The Man of Dunse
THE
MAN
OF
DUNSE
Containing an Account of the
CASUITRY
OF THE
Rev. DANIEL FRAZER,
Weaver in Dunse.
WITH A
DESCRIPTION of his HOBBY-HORSE
—and his FAREWELL to his CON-
SCIENCE.
By DANIEL M’RONALD.
Printed in the Year MDCCLXX.
THE
MAN of DUNSE, &c.
I Happened lately to see a small Pamphlet, entitled a Discovery of the Sinfulness of some Principles of the Church of Relief, signed Daniel Frazer. The Title raised my Curiosity, and I began to read on Purpose to find some of those sinful Principles which the Title promised to discover. But the Pamphlet might as well have been entitled, a Discovery of the Philosopher's Stone; for after reading it twice over as carefully as I was able, I could only discover that Daniel Frazer was exceedingly angry, and for that reason was disposed to abuse Mr Monteith, and to pervert a great many passages of Holy Scripture.
This modest Writer informs his Reader in the Beginning of his Performance, that he has no Occasion to make any Apology for publishing those Secrets which he had discovered by his Connection with the Relief Church; yet one would think here was some Occasion for an Apology, when he was designed to publish so much abuse against Mr Monteith, and the Holy Scriptures. There does not appear to have been any moral Necessity for Mr. Frazer's publishing this Pamphlet; unless it was necessary that the World should know his Folly, and his Enmity against Mr Monteith, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Mr Frazer, good Man, shews his Readiness to suffer Reproach for Religion, and his Zeal for vindicating the Truth; but his Pamphlet affords some grounds of Suspicion that the reasons of his Conduct are not quite so disinterested. The poor Man seems to have been troubled with the Spleen, and wrote this Pamphlet to give himself a little Ease. And who can blame him? Much Good may it do him. It was undoubtedly for the Sake of his Health that he published it. He tells us that an Affair happened at Dunse in the Relief Congregation there, and a dreadful Affair Reader, it was: And what was it? Mr Monteith went and assisted Mr Murray at Newcastle to dispense the Lord's Supper, which was looked upon by some to be a Breach of Presbyterial Church Order:—for Mr Frazer passes his Word for it, that Mr Murray is no Presbyterian. There's an Affair for you Reader! such another Affair would be sufficient to ruin all the Churches in Dunse, and Seceding Meeting Houses too. Mr Monteith's Conduct was looked upon by some to be a Breach of Presbyterial Church Order. This Presbyterian Order seems to be very easily disconcerted when such small Matters make a Breach therein. It is however a Mercy that all the People in Dunse did not see Things in the same Light with Mr Frazer, otherwise Mr Monteith would have been in a bad enough Situation. Such Geniuses as Frazer have very strange Perceptions, and often see Things which are invisible to Persons of ordinary Capacities. But how has this same Frazer found out the Secret that Mr Murray is no Presbyterian? The Seceders especially the Burgers have a wonderful Sagacity, at finding out Matters of Reproach concerning other people. Mr Frazer is just as certain that Mr Murray is no Presbyterian. as he is, that the solemn League and Covenant, and the Burgess Oath are Oaths of the same Signification, Tendency, and Import. It is as easy to make the New Testament and the Alcoran agree as it is to reconcile the Act and Testimony, and the Burgess Oath. Honest Daniel wants to have a Burger Meeting at Dunse, and such as would attempt to hinder him are very idle. Why may not Daniel have his pious play Things as well as others? I can assure my Readers, that Mr Frazer means no more than a Hobby-horse. I will undertake to prove that there is no more Religion in the Case than any Child professes when he plays with his Rattle: But before I attempt to demonstrate this Fact, allow me to enquire into Mr Frazer's Arguments whereby he proves that Mr Murray is no Presbyterian.
I. Mr Murray could not be admitted a Member of the Presbytery of Relief, or he would not come to Dunse after he had accepted a Call from that Congregation.
II. William ⟨Mitchel⟩, a Member of the Session, told before the Elders, that in his Presence Mr Murray condemned Synods, and Assemblies; and laughed at them.
III. Adam Dickison informed Daniel Frazer, that Mr Murray sneered at Mr Boston's Works,—Therefore Mr Murray is no Presbyterian. There is Buckram for you Reader. Did you ever hear a Point so clearly proved. It is as plain from these Arguments, that Mr Murray is no Presbyterian, as that the solemn League and Covenant is proved from the New Testament to be an Ordinance of Jesus Christ under the Gospel.
But might it not happen that the Presbetery of Relief and Mr Murray might differ, and yet Mr Murray be a Presbyterian? Presbyterians have not been more remarkable for Agreement than other Denominations. Mightnot Mr Murray return the Call which he had received from the People of Dunse, and still be a Presbyterian? Might it not also happen that Mr Murray might laugh at Synods and Assemblies, and still remain a Presbyterian? There does not appear to be any infallible Connection between these Matters: I doubt very much if this same Daniel Frazer was desired to prove the Practice of Synods and general Assemblies from the New Testament, if he could do it: I do not remember of the Word Synod applied to a Meeting of Clergymen in all the New Testament; and, as for a general Assembly, except the general Assembly of the Church of the First Born I never mind of reading of any in that Book.
