would have been more easily composed in the spirit of the Gospel : “ Whereunto they had attained they would have walked by the same rule, they would have minded the same things ; and if in anything they were otherwise minded, God would have revealed even this unto them.” ^ When we are brought to a proper 1 Mattb. vi. 22. 2 phibp. iii. 15, 16. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 181 sense of the causes of our “ divisions and offences,” the cure of them will be more than half effected. In fine, I would improve this subject for warning you against a twofold extreme into which persons are apt to run with respect to the present movements towards union. Beware of indifference to the object itself, or to any scriptural means for attaining it. You are under the strongest obligations, not only to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem,” but also to be “ workers together with God,” who has promised to bestow this blessing. If others err by allowing this object to engross their attention, this will not excuse your lukewarmness, or your refusal to do what may be in your power, in your place and station, for pro¬ moting it in any degree. Hard-hearted must he be who can look un¬ moved on the wounds of the church, or pass by, like the priest and Levite in the parable, without feeling disposed to provide and pour in the healing oil and balm. It would be strange and unnatural indeed, if any son of Zion should rejoice in her trouble, and take pleasure in beholding perpetual strife and violence in the city of God, instead of seeing it a peaceful habitation. If a true Christian is unavoidably placed in a scene of confusion, he will sigh and pray for deliverance from it ; and if conscience and the duty which he owes to God require him to say or do what may prove the occasion of disturbance or of alienating him from the affections of his brethren, he will sympathise deeply with the plaintive prophet, when he feelingly exclaims ; “Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast born me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth ! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury ; yet every one of them doth curse me.” i No wonder that attempts to heal divisions have been made, proposals of conciliation started, and plans of union concerted, in almost every age. The import¬ ance of the design might warrant them ; and though they may not always have been in themselves proper or admissible, nor attended with success, yet the movers may deserve the praise and receive the blessing of peacemakers, so far as they singly intended and sincerely prosecuted an end confessedly laudable. Every person of right feeling will be disposed to construe charitably, and to censure with lenity, some errors and miscarriages which may be committed in the management of such attempts ; provided no selfish interest or dishonest snare lurk under the mask of conciliation, and provided the plans do not evidently tend to produce other evils, greater than those which they propose to remedy. It is no less necessary to warn you, on the other hand, against being ensnared by fair and plausible schemes of union. Remember that the Spirit of Error takes an active part in the unions as well as in the divisions of Christians ; and be not ignorant of his devices. Of old he deceived the people of God by raising the cry of Peace, peace ; and so successful has he found this stratagem, that he has ever since had 1 Jer. XV. 10. 182 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. recourse to it at intervals. There is a rage for peace as well as for conten¬ tion, and men otherwise wise and good have been seized by it as well as the giddy multitude. If religion has sufiered from merciless polemics and cruel dividers, history shows that it has suffered no less from the false lenity and unskilful arts of pretended physicians — the motley tribe of those who have assumed the name of reconcilers. They will say that they have no intention to injure the truth ; but it is your duty carefully to examine the tendency of their proposals, and not to suffer yourselves to be caught with “ good words and fair speeches.” Have nothing to do with those plans of agreement, in which the corner-stone is not laid in a sacred regard to all that is sanctioned by the authority of your Lord. Beware of all such coalitions as would require you to desert a faithful and necessary testimony for the truths and laws of Christ, would call you back from prosecuting a just warfare against any error or sin, would involve you in a breach of your lawful engage¬ ments, or prevent you from paying the vows you have made to God. Keep in mind that there are duties incumbent on you beside that of fol¬ lowing peace. Violate not “ the brotherly covenant ” by which you may be already bound to walk with your fellow-Christians in a holy and good profession, from a fond and passionate desire of forming new connections. Throw not rashly away a present and known good for the prospect of a greater which i» uncertain and contingent ; and do not suffer your minds to be diverted from the ordinary duties of your Christian vocation, by engaging in extraordinary undertakings, while the call to these is not clear, and you have not good ground to depend on God for that extraordinary aid which is required in prosecuting them. The text on which we have been discoursing, my friends, and others of the same kind in the sacred volume, will, if rightly improved, keep you from this as well as the former extreme. If your hearts are estab¬ lished by a firm persuasion that God wiU, according to His promise and in His own time, restore unity and peace to His church, you will be kept equally from negligence and impatience, from indifference and precipi¬ tation. “ Against hope you will believe in hope, that it shall be as God has said ; ” but you will “ not make haste,” nor have recourse to any improper means for obtaining the blessing. He knows to choose the best season for begmning and completing the work. We may think Him remiss and slack in performing His promises, weary at His delays, attempt to anticipate Him with unbelieving and impatient haste, or tempt Him by saying presumptuously, “ Let him make speed, and hasten his work, that we may see it ! and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it ! ” ^ The check which our Saviour imposed on His disciples is needful here : “ My time is not yet come ; but your time is always ready.” ^ He has ends, wise, important, and every way worthy of Himself, to serve by permitting the continuance as well as the entrance of divisions. Divine truth must be cleared and 1 Isa. V. 19. 2 John, vii. 6. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 183 purified from every foreign admixture by its being submitted to the ordeal of keen controversy. The faithfulness of its professed friends must be tried ; the hypocrisy of false disciples detected ; and the igno¬ rance, imperfection, and mistakes which cleave to the best discovered. God must be glorified by preserving the cause of religion in the world, not only in opposition to its open enemies, but also amidst all the dis¬ sensions and rivalships and deadly feuds which prevail among its pro¬ fessed friends. When these and similar objects have been accomplished. He will “hasten his word to perform it.” Having begun the good work. He will not draw back His hand until He has “ finished it in righteousness.” Are there any who, when they hear of the future uniting of all Christians in profession, affection, and practice, are disposed to receive the intimation with a smile of incredulity, to treat the prospect as visionary, and to exclaim, “ How can these things be 1 Will God create a new race on the earth 1 Will He give a new structure to the minds of men 1 Will they not continue to think and act about religion as they have done from the beginning until now 1 ” Hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men : Is it a small matter for you to weary men, will ye weary my God also ? Hath He not said, “ I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me 1 ” And will He not do it ? Let God be true, and every man a liar. When the time comes, the time which He hath set for accomplishing His promise. He shall arise, and every difficulty and every obstruction shall give way before Him and vanish at His approach. Do you ask a sign 1 Do you ask it in the heaven above ? It is He that “ binds the sweet influences of Pleiades, and looses the ” frozen “bands of Orion — and guides Arcturus \vith his sons.” ^ Do you ask it in the earth beneath 1 “ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid ; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together ; and a little child shall lead them ; — for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” ^ The Infinite One has, in His faith¬ ful word, pledged all His perfections for the accomplishment of this work. What resistance can be opposed to infinite power, put in motion by in¬ finite love, and guided by infinite wisdom ? He can raise up instruments properly qualified and disposed for promoting His design, guide their counsels, animate them to constancy and perseverance, and finally crown all their exertions with the wished-for success. He has the hearts of aU men in His hand, and can turn them like the waters in an aqueduct. He can rebuke the spirit of error and delusion, “ cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land,” and remove and abolish all things that offend in His kingdom. He can subdue the most stubborn and inveterate prejudices, allay the fiercest heats and ani¬ mosities, convert jealousies into confidence, and hatred into love, and having “ made the wrath of man to praise him ” by accomplishing His purposes, can “ restrain the remainder thereof.” 1 Job, xxxviii. 31, 32. 2 Isa. xi. 5, 9. 184 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. Who is among you that feareth the Lord, and obeyeth the voice of His servant, who walketh in darkness and hath no light as to the removal or abatement of the melancholy divisions of the church 1 Let him plant his faith firmly on the promises of Jehovah, and stay himself on His perfections. Say with the prophet Jeremiah, in a similar case, “ Ah, Lord God ! behold thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power ; and there is nothing too hard for thee ; the Great, the Mighty God, the Lord of Hosts is his name : Great in counsel, and mighty in work.”^ Place yourself in spirit in the midst of the emble¬ matical valley into which Ezekiel was carried, and say, God who raiseth the dead can easily do this. Rivers, deep and broad, seas, noisy and tempestuous, “ on which no galley with oars can go, neither gallant ship ride,” have disparted the territories which the God of heaven hath given to his Son, and prevented the intercourse of His subjects. But He “ shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea ; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and smite it in the seven streams thereof, and make men go over dry-shod. And there shall be a highway for the remnant of his people ; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.” ^ Brazen “ mountains of separation ” may stand in the way of this desirable event. But the resistance which they oppose to it shall be overcome, not according to the confused plan of modern projectors, by throwing a scaffolding over them, by which those who have reared altars on their tops may hold occasional intercourse and partial communion ; but in a way becoming the New Testament Zerubbabel, The Disperser of Con¬ fusion. When he rends the heavens and comes down to do things which we looked not for, “ the mountains shall flow down at his presence.” ^ Those separations which have been of most ancient date, and which threatened to last for ever, shall yield to His power. “ The everlasting mountains shall be scattered, the perpetual hills shall bow ” before Him whose “ways are everlasting.”'* If there shall be one that has reared its head above all the rest, and makes a more formidable resistance, it also shall crumble down and disappear : “Who art thou, 0 great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain.” ® Then shall the mountain on which the house of God is built be established on the top of the mountains, and exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow to it. And He will rebuke and repress the envious risings of its proudest rival. “ A hill of God is the hill of Bashan ; a high hill is the hill of Bashan. But why lift ye up yourselves, ye high hills ? This (Zion) is the hill which God desireth to dwell in ; yea, the Lord will dwell in it for ever.” ® May God fulfil these promises in due time ; and unto Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. 1 Jer. xxxii. 17—19. 3 Isa. Ixiv. 1. < Hab. iii. 6. 2 Isa. xi. 15, 16. 6 Ps. Ixviii. 15, 16. 6 Zech. iv. 7. APPENDIX. A Short View of the Plan op Religious Reformation and Union ADOPTED originally BY THE SECESSION. The Bible is the great repository of divine truth, and standard of what is to be believed and practised in religion. It is the duty of the church to bring forth the sacred treasure, to circulate it, and to preserve any part of it from being lost, debased, or deteriorated. Ever since the completing of the canon of Scripture, it has been the work of Christians, individually and as associated, to make profession of the faith once delivered to the saints,” and “ earnestly to contend ” for it, in opposition to all attempts to destroy its purity or defeat its influence. That society whose religious profession is not founded on and conformable to the Scriptures, can have no claim to be considered as “ the house of the living God.” But while the matter, as well as the ground, of the church’s profession is properly speaking divine, the acts and modes of profess¬ ing and maintaining it are necessarily human. When false and corrupt views of Christianity become general, it is necessary that confessions of the tinith in opposition to them be embodied in formal and written documents, which may be known and read by all men. Vox emissa perit : litera scripta manet. It is not enough that Christians confess their faith individually ; to comply with divine commands, to answer to their character as church members, and the better to gain the ends in view, it is requisite that they make a joint and common confession. When the truths contained in the word of God have been explicitly stated and declared, in opposition to existing errors, by the proper authority in a church, an approbation of such statements and declara¬ tions may be required, as a test of soundness in the faith and of Christian fidelity, without any unwarrantable imposition on conscience, or the most distant reflection on the perfection of Scripture. The same arguments which justify the use of creeds and confessions will also justify particular declara¬ tions or testimonies directed against errors and corruptions prevailing in churches which still retain scriptural formularies. Those who allow the former cannot consistently condemn the latter. It is not suflicient to entitle persons to the character of faithful witnesses of Christ, that they profess a general adherence to the Bible or a sound confession of faith, provided they refuse or decline to direct and apply these seasonably against present evils. It might as well be said that the soldier has acquitted himself well in a battle, because he had excellent armour lying in a magazine, or a sword 186 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. hanging by his side, although he never brought forth the armour nor drew his sword from its scabbard. The means alluded to are the unsheathing of the sword and the wielding of the armour of the church. So far from set¬ ting aside the authority of Scripture, they are necessary for keeping a sense of it alive on the spirits of men, and for declaring the joint views and animating the combined endeavours of those who adhere to it. By explaining and applying a rule, we do not add to it, nor do we detract