a numerous body of Presbyterians in Scotland, who have withdrawn from the communion of the established church. As they take up their ground

(A) Ergot is French for a cock's spur, and horned rye was called ergot from the resemblance of its excrescence to that part. ground upon the establishment of religion from 1638 to 1650, which they hold to be the purest period of the Scottish church, we shall introduce our account of them by a short view of ecclesiastical history from that period to the era of their secession. With our usual candour and impartiality we mean to give a fair statement of those events with which, as they say, their secession is connected.

James I. having for some time previous to his death entertained a wish to form the church of Scotland as much as possible upon the model of that in England, his son Charles, with the affluence 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.—Numbers of the clergy and laity of all ranks took the alarm at what they considered to be 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 1638, and began their labours with a repeal of all the acts of the six preceding parliaments, which had favoured the designs of James. 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-essions, presbyteries, and synods provincial as well as national. See PRESBYTERIANS.

These proceedings were ratified by the parliament which met in 1640. The law of patronage was in full force for several years after this period; yet great care was taken that no minister should be obtruded on the Christian people contrary to their inclinations; and in 1649 it was abolished as an opprobrious grievance.

The restoration of Charles II. in 1660 changed the face of affairs in the church of Scotland. All that the general assembly had done from 1638 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 causes civil and ecclesiastical. During this period the Presbyterians were subjected to fines and imprisonment, while numbers of them were publicly executed for their adherence to their political and religious tenets.

The Revolution in 1688 gave a different turn to the affairs of the church. 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 lodged the election of ministers in the hands of heritors and elders, with the consent of the congregation.

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; but the severity of that law was greatly mitigated by the first parliament of George I. stat. 50. by which it is enacted, that, if the presentee do not signify his acceptance, the presentation shall become void and null in law. The church, however, did not avail herself of this statute; and an event which happened not many years afterwards gave rise to the secession.

In 1732 more than 40 ministers presented an address Origin of to the general assembly, specifying in a variety of instances what they considered to be great defections from the established constitution of the church, and craving a redress of these grievances. A petition to the same effect, subscribed by several hundreds of elders and private Christians, was offered at the same time; but the assembly refused a hearing to both, and enacted, that the election of ministers to vacant charges, where an accepted presentation did not take place, should be competent only to a conjunct meeting of elders and heritors, being Protestants. To this act many objections were made by numbers of ministers and private Christians. They asserted that more than thirty to one in every parish were not possessed of landed property, and were on that account deprived of what they deemed their natural right to choose their own pastors. It was also said, that this act was extremely prejudicial to the honour and interest of the church, as well as to the edification of the people; and, in fine, that it was directly contrary to the appointment of Jesus Christ, and the practice of the apostles, when they filled up the first vacancy in the apostolic college, and appointed the election of deacons and elders in the primitive church.—Many of those also who were thought to be the best friends of the church expressed their fears that this act would have a tendency to overturn the ecclesiastical constitution which was established at the Revolution.