Mr Frazer has forgotten to inform us what Kind of Synods and Assemblies they were which Mr Murray laughed at. There are several kinds of Synods, and Assemblies in Scotland, whose Proceedings are ready to excite the Risibility of any any Person who is not too far gone in the Spleen, as Mr Frazer appears to be.
There is the Synod of Merse and Tivotdale, and there is the associate Synod. These Synods frequently laugh at one another; and why might not Mr. Murray enjoy the Privilege of Laughing at them both? But neither good nor ill Humour will please this Daniel Frazer: If we may believe his Word, Mr Monteith is in very bad Humour, and Mr Murray is in very good Humour; yet neither will please poor Frazer. Pipe as you will, Daniel will not Dance.
But Mr Murray sneered at Mr Boston's Works. There, Reader, is an Affair for you. This is the Crime of Crimes—The Grief of Griefs, and what is fit to bring Desolation on all the three Kingdoms. Boston's Work are laughed at; the Cream of Orthodoxy, the Standart of Popularity is laughed at! and was it possible for poor Frazer, and the Burgers to keep silent any longer? Laughing is come to a great Height in these sinful Times. I have seen a Seceding Minister laugh when he preached, and what shall poor Frazer do in the midst of so much Laughter. Indeed honest Daniel, what can you do? But put them all into the Cave of Trophonius, and then you will spoil their Mirth, and reduce them to the Seceding Standard of Gravity. Seeing Mr Frazer is so much grieved at Mr Murray, for laughing at Mr Boston's Works, I will shew him a few Passages from one of his Books, which if they do not make him laugh they will certainly make him stare. In Mr Boston's Treatise on the Covenant of Grace there is this memorable Passage, "Christ in his last Will and Testament did actually bequeath regenerating Grace, Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, and eternal Life to every Sinner of Adam's Race; and he adds, that Christ is Executor of his own Will, and by Office obliged to make out all the Legacies to all the Legatees, that are pleased to put in their Claims, and make their Demands, Faith consists in believing all is mine, and in claiming and taking Possession of all as mine own, Page, 114 199, 214." This Faith arises from no higher Principle than Self-preservation, Page 262, 263.
The Apostle, who certainly deserves as much Credit as Mr Boston, speaks in this Manner—If Children then Heirs, Rom. viii. 17. Gal. iii. 29. but according to Mr Boston, it should read—If Sinners then Heirs. This will be Good News to proud haughty Sinners; that they need not approach God as destitute Beggars, and objects of Mercy, but as privileged Persons who have demands upon their Maker, by Virtue of a Will where they are all particularly mentioned as Heirs. In this case the Title of Christ's Enemies, to eternal Life is as well founded, as that of his Friends; and Unbelievers in their unregenerated State are warranted to come to Christ as Heirs, who have a legal Right to make Demands, and to put in their Claims for eternal Life, and tell him, Pardon is mine, I Claim it, I demand it as my own; and the Executor is obliged to answer their Demands, and give out their Legacies. Arminus was a perfect Child for contriving a self-righteous Plan of Happiness to Mr Boston. According to Mr Boston every Sinner is born an Heir of eternal Life, and has a Right to Claim the Inheritance. Arminus says a Sinner must Work for Heaven: Mr Boston says they must demand it, and Claim it because it is theirs. Arminus's Sinner can only approach God with Confidence when his Work is done, which never happens;—but Mr Boston's Sinner comes upon his Maker with peremptory Demands as a privileged Heir. He has no Reason to say, Lord be merciful to me a Sinner; but to say, I come to ask my Right according to Law: My Name is in Christ's Will, and I insist upon my Legacy. Let the Reader only but consider which of the two Schemes is the most self righteous one. If according to Mr Boston's Scheme all Sinners of Adam's Race are included in Christ's last Will, and Christ is the Executor of his own Testament, what is the Reason that all Men are not saved; for it only depends upon the Executor doing, what he is bound by Office to do, namely to save them all. Thus the Ruin of Sinners is laid at the Saviour's Door, and he is represented as unfaithful in not applying all the Legacies which he himself hath left to Sinners of Mankind as such.