from its authoi’ity. True religion, intrinsically considered, is neither variable nor local. Chris¬ tianity is the same now that it was eighteen hundred years ago ; it is the same in America or Otaheite as in Britain. But this is not inconsistent with varieties in the profession made of it in different ages and countries. The attack is not always made on it from the same quarter, nor directed against the same point. This must regulate the faithful contendings of the church ; and accordingly her testimony, though ever substantially the same, has been greatly diversified in respect of its form and direction ; just as a river in its long-continued course assumes different appearances, winds in several directions, and is seen running sometimes in a naiTower and at other times in a more ex¬ tensive channel. In the New Testament we meet with frequent references to the circumstances in which the churches were placed among the adherents of Judaism or of Pagan idolatry, as serving to point out and determine the peculiar duties, dangers, and temptations of Christians. The instructions, warnings, and reproofs, contained in the epistles which the apostles addressed primarily to cer¬ tain churches and individuals, bear directly on their respective circumstances, and are intermingled with numerous references to fac^s on which they were founded. Certain classes of false teachers and evil workers are specified ; and individuals are mentioned by name, both those who had deserved well of the church by their faithfulness and important services, and those who, by their opposition to the Gospel and propagating of false doctrine, had incurred public censure or justly exposed themselves to it. In the letters sent to the seven Asian churches, our Lord intimates that he took notice and judged of the con¬ duct of each according to its particular and local circumstances, and not merely in reference to duties and trials common to all. “ I know thy works, and where thou dwellest.” The church of Ephesus is praised because she “ could not bear them that were evil,” had tried and convicted certain persons who “ said they were apostles and were not,” and had testified her hatred to “ the deeds of the Nicolaitans.” While the church of Pergamos is blamed for retaining in her communion “ them that held the doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans,” she is commended by Christ, because she had “ held fast his name and not denied his faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was his faith¬ ful martyr, who was slain among them.” There are peculiar obligations which Christians are subjected to by their birth and lot in the world ; and then, and then only, can they be said to act a faithful part, when they endeavour to dis¬ charge their duty in all its extent according to their actual and relative situa¬ tion. So far is it from being true, in this respect, that a religious profession ought to be disencumbered of all localities or references to the facts of a jDarti- cular period or country, that, on the contrary, its due and seasonable applica¬ tion to these is a test of its faithfulness. At the happy era of the Reformation, many of the grosser corruptions which had grown during the long-continued defection which had preceded, were removed in several countries : and in some of these, particularly in Scotland, APPENDIX. 187 religion was settled on a scriptural basis and in great purity. Had reforma¬ tion been at its height in all the Protestant churches, or had that which was attained in some of them been placed beyond the danger of being changed or relinquished, there would have been no need for testimonies or contendiugs in the way of separation from them. Few will pretend that this is the case. In the constitutions of some of these churches the features of the Man of Sin are but too visible, and those of them that were most renowned for beauty have given evidence of their defectibility by actually falling into decay. To rectify the one and recover the other, is a work which deserves the attention and utmost endeavours of all who wish well to the interests of religion. And to accomplish these ends in some degree within their sphere, was what those who declared a Secession from the established Church of Scotland proposed by the association which they formed, and avowed in the Testimony or Declaration of their views and intentions which they published to the world. As their object has been much misunderstood, and as mistaken, or narrow and partial notions of it have been adopted, not only by their opponents, but also by not a few of their professed friends, it may perhaps be of some use to take a cursory view of it. Some have represented Seceders as holding a set of religious principles altogether peculiar to themselves, and have attempted, ignorantly or artfully, to set these in opposition to the principles held in common by other Christians and Protestants. Such a representation is groundless and injurious. Their profession, while it rests on the ground common to all true Protestants, the supreme authority of Scripture, embraces the general interests of Christianity, and gives them their due place and importance. Whatever others, as Christians, Pi’otestants, or Presbyterians, profess and glory in, they vindicate as theirs too, and have embodied in their testimony. With I’espect to those things by which they are distinguished, in principle or in practice, /rom other denominations of Presbyterians, and which will be called their peculiarities, they plead that these are either expressly warranted by the Word of God and the subordinate for¬ mularies of the Church of Scotland, or follow from them, as conclusions from premises and corollaries from geometrical axioms. And they plead further that these are, in different respects, necessary to the support and the consistent maintenance of the other. On the contrary, some late partial histoi’ians of the Secession have done injury to its cause in another way. In order to present it in a point of view more attractive to the spirit of the present age, or more congenial to their own sentiments, they have narrowed its ground, thrown some of its prominent parts into shade, and fixed the attention wholly on others, which, however important in the eyes of the founders of the Secession, never occupied their entire and exclusive regards. The exertions which they made in defence of the leading doctrines of the Gospel, and the rights of the Christian people, are too well known to stand in need of empty panegyric ; and those do little honour to their memory who deal in this, while they disparage or throw a veil over their contendings in behalf of a great and extensive cause of which these formed but a part. When it appeared that there was no reasonable prospect of the grounds of their separation being removed, and of their being able to return conscien¬ tiously into the bosom of the established church, the Seceding ministers found it their duty to dispense divine ordinances to those through the country who laboured under the same grievances with themselves. But they did not act 188 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. on the limited principle, afterwards adopted by another society, of merely affording relief to those who felt galled and oppressed by the yoke of Patron¬ age ; nor did they think that they could discharge the duty which, as ministers of Christ and of the Church of Scotland, they owed to the existing and subse¬ quent generations, if they confined their endeavours to the promoting of what immediately concerned the spiritual interests of those who might place them¬ selves under their ministerial and judicative inspection. They felt that there was a public cause, and more general and extensive interests, which had a claim upon them. They, along with the people adhering to them, had for a series of years been testifying, in communion with the established church, against a variety of evils deeply affecting the interests of religion, or, as they express it in their Deed of Secession, “a course of defection from our reformed and covenanted principles.” Finding themselves now placed in a new situa¬ tion, and in the possession of greater liberty than they had formerly enjoyed ; looking around them on the religious state of the church and nation with which they were connected ; and taking into serious consideration the mani¬ fold obligations under which they lay, they judged themselves called, “ in the course of sovereign and holy Providence, to essay the revival of reformation,” and to employ all the means competent to them for advancing this work. In prosecution of this design they published their Judicial Testimony and other ofiicial papers, settled the terms of their communion, and regulated their pub¬ lic managements. The object proposed by the founders of this association was of a precise and definite kind. As they did not push themselves forward, nor put their hand to a work of such difficulty, without being satisfied of the call which they had to engage in it, nor propose to do more for its advancement than Providence might put in their power, and lay within their sphere as an ecclesiastical body ; so they did not conceal the objects which they aimed at, nor leave the world in any doubt as to their nature and extent. It was a specific reformation which they proposed. They did not come forward in the suspicious character of general reformers, who would not avow what they intended to pull down, and did not know what they would build up in its room ; they did not plan a reform according to a scheme of pi’inciples of their own ; nor was it their object to overturn that church which had lately driven them from its com¬ munion. But they appeared as a part of the Church of Scotland, adhering to her reformed constitution, testifying against the injuries which it had received, seeking the redress of these, and pleading for the revival of a I’eformation, attained, according to the Word of God, in a former period, approved by every authority in the land, and ratified by solemn vows to the Most High. With¬ out right views of this Reformation it is impossible to understand the Secession Testimony ; and disaffection to the former, in proportion to the degree in which it prevails, necessarily implies a dereliction of the latter. The same principles which led our fathers in Scotland to free themselves from the tyranny and corruptions of Rome, induced their successors to cast off the imposed yoke of a Protestant hierarchy, and to rid themselves of the abuses which it had brought along with it. When they associated for this pur¬ pose, they needed only to renew the covenant by which popery had been first abjured, with a few slight explications and accommodations of its language to their existing circumstances. It is not, therefore, needful for me to go farther back than the Second Reformation, as it is usually called, which took place APPENDIX. 189 between the year 1638 and 1650, and which embodied, in its proceedings and settlement, all the valuable attainments of the First Reformation, and carried them to a greater extent. These included summarily, — the revival of the purity of doctrine, which had been corrupted by Popish errors introduced under the new garb of Arminianism — of the purity of worship, which had been depraved by the imposition of foreign rites and ceremonies — and of the government, discipline, and liberties of the church, which had been supplanted and overthrown by royal supremacy and the usurpations of prelacy. But the most important and discriminating feature of this period was the extension of the Reformation to England and Ireland. It is well-known that religion was very imperfectly reformed in the first as well as in the last of these countries, and that many Popish abuses and corruptions were allowed to remain in its worship and government. These defects had been all along com¬ plained of by the best English Protestants, who often sighed for the purity and freedom of religion enjoyed by their neighbours. The growing oppression of the ecclesiastical courts, the religious innovations tending to pave the way for peace with Rome, and the invasions on the civil liberties of the nation during the early administration of Charles I., inflamed these complaints and wishes, and communicated them to the greater and better part of that kingdom. The struggle which ensued between the friends of reformation and liberty on the one hand, and an arbitrary and popishly -affected court on the other, led to the formation of the famous Solemn League, which had for its principal and leading object the preservation of the reformed religion iu Scotland, the reformation of religion in England and Ireland, and the bringing of the churches in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and unifor¬ mity in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government. From this time the Reformation in Scotland, England, and Ireland was combined, and whatever may since have been its actual fate in any of these countries, its true and enlightened friends have never ceased to regard it as one common object of interest, and, so far as it was in their power to promote it, of endeavour and exertion. The steps taken to fulfil these sacred stipulations, the progress made in the work, and the causes of its being interrupted in England, endangered in Scotland, and at last perfidiously overthrown in the three kingdoms, are known to all who are not utter strangers to the most interesting and eventful period of the history of Britain. The work of which we speak was properly one — a reformation of religion ; although we usually speak of it as ecclesiastical and civil, in respect of the two authorities engaged in carrying it on. The Ecclesiastical Reformation in Scotland consisted of what was done by the judicatories of the church, to whom it belonged directly and properly to set in order the house of God, and to correct what was amiss in religious profession or practice. This includes the condemning of the Episcopal innovations and abuses, the reviving of the Presbyterian worship and dicipline, and in general the raising up of the ancient constitution of the church from the rubbish in which it had been buried for many years ; all of which was preceded by the renewing of the National Cove¬ nant. It includes also the encouragement given by the General Assembly to the proposals of union with England and Ireland, their forming and promoting of the Solemn League and Covenant, sending of commissioners to the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, receiving and approving of the formularies agreed on by that Assembly, and proceeding to act on them as subordinate standards 190 THE UNITY OF THE CHUECH. of that religious unity and conjunction between the churches in the three kingdoms which they had sworn to promote. The Civil Eeformation consists in what was done by the civil authorities, within their sphere, and in co-opera¬ tion with the ecclesiastical judicatories, for advancing the same cause. This includes what was done by the Parliament, or the Convention of Estates, in Scotland (not to speak at present of the Parliament of England), in abolishing Episcopacy, legalising what the church had done in the revival of presbytery, entering into and prosecuting the ends of the League with England and Ireland, sanctioning the standards of uniformity, ratifying the liberties of the church and abohshing patronage, reforming places of power and trust, and settling the constitutional laws of the kingdom in such a way as to secure the reformation which had been attained. When Seceders, in their Testimony and other public papers, speak of our Civil Reformation, they do not mean a reform objectively civil, or which embraced objects which were purely civil and political. They express an ap¬ probation of the struggles of our ancestors in behalf of civil liberty, which, indeed, was at that period closely and inseparably connected with religion. But they were aware that it was incompetent for them as a religious body to bear a testimony in favour of a particular form of civil government, or of certain laws as contributing most to the political welfare of a people. They can be understood only as referring to civil laws and managements, so far as they had religion for their object, or as they affected and were in one way or another connected with its interests, by contributing to its advancement or security. And in the same sense must we understand them, when they con¬ demn the political settlement by which the reformation was overturned, or particular parts of the existing constitution and laws. Viewed in this light, an approbation of “ our ancient Civil Reformation,” and a disapprobation of “ our present civil deformation,” form a necessary and important branch of their testimony and profession.