ALEXANDER AND RUFUS.

PART SECOND.

In which the communion of the secession church is explained and vindicated.

DIALOGUE I.

Of the incidents which occasioned the secession of some ministers from the established church of Scotland.....Their secession a native consequence of their protestation......The good things done by the general assembly in 1734 and 1736, insufficient to remove the causes of the secession.....The conduct of some esteemed more faithful ministers towards their seceding brethren, not justifiable..... The declinature of these brethren warrantable..... The objection against this secession, from the case of several churches reproved in the New Testament, answered.....The corruptions of (what may be called in a large sense) a true church of Christ, in some cases, sufficient to warrant a secession from her communion.....The case of the saints continuing within the pale of the Old Testament church, when in a most degenerate state, considered.....A church's not imposing sinful terms of communion, not always sufficient to warrant our entering into, or continuing in her communion.....A secession, on scriptural grounds, consistent with a due regard to the unity of the church of Christ.....The injustice of ascribing the principles of the Nevatians, Donatists, and, in later times, of the English Brownists, to the seceding minsters.....The conduct of the faithful ministers in the period between 1596 and 1638, and that of the protesters in 1650, precedents for the conduct of the seceding ministers...... Divisive courses not countenanced by this secession.

SOME people in the neighbourhood of Alexander and Rufus, having joined the communion of those Presbyterians called Seceders, had formed a worshipping congregation. This event led Alexander to desire some farther information concerning the principles of the Seceders, than what he had received from the reading of Mr. Willison's Impartial Testimony. Rufus was well qualified to afford him that information; for he had carefully perused the Judicial Testimony of the Associate Presbytery, the Defence of Reformation Principles, by Mr. William Wilson of Perth, the Declaration and Testimony of the Associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania, and various other publications, serving to explain and vindicate the principles of the secession church.

Having studied the Secession Testimony with accuracy, he could find nothing stated as an article of it, but what was either expressly taught in the words of scripture, or deducible from the words of it by necessary consequence. Hence, he was now engaged in a most serious enquiry concerning the duty of joining in the communion of the associate body. Such was the state of his mind, when, having occasion to call at Alexander's house, the following conversation took place.

Alexander. Rufus, I have observed, that, of late, you speak more favourably than usual, of the Seceders.

Rufus. I must own, that while I adhere to the received principles of the church of Scotland, as they are exhibited in the Westminster confession of faith, the form of presbyterial church government, and directory for public worship, together with the solemn covenants that were entered into for the maintaining of these principles, I find myself unable to preserve consistency in disputing against the Sece

ders.

Alex. I suppose no man was better affected to the received principles of the church of Scotland than Mr. Willison, whose praise is in all the churches, and whose piety, the Seceders themselves, though he was a great opposer of their secession, will not dare to call in question. His account may be depended upon; he knew them well, and all the transactions between them and the church of Scotland.

Ruf. The Seceders, I believe, are far from wishing to detract from the just reputation of Mr. Willison. There are several of his treatises, such as that on the Sanctification of the Sabbath, and the Afflicted Man's Companion, which they often recommend. It is well known, that, before the secession of these ministers from the established church, Mr. Willison joined with them in bearing testimony against the corruption of the prevailing party. But, after that event, he complained that they had left him and other honest ministers, in the communion of the established church, to struggle with that party. These ministers, on the other hand, complained that he would not come forth to help them; when they, for no other cause than their steadfast adherence to the received principles of the church of Scotland, had been cast out of its communion by the corruption of the judicatories, and had been reduced to the necessity of a secession. He said, (perhaps rather uncharitably,) that these ministers having precipitately seceded from the national church, became engaged in honour to persist in their separation and might not they have said with as much reason, that Mr. Willison, having taken the side of the judicatories against his old friends, considered himself as bound in honour to persist in his opposition to them? But if we sincerely desire to know whether the cause of Christ and truth was on the side of the judicatories of the established church, or on that of the ministers who seceded from them, we are no more to give a blind or implicit credit to the assertions of Mr. Willison, than to those of the Seceders. In order to understand the ground of the secession, it is necessary to attend to those proceedings which gave occasion to it.

