sort among us are too ready to fall, do therefore earnestly beseech and obtest all the ministers of this church to be diligent in instructing the people committed to their care, in these principles of pure Christianity that are particularly opposite to the errors and corruptions of popery, and in the grounds and reasons of the reformation, and the principles on which the late glorious revolution, and our present happy establishment are founded, and to stir up all to a grateful and suitable improvement of the inestimable blessings we enjoy by the free exercise of the pure religion of Jesus, and the security of our liberties and properties under a legal government; and for these purposes, and perpetuating of the great things God has done for us in these lands, the General Assembly do particularly appoint all the ministers of this church to preach expressly, and on purpose, upon the subject above mentioned, or some of them, on four Lord's days every year, viz. the first Lord's day of the months of August, November, February, and the third Lord's day of April, with proper exhortations to the people, and suitable prayers and praises to our gracious God, in the name of the only mediator between God and man, our Lord Jesus Christ." The above was, in the form of an overture, transmitted to presbyteries, and was in substance enacted by the assembly, 1749,* but how far, or how long it was in observance, we have not been able to ascertain.

But before carrying farther forward the history of the established church, it will be necessary to advert to that of the secession, in which a most unexpected and melancholy occurrence, fraught with important consequences, had in the mean time taken place. The Judicial Act and Testimony, as we have stated, had been most cordially agreed upon and emitted. The covenants had in consequence been renewed in a bond, suited, as they supposed, to the circumstances under which the body was placed, and all this-one individual, Mr. Nairn, alone excepted-with the most perfect harmony. The number of adherents to these deeds had also greatly increased, and for some time the associate presbytery had contemplated the dividing themselves into separate presbyteries, for the better and more easy

• Acts of Assembly, 1748, 1749.

administration of their affairs, to centre in one associate synod. A scheme for this purpose was proposed in the month of August, 1744, which was matured and enacted on the eleventh of October, the same year. The presbyteries were three:First, the presbytery of Dunfermline, comprehending the following congregations, Dunfermline, Mr. Ralph Erskine; Dun. nichen, Andrew Arrot; Burntisland, James Thompson; Abernethy, Alexander Moncrief; Orwell, Thomas Mair; Ceres, William Campbell; Perth, George Brown; Lesly, John Erskine; with the vacancies of Kirkaldy, Kinkell, Muckhart, Kinclaven, Dundee, Montrose, Ross, Murray, and Buchan. Second, Glasgow, comprehending Stirling, Mr. Ebenezer Erskine; Glasgow, James Fisher; Kilmaurs, David Smyton; Balfron, John Cleland; Cambusnethan, David Horn; Falkirk, Henry Erskine; Kilbarchan, John M'Cara; Cumbernauld, Andrew Black; with the vacancies of Mearns, Kilbride, Sanquhar, and Orr in Galloway. Third, Edinburgh, comprehending Linton, Mr. James Mair; Stow, William Hutton; Edinburgh, Adam Gib; Linlithgow, Andrew Clarkson; Midholm, Patrick Mathew; Gateshaw, James Scott; Dunse, John Whyte; Annandale, George Murray; Haddington, Robert Archibald; with the vacancies of Dalkeith, Stitchel, and Jedburgh. The first meeting of these presbyteries was fixed, at their respective places, for the fourth Wednesday of the following November, the day to be observed by all of them as a day of fasting and humiliation. The first meeting of synod was appointed to be at Stirling, on the first Tuesday of March, 1745.

So far the secession had gone on smoothly, and was spreading rapidly. The individuals comprising it had been placed in circumstances of peculiar difficulty, and they had been opposed in some instances with peculiar address, and in others with peculiar bitterness, but they seemed to be cordially united in the bonds of unity and love. These bonds, however, were soon to be dissevered upon a subject, and in a manner, that certainly was not anticipated. The associate presbytery bad already determined the oaths of abjuration and allegiance to be sinful oaths, as embracing the complex constitution, and consequently incompatible with that testimony which they had