^ 1 Speaking of the Judicial Act and Testi¬ mony, the A.ssociate Presbytery say, in their Answers to Mr Nairn; “According to the particular calls of Providence hitherto, that Testimony, — was especially in favours of our ancient ecclesiastical Reformation,; and against those evils whereby the same hath been, in a great measure, departed from and overthrown : while a Testimony for our ancient civil reformation, — and against these evils whereby the same hath been, in a great measure, deviated from and destroyed ; was lifted up, and all along carried forward. But at this time the Presbytery have a particular call of Providence, — to bear wit¬ ness more especially unto our ancient civil reformation.” Having laid down in general the principles on which such a reformation rests, they proceed to say: “Agreeably unto all this, the Deed of Civil Constitution was set \ipon a reformed footing ; by Act VIII., Pari. 1, James VI. Though the above settlement was for some time followed by suitable administration, yet a course of lamentable defection and corruption therein did soon prevail : ’Till a reviving of the true religion and reformation in the church took place, and was gloriously advanced betwixt the years 1638 and 1650. That work of God, which became then engaged unto through- I out the three kingdoms by a Solemn League J and Covenant, — was also, in an agreeable- 1 ness to this Covenant, accompanied with i and supported by a civil reformation. In | England (wherewith we have become more J nearly concerned than formerly, by virtue K of the Solemn League and Covenant), the I civil administration was, in some valuable ■ instances, subservient unto the said work of f God. But more considerable advances were J made in Scotland : While, beside many laud- f able acts in the civil administration, the J deed of Civil Constitution was farther re- J' formed than ever before ; by Act XV. of * the second session of Parliament, anno 1649. f And according unto this settlement was jf King Charles 11. crowned at Scoou, Janu- J. ary 1st 1651. - “The Presbytery intend not to affirm, jf that there was nothing defective in the '! above managements ; or that no impru- dencies or mistakes were to be found there- ■■ in. It is evident, however, that, by the good hand of God, the Estates of England, but more especially of Scotland, were in¬ spired with a noble and predominant zeal for the House of God, in all its valuable in- ’ stitutions; and attained to a considerable ; APPENDIX. 191 By the good hand of God upon her, Scotland attained to greater purity in religion, and higher degrees of reformation, than any other protestant country. It is the duty of one generation to declare the works of God to another, and no people can depart from religious attainments without being deeply guilty. But this is not all. In no nation has the true religion been so solemnly avouched as in Scotland. Every important step taken in reformation was accompanied with confessions, protestations, vows, covenants, and oaths, which were made and subscribed by all ranks, voluntarily, cheerfully, joyfully, repeated on every new emergency and call, and ratified by every authority in the land. Hence, it has obtained the distinguishing name of the covenanted reformation ; and under this view was it embraced by the associated body of Seceders, who, by renewing these engagements in an oath adapted to the time and to their cir¬ cumstances as a church, served themselves heirs to the professions, vows, and contendings of their fathers, or rather to the cause of God transmitted to them by their fathers under all these sacred sanctions and solemnities. It is of importance to distinguish between the reformation materially and formally considered. The Westminster standards were not the reformation, nor did they form any part of it farther than they were received and approved, and than religion was reformed and settled according to them. We may approve of the Confessions of the reformed church of France or of Helvetia, or of Holland. In like manner persons may approve of the Westminster standards, as to doctrine, worship, and church-government, and a religious society may conduct its ecclesiastical affairs according to them ; and yet they may not adopt or promote the covenanted reformation, properly and formally considered. To adhere to these, since the reformation took place, is to adopt them as a system of religion which is still entitled, both by divine and by human right, to be professed and established in the three nations ; — to testify against all proceedings prejudicial to it, and all laws introducing or maintain¬ ing another system, as what no friend of reformation, can bind himself actively to support and countenance ; — and to hold that it is the duty of all classes to endeavour, in their station and by all lawful means, to have the reformed and Presbyterian religion publicly and legally settled, — and that from the consider¬ ation not only of the divine authority on which it rests and its intrinsic excel¬ lence, but also of the additional obligation arising from national oaths and leagues, and the former attainments and laws of church and state, which are still virtually pleadable, and in a moral point of view retain their force. Thus formally was the covenanted reformation adopted and testified for by Seceders.^ Hence the particularity with which they specified and condemned. pitch of civil reformation, subservient unto the same : All which this Presbytery desires, with thankfulness, to commemorate and bear witness unto. Upon the whole, it is observable, that in Scotland, the reforma¬ tion of the church hath always, in a beauti¬ ful order, preceded and introduced the re¬ formation of the State.” Display of the Secession Testimony, vol. i. pp. 27S, 281 —284. 1 “ The profession, defence, and mainte¬ nance of the true religion, in doctrine, wor¬ ship, discipline, and Presbyterial church- government, agreeable unto and founded upon the Word of God, — was secured by the fundamental constitution of the civil government in our reforming periods ; which deed of constitution, in all moral respects, is morally unalterable, — because of its agree¬ ableness to the divine will revealed in the Word, and because it was attained to and fixed in pursuance of our Solemn Cove¬ nants.” The Associate Presbytery’s An¬ swers to Mr Nairn, in Display, vol. i. p. 274. In the same paper, the Presbytery, after deploring “ the fatal overthrow of the former civil reformation ” at the Ee- storation, and pointing out in what respects the settlements at the Revolution and TJnion were inconsistent with it, concludes thus : “Upon the whole, it appears, that, under the present constitution, a mighty bar is 192 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. in their judicial acts, the various steps of deviation from this cause in church and in state. They condemned not only the series of wicked laws passed at the Restoration, but also various evils in the Revolution settlement, and in the in¬ corporating Union, by the fundamental articles of which Scotland was “ more deeply involved in perjury” by giving her consent to “the maintenance and preservation of the hierarchy and ceremonies of the Church of England.” ’ Hence also the care with which they guarded against all professions or engage¬ ments which implied an approbation of these defections and of the united con¬ stitution. They evinced this by declining to swear the usual public oaths, at the expense of relinquishing privileges to which they were otherwise entitled, and of exposing themselves to the charge of disloyalty from those who were ignorant of their principles or disposed to misrepresent them.^ This is the fair amount of their principles on this head, and what they never sought to conceal from the beginning. But they, at the same time, denied that any minority, and far less that they themselves, as an ecclesiastical body, had any right to dictate laws to the nation. They reckoned that they did all that was incumbent on them, when they gave information and warning, as they were called from time to time, respecting public sins and duties, and when they continued to promote religious reformation within their own sphere. They did not stretch themselves beyond their line, nor suffer themselves to be diverted, by the testimony which they bore against public evils, from oppos¬ ing those of a more private kind, and whose remedy lay more directly within their reach ; nor did they, it is hoped, become indifferent about those ends which ought to be kept immediately in view by every church of Christ — the salvation of sinners, and building up of saints on their most holy faith. They never judged that they had a call to address the throne or the legislature on the subject of religion ; and they knew that no such change as they desired can take place in the national profession and laws with regard to it, until a previous ch.ange shall have been effected on the sentiments and inclinations of the various orders of the people.® I know that it has now become fashionable to discredit this work, and to represent every appearance of attachment to it as a sure mark of bigotry, and a mind weakly wedded to ancient prejudices, or, as some modishly express it, to the relics of a barbarous age. To the most of our modem great pretenders to religion the very name of a Covenanted Reformation is offensive and intolerable. Many who would still fain speak well of it, look upon anything that was good in it as of temporary interest, and quite unsuitable to our times ; while the greater part of those who once appeared as its avowed and sworn friends, after shrinking from the odium attached to it, and testifying their willingness to divide the cause, appear now to be ashamed even to name it. But is there any good reason for this 1 I may venture to assert, that if ever all that was great and valuable to a people was concerned in any work, it was concerned in thrust in the way of our covenanted refor¬ mation, both in church and state: yea, a gi'avestone is laid and established on the same.” Answers to Mr Nairn, in Display, vot. i. p. 286. 1 Ibid. p. 285. ^ Ibid. p. 291. The inconsistency of an unqualified approbation of the present con¬ stitution with adherence to a previous re¬ formation, is maintained by the Associ¬ ate Presbytery in that Public Deed, the express design of which is to condemn “ the dangerous extreme, which some had gone into, of impugning the present civil authority over these nations, and sub¬ jection thereunto in lawful commands, — on account of the want of these qualifications magistrates ought to have by the Word of God and our covenants; even although they allow us the free exercise of our religion, and are not manifestly unhinging the liberties of the kingdom.” » Ibid. p. 280. APPENDIX. 193 that under our consideration. The design was nothing less than the advance¬ ment of true religion, in connection with libei’ty — of religion, in all its extent, among individuals, families, and the public, and the providing, in the best manner, for the continuance and perpetuity of it in the three kingdoms, that unborn posterity might reap the fruits of the toil and travel and sufferings of their fathers, and might live happily in peace and in the fear of God. It proposed the correction of abuses which had long been matter of grievance ; and the settlement of religion and church-order on scriptural principles and agreeably to known and approved precedents, and not according to any visionary, hazardous, or untried scheme. It was the effect of long and ardent wishes, and of many prayers. The wisest and most godly in Britain, from the commencement of the Reformation, had desired to see such a work, and hailed it at a distance. Providence afforded an opportunity for engaging in it when it was least expected, and for some time smiled on the attempt. Nor was it overturned until the benefits to be expected from it were attested in the experience of thousands, who till then had been almost total strangers to Christianity. Let sober thinkers only reflect for a moment, what advantages would have ensued, if religion had been settled agreeably to the Solemn League and the plan recommended by the Westminster Assembly; and if that settlement had been allowed to stand. Of what benefit would it have been to England, if a lordly hierarchy, together with a burdensome and unprofitable mass of human rites and ceremonies, and an ignorant, idle, and scandalous clergy, had been removed ; and if, in their place, an evangelical, pious, laborious, and regular ministry had been settled in every parish, with elders to inspect the morals of the people, and deacons to attend to the wants of the poor, under the superin¬ tendence of presbyteries and synods ! Would not this have proved of incal¬ culable advantage to that nation, in a religious, moral, and political point of viewl Would it not have been a powerful check on the spread of error, the increase of schism, and the prevalence of ignorance, profaneness, and vice! Of what benefit might it not have been before this day to unhappy Ireland, which has been perhaps more indebted to colonies from Scotland, and to the religion imported by them, than to any boon it has received from England ! And would not great benefit have redounded from it to Scotland herself, whose ecclesiastical constitution and liberties, as well as the religious principles and habits of her people, have suffered so much formerly and of late, from her intimate connection with a country in which a system opposite in various respects to hers has been established 1 If there is any truth in the representa¬ tion now given, let me again ask. Is it not matter of the deepest regret that this work should have been interrupted and overturned? That it continues still buried? That an opposite system was reared on its grave, which has been and still is productive of manifold evils ? Are not these national sins ? Is it possible to fi’ee them from the high aggravation of perfidy, after the solemn pledges that were publicly exchanged and ratified ? Is it not a great duty to testify against these sins, and to seek a revival of that Reformation ? This is what has been done by Seceders. If this forms their peculiarity, they have reason to glory in, not to be ashamed of it ; and the only real disgrace which they can incur is that which will attach to their withdrawing from the cause, and deserting their good profession. In considering this cause there are two things which are very commonly N 194 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. overlooked and •which merit particular attention. In the first place, it embraced a plan of reUriious union. This 'was its avowed object. It was so from the beginning, and was kept in eye through the whole progress of the work. Reformation was a means to this end. It was indeed absolutely necessary to the attainment of it. The corruptions retained in the English Church — the hierarcliy, with its usurped claims, temporal and spiritual, the liturgy, the total absence of all ecclesiastical discipline, a non-resident and non-preaching clergy, the Arminian and Popish errors which they had patronised, — these, with various abuses connected with them, had proved a source of continued discord