Alex. I wish, Rufus, to hear a short relation of these particulars; though I am not unacquainted with Mr. Willison's account of them. § 1. Ruf. In complying with your request, I shall endeavour to be as concise as is consistent with a just representation of this affair.

In the year 1731, the general assembly of the church of Scotland had an overture before them concerning the method of planting vacant churches, directing ministers not to be chosen by the congregations; but to be imposed upon them by the majority in a meeting of land holders and elders; and allowing all land holders to be admitted as voters in that meeting, under the simple qualification of being protestants. This overture was transmitted to the several presbyteries, that they might return their opinion to the next assembly, whether it should be turned into a standing act. At the next assembly, which was in May, 1732, it was found that the greater part of the presbyteries were absolutely against it. At the same time two representations were offered to the assembly: one by forty-two ministers; the other by upwards of seventeen hundred christian people; both of them remonstrating against this overture and various other things. But these representations were not allowed so much as a hearing. Though there were so many presbyteries against the overture; yet the assembly turned it into a standing act, without any material amendment; refusing, at the same time, to take any notice, in their records, either of a dissent from this act, or of a protest against it, which had been offered by several ministers and elders, members of the assembly.

In October following, Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, one of these dissenters and protesters, preached a sermon at the opening of the synod of Perth and Sterling, from Psal. cxviii. 22, in which he gave a plain testimony against various public evils, particularly, against this act of assembly, and the proceedings of the church judicatories in the violent settlement of ministers. For such plain dealing he was judged censurable by a majority of the synod. This judgement was dissented from by Mr. Alexander Moncrief of Abernethy and by Mr. William Wilson of Perth; while Mr. Erskine and Mr. James Fisher of Kinclaven protested and appealed to the next general assembly. The synod also determined the censure of Mr. Erskine to be a rebuke for the offence he had given by his sermon and an admonition to abstain from the like in time to come. But this sentence was not executed, as Mr. Erskine by the time this determination was made, had gone away.

When the assembly met in May, 1733, they approved the sentence of the synod, and appointed it to be executed at their own bar. Mr. Erskine immediately declared, that he could not submit; and offered a paper for himself and his three brethren; in which they protested against this sentence, and asserted their liberty to preach the same truths, and to testify against the same or like defections on all proper occasions. But the assembly the next day, having found that all the four adhered to their protest, appointed them to appear before the commission* in August next; and ordained, that if they should not then retract their protest, and profess their sorrow for giving it in, they should be suspended from the exercise of their ministry; and that, if they should act contrary to this sentence, the commission would proceed, at their next meeting in November ensuing, to a higher censure. Accordingly, as these ministers still adhered to their protest,

* A commission of the general assembly is different from a committee: a committee is appointed to prepare matters for being determined by the assembly: but a commission determines the matters committed to them; aml there lies no appeal from their sentence to the ensuing general assembly.

the commission first suspended them, and afterwards dissolved their relation to their several charges; declaring them to be no longer ministers of the church of Scotland. In November when the last of these sentences was intimated to the four protesters, they read a paper and delivered it to the clerk; in which they adhered to their former protestation: "and therefore," said they, "since the prevailing party, "who have now cast us out of ministerial communion, are going on in "a course of defection from reformation principles, and suppressing "freedom and faithfulness in testifying against the backslidings of the "church; we do, for this and other weighty reasons, protest that we "are obliged to make A SECESSION from them; and that we can "have no ministerial communion with them; till they see their sins ❝and mistakes, and amend them. And in like manner," added they, "we do protest, that it shall be lawful and warrantable for us, to exer"cise the keys of doctrine, discipline and government according to "the word of God, the Confession of Faith, and the principles and "constitutions of this church, as if no such censure had been passed "upon us."

About three weeks after they had declared themselves in a state of secession, they constituted a presbytery, which was afterwards known by the name of THE ASSOCIATE PŘESBYTERY. They still had hopes, that the equity of their cause and the excellence of those reformation principles for which they contended, would be acknowledged by the national church. On this account, though the Associate Presbytery was constituted in the latter part of the year 1733; and though they had frequent meetings for prayer and conference about the situation into which the Lord, in his adorable Providence, had brought them; yet it was not till the year 1735, that they proceeded to acts of jurisdiction. Then they appointed a committee of their number to prepare a draught of their judicial testimony; which was enacted and published in the following year. Such was the rise of the secession in Scotland.