It will appear to an attentive Reader of Scripture, that the Promises of the Covenant are made to Children, and they are counted for the Seed, and the Seed are counted for the Heirs of Promise. But Mr Boston says otherwise, and informs us that all the Race of Adam are Heirs to all the Legacies in the Covenant of Promise. The Apostle speaks in this wife, If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to the Promise: But such as are not Christ's, their Heirship is of another Sort—The Wrath of God abideth on them. They can Claim nothing, no not a Moment's Respite or Forbearance. Mr Frazer makes a very just Observation when he says that Mr Boston's Works will be held in esteem when Mr Murray's will be consigned to Oblivion. Mr Murray's Name is not worth any Body's Notice, and can add no Weight to his Works; neither are any of his Performances formed on the popular Plan. But if Mr Murray's Performances are likely to be forgotten sooner than Mr Boston's, they are on that Account calculated to do less Evil. It had been better for Thousands that Mr Boston's Works had died with himself, than that his Name and Writings should have supplanted the Writings of the Apostles in their Esteem. The grossest Falshoods will pass for found Doctrine if Mr Boston's Name be fixed on the Title Page. I think a grosser Falshood cannot well be printed on Paper, than what Mr Boston has published in his Treatise of the Covenant, namely that Christ is the Kinsman Redeemer of Mankind Sinners as such. Any Person who will please to read the Scripture account of the Goal or Kinsman Redeemer may perceive the Falshood of that Proposition at full Length. I shall be at Pains to shew Mr Frazer at large, the Scripture account of a Kinsman Redeemer, and leave him to compare Mr Boston's Proposition with what the Holy Ghost says upon that Subject. Levit. xxv. xxiv. And in all the Land of your Possession ye shall grant a Redemption for the Land. If thy Brother be waxen poor and hath fold away some of his Possession, and if any of his Kin come to Redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his Brother sold. Ver. 47. And if a Sojourner or Stranger wax rich by thee, and thy Brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the Stranger or Sojourner by thee, or to the Stock of the Stranger's Family, after that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of hii Brethren may redeem him. Ruth. iv. v. Then said Boaz, what Day thou buyest the Field of Naomi, thou must buy it of Ruth the Moabitess, the Wife of the Dead to raise up the Name of the Dead upon his Inheritance. Ver. 9. And Boaz said unto the Elders, and unto all the people, ye are Witnesses: this Day, that I have bought all that was Elimelechs, and all that was Chilions, and Mahlons, of the Hand of Naomi: Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the Wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my Wife, to raise up the Name of the Dead upon his Inheritance: That the Name of the Dead be not cut off from among his Brethren, and from the Gate of his Place; ye are Witnesses this Day. Numb. xxxv 18. 19. If he smite him with an Hand Weapon of Wood, and he die, he is a Murderer; the Murderer shall surely be put to Death. The Kinsman Redeemer himself shall play the Murderer; when he meeteth him he shall slay him.
Any Person who is not governed by the influence of Prejudice, will easily perceive by comparing this Account of a Kinsman Redeemer with Mr Boston's Account thereof, that if the Kinsman Redeemer was a Type of our Saviour, and our Lord fulfilled this Type, that he cannot be a Kinsman Redeemer to Mankind Sinners as such, and for these following Reasons. (1.) The People of Israel were not a Type of all Men, but only of the Church of Christ, which he was to plant in the Fulness of Time. (2.) The Office of Kinsman Redeemer, and the Privilege of Redemption belonged to the Seed of Abraham according to the Promise; for no Strangers who were not converted to the Jewish Religion were allowed this Privilege. (3.) The Kinsman Redeemer whoever he was, was obliged to do the Part of a Kinsman to those who he was thus related to, and obliged by the Law of Redemption to raise the Family which was reduced, to the same State of Freedom, Liberty, and Enjoyment with the Rest of free Israelites: And if any attempted to perform this Office who was not qualified he was sure to mar his own Inheritance. (4.) The Kinsman Redeemer, could fulfil this Office to none but such as were comprehended within the Law of Redemption, which was well known among the Jews. If our Saviour fulfilled this Office as a Kinsman who was hereby tipified and pointed out, he could never be a Kinsman Redeemer to all Mankind without redeeming them all; for he cannot bear his Office in vain. Whether it an Object of Laughter or of Sorrow to find Men's Works and Characters set in opposition to the dictate of the Holy Ghost, I shall leave to to Mr Frazer and the Seceders to consider; but we are certain, that he that sits in Heaven will laugh, and hold all such in Derision who use the King who he has set on his Holy Hill of Zion after this Manner. Can any Thing be more absurd and ridiculous than to affirm that the Man of God's right Hand, whom he hath made strong for himself, hath assumed an Office which he either will not or cannot execute in Behalf of those for whose Sakes he hath assumed it, I dare venture to affirm that Mr Murray will not envy Mr Frazer the Pleasure he may enjoy by indulging such Falshoods. This is not a question which relates to the Goodness or Badness of Men; the Mercy of the Lord is free to the most Worthless; and it is no Reflection on Mr Boston's Character, to say, he was saved like other poor Sinners by the free Mercy of God, and not in the Character of a popular Preacher, or a Writer of popular Books. Mr Frazer, and those who proceed on the Plan of the ancient Pharisees, are not disposed to receive the Truths of the Bible till once they can find the Name of some Rabbi prefixed to them; but our Savour's Advice is recorded in this Fashion, Call no Man Rabbi, for one is your Rabbi, even Christ, and all ye are Brethren.[1] While the Names and Characters of Men stand between the Professors of Religion, and the Words of the Holy Ghost, there cannot be a better Office performed to such misled Mortals, than to beat down this Wall of Partition, which hinders them from receiving the heavenly Truth for its own Sake. It is but reasonable that the Righteous be had in everlasting Remembrance; but it is a poor Compliment paid to their Memory to prefer their Names and Works to the Word of God. They certainly never meant to be Lords of our Faith, but only Helpers of our Joy.