and division in England, had embroiled her with Scotland, and served as a wall of partition between her and all foreign churches professing the same faith. Until these evils were removed it was vain to look for union either at home or abroad. The platform of reformation was so constructed as to promise the accomplishment of this desirable object. The system of faith laid down in the Confession and Catechisms "was substantially the same with what was declared in the Confessions and Catechisms of all the reformed on the Con¬ tinent. The form of church-government was “according to the Word of God and the example of the best reformed churches.” Public worship was set free from the trammels of a formal and stinted liturgy, and at the same time duly guarded by the Directory, which, while it “ held forth such things as are of divine institution in every oi’dinance,” regulated others “ accoi’ding to the rules of Christian pnidence, agreeable to the general rules of the Word of God,” and gave such instructions to ministers as tended to produce “ a consent of all the churches in those things that contain the substance of the service and worship of God.” The more narrowly the proceedings of the Assembly which prepared the model of religious reformation and uniformity are looked into, the more, I am persuaded, will it appear, that, in the conclusions to which they came (particularly on the controversies which arose at that time among the friends of religion), they displayed a healing and moderate spirit, combined with an enlightened regard to truth and the general welfare of the church, which showed them to be uncommonly fitted for the great task which Pro¬ vidence assigned to them, and which has not been displayed in the same degree by any assembly, extraordinary or ordinary, which the world has since seen. The second thing to which I alluded as meriting particular notice in this work, is the extensive scale on which it was undertaken. Its object was not only to reform and unite, but to reform religion and settle ixnity through three kingdoms. Nor was this all. Though called more immediately to provide for their own safety and to promote Christianity in that part of the world where they dwelt, those who embarked in it did not confine their views to this object. They had before their eyes the security of “ the true religion and pro¬ fessors thereof in all places,” the forming of an association among “other Christian churches,” and in general “ the enlargement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ.” These ends, expressed in their solemn bond of confederation, were never lost sight of in the prosecution of their undertaking. Theirs was no narrow', contracted, or sectarian plan. On the contrary, it was one of their principal objects, in all that they did, to testify their charity and conformity to all the reformed churches, to abolish those restrictions which had prevented free intercourse with them, and to secure union, communion, and co-operation with them upon the great principles of Christianity and Protestantism. APPENDIX. 195 Under botli of these important views was the Reformation adopted by Seceders. In publishing their Testimony, their language on the matter was : “We have no peculiar principles: we abide by and declare our adherence to those hooks which are still professedly owned by the national Church of Scot¬ land, and which were agreed on as the standards of religious uniformity in the three nations ; we are willing to hold communion with all who shall be found consistently adhering to these ; and to them, as a subordinate test, we are ready to submit the decision of every point which forms the subject of dispute and controversy between us and others.” The same language all true adherents to the cause of the Reformation still continue to hold. The same offers they still make. In vindicating their Secession, and stating its grounds, they were necessarily led to give greater prominence to the state of religion in Scotland, and to their contendings with the judicatories of that church with which they had been intimately connected. But they did not allow these to engross their regard. They considered it as a high duty to promote religion in England and Ireland, which are as much interested in the cause of the Secession, rightly understood, as Scotland. When they complied with peti¬ tions from these countries, and erected congregations in consequence of them, they did not lay themselves open to the charge of enlisting followers under the standard of a party, or engaging them in local controversies in which they had no concern ; but could plead, with the utmost truth, that they only embodied them under principles and obligations which were common to the three nations. In fine, while they considered themselves bound to do what in them lay to enlarge the kingdom of Christ, they reckoned that they had a special call to send the Gospel to those distant parts of the world where there were settlers from this country ; and by the exertions which they made in this way from an early period, multitudes have enjoyed the means of religious instruc¬ tion and salvation who would otherwise have heen left totally destitute of them. When the Secession from the Church of Scotland was first declared, its friends wei’e not under the necessity of proving tlie leading principles on which their Testimony in favour of the Reformation proceeded. This had been the work of their fathers ; and they were not called to lay again the foundation, when there were few around them who attacked it. Their opponents, while they condemned them for testifying in the w^ay of separation from the estab¬ lished church, went along with them in owning the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession, the divine right of Presbytery, and even the con¬ tinued obligation of our National Covenants. The state of matters is now, and has for a considerable time been, very different. All these have been attacked with great keenness from various quarters ; and it no longer remains a matter of doubt or dispute, that the greater part of Seceders themselves have re¬ linquished their adherence to the Reformation cause, and are disposed to call in question those things which were once most surely believed among them. A vindication of these has become more than ever necessary. This, however, is not proposed in these pages. All that I mean is to suggest a few things which may tend to obviate the difficulties of such as still feel attached to the cause, while their minds have heen thrown into confusion and emharrassment by the specious and plausible objections which have heen confidently advanced against it. And I shall endeavour to do this with all possible succinctness. One of the most common and startling objections brought forward is that which involves a charge against the Westminster Confession of Faith, as 196 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. favourable to persecution for conscience sake, and arming the civil magistrate with a power to punish good and peaceable subjects purely on the ground of their religious opinions and practices. This is a charge which affects all who have owned that Confession, or who declare a simple adherence to it ; and among these are many who, it will not be denied, have shown themselves strenuous friends of the rights of conscience, and who were not likely to subscribe any formulary which they had not examined and did not believe. The passage chiefly referred to is in chap. xx. § 4. Let us ti’y if it justifles the charge. In the second section the doctrine of liberty of conscience is thus laid down : “ God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments, is to betray true liberty of con¬ science and reason also ; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.” This is an important doctrine, and necessary to be maintained against the encroachments and unwarrantable claims of every creature, and of rulers both civil and ecclesiastical. May every man then think and speak, and act as he pleases, under the plea that his conscience gives him liberty to do so, or dictates to him that he ought to do so? To guard against this pernicious abuse of the doctrine is the object of what follows in the Confession. In section third, those are condemned who, “ upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practise any sin or cherish any lust.” The design of section fourth is to guard against the abuse of the doctrine in reference to public authority : “ And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the libei’ty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another ; they who, upon prgtence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.” He who is the Lord of the conscience has also instituted the authorities in church and state ; and it would be in the highest degi’ee absurd to suppose that he has planted in the breast of every individual a power to resist, counteract, and nullify his own ordinances. When public and private claims interfere and clash, the latter must give way to the former ; and when any lawful authority is proceeding lawfully within its line of duty, it must be understood as possessing a rightful power to remove out of the way everything which necessarily obstructs its progress. The Confession proceeds, accordingly, to state : “ And for their pub¬ lishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether con¬ cerning faith, worship, or convei’sation, or to the power of godliness ; or such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church ; they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.” Now, this does not say that all who pub¬ lish such opinions and maintain such practices as are mentioned, may be pro¬ ceeded against, or punished (if the substitution of this word shall be insisted on) by the civil magistrate ; nor does it say, that any good and peaceable subject shall APPENDIX. 197 be made liable to this process simply on the ground of religious opinions pub¬ lished and practices maintained by him. For, in the first place, persons of a particular character are spoken of in this paragraph, and these are very dif¬ ferent from good and peaceable subjects. They are described in the former sentence as “ they who oppose lawful power or the lawful exercise of it,” and “resist the ordinance of God.” The same persons are spoken of in the sentence under consideration, as appears from the copulative and relative. It is not said, “Any one for publishing,” &c., but “ they who oppose any lawful power, &c. for their publishing,” &c. In the second place, this sentence speci¬ fies some of the ways in which these persons may become chargeable with the opposition mentioned, and consequently “ may be called to account ; ” but it does not assert that even they must or ought to be prosecuted for every avowed opinion or practice of the kind refei’red to. All that it necessarily implies is, that they may be found opposing lawful powers or the lawful exei'- cise of them in the things specified, and that they are not entitled to plead a general irresponsibility in matters of that kind : notwithstanding such a plea, “ they may be called to account and proceeded against.” F or, be it observed, it is not the design of this paragraph to state the objects of church censure or civil prosecution : its proper and professed object is to interpose a check on the abuse of liberty of conscience as operating to the prejudice of just and lawful authority. It is not sin as sin, but as scandal, or injurious to the spiritual interests of Christians, that is the proper object of church censure ; and it is not for sins as such, but for crimes, that persons become liable to punishment by magistrates. The compilers of the Confession were quite aware of these distinctions, which were then common. Some think that if the process of the magistrate had been limited to offences “ contrary to the light of nature,” it would have been perfectly justifiable ; but the truth is, that it would have been so only on the interpretation now given. To render an action the proper object of magistratical punishment, it is not enough that it be con¬ trary to the law of God, whether natural or revealed ; it must, in one way or another, strike against the public good of society. He who “ provides not for his own, especially those of his own house,” sins against “ the light of nature,” as also does he who is ‘'a lover of pleasures more than of God but there are few who will plead that magistrates are bound to proceed against and punish every idler and belly-god. On the other hand there are opinions and practices “contrary to the known principles of Christianity,” or grafted upon them, which either in their own nature, or from the circumstances with which they may be clothed, may prove so injurious to the welfare of society in general, or of particular nations, or of their just proceedings, or of lawful institutions established in them, as to subject their publishers and maintainers to warrant¬ able coercion and punishment. As one point to which these may relate, I may mention the external observance and sanctification of the Lord’s Day, which can be known only from “the principles of Christianity,” and is connected with all the particulars specified by the Confession — “ faith, worship, conversa¬ tion, the power of godliness, and the external order and peace of the church.” That many other instances of a similar description can be produced, will be denied by no sober-thinking person who is well acquainted with popish tenets and practices, and with those which prevailed among the English sectaries during the sitting of the Westminster Assembly ; and he who does not deny 198 THE UNITY OF THE CHUECH. this, cannot be entitled, I should think, upon any principles of fair construc¬ tion, to fix the stigma of perseeution on the passage in question. In support of the objection under consideration, some have referred to chap. 23 of the Confession, in which it is stated to be the magistrate’s duty to “ take order that — all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed,” &e. But as certain means by which he is to endeavour to effect this end are thei’e mentioned, without one word about coercion or punishment, every person must pereeive that that passage gives no occasion for such an inference. Others appeal to passages in the private writings of Presbyterians at the period when the Con¬ fession was compiled. But it is evidently unjust to attempt in this way to fasten on a public deed an odious sense which its own language does not natively and necessarily imply. Would all those who wish to make Ruther¬ ford’s treatise on Pretended Liherty of Conscience an authentic interpreter of the passages in question, be willing to make the same use of his treatise on Spiritual Antichrist with reference to the doctrine taught by the Confession on the Covenant of Grace ? Or, would they be willing that the same use should be made of the writings of individuals in the present day in disputes about the principles of the bodies with which they are connected, before the public or before courts of judicature ? Another objection brought against the Confession is, that it subjects matters purely religious and ecclesiastical to the cognisance of the civil magis¬ trate, and allows him an Erastian power in and over the church. This, if true, would be very strange, considering that the Assembly who compiled it were engaged in a dispute against this very claim with the Parliament under whose protection they sat, and that owing to their steady refusal to coneede that power to the state (in which they were supported by the whole body of Pres¬ byterians), the ereetion of presbyteries and synods in England was suspended. Independently of this important fact, the declarations of the Confession itself are more than sufficient to repel the imputation. It declares “ that there is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ,” (chap. 25, § 6), and that He, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. To these officer’s the keys of the kingdom are committed,” (chap. 30, § 1, 2). Yea, the very passage appealed to in support of the objection begins with the following pointed declaration : “ The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” (chap. 23, § 3). “ The keys of the king¬ dom of heaven” include all the power exercised in the church, under Christ its sole King; not only that w’hich is ordinarily exercised in the government of particular congregations and in censuring offenders (chap. 30), but also the power “ ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of con¬ science, to set down rules and directioirs for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his chui’ch, to receive complaints in cases of mal-administration, and authoritatively to determine the same,” (chap. 31, § 3). The Confession teaches that magistrates cannot warrantably assume to themselves the power of doing these things, and what it adds must be understood in a consistency with this declaration. It is ti-ue, that it allots to the magistrate a care of religion, and asserts that “ he hath authority, and it is his duty to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the church,” &c. But is there no order which he can take for having these things done by the persons and in the way by and in which they ought to be done, without taking APPENDIX. 