Alex. Your statement, in general, agrees with Mr. Willison's. Only according to him and others; the rebuke, which the synod of Perth and Sterling appointed Mr. Ebenezer Erskine to receive, was not so much for testifying against the act of the assembly in 1732, and other proceedings of the church courts, as for his manner of doing so.. Many of his friends, as Mr. Willison observes, wished that he had not used such asperity and tartness of expression about the ministry and judicatures of the church, as he did.*

Ruf. I cannot help thinking, with Mr. Wilson of Perth,† that this suggestion was an after thought of the ruling party in the assembly to excuse their arbitrary sentence. And a pitiful one it was: for it is plainly inconsistent with the terms of the assembly's act affirming the sentence of the synod; according to which Mr. Erskine was to be "rebuked at their bar for impugning, in his sermon before the synod, "acts of the assembly and proceedings of church judicatories." Mr. Erskine in his protest considers the rebuke tendered to him by the assembly as "having been" not for his manner of expression, but " for

Willison's Impartial Testimony, page 134. According to the edition printed at Pittsburgh in 1808.

† Continuation of his Defence of Reformation Principles, Chap. iii. Scet. 2nd p. 405,

"things" (that is, the matter of his sermon,) "which he conceived to "be agreeable to and founded upon the word of God and the approved "standards of the church of Scotland ;" and asserts "that he should "be at liberty to preach the same truths of God and to testify against the same or like defections of this church, upon all proper occasions." In like manner, the other three brethren declared their adherence not to Mr. Erskine's manner of expression, but to the matter of his testimony against the act of assembly in 1732; and to his protestation as asserting their privilege and duty to testify publicly against the same or like defections.* According to the supposition of the objection, then, the assembly and their commission had no ground at all to proceed against these four ministers on account of their protestation; as there was nothing in it respecting Mr. Erskine's manner of expression. Alex. Some have thought, that Mr. Erskine might have submitted to the sentence of the synod or assembly; for unless we allow, that such submission ought to be yielded to church courts, we introduce the independent principle, that no regard is to be had to the determination of a church judicature, unless it be right in our own eyes.

Ruf. It is indeed the opinion of Independents, that though synods or meetings of the office-bearers of the churches may be held on some occasions; yet their power is only that of consulting, recommending, or giving advice. This opinion is justly rejected by Presbyterians; because the church, or assembly, mentioned in Matth. xviii. and 17th v. to which our Lord has given the power of binding and loosing, or of discipline and government with a promise of his gracious presence with them in the faithful exercise of that power, ought not only to remove the offence given by some individuals of a worshipping congregation, but also offences with which whole worshipping congregations be chargeable, or in which many such congregations may may be concerned. Of such general concern was the case referred by the church at Antioch to the meeting of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. It is evident, that the judgement of that meeting was delivered, not merely as a recommendation or advice; but as an authoritative decision: a decree ordained by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. Thus the office-bearers of the church of Christ met in his name are to determine authoritatively, questions about matters of faith and practice, and to inflict censure on the scandalous; and their determinations, if consonant to the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the word of

These four ministers, in a publication of theirs printed in 1734, say, "However it " is now pretended, that it was only for the indecency of expression, that Mr. Erskine was rebuked; yet, as the act and sentence itself expressly bears, that the matter as well as manner of expression was condemned both by the synod and assembly; so the chief managers and framers of the act had no other view of it: for the reverend and honoura"ble members of the assembly's committee, that were appointed to converse with the "four brethren after their protestation was given in, plainly told them, that it was unjusti"fiable to speak from the pulpit against any act of assembly, or the proceedings of church "judicatories. And when the brethren replied, that this was an invading of a protestant "principle contained in our confession of faith, if ministers were censured for disburden"ing their consciences as to public church proceedings, which appear to them to be con"trary to the word of God and to sap the foundation of our church constitution; they "were likewise told, that if they could not be silent from speaking against acts of assembly "and the proceedings of the judicatories, that then they should go out of the church." It does not appear that this account of that committee's conversation with these ministers was ever contradicted by Mr. Carrie, Mr. Willison, or any other of their opponents.