66

"son," said the English divines in that synod, "can be given for "depriving of the right of suffrage, in this matter, all the pas "tors, who, in the discharge of their office, had defended the re"ceived doctrine of the church, and opposed such as taught other"wise? Were this measure adopted, no minister would oppose the "spread of new doctrines, lest he should thereby lose all right of "afterwards giving his judgement in controversies about them. It " is an error to suppose, that the pastors, in this way, become judges ❝ in their own cause. Truth is the common treasure of the church; "nor can it by any means become the private property of individuals. "It is the public cause of God and the church, not any one's personal cause, that is debated in the synods."*

66

These protesters, then, would not have been parties in the question, Whether that decision should be reversed? that being a matter purely doctrinal. But they were evidently parties in the question, Whether that decision should be a term of communion? as that would have been, upon the matter, an inquiry, whether any of these protesters should be called to an account for their opposition to that decision? To say that they were not parties in this question, and that they might be judges of it, is as unreasonable, as it would be to say, that a person is not a party, but may act as a judge in a cause concerning himself, which has been committed to the verdict of a jury.

Alex. The friends of the decision have been much blamed for saying that ministers, and not elders or kirk sessions, are the proper judges in controversies of faith and cases of conscience; or in such a question as this; Whether the synod's decision concerning the religious clause of some burgess oaths, should be a term of communion?

Ruf. When ministers are called the proper judges in a controversy of faith or case of conscience, ruling elders are not excluded from being judges, in a secondary sense, in the way of assisting ministers, but not to the overbearing of them. It must be held, however, according to the holy scripture and our subordinate standards, that the judicial determination of doctrinal controversies properly belongs to those to whom the Lord Jesus has committed the key of doctrine; which is explained in the Judicial Testimony, to be "for expounding "and preaching the word, and for determining controversies accord❝ing to the scriptures. The office of the elders, of whom we now speak, is expressly limited to ruling and government; and is hereby distinguished from that of other elders, who labour in word and doctrine, Rom. xii. 8-1 Corinth. xii. 28-1 Tim. v. 17. The second book of discipline teaches concerning the elders, that their principal office is to hold assemblies with the pastors, for the establishing of good order and the execution of discipline. The Westminster assembly's form of church government lays this down as comprehending the whole business of elders, "that they are to join with the "minister in the government of the church." In February, 1597, a

Quæ ratio reddi potest, cur suffragiorum jure priventur omnes illi pastores, qui ex officio receptam ecclesiæ doctrinam propugnantes, secus docentibus adversati sunt? Si hoc obtineret, noxa dogmata spargentibus nemo obsisteret, ne, ipso facto, jus omne postmodum de illis controversiis judicandi amitterent. In co erratur, quod pastores in sua causa hoc modo judices esse præsumuntur. Veritas communis ecclesiæ thesaurus est; nec potest ullo pacto fieri peculium singularum personarum. Dei et ecclesiæ publica causa est, non sua cujuscunque quæ in synodis agitur.

question having been proposed by king James about those who should have a vote in synodical assemblies, some brethren out of the several presbyteries of the synod of Fife, gave this answer: "Such as have "commission from particular sessions of congregations have vote; ex"cept in matters of doctrine, wherein only they that labour in the word 66 may vote and judge." The reformed church of France determines in the third chapter of their discipline, that "Elders may well assist "and give their opinion; but the decision of doctrine is principally "reserved to ministers and pastors, and to doctors of divinity duly "called to their charges." In their national assembly in 1598, they determined," that when there is a question of the judgement of "doctrine, the decision of it belongs to the ministers only." With regard to kirk sessions in a constituted state of the church, it is granted, that they are proper judges of what is the acknowledged doctrine of the church, for the maintenance of it in their several congregations: but it is denied that they, as courts of judicature, may pass decisions about what should be the acknowledged doctrine of the church, in matters of public controversy. To allow such a judgement to ruling elders, as distinct from teaching elders, would overthrow the doctrine of our standards, by placing the decisive exercise, the highest exercise, of the key of doctrine, where the Lord Jesus never placed it.

Alex. The resolution to transmit the decision concerning the religious clause of some burgess oaths to presbyteries and kirk sessions, is said to be according to some barrier acts, particularly, the act of the assembly in 1639, ordaining, "that no innovation, which may "disturb the peace of the church and make divisions, be suddenly "enacted, but so as the motion be first communicated to the several "synods, presbyteries and kirk sessions, that the commissioners may ❝come well prepared, unanimously to conclude a solid determination "upon these points in the general assembly."

