SECEDERS, a numerous body of Presbyterians, who have withdrawn from the communion of the Established Church in Scotland.

In order that the causes from which the Secession originated may be clearly understood, we shall introduce an account of that important event by a brief sketch of the previous history of the Scottish church.

James I. after his accession to the English throne, entertained an ardent desire to form the Church of Scotland as much as possible upon the model of that in England; and his son Charles, with the assistance of Archbishop Laud, endeavoured to carry the design into execution, by establishing canons for ecclesiastical discipline, and introducing a liturgy into the public service of the church. Great numbers of the clergy and laity of all ranks took the alarm at what they justly considered as a bold and dangerous innovation; and after frequent applications to the throne, they at last obtained the royal proclamation for a free parliament and General Assembly. The Assembly met in 1688, and began their labours with a repeal of all the acts of the six preceding parliaments, which had favoured the introduction of Episcopacy. They condemned the liturgy, together with every branch of the hierarchy. They cited all the Scottish bishops to their bar, and after having excommunicated nine of them, and deposed five from their episcopal office, they restored kirk-sessions, presbyteries, and synods, provincial as “ell as national. These proceedings were ratified by the parliament which met in 1640. The law of patronage, however, was in full force for several years after this period; but great care was taken that no minister should be obtruded on the people contrary to their inclination; and in 1649 patronage was abolished altogether, as an oppressive grievance.

The restoration of Charles II. in 1660, produced a total change in the state of ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland. All that the General Assembly had done from 1688 to 1650 was rendered null and void; the covenants were pronounced to be unlawful, Episcopacy was restored, and the king was declared to be the supreme head of the church in all matters civil and ecclesiastical. During this period, under the sway of Lauderdale and his associates, the Presbyterians were not only subjected to tines, imprisonment, and exile, but numbers of them were publicly executed, for their adherence to their political and religious principles.

At the memorable era of the Revolution, the affairs of the church underwent a complete change. The first parliament which met after that event abolished prelacy and the king’s supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs. They ratified the Westminster Confession of Faith, together with the Presbyterian form of church government and discipline, “as agreeable to the word of God, and most conducive to the advancement of true piety and godliness, and the establishment of peace and tranquillity within these realms.” That same parliament abolished patronage, and vested the election of ministers in the heritors and elders, with the consent of the congregation.

At the first General Assembly held after the Revolution, a most conciliatory spirit was manifested, and a wide door of admission into the national church was opened to the episcopal ministers, on the most lenient terms. Great multitudes of the conforming clergy were thus induced, for the sake of the benefice, to transfer their respect and obedience from the bishop to the presbytery, and were received into ministerial communion on merely acknowledging “that the church government, as now settled by law, is the only government of this church.” The admission of these timeservers into the church laid the foundation of those measures which ultimately led to the secession.^[1. For a description of their character, see Burnet, vol. i. p. 158, folio edition. ]

In the reign of Queen Anne, the true Protestant religion was ratified and established, together with the Presbyterian form of church government and discipline; and the unalterable continuance of both was declared to be an essential condition of the union of the two kingdoms in all time coming. In 1712, the law respecting patronage was revived, in resentment, it has been said, of that warm attachment which the Church of Scotland discovered to the family of Hanover; and about the same period the imposition by the government, of the oath of abjuration, was a fertile source of discord and strife, both among ministers and people. This oath was regarded with great jealousy, and was peculiarly obnoxious to the Presbyterian clergy, both because its avowed design was the security of the Church of England, and because it seemed to imply an approbation of diocesan Episcopacy, with the ceremonies of that church, and a recognition of the queen’s supremacy in matters of religion. About a third part of the clergy, including the founders of the Secession Church, positively refused to swear this offensive oath; though they were enjoined to do so on pain of ejection from their churches, and of paying an exorbitant fine. A train of events which followed in rapid succession soon made it manifest that the dominant party in the Scottish church were, if not hostile, at least indifferent, to the most important doctrines of religion, and ready to sacrifice the liberties of tire people at the shrine of civil authority. This charge was proved beyond the possibility of contradiction, by their conduct towards the presbytery of Auchterarder in the year 1717, with regard to what has since been denominated the Auchterarder Creed, by their vindictive proceedings against the twelve minsters known by the name of “Marrow Men,” who endeavoured to check the progress of error by the diffusion of sound doctrine, along with their condemnation of the doctrines of the book entitled the Marrow of Modern Divinity, in the years 1720-21, and especially by the leniency of their dealings with Professor Simpson of Glasgow, who, though found guilty of teaching a system of deism rather than Christian theology, in his prelections to the students of divinity, received no higher censure than simple suspension.