Mr Ebenezer Erskine, minister at Stirling, distinguished himself by a bold and determined opposition to the measures of the assembly in 1732. Being at that time moderator of the synod of Perth and Stirling, he opened the meeting at Perth with a sermon from Psalm cxviii. 22. "The stone which the builders rejected is become the head stone of the corner." In the course of his sermon he remonstrated with no small degree of freedom against the act of the preceding assembly with regard to the settlement of ministers, and alleged that it was contrary to the word of God and the established constitution of the church. A formal complaint was lodged against him for uttering several offensive expressions in his sermon before the synod. Many of the members declared that they heard him utter nothing but found and reasonable doctrine; but his accusers insisting on their complaint, obtained an 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 gave in his answers to every article of the complaint. After three days warm reasoning on this affair, the synod by a majority of fix found him censurable; against which sentence he protested, and for which appealed to the next general assembly. When the afterwards ministers met in May 1733, it affirmed the sentence of the synod, and appointed Mr Erskine to be rebuked and and admonished from the chair. Upon which he protested, 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 preach 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 Moncrief minister at Abernethy, and James Fisher minister at Kinclaven, gave in a written adherence, under the form of instrument; and these four withdrew, intending to return to their respective charges, and act agreeably to their protest whenever they should have an opportunity. Had the affair rested here, there never would have been a secession; but the assembly resolving to carry on the process, cited them by their officer to appear next day. They obeyed the citation; and a committee was appointed to retire with them, in order to persuade them to withdraw their protest. The committee having reported that they still adhered to their protest, 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, with certification that if they should act contrary to said sentence, the commission should proceed to an 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, and cited to the next meeting of the commission in November following. From this sentence several ministers and elders, members of the commission, dissented. The commission met in November, and the suspended ministers appeared. Addresses, representations, and letters from several synods and presbyteries, relative to the business now before the commission, were received and read. The synods of Dumfries, Murray, Rothes, Angus and Mearns, Perth and Stirling, craved that the commission would delay proceeding to a higher censure. The synods of Galloway and Fife, as also the presbytery of Dornoch, addressed the commission for lenity, tenderness, and forbearance, towards the suspended ministers; and the presbytery of Aberdeen represented, that in their judgment, the sentence of suspension inflicted on the foreaid ministers was too high, and that it was a stretch of ecclesiastical authority. Many members of the commission reasoned in the same manner, and alleged that the act and sentence of last assembly did not oblige them to proceed to an higher censure at this meeting of the commission. The question, however, was put, Proceed to an higher censure, or not? and the votes being numbered, were found equal on both sides: upon which Mr John Goldie the moderator gave his calling vote to proceed to a higher censure; which stands in their minutes in these words: "The commission did and hereby do loose the relation of Mr Ebenezer Erskine minister at Stirling, Mr William Wilson minister at Perth, Mr Alexander Moncrief minister at Abernethy, and Mr James Fisher minister at Kinclaven, to their respective charges, and declare them no longer ministers of this church; and do hereby prohibit all ministers of this church to employ them, or any of them, in any ministerial function." And the commission do declare the churches of the said ministers vacant from and after the date of this sentence."

This 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; and that they were now obliged to make a secession from the prevailing party in the ecclesiastical courts; and that it shall be lawful and warrantable for them to preach the gospel, and discharge every branch of the pastoral office, according to the word of God and the established principles of the church of Scotland. Mr Ralph Erskine minister at Dunfermline, Mr Thomas Mair minister at Orwel, Mr John McLaren minister at Edinburgh, Mr John Currie minister at Kinglafie, Mr James Wardlaw minister at Dunfermline, and Mr Thomas Nairn minister at Abbotshill, protested against the sentence of the commission, and that it should be lawful for them to complain of it to any subsequent general assembly of the church.

The secession properly commenced at this date. And 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 said, they steadfastly adhered, but from the present church-courts, which had thrown them out from ministerial communion. The assembly, however, which met in May 1734 did so far modify the above sentence, that they empowered 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 express direction, "that the said 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." As this appointment neither condemned the act of the preceding assembly nor the conduct of the commission, the seceding ministers considered it to be rather an act of grace than of justice, and therefore they said they could not return to the church-courts upon this ground; and they published to the world the reasons of their refusal, and the terms upon which they were willing to return to the communion of the established church. They now erected themselves into an ecclesiastical court, which they called the Associated Presbytery, and preached occasionally to numbers of the people who joined them in different parts of the country. They also published what they called an Act, Declaration, and Testimony, to the doctrine, worship, government, and discipline of the church of Scotland, and against several instances, as they said, of defection from these, both in former and in the present times. Some time after this several ministers of the established church joined them, and the Associated Presbytery now consisted of eight ministers. But the general assembly which met in 1738 finding that the number of Seceders was much increased, ordered the eight ministers to be served with a libel, and to be cited to the next meeting of the assembly in 1739. They now appeared at the bar as a constituted presbytery, and having formally declined the assembly's authority, they immediately withdrew. The assembly which met next year deposed them from the office of the ministry; which, however, they continued to exercise in their respective congregations, who still adhered to them, and erected meeting houses, where they preached till Seceders. their death. Mr James Fisher, the last survivor of them, was, by an unanimous call in 1741, translated from Kinclaven to Glasgow, where he continued in the exercise of his ministry among a numerous congregation, respected by all ranks in that large city, and died in 1775 much regretted by his people and friends. In 1745 the seceding ministers were become so numerous, that they were erected into three different presbyteries, under one synod, when a very unprofitable dispute divided them into two parties.

