contrary to the scriptural characters of a true church of Christ, that they judge it their duty to bear testimony against them, while they obstinately persist in these things, in the way of declining actual communion with them; yet they are far, very far from unchurching them, or denying them to be true churches of Christ, or from putting them upon a level with the Popish church.*

12. Alex. The secession of these ministers is unprecedented in the history of the church of Scotland. Great defections prevailed there between the years 1596 and 1638. In that period, the honest party witnessed against these defections without erecting themselves into different judicatories, or any thing like separation. They did so in a way of church communion.f

Ruf. It is necessary to observe the difference between the course of defection between 1596 and 1638 and the course of defection which occasioned the secession of these ministers. The former was the work of king James and his court, in order to introduce prelacy. He first attempted to persuade some of the ministers to sit and vote in parliament. In the next place, he laboured to set up constant moderators in presbyteries and synods. And, at last, he tried to introduce the use of certain Popish ceremonies and of a liturgy into the public worship. But he could never get what could be called a free and lawful asseinbly to authorize any of these things. Hence the constant cry of ministers and presbyteries in that period was for such an assembly consisting of members chosen according to the form and order of the church of Scotland. Thus the course of defection between 1596 and 1638 was carried on violently by the civil power. But that which occasioned the secession of these ministers was carried on by assemblies chosen by presbyteries after the usual manner. Thus, there was not the same cause for secession from the church of Scotland as represented in her judicatories in the former of these periods, as in the latter. But it is

* There may be churches, says the celebrated Vitringa, called christian, in which, though we do not externally communicate with them at the Lord's table, we acknowledge there are true christians, belonging to the mystical body of Christ; in the congregation, for example, of the Greek church, of the Mennonites, of the Remonstrants, of the brethren of the Augsburgh Confession. The external communion of christians, for various reasons, which were deemed convincing by the ancient church, is confined within narrower bounds than the internal. So that if we separate from some congregations of christians, the separation is only hypothetical and on account of those errors which we disapprove and renounce; leaving them, in other respects, to the judgement of Christ. Many prefer a discipline which is thus more restricted, to that which is more relaxed; lest the public communion of christians with those whom they know to be holding grievous error, even though it be not fundamental, should be considered as a communion with them in that error, or at least should be an occasion of corrupting the doctrine of the true faith. Possunt dari ecclesiæ christiani nominis cum quibus externe non colimus communionem mensæ sacræ, in quibus nihilominus agnoscamus veros dari christianos, qui partem faciant mystici corporis Christi; quales omnino dari credimus in cœtibus ecclesiæ Græcæ, Mennonilarum, Remonstrantium et Augustana Confessionis, quos solos exempli causa nune allego. Externa enim christianorum communio ob varias rationes, quas prudentia veteribus christianis suasit, ad arotiores limites restringitur quam interna: ut adeo si nos a quibusdam, alliis cœtibus externe separemus, id solummodo hypothetice et restricte fiat cum respectu ad illos in doctrina aut cultu errores quos fugimus et aversamur: cætera relinquimus judicio Christi. Plerique existimant, prudentiæ est esse subterfugere periculum nimiæ libertates et indulgentiæ ac præstare, ut arctetur quam laxetur disciplina, ne christiani cum iis publicam exercendo communionem, quos in gravi (licet forte non fundamentali) errore versari putant, hoc ipso venire censeantur in erroris illius communionem, vel saltem occasionem, præbeant corrumpendæ veræ fidei doctrinæ. Observat. Sacræ, Lib. v. cap, ix. § 13,

† Imp. Test. page 163.

farther to be observed, that it is not true, that the contending of the honest party in the period between 1596 and 1638, was always in a way of church communion with the corrupt party.

For, in the first place, many ministers refused to acknowledge the authority of the pretended assemblies that were then held by the authority of the court; such as that which met at Perth in the year 1618, and passed what are called the five articles of Perth. Mr. Calderwood says, the greatest part of the best qualified ministers through the land, and of the most zealous professors, refused the authority of the Perth assembly. Several presbyteries, ministers and professors who disowned the authority of these pretended assemblies; must then have been rather considered as seceding from them, than as holding church communion with them.

In the second place, the presbyteries continued in this period to meet regularly, for the exercise of church discipline, without any subordination to the bishops, and consequently not in church communion with them. Mr. Wodrow in his history says, Our first prelates were not against the meetings of presbytery in their several jurisdictions, but they continued to meet regularly, and had almost the whole of church discipline in their hands. Mr. Wodrow adds, from the remarks of the reverend Mr. Robert Douglas, that he, Mr. Douglas, dealt with the statesmen in the year 1662 not to prohibit presbyteries, but to allow them to stand as under the former bishops: for added he, if they are pulled down, and set up in subordination to the bishops, no honest minister will keep them. From this account of Mr. Douglas it appears, that before the year 1638 presbyteries were not pulled down, and that they did not at that time subsist in subordination to the bishops.