For some time after the revival of patronage in 1712, the severity of the law was greatly mitigated by the general disinclination, on the part both of ministers and patrons, to avail themselves of its provisions in opposition to the feelings of the people; but this state of things was speedily changed. After the lapse of a few years, patrons no longer hesitated to avail themselves of their legal rights, and ministers were no longer disinclined to accept of presentations when given contrary to the wishes of the congregation. But on the part of the people acts of resistance became more frequent and more obstinate, though they were almost uniformly unsuccessful; for the ruling party among the clergy were firm in their resolution that the law of patronage should be carried into effect. They found themselves, however, placed in circumstances of peculiar difficulty; for not only were the people loud in their remonstrances against violent settlements, but a considerable party of the ministers themselves espoused the popular side, and not only strenuously opposed the intrusion of ministers upon congregations, but obstinately refused to carry into effect the decisions of the Assembly. To obviate this difficulty, in 1729 they appointed a committee of their own number to meet and ordain the obnoxious presentee; and for a period of twenty years this expedient was resorted to in cases where the presbytery proved refractory. The excitement of the people, and their resistance to the yoke of patronage, continued to increase; violent settlements prevailed in every part of the country; and in some cases the popular feeling was so strong, that it was deemed necessary to employ an armed force to carry into effect the decisions of the church-courts. At the meeting of the Assembly in 1730, there were no[7:20:62] fewer than twelve cases of appeals on the part of congregations against the intrusion of obnoxious ministers; but the dominant party were so determined to crush all opposition to their enactments, that they not only dismissed these appeals, but solemnly enacted, at this meeting of the Assembly, that henceforward no reasons of dissent “against the determination of church judicatures” should be entered on the record. The Assembly of 1781 followed closely in the footsteps of its predecessor. By the law of patronage it was provided, that if the patron suffered six months to elapse without exercising his right of presentation, the presbytery to which the vacant parish belonged was empowered to take steps for its settlement. The presbyteries in these cases frequently gave the people the right of ch∞sing their ministers; and with the view of destroying this last remnant of popular election, an overture was laid before the Assembly of 1731, proposing, that when the right of appointment devolved upon presbyteries, the power of election in vacant parishes should belong only to the elders and Protestant heritors, and, in royal burghs, to the elders, magistrates, and town-council. This overture was transmitted to the different presbyteries, that, according to the regulations of the barrier act, their opinion respecting it might be given at next meeting of the Assembly; and though a great majority of those presbyteries from whom reports were received, expressed disapprobation of the measure, the supporters of the overture obtained a majority of the Assembly of 1782 in its favour.^[2. Reports were received from forty-nine presbyteries; six approved of the overture without alteration, twelve on condition that certain important amendments were introduced, while thirty-one gave it their unqualified condemnation. Eighteen presbyteries gave in no report. ]

Among the opponents of the measures of the Assembly in 1732, Mr Ebenezer Erskine, minister at Stirling, held a prominent place. His talents and learning, his faithfulness in the discharge of his ministerial duties, and his intrepidity and zeal in the popular cause, had secured to him the respect and esteem of his brethren, as well as extensive influence among the people. In the various important questions which had been agitated after his entrance into the ministry, the abjuration oath, the controversy respecting the Marrow of Divinity, and the process carried on against Professor Simpson, he had shown himself an active and fearless opponent of the measures pursued by the ruling party in the church. He was not only one of those who signed the representation of grievances laid before the Assembly in 1732, but being a member of Assembly that year, he spoke and protested against its rejection. Being at that time moderator of the synod of Perth and Stirling, he opened the meeting at Perth, on the 10th of October following, with a sermon from Psalm cxviii. 22, in the course of which he remonstrated against the act of the preceding Assembly with regard to the settlement of ministers, alleging that it was contrary to the word of God and the established constitution of the church. These statements gave great offence to several members of synod, and after the court was constituted, and a new moderator chosen, a formal complaint was lodged against him, for uttering several offensive expressions in his sermon.^[3. The persons who took the lead in moving for investigation were. Messrs Adam Ferguson, minister at Logiernit; James Mercer, minister at Aberdalgie; James Mackie, minister at Forteviot, afterwards at St Ninians; and the Laird of Glendoig, ruling elder. ] Many of the members declared that they heard him utter nothing but sound and seasonable doctrine; but his accusers insisting on their complaint, obtained the appointment of a committee of synod, to collect what were called the offensive expressions, and to lay them before the next diet in writing. This was done accordingly, and Mr Erskine having been heard in reply to the charges made against him, a keen debate of three days ensued, and at last the synod, by a majority of six votes, found Mr Erskine censurable for some expressions in his sermon, “tending to disquiet the peace of the church, and impugning several acts of Assembly, and proceedings of church judicatories.” Against this sentence Mr Erskine protested and appealed to the General Assembly. But in spite of his protest and appeal, the synod proceeded in the cause, and agreed to “rebuke Mr Erskine, and admonish him to behave orderly for the future and they at the same time appointed the “presbytery of Stirling to inquire anent his after behaviour at their privy censures, and report to the next synod.” Mr Erskine not appearing when called upon, the synod resolved that he should be rebuked at their next meeting in April. All attempts at accommodation proving fruitless, the Assembly which met in May 1733 affirmed the sentence of the synod, and appointed Mr Erskine to be rebuked and admonished at the bar of the Assembly. Mr Erskine, however, declared that he could not submit in silence to the rebuke and admonition, and presented a written protest, to the effect, that as the Assembly had found him censurable, and had rebuked him for doing what he conceived to be agreeable to the word of God and the standards of the church, he should be at liberty to teach the same truths, and to testify against the same or similar evils, on every proper occasion. To this protest Messrs William Wilson, minister at Perth, Alexander Moncrieff, minister at Abernethy, and James Fisher, minister at Kin-claven, gave in a written adherence, under the form of instrument. The Assembly having refused to permit the protest to be read, the four protesters left the paper on the table and withdrew, intending to return to their respective charges, and act agreeably to their protest, as circumstances might require. Here the matter would in all probability have terminated, as at this period none of the four entertained any intention of a formal separation from the national church. But an overruling Providence had ordered it otherwise. The court had proceeded to a different business, when the protest, which had fallen from the table, was accidentally picked up by a minister, who, perusing the contents of it, rose with great indignation, and called the attention of the Assembly to the insult which had been offered to their authority.^[4. ’ It is stated by Mr Adam Gibb, that the person who picked up Mr Erskine’s protest was Mr James Nasmith, minister at Dalmeny. ] The protest being read, a great uproar ensued, and the Assembly ordered their officer to summon the four brethren to appear at the bar of the court next day. They obeyed the citation, and a committee was appointed to retire with them in order to persuade them to withdraw their paper. The committee having reported that their persuasions had produced no effect on the minds of the brethren, the Assembly ordered them to appear before the Commission in August following, and retract their protest: and if they should not comply, and testify their sorrow for their conduct, the Commission was empowered to suspend them from the exercise of their ministry, and in case of their acting contrary to the sentence of suspension, the Commission should proceed to a higher censure.