The associate Presbytery, in their Act concerning the Doctrine of Grace, have endeavoured to make some Improvements upon the Marrow of modern Divinity, and Mr Boston's Works; and have really improved in all the Absurdities of the ancient Pharisees. They have established an appropriating Act of Faith, which they affirm is necessary for Sinner's Justification before God, and insist upon Men believing what is no where revealed in the Scripture: Namely, that Christ made an Atonement for all the Hearers of the Gospel. They might as well have taken in all the World, and given all an equal Chance, and been as near the Truth. If all who hear the Gospel have a Right to say Christ loved me, and died for me: This must certainly be true, and all who hear the Gospel must be eventualy saved, otherwise Christ must have made an Atonement for them in vain, and the Privilege be as good as nothing, when it is not inseparably connected with Salvation. Such an Appropriation seems not to have been known in the Apostolic Times; for none of the Apostles required any such Faith of their Converts. They required their Confession in Behalf of the Character of Jesus, of his Death and Resurrection, but make no Mention of their believing that Christ died for them in particular, as a Condition in their Justification. They were called to believe the Record of God that there was eternal Life in his Son, but not to believe a Falshood, viz. that Christ died for all who hear the Gospel. Some have had the Effrontery to tell us, that though all the Hearers of the Gospel are called to believe that Christ died for them, yet this is not true till they believe it; which is in so many Words to declare that believing a Falshood makes it become true. But may it not be soberly asked, whether are not the Grounds of Faith true before we believe them, and do we not credit the Report which is given concerning Christ because we are persuaded that it is true. If it is not true before it be believed, then the Evidence of Faith comes after believing, i.e. the Effect goes before the Cause, or a Sinner believes a Falshood, and presently it becomes a Truth. This is the very Soul and Scope of the Marrow Doctrine which Mr Boston and the Seceders have been at Pains to trim up and render fit for the Fashion. It appears wondrous strange, that if all the Hearers of the Gospel are obliged to believe that Christ died for them, that his Atonement does not save them from the Sin of Unbelief as well as every other Iniquity. It is no where recorded in the Gospel, that Christ died for all the Hearers thereof, distinct from the rest of Mankind, nor does the Scope of it teach us any Thing more or less concerning the objects of his Atonement, than that he laid down his Life for his Sheep. Can it be supposed, that Christ shed his Blood on uncertain Conditions; that he paid the Price of Redemption for all, and yet had no Security for obtaining the Objects thereof? Can such Folly be imputed to him who is infinitly wise, or such Unfaithfulness be attributed to the faithful and true Witness. shall favour the Reader, with a few Passages from that Act of the Associate Presbytery; and leave him to judge for himself, whether or not I have done them Justice. Page 32, "They affirm a Man's being persuaded that Christ is his, is necessary to answer the Call and offer of the Gospel according to the Deed of Gift or Grant that God hath made of Christ in the Word. Now Salvation is offered to every one in particular that hears these glad Tidings. Act. xi. 39. The Promise is to you, and therefore it is certain that Faith, which is the Answer to the Call of God in the Gospel, must lay hold on Salvation for the Person in particular. For suppose that the offer be to all in general; yet if a Man is not influenced by the Holy Spirit to appropriate to himself the common Salvation, for what did lie in common in the Gospel Offer, he cannot be said to receive or close with Christ as he is offered therein."