In the third place, the practice and sentiments of some eminent ministers of that period were in favour of a secession from the corrupt judicatories supported by the court. Mr. Calderwood in his history,t relates, that," at a conference he had with some of the bishops, they "urged him to repair to the synods; particularly the bishop of Caith"ness said to him, come and say, Hic sum, [that is, I am here] and "then do as you please. But, Mr. Calderwood replied, that hic sum "is the question;" adding some weighty reasons why he could not be present at their synods. Mr. John Welch in a letter directed to Mr. Bruce, after charging the bishops with perfidy and apostacy, concludes, "Therefore, they are not to be heard any more, in public, in consisto"ries, in colleges, or in synods; for what fellowship hath light with "darkness." Mr. James Melvil, in a letter to one of his brethren in prison, has the follwing words: "Alas! if that spirit of zeal and courage, which sometimes reigned in our kirk, were kindled up again, it might make a few from every presbytery and province, convene together in the name of Christ, and censure these corrup"tions of the kirk to the uttermost." Mr. Robert Bruce was ejected from his charge in the year 1600, and banished his native country; because he had not such satisfaction about the truth of Gowry's conspiracy, that he could conscientiously give thanks to the Lord for the king's deliverance from it. After this time he never sat in any of the judicatories. Though he was allowed to return from banishment, yet

66

* Vol. 6, pages 117, 118. † Page 687.

he was confined, first to his own house at Kinnaird, and afterwards at Inverness and other places. But wherever he was, he still con→ tinued to exercise his ministry with great success, without any conjunction with the judicatories.

Alex. Mr. Willison, in his testimony, laments the division which was occasioned by some insnaring questions proposed by Charles and the parliament in 1650 concerning the admission of persons who had been opposers of the covenanted reformation, to places of trust civil and military, upon a public profession of their repentance. Those who were for the admission of such to places of power and trust were called public resolutioners; and those against it, protesters. Eminently great and good men were upon both sides; and some no less eminent joined neither side. Perhaps the protesters, who were the minor party, carried their opposition too far on so narrow a point; but they did not state a secession upon it. Mr. Currie, a minister of the established church asserted, that Mr. Guthrie and the other protesters in his day were as opposite in principle and practice to the associate presbytery, as are nadir and zenith, or light and darkness.

Ruf. This remark is sufficiently confuted by Mr. Wilson of Perth in a passage which I shall read to you from the Continuation of his excellent Defence of Reformation Principles ;* a writer whose information on this subject cannot be disputed.

"The principles of the associate presbytery," says he, "which are "fully and plainly laid down in the assertory part of the Act and Tes"timony; are the same with those which were professed and main"tained by James Guthrie and the other protesters in his day. As to "the manner of testifying for these principles, the associate presbyte66 ry do testify in the same way and manner that the eminent minister "Mr. James Guthrie and the other protesters in his day did testify; "as may appear from the following particular instances."

"1mo, The protesters in the former period disowned the authority "and constitution of the assemblies that met in the years 1651 and "1652: Even so the associate presbytery have, upon just and weighty "grounds, disowned the authority and constitution of the present judi"catories, by their act dated at Edinburgh, May 1739."

"2do, Mr. Guthrie and the other protesters in his day, continued to "exercise their ministry, after some of them were deposed by the pre"tended judicatories at that time. And I suppose it will not be con"troverted by any that know the history of our church, that these de"posed ministers continued to exercise their ministry in as free and "full a manner as formerly. Even so the ministers of the associate "presbytery, the most part of them, have been prosecuted unto deposi"tion by the pretended assemblies at this day; but do continue to ex"ercise their ministry notwithstanding the pretended sentence passed "against them."

stio, Mr. Guthrie and the protesters in his day, met together in "distinct judicatories, and exercised the keys of government and "discipline in a distinct judicative capacity from those who were called the public resolutioners. Even so the Seceding ministers ex"ercise the key of government and discipline in a distinct capacity from the present judicatories. There was a presbytery of Linlith

* Pages 501-504.

"gow, composed of public resolutioners; and another, bearing the "same name, composed of protesters. In the bounds of Stirling "presbytery, the protesters and the public resolutioners met in dis"tinct presbyteries; the former at Stirling, and the other at Alloa. "The public resolutioners, in their paper, entitled, The Protestation, "given in to the general assembly, July 21st, 1652, say, The protest"ers meeting then in Edinburgh without order, after a little pause, "did constitute themselves in an ecclesiastical judicatory, wherein "magisterially they define things so prejudicial to us, as not only per"fectly obstructed all peace, but also sounded the alarm to a new con"flict, by emitting a paper, wherein they peremptorily conclude, among "the chief causes of the Lord's controversy with the land, the public "resolutions and the preceding assembly to have a special place."