199 the doing of them into his hand, and thus assuming what does not belong to him ? The Confession asserts that there is, and proceeds to say : “ For the better effecting whereof^ he hath power to call synods.” And is there any good reason for absolutely denying him this power ? When “ the unity and peace of the church ” are broken and endangered in any country, “ the truth of God ” is depraved, “ blasphemies and heresies ” of almost every kind are spreading, “ corruptions and abuses in worship ” are abounding, and when, the church being disorganised, there is no general authority of an ecclesiastical kind to use means for remedying these evils, may not the civil government of that country warrantably call a synod for that pm-pose ? When the state of the nation, as well as of the church, may be convulsed, and its convulsions may be in a great degree owing to religious disorders, is it not a high duty incum¬ bent on him to take such a step, provided he finds it practicable and advis¬ able? Was not this the state of matters in England when the Westminster Assembly met ? Was not the state of matters similar in many respects at the Revolution in Scotland ? And may not a crisis of the same kind yet recur ? Was there any rational ground to think, at the period of the Westminster Assembly, that such a synod would have met, or, supposing it somehow to have been collected, that it could have continued together until it had finished its business, if it had not been convoked, maintained, and protected, by the Parliament of England ? Do many of those who deny the power in question X’eflect, that they owe those books which they still, in one degree or another, own as the subordinate standards of their ecclesiastical communion, to a synod which was thus convoked? Do they reflect, that by means of them the interests of religion have been promoted to an incalculable degree, “ unity and peace preserved in the church,” &c. from the period of their compilation down to the present day, in Scotland, in England, in Ireland, and in America ? Or, recollecting these things, are they prepared to take the pen and insert their absolute veto — “ The civil magistrate — for the better effecting thereof, hath ” NOT “ power to call synods ?” At the same time it may be observed here, as on the former objection, that it is not asserted that the magistrate may exer¬ cise this power on all occasions and in all circumstances, or whenever thei’e are any evils of a religious kind to correct. It is sufficient that there may be times and circumstances in which he may waiTautably exert this power. It is true that the Confession, in another place, (chap. 31, § 2), is not sufficiently full and e.xplicit in declai’ing the intrinsic right of the church to convoke synods. But this defect was supplied by the Act of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland receiving and approving of the Confession and in the Formula used in the Secession from the beginning an approbation of the Confession is required, “ as received” by that Act of Assembly. After stating that the magisti-ate has power to call synods, it is added, “ to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.” Not to insist here, that these words ought, in fair construction, to be understood of such synods as have been convoked by the magistrate, what reasonable objection can be made to his being present? May he not claim a right to be present at any public meeting within his X “For the better government and further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called Synods or Councils ; i. e. for attaining the end better than can be accomplished in sra.aller meetings of church officers.” (Conf. chap. ,31.) 2 See Act of Assembly, prefixed to all our copies of the Confession of Faith. Agree¬ ably to this Act was the Confession ratified by the Parliament of Scotland. 200 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. dominions ? May he not be present in a synod to witness their proceedings, to preserve their external peace, to redress their grievances, or (why not ?) to receive their advice or admonitions ? But, if it be supposed that his pre¬ sence is necessary to give validity to their proceedings, and that he sits as preses of their meeting, or as director of their deliberations and votes, I shall only say that the words of the Confession give not the slightest countenance to such claims, which are utterly inconsistent with the common principles of Presbyterians, and in particular with the well-known and avowed principles of the Church of Scotland. A similar answer may be given to the objection against the last clause of the paragraph. May not any Christian, whatever his station be, “ provide that whatsoever is transacted,” even in synods, “ be according to the mind of God?” If the legislature or government of a nation have a special care about religion, or if there is any particular duty at all which they have to discharge respecting it, and particularly if they have power in any case to call synods, must it not in a special manner be incumbent on them to see to this ? Nor does this imply that they are in possession of any ecclesias¬ tical powers, or that they pass a public judgment on true and false religion. Their private judgment is sufficient to regulate them in their public manage¬ ments in this as well as on many other subjects, about which they exercise their authority, without sustaining themselves as the proper judges of them, as in the case of many arts, sciences, &c., which they patronise and encourage. Must not Christian rulers, judges, and magistrates provide that “whatsoever is transacted” by themselves, “ be according to the mind of God?” Is it not highly fit that they should be satisfied, and that they should by every proper means provide that the determinations of synods be according to the mind of God, if they are afterwards to legalise them, or if they are to use their autho¬ rity for removing all external obstructions out of the way of their being carried into effect ; both of which they may do, without imposing them on the consciences of their subjects'? And, in fine, are there not various ways in which they may provide as here stated, without assuming a power foreign to their office, or intruding on the proper business of synods or ecclesiastical courts ? But, if it be supposed that the magistrate, as the proper judge in such matters, is to control the deliberations of the ecclesiastical assembly, to pre¬ scribe and dictate to them what their decisions shall be, or that, when they have deliberated and decided, he may receive appeals from their decisions, or may bring the whole before his tribunal, and review, alter, and reverse their sentences, I have only to say, as formerly, that the words of the Confession give not the slightest countenance to such claims, which are utterly inconsis¬ tent with the common principles of Presbyterians, and in particular with the well-known and avowed prineiples and contendings of the Church of Scotland. But though I consider these objections as destitute of a solid foundation, yet, as the construction on which they proceed has often been put on the pas¬ sages to which they refer, I, for my part, can see no good reason why an expla¬ nation should not be given of these passages, or of the doctrine contained in them, with the view of preventing all misconception of the sentiments of those who approve of the Confession ; provided the two following things are attended to. In the first place, that this declaration do not fix on the Confession the obnoxious sentiments which are disclaimed. And, in the second place, that it do not, under the cover of general and ambiguous expressions, invalidate or set aside the general doctrine respecting the exercise of civil authority about APPENDIX. 201 religion which is recognised in the Westminster Confession, and in those of all Protestant churches. Explanations of this kind were given in the early papers of the Secession, which are sufficient to show that they entertained no princi¬ ples favourable to persecution or injurious to the liberties and independence of the church, and that they did not view the Confession as containing such principles.^ That magistrates are not exempted from all concern about religion in their public and official capacity, and that civil authority ought to be employed, and is capable in different ways of being employed, for the advancement of religion, and, in Christian countries, for the good of the church, is a doctrine, which, in my opinion, is not only true, but of great practical importance. I shall state, as briefly as I can, the grounds on which I consider this doctrine as resting, and the leading explications and qualifications with which it has been received among Presbyterians, and particularly in the Secession. The general doctrine seems equally consonant to the dictates of sound reason, the maxims of good policy, and the uniform tenor and express declarations of Scriptui’e. The obligations and the practice of religion in some degree must be supposed to exist antecedently to the erection of social institutions among mankind. It enters into all the duties and offices of life ; and none are at liberty to over¬ look or be indifferent about its interests in any relation in which they stand, or in reference to any connection which they may form. It is the firmest bond of social union, tbe most efficient check on power, the sti’ongest security for obedience, the principal source of justice, fidelity, humanity, and all the virtues. In framing their laws, all nations, ancient and modern, have availed themselves of its sanctions, and made provision in one way or another, for that worship which they practised. And the principle on which they acted was expressly recognised, and applied to the true religion, in the only system of national polity that ever was prescribed immediately by Heaven. It would be strange if a people professing Christianity should give the first example of a nation settling its fundamental laws and regulating the administration of its govern¬ ment, without acknowledging the God that is above, making any provision for the maintenance of his honour, or requiring any religious qualifications what¬ ever in those who were to I’ule over it. It would be stranger still, if it should be argued that Christianity itself requires this, and that it forbids any homage being done to its Founder by national laws, or any service being performed to him by their administrators. “ The public good of outward and common order in all reasonable society, to the glory of God, is the great and only end which those invested with magistracy can propose in a sole respect unto that office.”^ This distinguishes their office from that of ministers of the Gospel, which is versant about “ the disorders of men’s hearts.” But it does not surely mean, that there is nothing incumbent on magistrates but the employment of physical forcepn restraining men from committing injuries, or in putting down riots and seditions. The prevention of crimes and disorders is a more important object than their pun¬ ishment. A right to accomplish any end implies a right to use all the means that are necessary or conducive to the gaining of that end. And of all the means which are calculated to preserve order, to repress crimes, and to pi’o- mote the public and general good of society, the most powerful beyond all 1 Act and Testimony, apud Display, i. 156 — 159. And Answers to Nairn, ibid. p. 311 — 314. 2 Answers to Nairn, itt supra, p. 3li. 202 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. reasonable doubt is religion. On this ground it becomes one of the first duties of those who are intrusted with the care of the public weal of a nation, to preserve and cherish a sense of religion on the minds of the people at large, and for this purpose to give public countenance and decided encouragement to its institutions. And the more pure and perfect — the more free from imposture, falsehood, error, superstition, and other corruptions — the more certain in its foundation and the more forcible in its motives, that any system of religion is, the higher claims must it have to public countenance, both on the ground of its intrinsic truth and authority, and on account of its superior practical influence and utility. This is not to make religion an engine of state. It is to use it for one of those ends which it is calculated in its own nature to serve, and which its Author intended it should serve: it is to make the ordinances and the institutions of God mutually subservient, and thus to promote in a more extensive way his glory and the good of his creatures. Thus, as it is incumbent on all men to employ every lawful means, in their several stations, for advancing the true religion, the duty of the enlightened and patriotic magistrate, and the duty of the pious and public-spirited Chris¬ tian who may hold that office, become so far coincident, and a uniform manner of action, according to the complex character which the individual sustains, is produced. Magistracy is common to mankind at large, whether living wuthin or with¬ out the church. It supposes them capable of religion, and practising it in some shape under the moral government of God ; hut as it is founded on natural principles and on the moral law (which was prior to the Christian faith, and more extensively known), it would be absurd to suppose that it was instituted by the Mediator, or that it has the supernatural things peculiar to Christianity for its direct and proper object. “ As the whole institution and end of the office are cut out by and lie within the compass of natural principles, it w'ere absurd to suppose that there could or ought to be any exercise thereof towards its end, in the foresaid circumstances, but what can be argued for aud defended from natural principles : as, indeed, there is nothing especially allotted and allowed to magistrates by the Woi’d of God aud the Confessions of the Reformed Churches, but what can be so.”^ This establishes the power in ques¬ tion on its proper and broadest basis, as extending to natural religion, whether more imperfectly understood without revelation, or more fully explained in the Bible. But then it is to be observed, that religion and morality in all the extent to which they were contained in the law of nature, are taken into the system of Christianity. There is — there can be — no such thing as a distinct profession or practice of natural religion in Christian countries. And, conse¬ quently, there could be no objects of a religious kind, in such countries, about which magistratical power could be employed, unless it were to regard them as existing in the constitution of the Christian church, and see to the observ¬ ance of them as enforced by immediate divine authority, and connected with supernatural mysteries. To deny, thei’efore, that civil rulers have a right to do this, would be to represent the Gospel as making void instead of establish¬ ing the law, and as invalidating that authority and abridging those power’s, which the God of nature had instituted and conferred for the wisest and most beneficial purposes. When duly and wisely employed about the external con¬ cernments of the church, as a visible society erected in the world, so as to be 1 Answers to Nairn, ut supra. APPENDIX. 