Here they endeavour to establish an Appropriation, to answer a Call and Offer founded upon a Deed of Gift and Grant that never existed, except in the Imagination of the Associate Presbytery, the Marrow and Mr Boston's Works. Where in the divine Records, is this universal Grant and Gift of Christ to be found? If this Appropriation is founded on the universal Offer, and the Offer is founded upon this Gift and Grant, there is some reason to conclude it has no Foundation in Divine Revelation. But let us see how the Presbytery makes this out. (1.) The Promise is to you. Act. ii. 39, To whom? To a number of Christian Converts whom Peter was the Instrument of converting by proving the Facts concerning the Death and Resurection of Christ. And does the Presbytery really believe that these Christians were all unconverted Sinners? There is no Question; that Christ is made to Believer’s Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification and Redemption; and offers himself and all his Benefits to his Church, who are Heirs of the Promise: But is there no difference between the Grant made to the Heirs of Mercy, and the Privileges of Unbelievers who are Enemies to God, and Children of Wrath? I would only ask the Presbytery a plain Question. Was this Promise made to all who heard the Apostle, or only those who were converted by the Word which he had preached to them? Does not the very Text tell us, that the Promise is made to all whom the Lord God shall call. Therefore they are the Called of God, and faithful to whom this Promise of Remission of Sins and Salvation is granted. The Presbytery certainly did not consider what this Promise was which they affirm to be made to all the Hearers of the Gospel. It was the Promise of remission of Sins through the Blood of a Saviour, who was exalted at God’s Right Hand to give both Repentance and Remission of Sins to his People: But has God either promised, or was Christ exalted to fullfil the Promise of the Remission of Sins to all who hear the Gospel? It would have been better if the Associate Presbytery had read their New Testament a little more carefully before they had attempted to correct the General Assembly; for through their Zeal to correct the Assembly they have exposed themto every intelligent Reader of the Scriptures, to be the wildest Arminians that ever existed: And at the same time, that they deny the Fact, and want to fix it on others, use every Subtlety they are Masters of, to maintain the very Thing they find Fault with. Let us see what the Apostle Peter says to this point, and enquire how far he agrees or differs from the Associate Presbytery. Now, when they heard this, they were Pricked in their Hearts, and said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, what: shall we do? Then Peter said unto them repent, and he baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the Remission of Sins, and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. For the Promise is unto you, and to your Children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.[2] The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye flew and hanged on a Tree. Him hath God exalted with his Right Hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give Repentance to Israel, and Forgiveness of Sins.[3] Can anything be plainer than that Peter’s Words are an Answer to the Query of the Converts. What shall we do? They were persuaded that they were grievous Sinners for crucifying Christ, and that the Apostle’s Practice was right, and wanted to know what their Manner of Conduct was, that they might observe it. Peter tells them, that they must Repent of their past Sins, and shew they were Believers by taking the Badge of the Christian Religion on them by being in the Name of him whom they had crucified; for, says he, the Promise is to you, because Jesus is exalted to give Repentance and Forgiveness of Sins; and not only to you, but to your Children who believe, and all whom the Lord your God shall call. This Promise is only a Promise of Forgiveness of Sins that are past, to those whom the Lord hath or shall call. The Apostles Words have much the same Signification Rom iii. xx. Being justified freely by his Grace, through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood, to declare his Righteousness for the Remission of Sins that are past through the Forbearance of God; that he might be Just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. It would be saying little for the Divine Character to affirm, that God hath made a Grant to all upon a Condition he knew none of them could fulfil: This is to accuse the Almighty of Duplicity, and Equivocation. But may I not ask the Presbytery, Can that be called a Gift: which is never given? If Christ be exhibited as a common Gift in the Gospel to all, why is he not given to all? Likely the Seceders will say, because Sinners will not accept of him. But if Christ loved them, and did for them what he did for others, as the Presbytery affirms all are bound to believe, why did he not merit every necessary Grace and Power for them to accept of himself? Or why is not this Atonement effectual for their final Salvation as well as others who have no better Claim? I am afraid the Presbytery will find themselves fast here.
But the Presbytery cannot find a Method to get Sinners condemned for not believing the Gospel without contriving this Gift and Grant, and and the universal Offer in consequence thereof. But one would think their was no Difficulty here. Every rational Creature is justly condemned for making God a Liar, by rejecting the Record he hath given concerning his Son. The Gospel affords Arguments and Proof that Christ fulfilled all Righteousness Sake; but Sinners reject the Proof and give their Maker the Lie. They are not condemed for not believing what was never true, namely, that Christ died for all who hear the Gospel; but for rejecting what is Fact, viz. That God is pleased in Jesus Christ. This, as a Matter of Revelation, merits the Acceptation of all who hear it, whether their Salvation depended upon it or not; and they are justly condemned for making God a Liar. The Almighty has, by the Gospel, revealed this Truth, which could never have entered into the Heart of Man to conceive, namely; that he is reconciled to the Guilty for the sake of the Work which Christ finished on the Cross. This he has published in the Word of Truth without mentioning Individuals, or saying that Christ died for any but his Sheep; and the Enmity of Sinners is soon discovered by their opposition to this Truth. Many are fond of the Apwho are Enemies to the Cross of Christ, and reject the Record which God hath given concerning his Son.
But the Presbytery tell us, that there is something which lies in Common between Saints and Sinners, in Point of Right in the Gospel Offer, which cannot be received without the influence of the Holy Ghost. This is a very queer Sort of a Grant which is equal to all, and yet never happens to be any Thing to the greatest Part except mocking of them. They are required to tell a Falshood, and yet cannot do it though they should perish. Is it not to mock them, to tell them all is theirs, all is given to them, and yet they never get it; There is a terrible But, in this Case. But they will not take it. This is something indeed which ruins all; one wauld be tempted to think it never was theirs. Whether it was such Doctrine as this which Murray laughed at, I shall not say—But if it did not make him laugh, it was sufficient to have made him sad.