"The paper now mentioned, is written on the resolution side; and "therefore, the above expressions are in a style reflecting upon the "protesters. But we may gather from them the following plain facts. "imo, That the protesters did meet at Edinburgh, and did constitute "themselves into an ecclesiastical judicatory, distinct from those of "the public resolutioners. 2do, That the protesters did exercise the "the keys of government and discipline in a distinct judicative capa"city. This they did three ways: 1st, They condemned the pre"ceding assembly. 2ndly, They condemned the public resolutions: "which two, they judicially condemn, as having a special place in the "chief causes of God's controversy with the land. 3dly, They emit "a paper containing their above conclusions: and this is the same 66 upon the matter with the proceedings of the associate presbytery in "emitting their Act and Testimony.'

From the instances now given, it appears, that the practice of the Seceding ministers, in constituting themselves into an ecclesiastical judicatory, distinct from the judicatories of the established church, was not unprecedented even in the history of the church of Scotland. § 15. Alex. These ministers have set an example of separation which has been too much followed. The divisive spirit that now prevails, tramples upon all order, and tends to produce universal confusion.

Ruf. Who are the greatest promoters of this disorder? Those who zealously contend that the Lord Jesus, the only Head of the church, has appointed such a particular form of presbyterial church government as is calculated in the best manner for the preservation of both truth and peace? or those who hold that there is no particular form of church government of Christ's institution? The Seceding ministers are most decisively of the former persuasion; while it is too evident, that the latter opinion prevails among their opposers. The truth is, there is no other basis upon which order and peace will ever be restored to the church of Christ, than that of submission to his authority, determining the form of church government in opposition to prelacy on the one hand, and to independency on the other.

With regard to the example of the secession made by these ministers, I am persuaded that there would be fewer separations, (and no unnecessary ones,) from particular churches, if none would withdraw from them but upon parallel ground, and in the same manner, in which these ministers withdrew from the church of Scotland, as she

is represented in her judicatories. The ground upon which they proceeded in their secession was no private or personal cause of their own, but the public cause of the Redeemer's Spiritual Kingdom; it was no new paradox or doubtful opinion, but principles certainly contained in the word of God, and plainly declared in the subordinate standards of that very church from which they seceded. Nor did they take this step, till they were precluded from every other way in which they could maintain a faithful testimony against the deviations which had been, and were continuing to be made from those principles. In short, the design of their secession was no other than that of maintaining the measure of reformation, or of conformity to the word of God in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, which the church of Scotland had once attained.

Alex. The shadows of the evening admonish us to put a stop to our conversation at present. I hope we shall have another opportunity afterwards of pursuing our enquiry into the principles of the Seceders. Ruf. Before we part, allow me to add two remarks:

The first is, that, as these four ministers did not make secession from the established church as represented in her judicatories, till they found that they could not avoid it without retracting a necessary protestation which they had made for the liberty of testifying against the corruptions of these judicatories; so their act of constituting themselves into a presbytery, towards the end of the year 1733, was no rash or inconsiderate step. "Near two days," says Mr. Wilson, who was one of them," were spent in prayer and serious reasoning on this head, "in which they endeavoured to compare the word and providences to"gether. In their meetings on these days," adds he," and particu"larly in the act of prayer by which the presbytery was constituted, "they experienced something of the Lord's gracious presence and "special countenance."

The other remark is, That the ministers who composed the associate presbytery withdrew gradually from the communion of the established church, as they attained more enlarged views of the cause in which they were engaged. The rise of the secession, says a judicious writer, who was well acquainted with these ministers and their proceedings,* was the dawning of a new day, a day which, at first, was known only to the Lord. The four brethren were far from acting upon any preconceived plan. The Lord led them by a way they knew not, from one step to another. In the beginning of their dispute with the judicatories of the established church, they had no apprehension of a separation. As Luther had, at first, but a very imperfect knowledge of the Popish abominations and of the reformation which was necessary. So these ministers, for several years, found themselves but gradually emerging out of the darkness of a long and deep apostacy from the covenanted reformation. Though the occasion of the secession was the testifying of these ministers against some particular evils which had recently taken place; yet even the first statement of it in 1733 was upon the general ground of a course of defection, persisted in by the judicatories from the principles of that reformation.

The associate presbytery advanced a step farther in stating the grounds of the secession, when they published what has been called

* Display of the Secession Testimony, vol. 2, pages 382, 383.