Ruf. The synod's declaring that they have found something in the practice of church members, which is inconsistent with their public profession, and which is therefore to be avoided, cannot, with any propriety, be called an innovation. No new tenet or new usage was introduced by the decision in question. Besides, there is reason to believe, that the act you have mentioned, relates to overtures concerning matters of order and government, and not to doctrine; because this act directs the proposal to be communicated to kirk sessions, which are not properly judges of doctrines, being mostly made up of elders, to whom, as has been just now observed, the cognizance of matters of discipline and government, rather than of doctrine, belongs. The enacting of something new, with regard to order, may often be delayed with advantage, or at least without any loss. But the case is very different, when it is required to determine what is truth and duty, or what is sin and error. The glory of God, and the near concern which men's consciences have in such questions, render the speedy determination of them necessary. Such, in an eminent degree, was the question about the consistency of swearing the religious clause of some burgess oaths with the testimony and bond that had been agreed on by the associate presbytery.

Alex. The account you have given of the moderator and clerk, as declining to act, when the vote was taken on the question which occasioned the rupture; and of others, as taking upon them, without any order of the court, to call the names and mark the votes, seems not to be admitted by the defenders of that question. "Did not the "moderator," says one of them, "acquiesce by continuing to sit in "court, after the sentence was passed, in April 9th ?*** "The "minutes bear," says another of them, "that Henry Erskine was "appointed to clerk by turns with Mr. Hutton."+

Ruf. The same account was repeatedly published in the proceedings of the associate synod, soon after the event took place;t and none of those then present are known to have called this account in question. The writer of the Display of the Secession Testimony, who was an actor in this mournful scene, and who had better means of information, than any of the authors you refer to, says concerning Mr. James Mair, who had been chosen moderator by the synod at that meeting, that he was in the chair at the time when the two resolutions were before the synod; and that he acted as moderator with respect to the first; but that it is a most notorious fact, that with respect to the second resolution, he persisted in making no return, when intreated to call, or to order the calling of the roll. The writer of the Display also avers in the most absolute manner, that the minute which Mr. Brown cites, as bearing, that Mr. Henry Erskine was appointed to clerk by turns, is a false minute, if it refer to the time before the breach, being what could not have existed till after it. It is true, adds that writer, "that Mr. Hutton demurred at taking the "office of clerk, from the constancy of attendance which it would "require. But no mention was made of Henry Erskine for doing so, "I was the person fixed on, and named as such in the original minute. "All which I am as certain of as I can be of any thing that has been "transacted in my time."||

Alex. Might not the members who adhered to the synod's decision concerning the religious clause of some burgess oaths have submitted to the determination for transmitting that decision to presbyteries and kirk sessions; while their consciences was exonerated by their protestations ?

Ruf. They could not have acquiesced in the manner in which this question was carried, without allowing the minority to be the court; nor without allowing disorders inconsistent with its constitution, such as, that a court might determine a cause so important, as that must necessarily be, which respects the profession of religion in general, without hearing what was evidently necessary to the understanding of the merits of that cause; that parties may be admitted to be judges in their own personal cause; and that any member or members may, without any designation or appointment of the court, and at their own hand, act as moderator and clerk. They could not have acquiesced in the carrying of this question in the affirmative, without

→ Survey of the Controversy, &c. page 70.

Mr. Brown, in his letter to Mr. Gib.

+ See their proceedings in 1747, page 17-and those in 1749 and 1750, page 10. Display, &c. pages 425, 426

allowing a resolution as a deed of the court, which tolerated the swearing of an oath, which, as it comes necessarily to be used and applied at present, was declared by another deed of the same court left professedly standing, to be inconsistent with the profession and testimony of Seceders: and considering, that Seceders were engaged by solemn oath in the bond agreed on by the associate presbytery, to adhere to that profession and testimony, I do not see how it can be denied, that this resolution involves them in the guilt of allowing the swearing of contradictory oaths. They could not have acquiesced in the carrying of this resolution, without falling away from their testimony against the latitudinarian scheme of church communion. It appears, that the decision of synod concerning the religious clause of some burgess oaths, was all along opposed upon latitudinarian principles. The protesters against that decision say in their ninth reason, "Upon supposition, that we should grant that there is sufficient ob"jective evidence unto all, that the swearing of the clause condemned "would be doing a thing, which virtually and on the matter, is a sin"ful receding from the testimony of the day, which we are professing "to hold; yet, when the swearing of it is but newly quarrelled, the "synod ought rather to have enjoined mutual forbearance, than to "have condemned the present swearing of the said clause." Here it it is taught, that though there be sufficient objective evidence to all of the sinfulness of this matter; that is, though its sinfulness be plain enough to any who are not uncommonly blind or prejudiced; though it be plainly enough backsliding and a profanation of the Lord's name; yet it is to be tolerated, under a pretence of novelty, and on account of different sentiments about it. This cannot be denied to be one of these latitudinarian tenets abjured in the bond agreed on by the associate presbytery. But this scheme was carried to a far greater height in the resolution which occasioned the breach: for, by that resolution, a practice was to be tolerated, which was not only sinful, but declared to be so by a judicial decision, which, by this resolution, is professedly left standing. Thus, the church was to admit to her sacramental communion persons who persisted obstinately in a practice determined by her judicial deed to be sinful. This was a flagrant instance of the catholic sacramental communion, which we formerly examined.