But before I proceed to Mr Frazer's Hobbyhorse, I shall make a few Observations on his Remarks on Mr. Monteith's Conduct. He would willingly father, a Falshood on Mr Monteith if he could. Mr Monteith said, he had Business of his own to transact when he went to Newcastle, and he said he had promised to Mr Kidd of Newcastle to come there, and received Mr Mur- Letter of Invitation upon which he went. Now instead of telling one Falshood, Mr Monteith only told two Truths, but at two different Times, and to different Persons; where was the Harm of all this? But Mr Monteith did not behave wisely— He ought to have consulted Daniel Frazer, and not proceed without his Advice. There are some Members of Congregations, who can do little Good when they are pleased, that can do Mischief enough when they angry—Mr Frazer seems to be one of these. But though Mr Frazer has not proved Mr Monteith guilty of speaking a Falshood, I can undertake to prove that honeft Daniel has printed one. He seems to whisper in the 9th Page of his Discovery, that Somebody, and another Somebody, made so free with the Holy Ministry, as to license a Cobler. Now I would put Daniel in Mind that both Parts of his Story is a Lie; and it gives some Ground to suspect, that all he has said is of the same Kind. In the first place, the Gentleman who was licensed never was a Cobler in the common Acceptation of that Word. He indeed served an Apprenticeship to the Business of a Shoemaker; but had not practised it for many Years. He had attended Schools of Literature and Philosophy equal to any University in Scotland, not excepting the Seceders’ famous Academy. In every Branch of human Literature he is Superior to any Seceding Minister ever I heard of; and for Knowledge in the Scriptures, and Oriental Languages he is fit to teach both the Associate Synods. As for his once being a Shoemaker that is no Reproach. It is as laudable an Employment as a Tent-maker. But whether friend Daniel knows it or not, I can assure him that some Years ago, had all the Black-smiths, Coblers, Weavers, and Taylors been taken out of the Associate Synod, their would have been but a small Number left behind. I do not mention this as any Discredit to these Ministers, but to put Friend Daniel in Mind that Men who have been of other Employments have been very good Preachers of the Gospel, in his own Way. But there is another Clause of a Falshood, which this good Man has printed; namely, that one and another licensed a Cobler. Daniel has certainly not heard that there were three Ministers employed in this Deed, and this Number even in Scotland makes a Presbytery. And I can assure Mr Frazer likewise that there were three Burger Ministers who ordained a Minister in Newcastle, and I do not hear that any Persons found Fault with them; and why might not three Protestant Dissenting Ministers license a Man they found qualified to Preach the Gospel, as well as three Burgers Preachers ordained one. There seems to be as much Reason on the one Side as the other. But who would give Credit to a Person who is disposed to publish such palpable Falshoods to the World. I must now as I promised, to consider Mr Frazer's Hobby-horse, which I shall shew he means no more by than a Child does by his Rattle.
Mr Frazer's Hobby-horse is a Church Judicatory, or an Ecclesiastic Court. This is the Thing he plays with through the whole of his Discovery: But honest Soul, he means nothing; I mean his Words have no Meaning. Daniel takes care to shew his Intention by stripping every Church Member of his Conscience; now let once a Man part with the exercise of his Conscience, and it will appear plain that every thing else will be a perfect Hobby-horse. What use is the Word of God or any other Book for, to a Person who makes no Conscience in enquiring into its Meaning, or observing its Dictates: Mr Frazer quotes a Passage from an old Book, where the Rights of Conscience are lodged, in the Hands of the Gentlemen of the Black Cloth. "For Synods and Councils have a Right, ministerially, to determine Matters of Faith and Cases of Conscience." I would not trust a Synod of Angels with that Charge; but to shew that Daniel means nothing by that Quotation, he has taken it on the Word of the Composers; for there is not a Passage in all the New Testament which says any such thing. Solomon says, If thou be wise, thou shall be wise for thyself; but if thou scornest, thou alone shall bear it—and Paul says, Have thou Faith, have it for thyself before God—There is not one Word of a Synod determining what any Man believe. Mr Frazer's Synods and Councils, and Courts of Christ, are like Uncle Toby's Battles and Circumvallations, which he and Corporal Trim formed in the Garden; which had just as good a Resemblance to the Battle of Namur, and the Siege of Dendermond, as Mr Frazer's Courts of Christ have to an Assembly of Apostles. The honest Captain and Corporal had been used to these Things, and meant no more by them, than to make a Hobby-horse of them; and Mr Frazer has been accustomed to Courts of Christ, and must in the Hobby-horsical Way be pondering them now and then. Synods and Councils, what Mr Frazer call Courts of Christ, are something like Courts Martial, where the Officers have a Power to whip all the private Men in the Regiment, without being, accountable for their Conduct.