203 really serviceable to her interests, civil authority becomes doubly a blessing to a people, and as such it was repeatedly promised to Christian nations in the prophetic scriptures both of the Old and New Testament. But in this case there is no addition of power to magistracy, but merely an application of its common power, under the direction of its original general law, to a particular object, which is brought under its cognisance in some periods and places of the world. Tlie kingdom of Christ, though not of is in this world ; as exter¬ nally set up among men it is entitled to all the support and countenance which any ordinance of God can give it; and as its spirituality does not render it incapable of being injured by the kingdoms of this world, so neither does it render it incapable of being benefited by them. Church and state are essentially distinct and independent of eaeh other. But kingdoms and powers which are independent may surely maintain a friendly alliance ; they may assist and support each other ; and, although the one cannot make laws which are binding on the other, yet they may make laws which both tend and are intended for mutual advantage. Presbyterians have stated with as great clearness as those of any other denomination — I may safely say, with greater clearness — the divine origin, the independence, the spirituality, the heavenly constitution of the kingdom of Christ, and its distinction from secular kingdoms in its laws, administration, subjects, offices, judicatories, and speeial ends. But in perfeet consistency with all this, they have maintained that civil and ecclesiastical societies may sustain friendly relations ; that they may be helpful to each other, that they may have certain common objects about which both may be employed in a distinct manner’, and a common end beside that which is peculiar to each ; that the co- operation of temporal and spiritual power may be necessary for introducing or securing a public reformation of religion, w’hen it is opposed by violence, or when a corrupt system has established itself in all the departments of society ; and that civil authority, in ordinary times, may be exerted in securing and preserving the church in the peaceable, full, and permanent enjoyment of her peculiar liberties, government, and institutions. A civil establishment of a particular religion or church does not necessarily imply a power of legislating to the faith and consciences of Christians : nor an impos¬ ing of matters purely religious or of supernatural things as such, by civil penalties ; nor a depriving of subjects of their natural and eivil privileges simply on the ground of their dissent. Besides, there are various ways in which religion may be an object of public attention, and be encouraged by those who are in civil authority, supreme, and subordinate, without their attempting to establish a particular system, which, in many cases, would be impracticable or highly improper ; as when the mass of the people may be grossly ignorant of Christianity or superstitiously attached to a corrupt form of it, or when a nation may be greatly divided in their religious opinions and practice. But it is not the design of these pages to enlarge on this subject. Before dismissing it, however, I have two general remarks to make. In the first place, it is, to say the least, extremely inadvertent to represent this as a subject of mere speculation, on which Christians are called to form no opinion. Not to specify here tlie various practical lights in which the question may be viewed, it may be sufficient to mention, that national laws and their administration, whether in favour of a true or a false religion, have always had, and must have, great influence upon the opinions and conduct of the mass of the people. 204 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. Religious establishments exist in our own country, and are daily productive of good or evil : we must either approve or condemn them in whole, or we must do so in part ; but how can we do either, if we have no formed principles on the subject! In the second place, it is still more unreasonable to holdout that this is a matter of mere speculation to Seceders. After the statement that has been given of their principles ; — after their express approbation of the national covenants, of the Westminster Confession, of the civil reformation of Scotland, and the laws establishing the Protestant and Presbyterian religion ; — after their condemnation of the rescission of these laws at the Restoration ; — after their pointed censures of the Revolution-settlement on such grounds as the following, that “ Prelacy is never considered as contrary to the Word of God — nor our Presbyterian church-government and discipline as what the land is bound and obliged to maintain by the most solemn oaths and cove¬ nants ; — and all the legal securities given to this church, in that covenanting period from 1638 to 1650, are overlooked and passed by ^ — and after having made their testimony on these heads the matter of a solemn vow and oath, it surely cannot be maintained that they have no immediate or practical interest in the doctrine which teaches that civil authority may be warrantably employed about matters of religion and relating to the church. The truth is, that this doctrine is not only necessarily implied in their religious profes¬ sion, but it will be found running through the whole of it, so that it is impos¬ sible to separate the one from the other without disordering and taking in pieces the entire system. I do not mean by this, that they must decide and be agreed upon all the questions that have been or may be started on this subject ; this would be absurd in x’eference to ecclesiastical power, and much more so as to civil. All that is required is, that they hold those general prin¬ ciples on this head of doctrine which are implied in, or are necessary to support, the express approvals of the national reformation, and condemnations of the national deformation, which formed so prominent a part of their public profession, and by which they were from the first distinguished as Seceders. It will not be expected that I should enter here into an examination of the accusations brought against Presbyterians as chargeable with intolerant and persecuting proceedings during the period of the Solemn League. I confine myself to the following general observations. In the first place, Seceders never pledged themselves by an approbation of all the acts and proceedings either of the state or of the church during that period. Their approbation of them was limited.^ So far as it can be shown that any acts of the church encroached on due Christian liberty, or that any acts of the state subjected good and peaceable subjects to punishment for matters purely religious, or imposed on them hardships which did not necessarily result from measui’es requisite to promote the public good and preserve the national safety, the principles of Seceders do not permit them to justify the conduct of the covenanters. In the second place, the charges on this head are in some instances groundless, and in others greatly exaggerated. The fact is, that this period of the history of Britain has been most grossly misrepresented, and erroneous and distorted views of the great transactions by which it was distinguished, and of the 1 Act and Testimony, ut supra, p. 86 — 87. Acknowledgment of Sins, ib. p. 230. An¬ swers to Nairn, ib. p. 286 — 287. 2 Act and Testimony, ul supra, p. 62. Answers to Nairn, ib. p. 283. APPENDIX, 205 characters and actions of the men who were principally engaged in them have at last become genei’al, and, in some points, almost universal.^ By the most the nature of the cause in which the covenanters were embarked, the enemies by whom they were opposed, and the dangers with which they were surrounded, are not understood or not duly adverted to. The work to which they were called did not consist in the correction of simple errors in doctrine, or corrup. tions which merely affected worship, ecclesiastical discipline, and Christian morals. It had for its object the removal of evils which were hurtful both in a religious and political view, and by which the liberties of church and state were equally affected. Prelacy was not only a deviation from the institution of Christ, which was to be confuted and removed by an appeal to scriptural authority and argument ; but secular power, external violence, and political tyrannny were annexed to it, and interwoven with the whole form and pro¬ ceedings of the hierarchy. Bishops were not only domineering lords in the church ; they were also tools in the hands of arbitrary monarchs and persecuting statesmen. Again, these evils were owing in a great measure to the exorbitant prerogative of the crown, from which, in consequence of the ecclesiastical supremacy vested in it, arose the arbitrary proceedings of the bishops’ courts, and the illegal powers of the High Commission. While the ecclesiastical grievances sprung from political abuses, the political grievances might be traced in their turn to ecclesiastical abuses ; and religion and policy equally demanded the correction of both. A co-operation of the several powers, and of the means competent to them, was therefore requisite. The use of religious means was primarily needful for giving life and animation to the work ; but these alone could not redress all grievances. Means of a very different kind were necessary to restrain violence, to curb tyranny, to abolish the laws authorising the evils complained of, and to substitute others in their place. If forcible opposition was made to this, or if conspiracies and factions were formed for the maintenance or restitution of the old oppressive system, it was necessary to employ law and penalties for restraining or suppressing 1 I cannot help saying, that Presbyterians have shown themselves strangely negligent in counteracting these false views ; and I wish I had no reason for adding, that they have suffered for their supineness by be¬ coming the dupes of misrepresentation. Mr Neal’s History of the Puritans, a work which has been extensively read, affords a striking exemplification of this. Examinations of it, or counter-statements in those instances in which they considered their connections as injured by the author, have been published by Episcopalians, Baptists, Quakers, and Socinians. Nothing of this kind has ap¬ peared from Presbyterians, although it might easily be shown that they had as much ground for complaint as any of the parties mentioned. The general merits of that work should have been an inducement to them to pointout its mistakes, which were more readily credited than the grosser errors of less inform ed and m ore prej udiced writers. I can only give one instance here. After stating the Presbyterian opinion concerning “ the power of the keys,” or of church-gov¬ ernment, he adds; “The Independents claimed a like power for the brotherhood of every particular congregation, hvi without any civil sanctions or penalties annexed.” Hist, of Puritans, vol. iii. p. 2(56. Toulmin’s edit. Now, the annexation of civil penalties did not enter into the claim of the Presby¬ terians, in their disputes in favour of the divine right of church-government in gene¬ ral, or of Presbytery. But, if it had entered into their claim (as I grant some of them in their writings vindicated the propriety of the annexation), still it would have formed no distinction between them and the Inde¬ pendents ; the latter themselves being judges. “If the Magistrate’s power (to which we give as much, and, as we think, MOPvB than the principles of the Presbyterial government will suffer them to yield) do but assist and back the sentence of other churches denouncing this non -communion against churches miscarrying, according to the nature of the crime, as they judge meet — then, without all controversie this our way of church j)roceeding will be every way as effectual as their other can be supposed to be,” Ac. Apologetical Narration by the five Dissenting Members of the Assembly of Divines, p. 18. 206 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. such attempts. In conducting any common measures having for their object the general good of society, civil or ecclesiastical, it is impossible altogether to avoid interfering with private liberty, or subjecting individuals to hardships and restraints which in some way affect their consciences and the full enjoyment of their religious privileges. Undeniable examples of this in recent times might be produced from the proceedings of religious societies which have no imme¬ diate connection with government. In the prosecution of the complex refor¬ mation in which our forefathers were engaged, opposed, as it was, by such adversaries as we have described, and while an intestine w'ar raged in the country, it was not only extremely difficult for them to steer an even course, but it was impossible for them to avoid imposing restraints which would have been improper in an ordinary state of affairs ; and tenderness apart, we ought to be cautious in censuring their conduct, as it may turn out, on an accurate knowledge of all the facts, that measures which at first view appeared intolerant or unreasonably severe were indispensably necessary to the public safety. Nor should we overlook the character and designs of the sectaries, who rose on the suppression of the arbitrary and malignant party ; and whose claims on the head of liberty of conscience were resisted, by men decidedly averse to the use of force in religious matters, as dangerous to the I’eligion, liberties, and peace of the three kingdoms.^ If the state of parties and the circumstances of the time be narrowly investigated, it will appear, I think, that the public proceedings, so far from being obnoxious to the charge of persecu¬ tion, were upon the whole marked with uncommon lenity and tenderness, even amidst open war and the plots and cabals of factions, political and religious ; and that that period, instead of being distinguished by restrictions on opinions and practices, w'as rather noted for the relaxation of ecclesiastical discipline and penal laws, and for a more licentious freedom and greater diversity of religion than ever prevailed in any period of British history. In the third place, the most exceptionable acts and proceedings took place in consequence of the rejection of those salutary measures which the Presby¬ terians had advised. Suffice it to state here, that, in consequence of the opposition of the Independents on the one hand, and the Erastians on the other, the settlement of ecclesiastical government and discipline, according to the plan agreed on by the Westminster Assembly, was delayed from time to time, and ultimately refused by the Parliament of England. In this dis¬ organised state of the church, disorders of various kinds took place, innu¬ merable sects sprung up, and errors and blasphemies, formerly unheard of, and shocking to Christian ears, were everywhere propagated. Alarmed at these appearances, and seeing matters fast tending to anarchy and con¬ fusion in the nation, the Pazdiament took the affair into their own hands, and published an ordinance intended to check and punish these evils. The Presbyterians by their declarations and petitions may be brought in as acces¬ sory to this measure ; but it ought not to be foi-gotten that they had predicted the conseqziences which would arise from the dilatoi'y proceedings of parlia¬ ment ; that they had uniformly testified an earnest desire to have religious errors and disorders coi'rected by spiritual means ; and had avowed their con¬ viction, that a scriptural discipline, if erected and allowed freely to exert itself, 1 See the Lives of Gataker and Lightfoot, in Biographia Britannica, vol. iv. p. 2166 ; vol. V. p. 3293. APPENDIX. 