The Commission met in August accordingly, and the four ministers still adhering to their protest, were suspended from the exercise of their office. At the meeting in November, addresses were received from a number of presbyteries and synods, recommending lenity and forbearance towards the suspended ministers, and many members of the Commission strenuously supported the same view. The question, however, was put, “Proceed immediately to inflict a higher censure,” or “Delay the same till March and the votes being equal on both sides, Mr John Gowdie, the modera[7:20:63] tor, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, gave his casting vote to proceed to a higher censure. At this stage of the proceedings the Commission proposed certain terms of accommodation, which the suspended ministers, after mature deliberation, declared they could not conscientiously accept. The Commission, therefore, on the 16th of November 1733, passed sentence upon them; loosing their relation to their respective charges, declaring their churches vacant, and prohibiting all ministers of the Church of Scotland from employing them in any ministerial function.

The sentence being intimated to them, they protested that their ministerial office and relation to their respective charges should be held as valid as if no such sentence had passed; that they were now obliged to make a secession from the prevailing party in the ecclesiastical courts; and that it should be lawful for them to preach the gospel, and discharge all the duties of the pastoral office, according to the word of God, and the principles and constitution of the Church of Scotland.

The Secession properly commenced at this date. Accordingly the ejected ministers declared in their protest, that they were laid under the disagreeable necessity of seceding, not from the principles and constitution of the Church of Scotland, to which they expressed their steadfast adherence, but from the present church-courts, which had thrown them out from ministerial communion. In the new and trying circumstances in which they were placed, they conducted themselves with great caution and prudence. A few weeks after their expulsion from the national church, they met, according to previous appointment, at Gairney Bridge, a small village in the neighbourhood of Kinross, on the 5th of December 1733. Having spent the whole of that and the greater part of the succeeding day in prayer and pious conference, they finally resolved to constitute themselves into a presbytery, under the designation of the Associate Presbytery. This presbytery, at its first formation, consisted only of the four ejected ministers; for though Messrs Ralph Erskine and Thomas Mair were present at this interesting meeting, they were merely spectators. Anxious, however, to avoid every thing like rashness or precipitancy, and cherishing a solemn impression of the responsibility attached to their conduct, in the remarkable circumstances in which they were placed, the seceding ministers resolved to hold their meetings chiefly for prayer and religious conference, and to defer proceeding to any judicial acts till they should see whether the ecclesiastical courts would retrace their steps. They considered it necessary, however, to publish a Testimony to the doctrine, worship, and government of the Church of Scotland, and a statement of the grounds of their secession from the national church. This has been since known by the name of the Extrajudicial Testimony.