The burghers oath in some of the royal boroughs of Scotland contains the following clause: "I profess and allow with my heart the true religion presently professed within this realm, and authorized by the laws thereof. I will abide at and defend the same to my life's end, renouncing the Romish religion called Papistry." Messrs Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine, James Fisher, and others, affirmed that this clause was no way contrary to the principles on which the secession was formed, and that therefore every Seceder might lawfully swear it. Messrs Alexander Moncrief, Thomas Mair, Adam Gib, and others, contended on the other hand that the swearing of the above clause was a virtual renunciation of their testimony. And this controversy was so keenly agitated, that they split into two different parties, and now met in different synods. Those of them who assert the lawfulness of swearing the burghers oath are called Burghers, and the other party who condemn it are called Antiburgher Seceders. Each party claiming to itself the lawful constitution of the Associate Synod, the Antiburghers after several previous steps, excommunicated the Burghers on the ground of their sin and of their contumacy in it. This rupture took place in 1747, since which period no attempts to effect a reunion have been successful. They remain under the jurisdiction of different synods, and hold separate communion, although much of their former hostility has been laid aside. The Antiburghers consider the Burghers as too lax and not sufficiently steadfast to their testimony. The Burghers on the other hand contend that the Antiburghers are too rigid, in that they have introduced new terms of communion into the society. The Antiburghers having adopted ideas with regard to what they call covenanting, which the Burghers never approved (A), have been in use of renewing in their several congregations the Scottish Covenant, by causing their people formally swear to maintain it. In other respects the differences between the two parties are not material. The Antiburghers are most numerous on the north of the Tay, and the Burghers on the south of it.

What follows in this article is a further account of those who are commonly called the Burgher Seceders; the Burghers have a greater number of people in their communion than the Antiburghers, and for some years past they have greatly increased in the southern and western districts of Scotland. As there were among them from the commencement of their secession several students who had been educated at one or other of the universities, they appointed one of their ministers to give lectures in theology, and train up candidates for the ministry. Messrs William Willson minister at Perth, and Alexander Moncrief minister at Abernethy, were their professors of theology before their separation from the Antiburghers.

Since that period Mr Ebenezer Erskine minister at Stirling, Mr James Fisher minister at Glasgow, Mr John Swanston minister at Kinros, and Mr John Brown minister at Haddington, have succeeded each other in this office. At present Mr George Lawson minister at Selkirk is their professor of theology, and there are between thirty and forty students who attend his lectures annually. The number of their ministers is about an hundred, and each of their congregations contains from two hundred and fifty to three thousand persons; and there are among them at present more than twenty vacant charges. Where a congregation is very numerous, as in Stirling, Dunfermline, and Perth, it is formed into a collegiate charge, and provided with two ministers. They are erected into six different presbyteries, united in one general synod, which commonly meets at Edinburgh in May and September (B). They have also a synod in Ireland composed of three or four different presbyteries. They are legally tolerated in Ireland; and government some years ago granted 500l. per annum, and of late an additional 500l. which, when divided among them, affords to each minister about 20l. over and above the stipend which he receives from his hearers. These have besides a presbytery in Nova Scotia; and some years ago, it is said, that the Burgher and the Antiburgher ministers residing in the United States formed a coalition, and joined in a general synod, which they call the Synod of New York and Pennsylvania. They all preach the doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as they believe these to be founded on the sacred scriptures. They catechize their hearers publicly, and visit them from house to house once every year.