207 would accomplish that desirable end, without the interposition of any secular violence. The last class of objections to which I propose adverting is that which relates to the Solemn League and Covenant. It will not be expected that I should say anything here in the way of direct answer to those who find fault with the matter of that deed, or who deny the lawfulness and binding force of all covenants about matters of religion. The following considerations may perhaps tend to obviate some of the difficulties which are felt respecting : the form, enactment, and obligation of the Solemn League. Covenants and ' oaths are of the same general nature, and retain their proper and primary ' design, by whomsoever they are employed, and to whatever purposes they may be applied. Their lawfulness, utility, and obligation are recognised among all people, and recourse has been had to them on all great occasions that required their interposition. Revelation teaches more explicitly, and corrobo¬ rates their warrants and obligations, discovei's new objects about which they may be employed, and gives directions as to the proper manner of performing these and other acts of moral duty. It expressly ascertains their use and application to moral and religious purposes, as well as to the ordinary affairs of human society. There is a law of morality and religion common to men ; and the use of these bonds of fidelity in the peculiar concerns of Christians, or of ecclesiastical societies, does not abolish or supersede tlieir use for any other lawful purpose. The Gospel neither adds any essential duties to the law, nor confines it within narrower limits as to persons or objects. Covenants and oaths are sacred in themselves, independently of the matter of them. In respect of tlieir matter and immediate end they maybe civil, political, or ecclesiastical, or they may be of a mixed kind, in which objects of a different nature are combined for the better attaining of some great purpose of public good ; they may be private or public ; spontaneous, and about matters to which persons were not previously bound, or framed and enjoined by authority ; more general or particular ; more extensive or limited ; temporary or perpetual. They may formally consist in mutual stipulations between individuals or bodies of men, or they may consist in 1 In a work published two years before the time now referred to, Mr Baillie made the following striking declaration : “ Now, indeed, every monster walks in the street without controlment, white all ecclesiastic government is cast asleep ; this too too long inter-reign and mere anarchy hath invited every unclean creature to creep out of its cave, and show in publike its misshapen face to all who like to behold. But if once the government of Christ were set up amongst us, as it is in the rest of the reformed churches, we know not what would impede it, by the sword of God alone, without any secular violence, to banish out of the land these spirits of error, in all meekness, hu¬ mility, .and love, by the force of truth con¬ vincing and satisfying the minds of the se¬ duced. Episcopal courts were never fitted for the reclaiming of minds ; their prisons, their fines, their pillories, their nose-slit- tings, their ear-cuttings, their cheek-burn¬ ings, did but hold down the fl.ame to break out in season with the greater rage. But the reformed Presbytery doth proceed in a spiritual method evidently fitted for the gaining of hearts. It is not prophecy, but a rational prediction bottomed upon reasons and multiplied experience : Let England once be countenanced by her superior fjowers, to enjoy the just and necessary liberty of consistories for congregations, of presbyteries for counties, of synods for larger shires, and national assemblies for the whole land, as Scotland hath long pos- ses.sed these by the unanimous consent of king and parliament, without the least pre¬ judice to the civil state, but to the evident and confessed benefit thereof ; or as the very Protestants in France, by the conces¬ sion of a popish state and king, have en¬ joyed all these four spiritual courts the last fourscoure years and above : Put these holy and divine instniments in the hand of the Church of England, by the blessing of God thereupon, the sore and great evil of so many heresies and schisms shall quickly be cured, which now not only troubles the peace and welfare, but hazards the very sub.sistance both of church and kingdom : without this mean, the State will toil itself in vain about the cure of such spiritual diseases." Baillie’s Dis¬ suasive from the Errors of the Time, pref. pp. 7, 8. 208 THE UNITY OF THE CHUKCH, a common engagement to God, which is the strongest and most solemn way in which men can become bound to one another. They may relate to the intrinsic affairs of a church, or to the external state and interests of churches and nations. Any of these are lawful and obligatory when entered into on a due call and on proper grounds. All the temporal and common affairs of men are capable of a religious direction and use, and may be subordinated to the great ends of advancing the divine glory and spiritual interests. No duties, moral or religious, can be acceptably performed but by those who are acquainted with the Gospel and instated in the covenant of grace ; but this must not be confounded with their warrants and obligations. Of covenanting considered as a public duty performed by Christians solely in their ecclesiastical capacity — of the distinction between it and those engagements, virtual or actual, which are constitutive of churches or of church membership, — of the distinction between it and the act of faith which brings persons to an interest in the covenant of grace, and ought not to be viewed as a promise of fidelity or engagement either to God or man — of the additional formality and solemn sanctions which discriminate it from that open profession of interest in God and obedience to Him which is in some way made by all believers and in all churches — and of the special reasons and calls for these high sanctions and pledges, — I do not propose here to speak. All the noted covenants and leagues in which the interests of the Reforma¬ tion throughout Europe were so deeply concerned, were of a mixed kind. They contained engagements on the part of the confederates to defend one another in the profession of the Protestant religion, or in throwing off the authority of Rome, and correcting abuses, which were partly religious and partly political. They were entered into by public men, in their several secular capacities, as well as religious, and even by corporate bodies. Such was the League of Smalcald, of the Swiss Cantons, and of the Evan¬ gelic Body in Germany ; and the Covenants of the Protestant princes and towns in France, and in the Netherlands. Such also were the National Covenants in Britain. The Solemn League was a complex deed, both in its foi’m and in its matter. It was not only a covenant with God, but also between people and people, for reciprocal benefit, and on certain mutual terms : security was stipulated on the one part and aid on the other, in the prosecution of its great objects. Religion formed the great and principal matter of it, but the promoting of this was not its sole object. National reformation and uniformity were combined with national liberty, safety, peace, loyalty, and law. It was adapted to “ the dangerous, distressed, and deplor¬ able estate ” of the three “ kingdoms,” as well as of the “ churches” in them. It was not, therefore, a mere church-covenant, but was ft’amed, sworn, enjoined, and promoted by the public authorities of both church and state. Some condemn this as an improper blending of heterogeneous matter, and think that our ancestors ought to have framed two separate covenants — one in defence of their civil liberties, and another for religious purposes. If those who express this opinion will make the trial, I apprehend they will find in it articles (and these not the least important), which they will be unable to dispose of, without making a third covenant, to be taken by all, or else adding them to each of the two, as equally pertaining to both. In either way they will inevitably plunge into what they call the old error of blending. There were peculiar duties which those in civil, and even in military stations, owed respect- APPENDIX. 209 ing the articles which were of a religious complexion ; and, vice versd, there were duties which ministers of the Gospel and church courts owed respecting those which were civil, political, or military. The truth is, there is no article in the Solemn League that is either purely civil, or purely religious. The civil things in it were connected with the religious, and the religious bore a rela¬ tion to the national state and policy at that time. An accurate acquaintance with the circumstances in which our ancestors were placed, will, I presume, fully justify the measure they adopted, and show that they acted with the greatest wisdom, when they embodied in one common engagement to God and among themselves those things which Providence had joined together, and thus secured the vigorous and combined exertions of the friends of religion and liberty in a cause that was common to both. Nor did this imply any undue blending of things which, though connected, are in their nature distinct, nor any confounding of the constitution and powers of church and state, or of the respective offices and duties of the covenanters. It may just as well be said (to make use of a familiar comparison), that, when a mason and carpenter enter into a joint contract to finish a building, there is a confu¬ sion of trades, and that the one is to labour in the occupation of the other, instead of doing each his own work, and providing what is common to both. To separate the civil part of the covenant from the religious, and judge of it piece¬ meal, is to proceed on a fanciful supposition of something that never had an existence. As one complex and undivided whole was it framed, enacted, sworn, promoted ; and as one whole must it be judged, and stand or fall. The manner in which the covenant was enjoined to be taken in Scotland — “ under all civil pains,” has not been approved by Seceders in any of their public papers. Private writers of their connection who have vindicated the injunction-clause, have not considered it as extending beyond exclusion from places of power and trust. Whatever may be the legal import of the phrase, I believe this interpretation accords with the fact ; and, so far as I know, it cannot be shown, that, with the consent and approbation of the public authorities, the covenant was forced upon any, or that the loss of liberty or of goods was incurred by them for simply refusing it. I frankly con¬ fess that I have not yet seen any good reason, in point of religion, justice, or good policy, for condemning the exclusion of those who did not take the Solemn League from places of authority and public trust. It was the great bond of union, and test of fidelity, among those who were embarked in that cause in defence of which the Parliaments had already drawn their swords. A due regard to the high interests which were at stake, as well as their own safety and the maxims of prudence by which all people are guided in similar circumstances, required that they should carefully distinguish between those who were well or ill affected to their cause, and that they should not intrust the more active management and defence of it to such as were of the latter description. In the extraordinary cir¬ cumstances in which they were placed, a mixed test, partly civil and partly religious, became so far necessary to ascertain common friends and foes. There might be (I have no doubt there were) individuals peaceably disposed, and even friendly to the cause of the Parliaments, so far as civil liberty was concerned, who yet scrupled at the stipulations in the covenant which related to religion. But laws cannot be made for individuals ; it belonged to the public authorities to determine what description of persons it was safe, in the O 210 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. peculiar circumstances, to intrust with power ; and in times of national con¬ fusion, danger, and war, when all that is valuable to a people may be put in jeopardy, individuals may be required to forego, or may be restricted in the exercise of those rights which, in an ordinary and quiet state of society, they may be entitled to claim. The vindicating of such tests in certain times, and in reference to certain parties, does not apply an approval of them in times or in reference to parties of a very different description. The continued obligation of our National Covenants is of greater importance than any particular measure adopted in prosecuting them. In what I have to say on this branch of the subject, I shall keep the Solemn League more particularly in eye, both because it comprehends the substance of the National Covenant of Scotland, and because it has been the object of more frequent attack. It is not every lawful covenant, nor even every lawful covenant of a public nature, that is of permanent obligation. Some of both kinds, from their very nature or from other circumstances, may undoubtedly be temporary. The permanent obligation of the Solemn League results from the permanency of its nature and design, and of the parties entering into it, taken in connec¬ tion with the public capacity in which it was established. Some talk of it as it were a mere temporary expedient to which our forefathers had recourse in defending their civil and religious liberties ; and, when they have paid a com¬ pliment to it in this point of view, they think they have no more concern with the matter. This is a very narrow and mistaken view of the deed. The most momentous transactions, and most deeply and durably affecting the welfare and the duty of nations and of churches, may be traced to the influence of the extraordinary and emergent circumstances of a particular period. The emergency which led to the formation of the covenant is one thing, and the obligation of that covenant is quite another : the former might quickly pass away, while the latter may be permanent and perpetual. Nor is the obligation of the covenant to be determined by the temporary or changeable nature of its subordinate and accessory articles. Whatever may be said of some of the things engaged to in the Solemn League, there cannot be a doubt that in its great design and leading articles it was not temporary but permanent. Though the objects immediately contemplated by it — religious reformation and uni¬ formity — had been accomplished, it would still have continued to oblige those who were under its bond to adhere to and maintain these attainments. But unhappily there is no need of having recourse to this line of argument : its grand stipulations remain to this day unfulfilled. The Solemn League was a national covenant and oath, in every point of view, — in its matter, its form, the authority by which it was enjoined, the capacities in which it was sworn, and the manner in which it was ratified. It was a sacred league between kingdom and kingdom with respect to their religious as well as their secular interests, and at the same time a covenant in which they jointly swore to God to perform all the articles contained in it. National religion, national safety, liberty and peace, were the great objects which it embraced. It was not a mere agreement or confederation (however solemn) of individuals or private persons (however numerous) entering spontaneously and of their own accord into a common engagement. It was framed and concluded by the represen¬ tatives of kingdoms in concurrence with those of the church ; it was sworn by them in their public capacity ; at their call and by their authority, it was after¬ wards sworn by the body of the people in their different ranks and orders ; and finally, it was ratified and pronounced valid by laws both civil and APPENDIX. 