But to describe Daniel Frazer's Hobby-horse more particularly, let us look to Page 25 of his Discovery. 1st. He says the Conscience is corrupted, and will not direct Men right. 2dly, It is blinded, and cannot direct them right. 3dly, To follow the Dictates of Conscience, is to deprive the Church of God of a Government. All this, says Daniel, is to loose Men from all Laws human and divine. Now what sort of a Church must this good Man have, when there is not a Conscience in it all. The Matter of fact is, Mr Frazer has not the smallest Idea of a New Testament Church; for in such Churches every Man's Conscience and the Gospel, speaks the same Language. This Description of Conscience, which our Dunse Friend gives us, is a Description of an ill Conscience, which cannot belong to a Society where all the Members are of one Heart and one Soul, and actuated by the same Spirit Christ, the Head of his Church, speaks by his Word to every Man's Conscience; but never, that I read of, commits the Cases of his People's Consciences to Trustees or Vice-gerents. According to Frazer, Christ governs the Officers of the Church; and they govern all the rest of the Members: Hence he acts by Deputation—But, Where does Daniel find this in the New Testament? How much better a Head of Government does it make Christ, to rule in the Officers of his Church than in all the Members?
This Mr Frazer, compares the Relief Church to Noah's Ark; for he does not well know what to compare her to: Now, by the bye, this is not a very bad Comparison; for Noah's Ark was framed by the Appointment of God, and nothing put into it, but what the Almighty commanded; and if the Church of Relief be of this Sort, she is not so very bad, as Frazer would make us believe. This zealous Man, in a Transport, calls the Heavens and the Earth be astonished at so much Impiety, and what all this Impiety? Truly, Reader, it is neither more nor less than the Rights of Conscience, which he calls impious—By this you may easily guess, that he does not know what he is saying. It is a pity but Daniel was at Rome for a Season, there he would see and feel the Plenitude of Church Power over the Consciences of Men.
Mr Frazer has a very droll Observation in his 17th Page; says he, to hold Communion with a Church, with which we cannot sit in Judicatory, is an evident Contradiction— And so it is Daniel; and this supposes that there is no other Judicature, till the coming of Christ, except the whole Church. I must own, I would like this better than an Assembly of Divines. This is the true Presbyterian Church, which the New Testament recommends. But this would destroy Mr Frazer's Hobby-horse: We have some very positive Assertions in Page 29, of the Hobby-horsical Kind. "I assert, says Frazer, that Christ is King of his Church, and hath appointed a particular Form of Government, to be observed therein; and it is that Form of Presbyterial Church Government of Kirk Sessions, in Subordination to Presbyteries, of Presbyteries; to Synods, of Synods, to General Assemblies, which Form of Government has been received and owned by the Church of Scotland, as agreeable to the Word of God." Stop there Daniel—They were only settled as most most agreeable to the Inclinations of the People in Scotland; as is evident from the Act of Settlement, at the Revolution—which Revolution Settlements, the Burgers have endeavoured to prove to be the same with the Reformation Principles. I wonder much, how Daniel has mistaken the Matter so far, as to bring in the Word of God, where it has not the least Concern. The Word of God has no more Concern with his Hobby-horse, than it had with Uncle Toby's. There is no more Ground for a Church Court in the Scripture, than there is Proof there, for a Bastion or a Counterskarp; and if it were not cruel, to deprive a poor Man of his Hobby-horse, I could easily shew him that his Form of Presbytery which he is so fond of, has no more Connection with the Word of God than it has with Voltaire's Dictionaire Philosophique: But I must spare poor Daniel's Hobby-horse; poor Man he means nothing by it further than to make a Pamphlet to ease himself of the Spleen, and please the Burgers—For what can any poor Fellow mean, when he has parted with his Conscience, which is the Candle of the Lord in every Man.
If Mr. Frazer had even the Pleasure of seeing a Burger Meeting-house at Dunse, it could be of small consequence to him without he should take his Conscience back—But he is to have no Connection with Conscience any longer.