In the Assembly which met in May 1734, a conciliatory spirit was manifested by the ruling party; the agitated state of popular feeling, and the knowledge that the Seceders had many friends among the clergy themselves, disposed them to make some concessions to prevent the spread of disaffection. When the commission-book was examined, there were some reservations made in the approval of its proceedings; the act of 1730, forbidding church-courts to record dissents and protests, and the act of 1732, respecting the settlement of vacant parishes, were repealed; the Commission was appointed to petition his majesty and the parliament for the repeal of the patronage act; and they authorized the Synod of Perth and Stirling to receive the ejected ministers into the communion of the church, and restore them to their respective charges, but with this ex press direction, that the “synod should not take upon them to judge of the legality or formality of the former procedure of the church judicatories in relation to this affair, or either approve or censure the same.” But as the appearances of reformation which had been exhibited were, in the opinion of the four seceding brethren, dictated merely by a calculating worldly policy, and by no real regard for the cause of truth, after solemn and repeated deliberation, they were unanimously of opinion that, in existing circumstances, it was their duty to remain in a state of separation, till they should see unequivocal and decided evidence that the cause of defection was in reality abandoned. Having prepared a statement of the reasons of their refusal, and the terms upon which they were willing to return to the Established Church, they published it some time before the meeting of Assembly 1735. The proceedings of the Assemblies of 1735 and 1736 seemed to the seceding ministers fully to justify the opinion which they had formed respecting the measures proposed in the preceding Assembly, and to dispel, for the time at least, all hopes of a re-union with the Established Church; and they now considered it “full time to proceed to the exercise of the powers with which they were intrusted by the Head of the church, for the vindication of His truths and ordinances, and for the relief of the Christian people, by supplying them with sermon."^[5. ‘ Testimony of the United Associate Synod, p. 52. ] They now prepared what they termed an Act, Declaration, and Testimony to the doctrine, worship, government, and discipline of the Church of Scotland, and condemning the numerous instances of defection from these, both in former and in the present times. Some time after this, having received the accession of Messrs Ralph Erskine of Dunfermline, Thomas Mair of Orwell, Thomas Nairn of Abbotshall, and James Thomson of Burntisland, the Associate Presbytery now consisted of eight members. Numerous applications for sermon having been received from all parts of the country,^[6. During the years 1737-38, upwards of seventy petitions for sermon were laid on the table of the presbytery. ] * and the seceding ministers having now renounced all hopes of a re-union with the church, resolved to adopt measures for extending and perpetuating the benefits of the Secession; and accordingly Mr Wilson of Perth, a person of great ability and learning, was chosen professor of divinity, and intrusted with the education of candidates for the ministry.^[7. Me Wilson devoted the months of March, April, and May, to bis course of theological tuition. He not only read his lectures, but conducted the whole business of the class, in the Latin language. ] These measures necessarily produced a complete separation between them and the Established Church. The Assembly of 1739 declared the refractory ministers worthy of deposition; but, from motives of expediency, delayed giving sentence against them till next year, when they were all deposed, and ordered to be ejected from their churches. In some places, such as Stirling and Perth, the seceding ministers were forcibly excluded from their usual places of worship the first Sabbath after the decision of the Assembly, while in others, such as Dunfermline and Burntisland, they continued to occupy their pulpits for at least two years after sentence of deposition was pronounced against them. All of them, however, continued to discharge the duties of the ministry in their respective congregations, who still adhered to them, erected places of worship for them, and provided for their support. Meanwhile cases of violent settlements of ministers increased throughout the country, and the opposition was frequently so formidable, and popular excitement so great, as to render the attendance of a guard of soldiers necessary at ordinations. These contests had of course a powerful influence in increasing the adherents of the seceding ministers. New accessions were made to them from all quarters. Some even of the probationers of the Established Church placed themselves under their superintendence, and their theological hall was in such a[7:20:64] flourishing condition that, in the year 1741, it was attended by a greater number of students than any of the Scottish universities except Edinburgh.^[8. Letter from Mr R. Erskine to Mr Whitefield, dated the 10th of April 1741. . ]

The numbers of the seceding ministers continuing rapidly to increase, a new arrangement was adopted on the 11th of October 1744, by which they were formed into three presbyteries, under one synod. The first meeting of the Associate Synod was held at Stirling on the first Tuesday of March 1745, at which period it had under its inspection about thirty settled congregations and sixteen vacancies in Scotland, besides several congregations in Ireland. The Seceders, in common with the great body of the religious Presbyterians in Scotland, both clergy and laity, entertained great veneration for the national covenants; and as the practice of public covenanting had, for a considerable period, been neglected in Scotland, they expected that the revival of it would have a powerful effect in advancing the work of reformation. An overture to this purpose had been deliberately prepared by a committee of presbytery, which, after various amendments and enlargements, was finally adopted by the presbytery at Stirling, on the 23d of December 1743. And on the 28th of the same month, which was observed as a day of solemn fasting and humiliation, the confession of sins was read, and the engagement to duties subscribed by fifteen ministers, in the presence of a numerous assembly. And when the presbytery met at Edinburgh, on the 14th of February 1744, they enacted that the renewing of the covenant should be the term of ministerial and Christian communion. An unhappy controversy now, however, arose respecting the religious clause of some burgess-oaths, which, it was alleged, was utterly inconsistent with the oath of the covenants and with the Secession Testimony.^[9. ’ The following is the clause referred to: “I protest before God and your Lordships, that I profess and allow with my heart the true religion presently professed within this realm, and authorized by the laws thereof; and I shall abide thereat, and defend the same, to my life’s end, renouncing the Roman religion called papistry.” ] One party insisted that no Seceder should be allowed to swear this oath, while the other urged the exercise of mutual forbearance. So sharp was the contention between them, that at the meeting of synod in April 1747, after several long and stormy discussions, an entire separation took place between the contending parties. Never, perhaps, was the truth of Father Paul’s remark more strikingly verified, “In verbal contentions, the smallness of the difference often nourishes the obstinacy of the parties.” Those who condemned the swearing of the burgess oath as sinful, and inconsistent with the Secession Testimony, were called “Antiburghers,” and the other party, who contended that it should be declared not to be a term of communion, were designated “Burghers.” The latter made various attempts to bring about a reconciliation with the opposing party, by proposing a meeting for prayer and friendly conference, but without success. And the “Antiburghers” not only refused to agree to the proposal, but, after several previous steps, went the length of passing sentence of deposition and excommunication, with all due formality, on Messrs Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine, James Fisher, and the other ministers who had adopted the opposite views respecting the swearing of the burgees oath. Each party claimed to itself the name and lawful constitution of the Associate Synod; but, for the sake of distinction. the Burghers were termed the Associate, and the Antiburghers the General Associate Synod. A furious controversy raged between them for a number of years, and, both from the pulpit and the press, the one party indulged in invectives against the other. In the course of time, however, this hostility subsided; a feeling of cordiality gradually gained ground; and, after a separation of nearly eighty years, the two bodies were again united into one.