211 ecclesiastical. The public faith was thus plighted by all the organs through which a nation is accustomed to express its mind and will. Nothing was wanting to complete the national tie, and to render it permanent ; unless it should be maintained that absolute unanimity is necessary, and that a society cannot contract lawful engagements to God or man, as long as there are indi¬ viduals who oppose and are dissentient. Sanctions less sacred, and pledges less numerous, would have given another nation, or even an individual, a perfect right to demand from Britain the fulfilment of any treaty or contract ; and shall not God, who was not only a witness but the principal party, and whose honour and interests were immediately concerned in this transaction, have a like claim ? — or shall we “ break the covenant and escape ? ” Some of the principles on which it has been attempted to loose this sacred tie, are so opposite to the common sentiments of mankind, that it is not necessary to refute them j such as, that covenants, vows, and oaths, cannot superadd any obligation to that which we are previously under by the law of God ; and, that their obligation on posterity consists merely in the influence of example. There is another objection which is of a more specious kind and lays claim to greater accuracy, but which on examination will be found both unsolid and inaccurate. It is pleaded, that it is only in the character of church- members that persons can enter into religious covenants or be bound by them ; and that the covenants of this country can be called national, on no other ground than because the majority of the inhabitants, in their individual cha¬ racter, voluntarily entered into them. At present I can only state some general considerations tending to show the fallacy of this view of the subject. By church-members may be meant either those who are in actual communion with a particular organised church, or those who stand in a general relation to the church universal ; but in neither of these senses can it be said that religious covenants or bonds are incompetent or non-obligatory in every other character. This is to restrict the authority of the divine law in reference to moral duties, and to limit the obligations which result from it, in a way that is not warranted either by Scripture or reason. How can that which is founded on the moral law, and which is moral-natural, not positive, be confined to church-members, or to Christians in the character of church-members only 1 The doctrine in question is also highly objectionable, as it unduly restricts the religious character of men, and the sphere of their action about religious matters, whether viewed as individuals or as formed into societies and com¬ munities. They are bound to act for the honour of God, and are capable of contracting sacred obligations (sacred both in their nature and in their objects) in all the characters and capacities which they sustain. I know no good reason for holding, that when a company of men or a society act about religion, or engage in religious exercises, they are thereby converted into a church, or act merely and properly as church-members. Families are not churches, nor are they constituted properly for a religious purpose ; yet they have a religious character, and are bound to act according to it in honouring and serving God, and are capable of contracting religious obligations. Nations also have a religious character, and may act about the affairs of religion. They may make their profession of Christianity, and legally authorise its institutions, without being turned into a church ; and why may they not also come under an oath and covenant with reference to it, which shall be nationally binding ? Cove¬ nanting may be said to be by a nation as brought into a church-state, acting in this religious capacity — the oath may be dispensed by ministers of the 212 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. Gospel, and accompanied by the usual exercises of religion in the church, and yet it may not be an ecclesiastical deed. The marriage-covenant and vow is founded on the original law, and its duties, as well as the relation which it establishes, are common to men, and of a civil kind. Yet among Christians it is mixed with religious engagements, and celebrated religiously in the church. Ministers of the Gospel officiate in dispensing the vow, and accompany it with the word and prayer. The parties are bound to marry in the Lord, and to live together as Christians. But is the marriage vow on that account ecclesias¬ tical, or do the parties engage as church-members only? The Christian character is, in such cases, combined with the natural, domestic, civil, political. Much confusion also arises on this subject from not attending to the specific object of our National Covenants, and the nature of their stipulations, by which they are distinguished from mere church-covenants. I shall only add that several objections usually adduced on this head may be obviated by keeping in mind, that the obligation in question is of a moral kind, and that God is the principal party who exacts the fulfilment of the bond. If there is any ti’uth in the statements that have now been made, the ques¬ tion respecting the obligation of the British covenants is deeply interesting to the present generation. The identity of a nation, as existing through dif¬ ferent ages, is, in all moral respects, as real as the identity of an individual through the whole period of his life. The individuals that compose it, like the particles of matter in the human body, pass away and are succeeded by others ; but the body politic continues essentially the same. If Britain con¬ tracted a moral obligation, in virtue of a solemn national covenant for religion and reformation, that obligation must attach to her until it has been dis¬ charged. Have the pledges given by the nation been yet redeemed ? Do not the principal stipulations in the covenant remain unfulfilled at this day ? Are we not as a people still bound by that engagement to see these things done ? Has the lapse of time cancelled the bond ? Or, will a change of sentiments and views set us free from its tie ? Is it not the duty of all the friends of re¬ formation to endeavour to keep alive a sense of this obligation on the public mind ? But, although all ranks and classes in the nation should lose impres¬ sions of it, and although there should not be a single religious denomination, nor even a single individual, in the land, to remind them of it, will it not be held in remembrance by One, with whom “ a thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years?” By this time the reader must be aware of the general opinion which I enter¬ tain of the basis on which the two largest Synods of the Secession have lately united. It is not my intention to enter into any particular examination of the articles of that agreement. Complexly taken, they afford undeniable proof of a complete recession from the ground originally occupied by Seceders. The exception made to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, is expressed in such a way as to leave on them the imputation of teaching persecuting principles in matters of religion, and in such a w'ay as to set aside, or to thi’ow loose, the whole doctrine which they teach respecting the exercise of magistratical authority about these matters. Besides, the united Synod merely “ retain ” these books, “ as (to use their own words) the con¬ fession of our faith, expressive of the sense in which we understand the Holy Scriptures but do not receive them, as was formerly done by the Church of Scotland and in the Secession, under the consideration of their being subordinate standards of uniformity for the three nations. The other APPENDIX. 213 standards, the Westminster “Form of Church-government,” and “Diree- tory,” are entirely excluded from the Basis. The general statement on the head of Presbyterian government is chargeable with ambiguity, and, unless inadvertency be pleaded, is evasive. The expression of veneration for our Reforming ancestors, and of a warm sense of the value of their efforts “ in the cause of civil and religious liberty,” I have no doubt, is “ unfeigned and the approval of “ the method adopted by them for mutual excitement and encouragement by solemn confederation and vows to God,” is so far good. But I must be allowed to add, that this is saying no more than has been often said, by those friends of civil and religious liberty whose system of religion was very opposite to that of our Reforming ancestors ; and that it is a very poor substitute for that explicit approbation of, and adherence to, the Covenanted Reformation of Britain which Seceders formerly avouched. This is all that the United Synod have to say respecting our National Covenants ; they “ approve of the method adopted — by solemn confederation and vows to God but they have not a word to say on the present or continued obliga¬ tion of these vows. For, surely, it was not expected that the public would consider this as included in the following declaration : “ We acknowledge that we are under high obligations to maintain and promote the work of Reforma¬ tion begun, and to a great extent carried on by them.” Nothing, in fact, could be more disgraceful to these covenants than to attempt to bring them in under the cover of such an expression : and, after the open, decided, express, and repeated avowals of the perpetual obligation of the National Covenant of Scotland and the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms, in the former profession, and in the Ordination-foi’mula, of the two bodies now com¬ posing the Union, the omission of everything of this kind, and the careful exclusion of the very names of these covenants, can be viewed in no other light than a practical renunciation of their obligation, and a rescinding of all former declarations in favour of it. If the United Synod were the same with the original Seceding body, how severely would they condemn themselves by the charge which they once and again brought against the Established Church after the Revolution, because “ they did not, by any particular act of Assembly, assert the obligation of our Covenants, National and Solemn League, and their binding force upon posterity?”^ On the provision made by the articles for the practice of covenanting, I have only to observe, that this exercise was all along viewed, in that part of the Secession by which it was observed, as the most solemn mode of sealing the common profession of the whole body; that as such it was engaged in at the express call of the supreme judicatory; and that, when the United Synod cannot say that “ the circumstances of Provi¬ dence require it,” I can scarcely persuade myself that it is seriously contem¬ plated to practise this sacred service in a manner which would discredit it, and which is totally irreconcilable with Presbyterian principles.® With respect to the religious clause in some Burgess oaths which occasioned the original strife, the preamble to the Basis supposes that there are some “ towns where it may still exist;” and all the provision it makes with respect to this is, that “ both Synods agree to use what may appear to them the most proper means for obtaining the abolition” of it. No provision is made, that, if they shall be 1 Act and Testirnony, in Display, i. 90. congregations; but now they must deter- Acknowledgment of Sins, ib. 231. mine whether Providence is requiring the Formerly sessions were left to determine duty, or, in other words, whether it be at all when the performance of the duty was suit- a duty incumbent on the church in the able to the circumstances of their respective present times. 214 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. unsuccessful in their applications for an abolition of it, the oath shall not be taken in the united society ; although it is well known that one of the parties had all along maintained that Seceders involved themselves in contradiction by swearing it, and continued, down to the time of the Union, to require all intrants to public office among them to declare their solemn approbation of an act condemning it in this point of view. They are thus involved in a judicial allowance of what they hold to be sinful ; and have recognised a principle which may be applied to an indefinite extent, and which ought to have been guarded against with the utmost care, as it enters into all the loose plans of communion which are so fashionable in the present day. This is still more evident from the engagement which they have come under, that they “ shall carefully abstain from agitating in future the questions which occasioned ” the separation. It is proposed that the United Synod shall prepare a Testimony, “containing the substance of the Judicial Act and Testimony, the Act con¬ cerning the Doctrine of Grace, and the Answers to Nahn’s Reasons of dissent.” What some may understand by the substance, it may be difficult to say ; but if the proposed Testimony really contain the substance of the first and last named of these papers, the basis will not support the superstructure. In answer to all this, some will say, we are at full Uberty to hold all our prin¬ ciples as formerly. But such persons should remember, that the question is not about their principles, but the principles, or rather the public profession of the body ; and that it has been chiefly by means of the latter, that the declarative glory of God has been promoted in every age, and his truths and cause preserved and transmitted to posterity. It is painful to me to be obliged to speak in this manner of the terms of a union, which it would have filled my heart with delight to see established on a solid and scriptural foundation. But in such cases there is a duty incumbent on all the friends of the cause of the Reformation and the Secession : and this they must discharge whatever it may cost them, and regardless of the obloquy that they may hereby incur. They are sacredly bound to adhere to that cause, to confess it, and, according to the calls of Providence, to appear openly in its defence. It cannot but be grieving to them to find that the attempt made to heal the breach among its pi’ofessed friends, has discovered that dis¬ affection to it existed to a greater extent than they could have imagined. They may be accused as the enemies of peace and union. But they have this consolation, that they still occupy that ground on which their fathers displayed a faithful testimony for the truths and laws of Christ against prevailing defec¬ tion ; and that they are adhering, without any reservation, or any mark of dissent, to that testimony, and to those books of public authority which were formerly agreed on for settling and preserving religious unity and communion on the most extended scale. And they are encouraged to maintain this ground by the hope which they still cherish, that the God of their fathers and of their vows, will yet, in his merciful providence, bring round a time of refor¬ mation ; and that, when this period shall have arrived, the Westminster Standards may form a rallying-point around which the scattered friends of religion, in this land, shall meet, and again happily combine. 4; SERMONS. j - .Ml, II I 1, ^1 .» ► -•'* ■'•1^ V* ■ ■ -m • • ■ A'^' • ^ ■ . '. '. .'Ji ■ ■• v. ‘ '^ \ 1. »»N «« . I^- :» < ... jT . ,1^ j .V ■i ■ .> !• .♦■•»4* 4»V-!:^ • >>. ' n , <*!*•.* ♦•-■ •.uii*" < .?ffl88.:-r ««kAl >‘4* .>l VI M' Ji '3 '6- •• ■ . . *- • < ^ . J V - 'W**- 4.*’' •»«e;i.4u*y- »».•«• ^■=' U * . * * aV r •t . -4i - > ^ . .^ _ ^ t *• ^ .