Alex. The opposers of the decision concerning the religious clause. of some burgess oaths, represent the synod which met at Mr. Gib's house, as a different synod from that which had chosen the moderator and clerk, and from that to which the elders had been sent by their several sessions. Though the person, who called that nominal synod, asserted, in his declaration, that the power of the synod devolved upon him and his party; yet, he neither did, nor could, shew any warrant for his saying or doing so. *

Ruf. If the friends of that decision concerning some burgess oaths were the majority; and were holding the constitutional principles of the associate synod; (two things, which were certainly true,) the proposal of adjourning to another time and place, could not make them another court. It is vain to ask what warrant a member had to make such a proposal? for, in so doing, he only made use of a privilege

• Re-exhibition, &c. pages 266, 267, 268.

common to all the members of the court; the privilege of making any motion which they judge proper. And if there was nothing unlawful in the proposal, it was warrantable for the members of the court to agree to it, and to act accordingly. What was extraordinary in this proposal, was rendered necessary by the extraordinary resolution which they who voted on this occasion pretended to have carried; and by the extraordinary case of the minority of a court assuming to themselves the name and authority of the court in such a violent manner, as could not be obstructed by any means competent to an ecclesiastical court,

§ 71. Alex. There is nothing that has raised such an odium against the friends of the decision concerning some burgess oaths, as their pretending to depose and excommunicate their brethren.

Ruf. This odium has been much increased by erroneous doctrine about the objects of excommunication. This awful censure has been represented as having no other than graceless persons for the objects of it: a representation which is contrary to the gracious end of the ordinances in general which Christ hath given to his church; and particularly to the end of excommunication; by which obstinate offenders are to be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.* The justly celebrated Turretine, in stating the Protestant doctrine on this head, observes, that excommunication may be considered either with regard to the outward or the inward state of the person who is the object of it. As to his outward state, it denotes a real separation from the external communion of the church, yet not perpetual, but for a time; that is, till he manifest his repentance. But as to his inward state, it is not a real expulsion from the mystical body of Christ; for he who is once taken into that body, can never be cast out of it. We are not immediately to conclude, that an offender is simply and absolutely cut off from the body of Christ, or that he ceases to be a member of the church in secret, and as to his internal state; because he is for a time, according to external discipline, removed from the society of the faithful. Many regenerate persons, says Mr. Rutherford, may go so far in scandalous obstinacy, that they are to be excommunicated. This odium has also been promoted by such as have taught, that there are real violations of the Divine law, which though they be public offences, and contumaciously persisted in, and properly matters of judicial cognizance; which, after all, can never be any sufficient ground of excommunication. This doctrine is contrary to what

* 1 Corinth. v. 4, 5. The terms used by the apostle (to deliver unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus,) cannot mean a miraculous inflicting of some tormenting pain or disease upon the man's body; or an extraordinary permission given to Satan for that purpose. For if it had been any work of this sort, the apostle would not have blamed the Corinthians, as he did, for not having wrought it sooner; while no such thing was competent to them; nor could he have sought, as he did, the concurrence or assistance of the Corinthians for working it. He could not have called it, as he did in 2 Corinth. ii. 6, this punishment, or, as the original might be rendered, judicial censure, which was inflicted of many : nor could he have mentioned the man's hazard of being swallowed up with overmuch sorrow, as the proper effect of the censure; without taking any notice of the pain or disease, if there had been any such effect, on his body. It was not, therefore, any de- ́ struction of his body, but of his fleshly corruption, that the apostle meant; the censure being a mean of the Lord's institution for that purpose.

Display of the Secession Testimony, pages 102, 103.