These divisions among the Seceders afforded an excellent opportunity to the dominant party in the national church to have regained their lost influence with the people; but, instead of availing themselves of it to check the progress of the Secession, they only became more resolute in enforcing the law of patronage. The doctrine which they taught at this time in their pulpits, it has been said, “could neither be called Christian nor heathen, but was a compound of both and all petitions for the redress of grievances, and all resistance to their arbitrary decrees, were silenced by the strong arm of power. “The language of the majority in Assemblies at this time,” says the late Sir Henry Moncrieff,^[10. ’ Appendix to Life of Dr Erskine, by Sir H. Moncrieff Wellwood, Bart., p. 464. ] “universally was, that the secession from the church, instead of increasing, was on the decline, and that the superior character and talents of the established clergy were gradually weakening its resources, and would ultimately exhaust them. Experience has not verified these sanguine expectations. At the distance of a few years after Dr Robertson retired, the people, disgusted with unsuccessful processes before the Assembly, relinquished the plan of their predecessors, and came seldom to the Assembly with appeals from the sentences of the inferior courts appointing the settlement of presentees whom they resisted. But they began to do more quietly, or with less observation than formerly, what was not less unfriendly to the establishment. In ordinary cases, they now leave the church-courts to execute their sentences without opposition, and set themselves immediately to rear a meeting-house, which very frequently carries off a large portion of the inhabitants of the parish.” This state of comparative quiescence was not, however, produced without long and severe struggles; and for many years the disputes in the church-courts respecting the settlements of ministers were incessant. In the year 1751, an unpopular minister having been presented to the church and parish of Inverkeithing, the presbytery of Dunfermline refused to proceed with his settlement, and the synod of Fife, who were next appointed to ordain him, proved equally refractory. The affair was brought before the Assembly of 1752, and they peremptorily enjoined the presbytery of Dunfermline to proceed with the ordination of the presentee, and ordered all the members of presbytery to attend on that occasion. Six ministers who absented themselves from conscientious scruples were brought to the bar of the Assembly. One of their number, Mr Thomas Gillespie, minister of Carnock, was immediately deposed, and three others were afterwards suspended. Mr Gillespie, notwithstanding this sentence, continued to discharge his ministerial duties, and a few years afterwards he and Mr Thomas Boston of Oxnam and Mr Collier formed themselves into a presbytery, and became the founders of that numerous and respectable body of dissenters entitled the Synod of Relief.

When such proceedings were systematically carried on in the courts of the Established Church, it is not to be wondered at that the spirit of disaffection should continue to spread among its members, and that the numbers of the Seceders rapidly increased, in spite of the strife that prevailed among themselves at this period. Not only did the Associate Synods steadily extend their influence in Scotland by the accessions which they were constantly making to the number of their adherents, but they sent preachers to England, to Ireland, and even to America, and erected a considerable number of Secession congregations in these countries. The controversy respecting the burgess-oath[7:20:65] gradually exhausted itself; but towards the close of the eighteenth century, both synods were disturbed by an angry discussion respecting the power of the magistrate in matters of religion, and the obligation of the national covenant upon posterity. In 1796 the synod commenced their revision of the Testimony, a business of no small importance and difficulty, as this document “consisted of two hundred octavo pages, and included all the controversial points in divinity and church-government which had been discussed in this country for successive generations.”

During the progress of this laborious work, which lasted for a period of nearly eight years, considerable dissatisfaction was expressed by a small minority; and when at length the revision was brought to a close in May 1804, and the Introduction, Narrative, and Testimony, as corrected and enlarged, were adopted by the synod as the term of admission for those who shall apply for joining in communion with them, five ministers, Messrs Whytock, Aitken, Chalmers, Hog, and M‘Crie, protested against the decision, and, after various ineffectual attempts at accommodation, left the body, and formed themselves into a distinct presbytery.

Nearly about this period a fierce controversy was carried on in the Associate or Burgher Synod respecting the same subject, which was under consideration for a considerable time, and various controversial publications issued from the press respecting it. At length, in April 1797, the synod by a majority agreed to the following motion. “That whereas some parts of the standard books of this synod have been interpreted as favouring compulsory measures in religion, the synod hereby declare that they do not re-

3uire an approbation of any such principle from any candi-ate for license or ordination; and whereas a controversy has arisen among us respecting the nature and kind of the obligation of our solemn covenants on posterity, whether it be entirely of the same kind upon us as upon our ancestors who swore them, the synod hereby declare, that while they hold the obligation of our covenants upon posterity, they do not interfere with that controversy which has arisen respecting it, and recommend it to all their members to suppress that controversy, as tending to gender strife, rather than godly edifying.” Notwithstanding this decision, the ferment which had been excited by the discussion on this subject rather increased than abated, and the question was again brought under the notice of the synod in September 1799. After a lengthened discussion, it was decided by a large majority, that “the synod adjourn the further discussion of this question till a future meeting, and in the mean time appoint a committee to draw up a synodical address to the people of their charge, expressive of their adherence to the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the Church of Scotland.” Against this decision several members protested, and two of them, Messrs Willis and Hyslop, declared in their protest, that as the synod had refused to reverse their former act, they would no longer acknowledge their authority. In consequence of this declaration their names were erased from the roll, and shortly afterwards they, along with Mr Watson, minister of Kilpatrick, constituted themselves into a distinct presbytery, and became the founders of that body which is ordinarily known by the appellation of the Original Burgher Synod. An attempt was made by these separatists to obtain possession of the property belonging to the synod, by alleging that they had abandoned the principles which their predecessors in the Secession had always maintained. An appeal to the courts of law was made on this point, in the case of the Associate congregation in Perth. Mr Jervie, one of the ministers of this congregation, joined the Original Burgher Synod, while his colleague Mr Aikman continued in connection with the Associate Synod. The congregation were also divided in sentiment, and each party claimed the exclusive possession of the manse and place of worship. After a long and expensive litigation, in the course of which the process was carried from the inferior courts to the House of Lords, and thence remitted back to the Court of Session, it was ultimately decided that the defenders had not departed from the original standards and principles of the association, and that the pursuers had separated from the congregation to which they belonged, without any assignable cause, and without any fault on the part of the Associate Synod. They had, therefore, no right to disturb the defenders in the possession of their property. The question was one of great importance, and the principle laid down in this instance as the ground of judgment, has been since regarded as the settled law of the country in all similar cases.

No other event of much importance occurred in the history of the Secession Church, till the period when the two great branches of which it was composed were again happily united into one. A junction had previously taken place between the Burgher and Antiburgher ministers in America, Nova Scotia, and Ireland. For a number of years an amicable feeling had gradually gained ground among the ministers and people connected with both branches of the Secession, and their intercourse in bible, missionary, and other religious societies tended powerfully to strengthen the feeling of mutual regard. From the moment that the proposal of a junction was made, both synods entered on the matter with cordiality and zeal. The religious public generally took considerable interest in the movement. The town councils of Glasgow and Paisley abolished the religious clause of the oath which had occasioned the strife, and the Convention of Royal Burghs unanimously recommended its entire abolition, for the express purpose of removing any obstacles that might obstruct the progress of this desirable event At length the articles of union having been agreed upon and sanctioned by both synods, and all the necessary preliminaries settled, the union was completed on the 8th of September 1820, in Bristo Street church, Edinburgh, the spot where, seventy-three years before, the separation had taken place.

All the ministers of the Associate Synod became members of the United Synod; but Professor Paxton, and other nine ministers of the General Associate or Antiburgher Synod, refused to concur in the union, and soon after formed a junction with Professor Bruce, Dr M‘Crie, and other members of the Constitutional Associate Presbytery, who withdrew from the Antiburgher body in 1806.

Since the period of the union the Secession Church has continued rapidly to increase in numbers and strength, and the extraordinary controversy which is at present agitating the whole country has brought the Seceders much more prominently into view than during any preceding era of their church. The question respecting the power of the magistrate in religious affairs had frequently been discussed among Seceders themselves, but of late years it has become a matter of national interest. The founders of the Secession Church doubtless approved of the interference of the civil magistrate in matters of religion; but they appear to have changed their opinions on this subject at no distant period after their secession from the Established Church, as appears from the language of the Associate presbytery as early as 1743, in their answers to Mr Nairn: “If true religion became a part of the civil constitution, it inevitably follows that the church became a part of the state, which doctrine, as it is absurd in itself, lays a plain foundation for Erastianism, overturning the distinction betwixt the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and the kingdoms of this world.” The same sentiments were expressed by the Reverend Adam Gibb in his Display of the Secession Testimony, published in 1774, and by the Antiburgher Synod in the revision of their Testimony. This explicit condemnation of the connection between church and state was one of the[7:20:66] principal grounds of the separation of Professor Bruce and Dr M‘Crie from the Antiburgher Synod; and the refusal of the Burgher Synod to reverse the act which made this subject a matter of forbearance, was the sole reason why Messrs Willis, Hyslop, and others, renounced their connection with that body. The controversy slumbered during a period of about thirty years from this date; but about the year 1829 it was again resumed, and since that time has increased to such a degree, that the harmony between churchmen and dissenters has been broken up, and the hopes which were formerly cherished of a re-union between the Secession and the Establishment have, for the present at least, been completely extinguished. Proposals were made in 1834, for a union between the Secession and the Synod of Relief, and the measure is still under the consideration of both churches. In the mean time the most friendly intercourse is maintained between them, and, from the harmonious feeling manifested on the subject, in all probability the union will ere long be consummated.

The exposition of ecclesiastical polity, which is given under the article Presbyterian, applies to the constitution of the United Associate Synod. They have lay-elders, kirk-sessions, and presbyteries; but instead of a General Assembly, they meet in synod once a year, the synod being their supreme court. They have the same standards and the same confession as the Established Church. They believe that the Holy Scriptures are the sole criterion of truth, and the only rule of faith and manners; and that “the Supreme Judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all the decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other than the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.” They are fully persuaded, however, that the standards of the Church of Scotland exhibit a just and consistent view of the meaning and design of the Holy Scriptures with regard to doctrine, worship, government, and discipline. They therefore hold the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, as expressive of the sense in which they understand the Scriptures; and they so far differ from the dissenters in England, that they hold these standards to be not only articles of peace, and a test of orthodoxy, but as a bond of union and fellowship. They consider a simple declaration of adherence to the Scriptures as too equivocal a proof of unity in sentiment, because Arians, Socinians, and Arminians make such a confession of their faith, while they retain sentiments which, they (the Seceders) apprehend, are subversive of the great doctrines of the gospel. They believe that Jesus Christ is the only King and Head of the Church, which is his body; that it is his sole prerogative to enact laws for the government of his kingdom, which is not of this world; and that the church is not possessed of a legislative, but only of an executive power, to be exercised in explaining and applying to their proper objects and ends those laws which Christ has published in the Scriptures. Those doctrines which they teach relative to faith and practice are exhibited at great length in an explanation of the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, by way of question and answer, composed chiefly by the late Mr Fisher of Glasgow, and published by desire of the synod. They catechise their hearers publicly, and visit them from house to house once every year.

In many of their congregations they celebrate the Lord’s Supper four times, in the remainder twice in the year; and they examine their young people strictly concerning their knowledge of the principles of religion previously to their admission to that sacrament. They will permit none to partake of the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper who are ignorant of the principles of the gospel, or who are scandalous and immoral in their lives. They condemn private baptism, nor will they admit those who are grossly ignorant and profane to be sponsors for their children. They never accept a sum of money as a commutation for any offence; and those of the delinquents who do not submit to adequate censure are publicly declared to be fugitives from discipline, and are expelled the society. They condemn all clandestine and irregular marriages, nor will they marry any person unless the banns of marriage have been regularly proclaimed in the parish church.

Believing that the people have a natural right to choose their own pastors, the settlement of their ministers always proceeds upon a popular election, and the candidate who is elected by the majority of the communicants is ordained among them. Convinced that a charge of souls is a trust of the greatest importance, they carefully watch over the morals of their students, and direct them to such a course of reading and study as they judge most proper to qualify them for the profitable discharge of the pastoral duties. At the ordination of their ministers, they use a formula nearly of the same kind with that of the Established Church, which their ministers are bound to subscribe when called to it; and if any of them teach doctrines contrary to the Scriptures or the Westminster Confession of Faith, they are sure to be expelled from their communion. It must be noticed, however, that they are not required to approve of any thing in the standards of the church which teaches compulsory or persecuting and intolerant principles in religion.

The education of candidates for the ministry has always been reckoned a matter of the greatest importance by the Secession Church. The course of study is very nearly the same as that adopted by the Establishment. Students, before being admitted to the Theological Hall, must attend at least three years at one of the universities; and the course of preparatory study required of them includes Latin, Greek, Logic, Moral Philosophy, and Mathematics; a knowledge of Hebrew is also required, so that they may be enabled to enter on the critical study of the Old Testament Scriptures as soon as they commence their course of theology. The study of natural philosophy may be deferred till after commencing the study of divinity; but students must produce the certificate of the professor of that science, and be examined as to their proficiency in it, either before admission to the Divinity Hall, or immediately after their first session in it. And it is strongly recommended to them to attend also such classes as they may have access to for the study of geology, chemistry, and other branches of physical science. Students who have a view to the Christian ministry are examined by the presbyteries at the close of each session, that their proficiency may be ascertained, and that they may be prevented from advancing to the higher branches of study till they have acquired a competent knowledge of those which precede them. During the whole course of the student’s education, his improvement in personal religion is kept steadily in view. Before he is encouraged to prosecute preparatory studies, strict inquiry is made into his piety, as well as his talents and capability of acquirement; his progress in personal religion as well as in literature is constantly watched over; and he cannot be admitted into the Divinity Hall till he is a member in full communion with the Secession Church.

The Secession has four professors of divinity, each giving instruction in one great department of theological science, or explanatory of the duties of the Christian ministry. I. The professor of biblical literature, whose duty it is to give a course of lectures on the history, evidence, and interpretation of the sacred books; to direct the reading of the students, and to examine them on these subjects; to read to them portions of the original Scriptures critically, and to require from them explicatory and critical exercises. 2. The professor of exegetical theology, who gives lectures and conducts examinations on one or more of the books of the[7:20:67] Old Testament, the gospel history, the Acts of the Apostles, and one or more of the doctrinal epistles; and who also gives a view of the divine dispensations, as these are detailed in the Holy Scriptures. The course of the present professor embraces a critical exposition of the principal prophecies of the Messiah, the doctrines of Jesus Christ, and the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. 3. The professor of systematic theology. 4. The professor of pastoral theology and ecclesiastical history, whose duty it is to explain the qualifications of the ministerial character, and the duties of the pastoral office; and to give instruction in all the services which, as teachers or rulers in the church, ministers are called upon to perform, such as conducting the public devotions of the church, the composition and delivery of pulpit discourses, ministerial visitation of families, public catechising, visitation of the sick, the government and discipline of the church, giving also an abstract of ecclesiastical history. The term of study is five years, and the duration of the annual session two months; and it is rendered imperative on students to attend the whole time. They are usually from five to six hours a day in the classroom. For the first and second sessions of their attendance at the hall, they are committed to the care of the professor of biblical literature and exegetical theology, and the professors of systematic and pastoral theology during the last three years of their course. During the vacation the students are under the superintendence of their respective presbyteries, who meet and converse with them as to their progress in their studies, and hear and criticise their trial discourses. The examinations and exercises prescribed on trials for license and ordination are much the same as in the Established Church.

The Secession has produced a respectable proportion of authors distinguished in various departments of literary pursuit. To say nothing of living authors, the works of Dr Jamieson, the profound and ingenious author of the Scottish Dictionary, and of several learned defences of some of the fundamental principles of religion, entitle him to a place among the distinguished men of his age and country; and the writings of the founders of the Secession, and of Lawson, Dick, Belfrage, Pollock, and others, are well known and highly esteemed in religious and literary circles.

The United Associate Synod now comprehends twenty-two presbyteries, composed of 361 congregations, exclusive of missionary stations both at home and abroad. The following statement will show the regular and steady progress which it has made during the period of one hundred and six years which has elapsed since its origin.

“When the Associate Presbytery was first constituted by the fathers of the Secession, on the 6th of December 1733, the number of the brethren who took this important step amounted only to four.

“When the General Assembly pronounced sentence of deposition on the members of the Associate Presbytery on the 15th of May 1740, their number had increased to eight.

“Five years after this, when the Associate Presbytery constituted itself into a synod, on the first Tuesday of March 1745, the number of ministers amounted to twenty-six.

“When the division occasioned by the burgess oath controversy took place, on the 9th of April 1747, the number had increased to thirty-two.

“When the re-union was accomplished, on the 5th of September 1820, the number of ministers belonging to the two synods that were united on that occasion amounted to two hundred and sixty-two.

“Since that event took place a period of nineteen years has elapsed, and the number of ordained ministers who are members of the United Associate Synod amounts at the present period to three hundred and fifty-seven, being an in crease, since the re-union, of nearly one hundred ministers.”

From accurate returns made by the different congregations, it has been ascertained that the population connected with the Secession Church, including young and old, amounts to 261,345; the number of communicants is 126,070; the sabbath-schools and classes, 716; the number of scholars, 37,612. The average number of persons connected with each congregation is 730, the average number of communicants is 349. The stipends of the ministers vary from L.70 to L.450. The average paid to each minister, exclusive of sacramental expenses, is L.131. In the country, in addition to the stipend, the minister is generally furnished with a dwelling-house. None of the ministers have or ever had a legal bond securing their incomes.

Annual amount of stipends in Secession Church..L.47, 315

Annual allowance for the poor.., 4,011

Collected for missions by congregational associations 11,042

Annual allowance for sacramental expenses 3,610

Annual collection for synod fund 760

Total amount collected annually by the Secession

Church 66,728^[11. • These, and a variety of other interesting details, will be found in Mackerrow’s valuable History of the Secession Church. ] '

A considerable number of missionaries and catechists are maintained in Canada, Jamaica, and other places, either by the synod or by individual congregations in connection with the Secession Church; and many congregations, particularly in the larger towns, support one or more local missionaries at their own expense.

The Presbyterian Synod of Ireland in connection with the United Associate Synod comprehends nine presbyteries and 134 congregations. Proposals are at present making for a union between this body and the Synod of Ulster. The Synod of Nova Scotia contains five presbyteries and twenty-four congregations.

Associate Synod of Original Seceders. This body separated from the Antiburgher Synod in 1806, and formed themselves into a distinct presbytery, called at first The constitutional Associate Presbytery; but after their junction with the few ministers who refused to accede to the union of the Burghers and Antiburghers in 1820, they assumed the name of The Associate Synod of Original Seceders. This body now extends to four presbyteries, comprehending thirty-six congregations. They have a professor of divinity of their own, and, with the exception of their opinion respecting the interference of the magistrate in religious matters, they are identical in their leading principles with the United Associate Synod. The late Dr M‘Crie, the able and learned biographer of Knox and Melville, was a minister of this body.

Original Burgher Associate Synod. In our history of the Secession Church we gave a brief statement of the controversy which led to the separation of this body from her communion. They extended latterly to four presbyteries, including forty-two congregations. A short time ago, however, they made a formal application to be received into the communion of the Established Church. The proposal met with a favourable reception from the General Assembly, and at the meeting of the Burgher Synod in 1839 a majority of the members agreed to accept of the terms offered by the Assembly, and have accordingly returned into the bosom of the national church. The minority seem as yet not to have determined as to the course which they will pursue.

(Mackerrow’s History of the Secession Church; Brown’s History of the Secession Church; Testimony of the United Associate Synod; Fraser’s Lives of Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine; Ferrier’s Memoirs of the Rev. W. Wilson; Moncrieff’s Life of Dr Erskine.) (b. q.) [7:20:68]