emitted against it; and before the breaking up of the last meeting of the associate presbytery, a paper was given in by Mr. Alexander Moncrief, stating his scruples with regard to the religious clause in some burgess oaths, "which he apprehended would by the presbytery be found to be sinful, whensoever it should be taken into consideration." But the dissolution of the associate presbytery was already resolved upon, and it was stated, that all the members would, in their separate presbyteries, have better access to consider the subject, and be better prepared for having their opinions stated to the first meeting of synod, which would thus be able to take it up with much more advantage, than the presbytery could in their present situation do. Accordingly, when the synod met in the month of March, 1745, this was among the first matters that came before them, and after long discussions on the subject at different meetings, the synod, on the ninth of April, 1746, came to the following decision on the subject:-" The synod find that the swearing the religious clause of some burgess oaths, viz. Here I protest before God and your lordships, that I profess and allow within my heart, the true religion presently professed within this realm, and authorized by the laws thereof: I shall abide thereat, and defend the same to my life's end, renouncing the Roman religion called papistry,' by any under their inspection, as the said clause comes necessarily in this period to be used and applied in a way that does not agree unto the present state and circumstances of the testimony for religion and reformation which this synod, with those under their inspection, are maintaining; particularly, that it does not agree unto, nor consist with an entering into the bond for renewing our solemn covenants, and that, therefore, those of the secession cannot farther, with safety of conscience, and without sin, swear any burgess oath with the said religious clause, while matters, with reference to the profession and settlement of religion, continue in such circumstances as at present. Moreover, the synod find, that burgesses of the secession, who are already concerned in such oaths, should be required, in order to their admission into the bond for renewing our solemn covenants, to attend conference with their respective sessions, for signifying their satisfaction with the present judgment of the

synod, and a sense of the mistake they have hitherto, through inadvertency, been under concerning such burgess oaths."

When this subject was first stated, it did not appear to be attended either with difficulty or danger. Questions of much more intricacy had been discussed by the associate presbytery at great length, and harmoniously disposed of, and the above decision, we are persuaded, every unbiassed reader, when he reflects that it was intended to bind those only who had acceded to the judicial act and testimony, will think should have had a similar issue. This, however, was far from being the case. Some little personal pique, it would appear, subsisted between two of the members of court, Mr. Moncrief and Mr. Fisher, in consequence of which, the latter regarded the conduct of the former with some degree of suspicion. The latter, too, being connected with them by blood, was supported by the Erskines, who were the idols of the body, and on this occasion gave most humiliating evidence of the power of prejudice to darken the clearest intellects, and to pervert the purest and the warmest hearts. The question in itself was simple, and was barely this, What was meant by those who framed and imposed the oath? Was it simply the true religion that was to be acknowledged by the swearer, or was it not rather the true religion as imbodied in a particular form, and guaranteed by particular laws, to ensure the integrity of which, the oath was principally, if not wholly intended? Either this was the case, or the oath was superfluous and unmeaning, and of course could not be lawfully sworn by any, be his opinions what they would, as it must in that case have been only a taking of God's name in vain. True, however, it is, that volumes were written, of which no small portion came from the pens of the venerable Ralph Erskine, and the worthy Mr. James Fisher, to prove that nothing was sworn to in the oath but the true religion, abstracting from all the accompanying and qualifying clauses thereof. A protest against the synod's decision was immediately taken by Messrs. Ralph Erskine, James Fisher, William Hutton, Henry Erskine, and John M'Cara, in which they were joined by two elders; and by the time of the next meet

Display of the Secession Testimony, vol. ii. pp. 17—21,

ing of synod, the whole body was in a flame, almost every individual having committed himself on the one side or the other. Accordingly, when the synod met on the seventh of April, 1747, the burgess oath appeared to be the only object of their attention, and it was resumed with great warmth, and in a way that indicated but too plainly what was to be the result. The protestors against the synod's decision instead of having their reasons of dissent read, and the answers to them that had been prepared, which was certainly the natural order of procedure, began with a renewal of their former question, in a somewhat enlarged form, viz. “Whether the decision anent the religious clause in some burgess oaths, passed by this synod in April, 1746, shall now or afterwards be made a term of ministerial and Christian communion, ay and until the making of the same to be so shall be referred by way of overture unto presbyteries and kirk sessions, in order to their giving their judgment thereanent, that so there may, in the meantime, be a friendly dealing among the members of this synod with one another, in a way of conference and prayer, in order to their coming, through the Lord's pity, to see eye to eye in the matter of the said religious clause or not." Opposed to this, it was suggested as a previous question, "Proceed to call for the reasons of protest, and the answers thereunto, for having them read and considered;" and the question being put as to which of these two questions should be voted, it carried for the first, by twentynine votes against twenty-two. From this resolution, Mr. William Campbell entered his dissent, to which Mr. Thomas Mair, with concurrence of Mr. Alexander Moncrief, adhered, craving that the door might be open at next sederunt for carrying this testimony further, as he should see cause; and here the matter rested for the first night. The question was resumed by the protesting brethren next day, with increased ardour, when Mr. Thomas Mair declared his adherence to his former dissent, in which he was followed by Messrs. James Thomson, Alexander Moncrief, Adam Gib, Andrew Clarkson, James Scot, George Brown, William Campbell, John Whyte, George Murray, Robert Archibald, and William Mair, with ten elders. The protesting brethren, however, still insisted for 4 A

II.