(A) This is the account which the Burghers give of their own notions respecting the covenant. One of the most enlightened of their opponents, however, assures us that they acknowledge covenanting to be a moral duty, and that the solemn vows of our ancestors are obligatory. But since the breach in the synod they have never engaged in this work; giving as their reason, that this is not the proper season.

(B) The constitution of the Antiburgher church differs very little from that of the Burghers. The supreme court among them is designed The General Associate Synod, having under its jurisdiction three provincial synods in Scotland and one in Ireland. In the former country there are eleven presbyteries; in the latter, four. They have a few congregations in England, and a presbytery in connection with them in North America. The number of ministers belonging to the general synod is a hundred and thirty-seven; and in Scotland there are nineteen vacancies. They, as well as the Burgher Seceders, have a professor of theology, whose lectures every candidate for the office of a preacher is obliged to attend, we have been told for no less than five or six sessions! Surely the session must be of short duration. year. They will not give the Lord's supper to those who are ignorant of the principles of the gospel, nor to such as 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. 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 is ordained among them. Convinced that the 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 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 of being thrown out of their communion. By this means uniformity of sentiment is preserved among them; nor has any of their ministers, excepting one, been prosecuted for error in doctrine since the commencement of their secession.

They believe that the holy scriptures are the sole criterion of truth, and the only rule to direct mankind to glorify and enjoy God, the chief and eternal good; 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 but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures." They are fully persuaded, however, that the standards of public authority in 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; and they in so far differ from the dissenters in England, in 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 hath 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, in two volumes, composed chiefly by Mr James Fisher late of Glasgow, and published by desire of their synod.

For these 50 years past, the grounds of their secession, they allege, have been greatly enlarged by the public administrations of the established church, and particularly by the uniform execution of the law respecting patronage, which, they say, has obliged many thousands of private Christians to withdraw from the parish-churches and join their society.

It is certain, however, that their number has rapidly increased of late, especially in the large cities of the kingdom. They have three different congregations in Edinburgh, two in Glasgow, and two in London, besides several others in the north of England. In most of their congregations they celebrate the Lord's supper twice in the year, and they catechise their young people concerning their knowledge of the principles of religion previously to their admission to that sacrament. When any of them fall into the sin of fornication or adultery, the scandal is regularly purged according to the form of process in the established church; 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 never accept a sum of money as a commutation for the offence. They condemn all clandestine and irregular marriages, nor will they marry any persons unless they have been proclaimed in the parish-church on two different Lord's days at least.

When they separated from the established church, and politically remained firm in their attachment to the state; and when they expelled from their communion a Mr Thomas Nairn minister at Kirkcaldy, who had taught doctrines inimical to the civil government of the nation. In 1745 there was not one of their number who joined the pretender to the British crown. They are still of the same sentiments; and in their public assemblies they always pray for our sovereign King George, with the royal family, and for all who are in authority under them. They are so far from wishing the overthrow of the present civil government, that when the nation was lately in danger of being thrown into a fermentation by the circulation of inflammatory and seditious writings, they warmly recommended peace and order in society. The same remarks, we believe, are equally applicable to the Anti-burgher seceders. No legal disqualifications, as in the case of the dissenters in England, exclude them from any place of public trust in the municipal government of the country; and some of them are frequently in the magistracy of the royal boroughs. They are not, however, legally tolerated, but are supported by the mildness of administration and the liberal spirit of the times. Avowing their adherence to the doctrines contained in the public standards of the church of Scotland, together with the presbyterian form of government, from which they never intended to secede, they deny that they are either schismatics or sectaries, as they have been frequently called: and when they withdrew from the ecclesiastical courts, they did not, they say, constitute a church of their own, different from the national church, but profess to be a part of that church, endeavouring to hold by her reformed principles, in opposition to those deviations from them which they have specified in their Act and Testimony. Most of them live in habits of friendship and intimacy with their brethren of the denomination, and they profess an affectionate regard for all those of every denomination who love Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth. In the late re-exhibition of their testimony, they have declared to the world, that, were the grounds of their secession happily removed, they would account it one of the most singular felicities of their their time to return with pleasure to the communion of the established church.