Mr Frazer says, Page 24, "Another Error in the Relief Church is, their allowing Me to follow the Dictates of their own Conscience, altho' in opposition to the Word of God,—which is evident above from Mr Monteith's own Case, and from what he said to the Members of this Congregation." I cannot for my Heart perceive from any Thing that is said above, that the Relief Church have any such Principles; nor does it appear that any Man's Conscience was opposing the Word of God, except the Conscience of Daniel Frazer in Dunse: And, for this Reason, he has declared he will have no more to do with it. He has now, I think, played his Conscience a Trick for its Perverseness, and got fairly even with it. I am sorry that honest Frazer ever should have been in any Church of such a bad Character, as he describes; but alas! poor Soul, he has no hopes of being any better, for he is all along supposing every Church to have no Members, but such as have ill Consciences. Had Mr Frazer proved that Mr Monteith and the Church of Relief, had done any thing contrary to the Word of God, and that they affirmed that their Consciences directed them to do so, Daniel might have had some reason to have fallen foul on their Consciences: But the Man of Dunse has left this to some other Hand. But how comes it to pass that Daniel receives all the Articles of the Directory, concerning Church Government as agreeable to the Word of God? Is it not because his Conscience tells him they agree? In this case his Conscience must be Judge of this Agreement, and therefore he receives it because of the Judgment of his Conscience. Is not this doing what he blames in others? Suppose another Person makes the same Comparison, and finds that the whole Bible and the Directory differ, must not this Man follow his Conscience as well as Mr Frazer? How does Daniel embrace the Bible as a Revelation from God, except from a Consciousness that it is given by God? And is it not manifest in this case, that the Judgment of Conscience goes before an Acceptation of the Word of God. It is no Virtue to receive, what we are not conscious is right, whoever may be the Author; and we only know that God is the Author, of Divine Revelation, by comparing it by those Attributes of his Name, which we already understand. It would not be very difficult to prove this same Frazer an Atheist: For if there are not some Rules by which our Consciences can judge from the known Attributes of God, whether the Scriptures are like these Perfections, we are not sure if there is any Deity at all. Mr Frazer's Doctrine concerning Conscience, is point Blank Atheism. Suppose Daniel Frazer was to bring his Bible to an and tell him, This Book is the sole Directory of your conscience, which God has sent you, to which you must submit in all Things. Would not the Indian enquire, How do you know this? If I find it agreeable to the Character of God, I will receive it, but I cannot acknowledge it as a Revelation from God unless it is like him. Should Daniel tell him his Conscience is blinded and cannot judge right— he would naturally reply that he could not then judge at all; and consequently would conclude from Mr Frazer's Principles, that there could be neither Good nor Evil in the World:
Mr Frazer allows the Word of God to be the only Rule to Conscience, but what is to be the Rule whereby a Man must judge whether such and such Opinions are agreeable to that Word or not? One would be tempted to think that the Man of Dunse intended to set up his own Judgment for the Standard here. Suppose a Burger Minister should affirm, that the true Religion presently professed and authorized by the Laws of the Land, means a Religion professed 160 Years ago, and another affirms that it means the Religion professed in this present Year, how shall they settle this point without their Consciences? Every Man's Conscience, whether he will or not, will tell him, that what is past is not present; and when Laws are altered, they are not the same Laws; nor when Religion is altered, it is not the same Religion. And supalso they bring the Word of God to try this Point, must not the Judgment which they form concerning it, if they are honest, be the Judgment of Conscience?
Mr Frazer says, it is abominable for Men to follow the Light of their consciences in holding Communion with any Church: For this is making Conscience the Rule, and not the Word of God. Let's see where the Abomination lies. I do think that it is abominable to affirm that other Men's Consciences are not directed by the Word of God without proving it. When Men join withother religious People, who profess to hold by the Scriptures, it is always supposed that they take the Word for a Guide to their Consciences; and the Dispute then lies concerning the Interpretation of Scripture, which every Man's Conscience must certainly judge of, if he acts conscientiously. It does not appear from any Thing Daniel Frazer has yet discovered, that the Church of Relief pretends to make their Consciences a Rule independent of Scripture; and their Judgment of the Word of God has as good a Chance to be right as Mr Frazer's, or any other Person's. People of such persecuting Principles, as this Frazer seems to be of, are dangeous to have to do with—There is no Toleration with him: Such as cannot come up to his Standard, if he had Power, would soon feel his Vengeance.
He is a true Roman Catholic on the Doctrine of Conscience: But as this is the poor Man's Hobby-horse, let him enjoy it—Our Laws have secured us against any Danger from such Children—They my use their play Things to divert themselves, but can do little Ill by the Practice of them.
I shall now take my Leave of honest Frazer, and beg of him, that either he, or his abler Hand, will be so kind as let us know all they have to say against the Rights of Conscience, and the Presbytery of Relief; and I promise him honestly, if Daniel shall write a Pamphlet every Month, I shall do him the honour to consider his Arguments—But I must put him in Mind not to plague his Readers with so many Quotations from Scripture which are no way for his purposes. He deserves to be soundly chastized for making so free with the Scriptures as to apply them to his Hobby-horse. I have no objections against his trifling with Boston's Works, and same other old Books, but would advise him not to pervert the Words of the Holy Ghost. If Daniel has a Mind to carry on this Controversy, I shall help him to a Discovery of the Principles of the Burger Seceders to compare with the Principles of the Presbytery of Relief. I can assure him, I have no Aversion to see this point well cleared up, and shall give him all the Assistance I can afford.
FINIS.
Speedily will be published,
A New FARCE, call’d
THE
HYPOCRITE,
(As it is acted at the Riding School in Dunse.)
By Daniel Frazer, and Company.
DRAMATIS PERSON Æ.
The Sham Discoverer,DANIEL FRAZER.
The Jacobite,ANDREW JEFFRY.
Sir John Fielding,WILLIAM GILLIES.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse