They made acts against the atheistical opinions of the Deists and others. They condemned the errors of Madam Bourignon, and deposed Dr. Garden for espousing them. They strictly appointed all ministers and preachers to subscribe the Confession of Faith. And for preserving of truth, and for preventing the corrupting of youth with error and immorality, they appointed all schoolmasters, chaplains and governors of youth to subscribe the Confession of Faith: and these who do not so, or are guilty of negligence, error or immorality, they appointed presbyters to apply to magistrates, heritors, &c. to get them removed from their offices.—They also enacted, That these who should receive licence or ordination from any of the late prelates, should be incapable of ministerial communion with this church, till they gave evidence of their repentance.

They made excellent barrier acts, for preventing all innovations in our doctrine, worship, or government, by appointing that all these acts which are to be binding rules and constitutions to the church, shall first be proposed as overtures to the assembly, and be transmitted by them to the several presbyteries of this church, that they may send their opinions or consent to the next assembly, who may then pass the same into acts, if the more general opinion of the church, thus had, agree thereunto.—They made many acts and frequent applications to the government for suppressing and preventing the growth of popery; and encouraged students and preachers having Irish, that they might be useful in those parts; and do still continue to send such to assist the ministers where popery abounds, by preaching catechising, and instructing of the people, for counteracting the trafficking priests among them: in which design our sovereigns now concur by their yearly bounty of a thousand pounds sterling.—Also the assembly have been at great pains to get schools erected in every parish through the land, and appoint ministers to see that none be suffered to neglect the teaching of their children to read, and that the poor be taught upon charity.

The commission of assembly 1690, according to their instructions, sent four worthy ministers, Masters Shields, Boreland, Stobo, and Dalgliesh, with the Scots colony to America; and one great design was for propagating the gospel and converting the Heathen in those parts. The assembly 1700 appointed a national fast, and one special ground was for their success. Of which they acquainted them by a letter, in which they directed them, upon their landing and settling in America, “to keep a day with all the people for solemn prayer and fasting, bewailing former sins, renewing baptismal engagements, and with the greatest seriousness dedicating themselves and the land unto the Lord.” The assembly 1704 set on foot that noble project of propagating Christian knowledge in the Highlands, Islands, and foreign parts of the world, by erecting charity schools and otherwise, which they began by a voluntary subscription and contribution through the nation, instructing their commission to encourage and carry on the said design, which was done from time to time, until they obtained letters patent from the sovereign, anno 1709, for erecting the subscribers into a society and corporation for managing that affair; and many collections have our assemblies appointed for that blessed design, whereby, and by donations from pious persons both at home and abroad to the society, their stock is greatly increased, and they are now enabled to maintain above 130 charity schools in our Highlands and Islands at home, besides several missionaries in America, for propagating Christianity among the Heathen. And we have certain information of the happy success of these schools at home; thousands of ignorant and barbarous people have been civilized and reformed, and many of them, we hope, have become truly religious. Likewise the assembly have been at great pains to get new impressions of the Bible in Irish, and also to get the Psalms, Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms translated into Irish, and dispersed through the Highlands; and by the help of piously disposed persons, both in this and our neighbour nation, they have got to the number of 80 libraries settled in particular places through the Highlands and Islands. And what reason have we and all Scotsmen to give thanks to God for directing, countenancing and prospering this noble design so far in our land?—They also established an excellent form of process in church judicatories with relation to scandals and censures, by act 11. Ass. 1707; likewise an useful method for ministerial visitation of families, by act 10. Ass. 1708.

These, and many other good things, have our old suffering ministers and our general assembly been instruments, under God, to set on foot and promote, since the revolution; for which we desire always to offer up our hearty thanksgiving and praises to Almighty God, for helping them so far in advancing of our holy religion.

It has been indeed complained by some, that after the revolution they did not pass distinct recissory acts, for Christ’s headship over his church, the Divine right of Presbytery, the church’s intrinsic power, the obligation of our covenants, &c.—No doubt it might be some stop to them, that the magistrate entertained a jealous eye then upon the church, with respect to these points, lest they should have carried matters to too great heights against those who differed from them; and therefore the king and parliament, parl. 1. sess. 2. rescinded all the old acts in favour of the church which enjoined civil pains upon their sentences of excommunication. Yet notwithstanding, we wish they had done more, if possible, for asserting these principles which they held, than they did, immediately after the revolution. Had they foreseen what a handle their not doing it would have given to some to promote a separation from this church, we persuade ourselves they would have essayed to have done more. These old sufferers indeed might reckon that the world was sufficiently apprised of their principles with respect to the foresaid points, and that no man would question them, seeing they had hazarded the loss of all things for adhering to them; for it was upon that very account they were cast out of their houses and benefices, imprisoned, fined, banished, and hunted as partridges in the mountains. And although they past not distinct Assertory Acts with respect to these points, yet we have plain declarations of their mind about them in several public acts and deeds. It was upon their solicitation that the parliament, June 7 1690, past an act for establishing Presbyterian government among us, as being agreeable to the word of God; and at the same time ratified our Confession of Faith, and inserted it verbatim in their public records, in which Confession it is expressly asserted, chap. 30. sect. 1, 2. The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. To these officers, the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, &c. And chap. 26. sect. 6, There is no head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. And chap. 23. sect. 3. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, &c.—Likewise they rescinded the act for the king’s supremacy in church affairs.—Our first, assembly, by many acts, have, approven our Confession with all the aforesaid articles, and appointed all the members of this church to adhere thereto; also ministers, elders, and intrants to the ministry, are bound to make solemn profession thereof, and subscribe the same; and parents at baptism are daily required to train up their children according to it.

Likewise the moderators of all our assemblies, at the close of every assembly, do publicly assert, and declare before the king’s high commissioner, that as the assembly met in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ the only King and Head of his church, so they part in the same name; and also they named the diet of the next assembly.—And when the commissioner dissolved the assembly 1692 abruptly, without naming a diet for another; the moderator did in his face, with consent of the whole assembly, remonstrate against it, and declare, That the office-bearers in the house of God have a spiritual intrinsic power from Jesus Christ, the only Head of his church, to meet in assemblies about the affairs thereof; and he named a diet for another assembly. All this is recorded in the assembly’s books. In like manner did the assembly remonstrate, when dissolved in the year 1703. And the very next assembly 1704, in their answer to the queen’s letter, do plainly tell her, that they were now again met in a national assembly in the name Of our Lord Jesus Christ. Also, they approved the several synod-books through Scotland, which had Assertory Acts recorded in them, for Christ’s Headship, the Divine right of Presbytery, the church’s intrinsic power, &c. To prevent which approbation, was the reason (as then generally believed) why the commissioner dissolved the preceding assembly. Again, the assembly 1705, in their 7^th act concerning Mr.. Hepburn, do assert in plain words, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the alone King and Head of, the church. And Ass. 1707, act 11, declare, that our Lord Jesus Christ hath instituted a government, and governors ecclesiastical in his house, with power to meet for the order and government thereof.—And as for the Divine right of Presbytery, the assembly 1711 do expressly declare for it in their 10^th act, when they appoint all intrants to the ministry, both when licensed and ordained, to subscribe and declare, not only that our Confession of Faith and purity of worship are founded upon the word of God, but also that the Presbyterian government and discipline of this church are founded upon the word of God, and agreeable thereto; and also solemnly to engage that that they will firmly and constantly adhere to the said doctrine and worship, and to the utmost of their power, in their station, assert, maintain will defend the discipline and Presbyterian government of this, church, by kirk-sessions, presbyteries, provincial synods, and general assemblies, during all the days of their lives. Whereby all ministers and preachers do plainly renew our covenants.—And that ministers in former Years were of the same mind appears by the church’s declaration by their commission in the year 1698, published in their Seasonable Admonition, p. 5. in which they say, We do believe and own that Jesus Christ is the only Head and King of his church: and that he hath instituted in his church, officers and ordinances, order and government, and not left it to the will of man, magistrate or church, to alter at their pleasure. And we believe this government is neither prelatical nor congregational, but presbyterian, which now, through the mercy of God, is established amongst us; and believe we have a better foundation for this our church-government, than the inclination of the people, or laws of men, g&c.g And that commission’s whole actings and conclusions were ratified and approven by Ass. 1699, act 12.—Besides all which, our assemblies and commissions have frequently owned the obligation of our covenants by mentioning the breaches of them among our causes of fasting. Ass. 1700, act 5. they lament our continued unfaithfulness to God, notwithstanding of our solemn covenants and engagements to the contrary. Again, Ass. 1701, act 9. they say, Our sins are the more aggravated, that they are against so many solemn repeated vows and engagements, and covenants with our God, which have been openly violated and broken by persons of all ranks, and treated with public contempt, indignities and affronts, g&c.g—We bless God, that has determined our church to own these truths so openly, over the belly of all their difficulties and discouragements; and we desire heartily to join with them in declaring for the Headship of our Lord Jesus Christ over his church, in opposition to the pope, magistrate or any other; likewise for the spiritual intrinsic power of the church to chuse [choose] her officers, meet in her judicatories, inflict censures, and govern the church, in opposition to all Erastian opinions or practices promoted by any party or person whatsoever; as also for the Divine right of Presbyterian government in the church, in opposition to Prelacy, independency, &c. and for the lasting obligation of our covenants, seeing they bind us to nothing but what we are antecedently bound to by the Scriptures of truth.

Thus the church of Scotland continued owning and adhering to her ancient principles and doctrines, and using means to promote religion through the land for many years after the revolution, without any visible declension. But, alas! her degeneracy and defection hath of late years become too visible; and our union with England in 1707 may be looked upon as the chief source thereof, next to the corruption of our hearts. When this transaction came to be laid before the Scots parliament in 1706, the nation was most intent about it, not knowing the nature or articles, whether it was a federal or incorporating union: but when it was seen to be the latter, and the majority of the house disposed to agree to it, both the church and the body of the people were vastly uneasy, great numbers of addresses came up against it, and insurrections were much feared. The commission by appointment sat during the whole session, and was exceeding numerous; members attending by turns. They presented three addresses to the parliament, the first was for an unalterable security of the established religion, to the people of this land and all succeeding generations, so far as human laws can go. To satisfy them, the parliament enacted, That the establishment of the doctrine, worship, discipline and Presbyterian government of this church should be held as an unalterable, fundamental and, essential condition of the union of the two kingdoms, if concluded. This seemed to quiet many, reckoning the security of the church not so precarious and uncertain, when thus established by the mutual agreement of both parliaments in a solemn treaty of union, that when settled by acts of the Scots parliament only; for the faith of the English in keeping treaties was at this time much spoken of. But the most part of the church continued still averse to an incorporating union, and their coming under the jurisdiction of a British parliament, in which the English members, being prelatical would be ten to one of Scots members wherefore the commission presented a second address, declaring this aversion. They indeed met with great opposition from noblemen and gentlemen, elders in the commission, who had views of temporal offices and advantages from court by being for the union; yet they represented the grievances the church and her members might fall under by the union, such as oaths, tests and impositions inconsistent with their principles. And in their address they plainly testified against the subjecting of this nation to a British parliament, in which twenty six prelates would be constituent members and legislators; For (say they) it is contrary to our known principles and covenants, that any churchman should bear civil offices, or have power in the commonwealth. To this they got no answer, save a clause put in the act for securing the church, that no oath, test or subscription shall ever be imposed within the bounds of this church and kingdom contrary to our Presbyterian establishment. By which (it is to be regreted) the parliament neither shewed regard to the principles of Scotsmen when out of the kingdom, nor to the obligation of our covenants: nay, they proceeded to worse afterwards, by declaring that the parliament of England might provide for the security of the church of England within the bounds of that kingdom, as they should think expedient; whereby they consented to the securing of the prelacy and ceremonies of that church as a fundamental of the union. This being both against the word of God and our solemn league, we have cause to mourn over it as a national breach of covenant, in some respect; though it is a mercy the church was helped to remonstrate against it; for the commission when informed of it, presently presented a third address (though greatly opposed) craving that there might be no such stipulation or consent for the establishment of the hierarchy and ceremonies, as they would not involve themselves and the nation in guilt, &c. From all which it is evident, that this church did remonstrate against making an union with England upon terms not consistent with our ancient covenant union with that kingdom: for the ensuing assembly 1707 approved the commission in what they did.

But, notwithstanding of the church’s remonstrance against this union and the foresaid sinful stipulation, it was concluded and ratified by both parliaments; but it doth not appear that this memorable transaction has been followed with the special blessings of heaven, seeing it hath brought on very much sin, and many growing evils upon this poor land, to the dishonour of God, and decay of true Christianity among us. For after the union, when our correspondence and communication with the English was greatly increased, the Lord’s day began to be profaned after their example, and other immoralities much to abound, and the societies for reformation of manners to dwindle away. Likewise our nobility and gentry have been since that period giving up gradually with family religion, and the very form of Godliness, and falling into a looser way of living; for many of them since the union do either dwell or spend much time in England, whereby they learn many of their vices and evil customs; they are either reconciled to the English hierarchy and worship, or live much in the neglect of all public worship; and, being there under the inspection of no parish-minister they and their families get leave to live as they list: and, when they come down to Scotland, they get many to follow their loose examples. Also, since the union, public oaths are prodigiously multiplied, in qualifying men for offices, in collecting and paying of taxes; and manifold perjuries are thereby committed, and particularly by custom-house oaths, and running of goods, which also opens a door to many other sins. And hereby Atheism, Deism and infidelity have made progress in the land.

Likewise soon after the union, the English service and ceremonies were set up in several places, and afterwards the parliament gave a toleration for it, and the body of the Episcopal clergy embraced that worship, though their ancestors had always supposed it heretofore. Yea, by this law, almost all errors are tolerated; and now even the Popish worship is kept openly, and connived at.—A superstitious form of swearing was soon introduced; from England, by laying the hand on and kissing the gospels. The sacramental test, and conformity to the liturgy and ceremonies, is imposed upon the members of this church while serving the king in England and Ireland. Likewise many other incroachments are made upon the government, rights and privileges of this church by the toleration act, and by the act for restoring patronages, by the act for a vacation of the lords of session and other courts in the end of December, whereby the keeping of holy days is encouraged; and lastly, by refusing access to the house of peers, unless the address be directed to the lords spiritual. And all these grievances are brought upon us, notwithstanding of our security by the union-act, and the English faith so much talked of. From all which we may conclude, That as our union with England was made upon sinful terms, so in the event it hath proven a great judgment upon this land and church. Alas! we have been perfidious to God, and no wonder though men should be left to prove perfidious to us.

Very soon did Scotland feel the bitter effects of the union; for, in the view of its being concluded, several of the Episcopal clergy began to set up the English service in meeting houses, hoping to find more countenance and support from England on this account. This way of worship was wholly new and strange, and could never find place in Scotland before. Wherefore the general assembly 1707, that met soon after the conclusion of the union, gave an honest testimony against this new worship, by their 15th act, intituled, Act against innovations in the worship of God; wherein they say, The purity of Divine worship, and uniformity therein, hath been the great happiness of this church ever since her reformation; and that the introduction of these innovations was not so much as once attempted, even during the late prelacy; that they are dangerous to this church, and manifestly contrary to our own known principle, viz. that the assembly moved with zeal for the glory of God, and the purity and uniformity of his worship, doth discharge the practice of all such innovations of Divine worship within this church; and doth require and obtest [supplicate] all the ministers of this church, especially these in whose bounds any such innovations are, or may happen to be, to represent to their people the evil thereof, and seriously to exhort them to beware of them, &c. And they appoint the commission to use all proper means for suppressing such innovations. Which the commission did, as appears by their act 5th August 1709, which they ordained to be read in all the churches through Scotland. But the more the church opposed this new worship (as they judged they were warranted to do by the laws of the land) the more forward were their enemies to set it up, and at length got the parliament to espouse their cause.

Likewise, soon after the union, gross profanation of the Lord’s day began to abound, by traveling, carrying goods, driving cattle, and other abuses on that holy day; as appears from the 12th act of ass. 1708. For preventing whereof, the assembly in that act appointed each presbytery to send some of their number to attend the lords of justiciary [judicial officer] at their first circuit that falls to be in their bounds, and to represent to their lordships the profanation of the Lord’s day by the foresaid wicked and sinful practices. And the general assembly did seriously recommend to the lords of justiciary to take effectual course to restrain and punish the foresaid abuses; which, the assembly say, they will acknowledge as a singular service done to God and his church. Also they enjoin all ministers to represent to their profile, among whom such practices are, the great hazard their immortal souls are in by such courses; and also to proceed not only with ecclesiastic censures against sabbath breakers, but also to apply to justices of peace and other magistrates in their bounds, to execute the laws against them.—But our commerce with England still increasing, the profanation of the Lord’s day among us is come to a great height, in spite of all the church hath done against it.

But, our sins and provocations against God being highly aggravated; as a just punishment upon us, God was pleased to let loose our enemies in the British parliament to bring in a bill, which they got past into a law, for allowing those of the Episcopal clergy the use of the English liturgy in Scotland, containing some grievous clauses in it against the just and legal rights of the established church. While the bill was in dependence March 1712, the commission met and addressed the queen, in which they gave free and faithful testimony against the said bill, which the assembly that met in May 1712 did unanimously approve; and, as a token of it, did insert their address in their books, and print it with their acts. In it, they say,

The church of Christ in Scotland is in hazard of sad alterations and innovations, inconsistent with and contrary to that happy establishment, secured to us by the laws of both of God and the realm; by the said bill.—If the matters in question did only relate to our own case and better accommodation, we should patiently bear the same: but when we see the glory of God, and the power and purity of our holy religion, and of the ordinances of Jesus Christ in this church, so much concerned, we cannot but hope that your majesty will allow us to plead our just right, &c.—

Afterwards they plead the several acts of parliament for settling and securing the worship, discipline and government of this church, with her rights and privileges; all which acts were ratified by the parliaments of both kingdoms in the treaty of union, and declared to be a fundamental, essential and unalterable condition of the said treaty of union in all time coming. It is observable, after their pleading the 5th act parl. 1690, which allows the Presbyterian ministers and elders to have power to try and purge out all insufficient, negligent, scandalous and erroneous ministers by due course of ecclesiastical process and censures, and likewise to redress all other church disorders;—They add, By which act it is evident, that Presbyterian church government being thus established, the ministers and elders of this church have all the powers committed by our Lord and Master to his ministers and officers, to watch over the flock, and to guard against all usurpers and intruders.—Afterwards they add, We cannot but express our astonishing surprise and deep affection to hear of such a bill, offered for such a large and almost boundless toleration, not only threatening the overthrow of this church, but giving a large licence almost to all errors and blasphemies, and throwing up all good discipline, to the dishonour of God, and the scandal and ruin of the true Christian religion, and the infallible disturbance of the quiet, and to the confusion of this church and nation.—And therefore we do in all humility, but with the greatest earnestness, beseech, nay obtest your majesty, by the same mercy of God that restored this church, and raised your majesty to the throne, to interpose for the relief of this church, and the maintenance of the present establishment, against such a manifest and ruining incroachment.—The church being most earnest to oppose this toleration and other grievances then coming upon the church, they sent three of their number, Masters Carstares, Blackwall, and Baillie, to London, to present this and others of their petitions, and to agent the church’s cause: but, notwithstanding of all that this and other acts were past against the church; all Episcopal ministers were allowed to preach, pray, administer the sacraments, and marry, without any other caveat that appears for their doctrine save that that they shall not deny, in their preaching or writing, the doctrine of the blessed Trinity. They are not by that act obliged to satisfy the church, or any person or society, concerning their belief of the doctrine of the Trinity; it is enough if they do not openly impugn it: so that there is a liberty given to the most erroneous or scandalous men to preach and dispense sacraments, without being accountable to any.

We do here join with the church in testifying against such a boundless toleration, as being contrary to the word of God, and the practice of reforming magistrates and churches therein commended: as in 2 Chron. xxxiv. 33. Rev. ii. 2. and to these texts wherein such a toleration is reproved, as Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20. as also it is contrary to our Confession of Faith, chap. 23. and to our Larger Catechism upon the 2nd commandment.

At the same time there was another distressing bill presented in the parliament for restoring of patronages, and repealing the act 1690, which gave liberty to parishes to call their own ministers.—This also carried against the church, notwithstanding of the common’s address, which was in like manner approven by the assembly. In this address they plead and assert, That

the act 1690, abolishing patronages, is a part of our Presbyterian constitution, ratified by the acts of parliament of both kingdoms in the treaty of union, and declared to be unalterable: That, from our first reformation from Popery, patronages have still been reckoned a yoke and burden upon this church; and this is declared by the first and second books of Discipline: that the restoring of them will inevitably obstruct the work of the gospel, and create great disorders and disquiet in this church and nation; and that there is one known abuse attending patronages, viz. the laying a foundation for Simoniacal pactions betwixt patrons and those presented by them.

Though this did not avail to stop the bill, yet it was a plain testimony from the church against Patronages; which we cannot but approve and adhere to.

Likewise we approve of that noble testimony which the general assembly gave against both the toleration, and patronages, May 14^th 1715, when they approved a memorial concerning them, which they appointed to be sent to the duke of Montrose principal secretary of state, most humbly entreatng him to lay it before the king, viz. King George I. The tenor of it is as follows:

The church of Scotland, being restored at the happy revolution, was by the claim of right, and acts of parliament following thereupon, established in its doctrine, worship discipline and government; and, that this legal constitution and establishment might be unalterably secured, it was declared to be a fundamental and essential condition of the union, and accordingly ratified in the parliaments of both kingdoms. But the zeal of the established church of Scotland for, and their steady adherence to, the Protestant succession, did expose them to the resentments of a disaffected party. And now they account themselves aggrieved by some acts past in the parliament of Great Britain; as 1mo, By the act granting such a large and almost boundless toleration to these of the Episcopal persuasion in Scotland, while the liberty allowed to Protestant Dissenters in England (who had always given the most satisfying proofs of their undoubted zeal and good affection to the Protestant succession) was retrenched. And though the church of Scotland hath an equal security in a legal establishment with that of England, yet there is a vast inequality as to the toleration of the respective Dissenters. In Scotland the toleration doth not restrain the desseminating the most dangerous errors, by requiring a Confession of Faith, or subscription to the doctrinal articles of the established church, as is required of Dissenters in England: it also weakeneth the discipline of the church against “the scandalous and profane; by withdrawing the concurrence of the civil magistrate. It is also an inequality and hardship upon the established church of Scotland, that these of her communion who are employed in his majesty’s service in England or Ireland, should be obliged to join in communion and conformity to the church of England; whereas conformity to this church is not required (nor do we plead that it should be) of members of the church of England, when called to serve his majesty in Scotland, who here enjoy the full liberty of Dissenters without molestation; and the common and equal privileges of the subjects of the united kingdom, stipulated by the union, do claim the same liberty to the members of the church of Scotland, when employed in his majesty’s service in England and Ireland.

2do, By the act restoring the power of presentation to patrons, the legally established constitution of this church was altered in a very important point: and while it appears equitable in itself, and agreeable to the liberty of Christians and a free people, to have interest in the choice of these to whom they intrust the care of their souls, is an hardship to be imposed upon in so tender a point, and that frequently, by patrons who have no property nor residence in the parishes; and this besides the snares of Simoniacal pactions [a “Simoniacal paction” is the buying or selling of ecclesiastical pardons, offices, or emoluments via an agreement or bargain.], and the many troubles and contests arising from the power of patronages, and the abuses thereof, by disaffected patrons putting their power into other hands, who as effectually serve their purposes; by patrons competing for the right of presentation in the same parish; and by frequently presenting ministers settled in eminent posts to mean and small parishes, to elude the planting thereof: By all which, parishes are often kept long vacant, to the great hindrance of the progress of the gospel.

Although the church of Scotland was brought under the distress enough by the toleration and patronages, yet, to add to it, the oath of abjuration was also imposed upon the ministers thereof in the year 1712. This occasioned a great question among them, and much writing upon it, whether the conditions or qualifications required of the successor to the crown, in the act so of parliament settling the succession, of which this is on that he must join in communion with the church of England, be understood as any part of the oath, or not? These who were not clear to take it, apprehended these conditions might be reckoned a part of the oath, because in it they were to swear to maintain the succession AS entailed by such acts of parliament, in which these conditions were contained. Others again understood these conditions as no part of the oath, seeing when the oath was first framed in the English parliament in the year 1701, and a clause was offered to be added to it for maintaining the church of England, it was rejected, because the Dissenters could not take it: and at the union the parliament had expressly exeemed these of this church from all oaths inconsistent with their principles: and consequently, that the AS in the oath was not reduplicative upon the qualifications of the successor, but merely indicative, as only pointing out the act wherein the succession was settled, and the illustrious family and persons on whom it was entailed failing the heirs of king William, queen Anne and her heirs, g&c.g And therefore they understood that the oath brought them under no other obligation, but to allegiance to the sovereign, and to an engagement against a Popish pretender, and to the succession in the Protestant line: and, to prevent mistakes and misrepresentations they might be liable to in this matter, they resolved to give in written declarations to this purpose upon instrument, at taking of the oath, which generally they did. At this time the commission addressed the queen (as also did the assembly) in favours of these who still scrupled at the oath, as if the AS in it did some way refer to the conditions required of the successor, that such might be favourably dealt with, as her loyal subjects. As also they petitioned her, that their declarations of loyalty to the queen, their renouncing the Pretender, and engagements to support the succession to the crown in the Protestant line in the family of Hanover, as contained in their address, might be accepted by her as their sense of the said oath, without respect to the condition scrupled at.—In answer thereto, the queen, in her letter to the assembly, declared that the address of the commission did so much manifest their loyalty to her, and their true concern for the succession in the Protestant line by law established, that it could not but be acceptable. This answer did very much confirm these who judged that the AS in the oath did not reduplicate upon the qualifications of the successor, and gave freedom to many to take it.

After king George I came to the throne, and understood our difficulties by the representation of assembly 1715, and former addresses, he interposed for the relief of these who scrupled at the oath, and got the parliament to turn the AS into WHICH, as also to declare that the oath was not meant to oblige his majesty’s subjects in Scotland to any thing inconsistent with their church establishment according to law. This removed the scruples of many; but nevertheless there were not a few worthy ministers who remained uneasy and scrupulous upon account there was still mention, made in the oath of the act of parliament that required the conditions of the successor, and therefore wanted to have it wholly taken out of the oath. Which, upon application, the king was so good as to grant, by an act of parliament in the 5^th year of his reign.—Thus did the Lord in his mercy settle the great commotions that were in the church by reason of that oath, and extricate her out of some of her difficulties; yea, so far, that the most strict and zealous ministers in Scotland were brought to declare both from the pulpit and the press, that the embracing or refusing the oath of abjuration did not afford the least ground for separation.

It is remarkable, that in the midst of all these grievances and pressures which the church groaned under, the Lord did not suffer her to sink.—The times indeed became very cloudy and dark; the church’s friends were turned out of place, and her enemies were exalted in power; Jacobites were put in places of highest trust, and many of them became so insolent, as to maltreat and abuse the ministers of the gospel, and sometimes to cause burn at market-crosses the acts of synods for fasts, because in them they appointed prayers to be made for maintaining the Protestant succession, and for defeating the designs and plots then forming for overturning it, and for bringing in a Popish Pretender. Yet even then the Lord inspired the commission with courage and resolution to emit their famous seasonable warning at their meeting 19^th August 1713, which was read from the pulpits; wherein they obtest all good Protestants and lovers of their country to look to themselves, that they be not deluded by the subtile devices of a Jacobite party, who would bring us under the yoke of a Popish Pretender.—Here the commission mention their artifices at large; one whereof is, They with great appearance of zeal, espouse and promote the English liturgy through the land, though neither they nor their fathers would receive it heretofore; and at the same they omit all, the prayers for queen Anne and princess Sophia.—Likewise they make a great outcry, especially in distant places, of their having suffered grievous persecutions because of their being of the Episcopal persuasion though withhout ground. Blessed be God (say they) we ran appeal to the consciences of all who know our conduct, that we have never since the late happy revolution in the least returned the severities, and unparalleled cruelties, which we met with when they had the ascendant; and which we from their present temper, as well as from their former behaviour may reasonably conclude they want nothing but power to renew against the ministers and members of this church.—Wherefore they, seriously obtest and beseech all ranks of persons to humble themselves deeply under the many sad causes and tokens of the Lord’s anger, and turn to him with all their hearts, and flee to the blood of sprinkling for reconciliation, and pray earnestly to God to disappoint the designs and hopes of a Popish and Jacobite party, preserve the Protestant succession in the house of Hanover, sanctify the troubles which have afflicted our Zion, and turn us from all these sins which have procured them, &c.

And glory be to a prayer hearing God, who soon blasted all the Jacobites’ plots and hopes, and made the Protestant succession take place, by the accession of K. George I within less than a year, to the of this poor oppressed church, and of all true Protestants.

Towards the end of the queen’s reign the Jacobites turned so uppish, that they encouraged Episcopal ministers to intrude into vacant churches, and ministers and preachers who were sent to preach in them were rabbled. They and their preachers did publicly solemnize the Pretender’s birth day, set up bonfires, drink his health as king before great multitudes, and confusion to all the Presbyterians. But upon the accession of king George I these riots and insults were suppressed, and the laws and good order began again to take place. The church represented her grievances from the laws lately made; but the breaking out of the rebellion in 1715 put a stop to designs of that sort for a time. Until then, there were a good number of Episcopal ministers continued in churches through the North; but they, joining with others in that rebellion, were soon afterwards turned out. The Lord was pleased again to pity us, and work a great deliverance for us: for though the Jacobite and Popish party rose of a sudden, and gathered together in great numbers, threatening to carry all before them, to cut off our sovereign king George and all the friends of the Protestant succession, attacked the king’s forces, and killed many; yet the Lord soon brake all their measures, poured shame upon their attempt, and made many of them flee their native country: so that in a wonderful manner God delivered us from the bloody sword, and the cruel designs of Papists and Jacobites, and restored peace in all our borders, in the year 1716.

It might have been expected, that such astonishing mercies and deliverances would have produced humility and thankfulness to God, have led us to repentance and reformation, and have animated our zeal for God and his truths, and our activity to get the church’s grievances redressed, when such a fit opportunity seemed to offer.—But, alas! we became unthankful to God, and soon for got his goodness; we turned secure and confident under king George’s protection and favour, and began to lose that zeal for preserving the purity of doctrine and worship, for suppressing error and immorality, and for the advancement of religion and godliness, which former assemblies manifested. Now our old zealous suffering ministers were generally gone off the stage, and a woeful lukewarmeness and indifferency began to seize upon the following generation.

At this time there was a great noise of Mr. John Simson, Professor of Divinity at Glasgow, his venting and teaching Arminian doctrine and gross errors. The worthy Mr. James Webster, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, having conversed with him thereupon, was the first that complained of him: And he was therefore appointed to process him before the presbytery of Glasgow; though it seems hard that Mr. Webster should have been burthened with an affair which was the common cause of the church. But Mr. Webster’s appeal, the libel he gave in against Mr. Simson, and Mr. Simson’s answer thereto, came before the assembly 1716, who remitted the same to a committee to consider the whole process, and to make a full and distinct report to the next assembly. In Mr. Simson’s answer to this libel, and his letters to Mr. Rowan, there were found several very dangerous errors, contrary to the word of God, and our Confession of Faith and Catechisms; such as,

That there is nothing to be admitted in religion, but what is consonant to reason.— That regard to our own happiness in the enjoyment of God ought to be our chief motive in serving him; and that our glorifying God is subordinate to it.—That the Heathen may know by the light of nature, that there is a remedy for sin provided; and if they would pray sincerely for the discovery of the way of salvation, God would grant it to them.—That if men would with diligence, sincerity and faith use the means for obtaining saving grace, God has promised to grant it: and that the using of the means in the foresaid manner is not above the reach of our natural powers.—That there was no proper covenant made with Adam for himself and his posterity; and that he was not our federal head.—That it is inconsistent with God’s justice and goodness to create souls wanting original righteousness; and that the souls of infants since the fall are created pure and holy.—That it is probable there are more of mankind saved than damned; And it is more than probable that baptized infants, dying in infancy are all saved.—That there is no sinning in hell after the last ‘judgment,’ &c.

All which erroneous scheme of doctrine is fully refuted and exposed by the reverend Mr. John Flint and Mr. John M’Claren, both ministers of Edinburgh, in two different books, the one written in Latin, and the other in English, to which Mr. Simson never offered any reply.—Mr. Simson, when before the assembly and their committee, declared his adherence to our Confession of Faith, and studied to put senses upon his doctrine to make it seem to agree therewith, and made use of very subtile distinctions for that end: but such hath been the zeal sometimes of our assemblies against error and for purity of doctrine, that they would have had no great difficulty to have agreed that Mr. Simson, or any man that vented or taught such doctrine as above, was not fit to be continued a professor of divinity, to instruct and train up young men for the holy ministry.—But, when his process came to be finished by assembly 1717, there were so many members in it, who either had been his scholars, or were his relations, comrades or acquaintances, who stood up for saving him, that the assembly were brought to dismiss him with a very gentle censure, by their 9^th act; wherein they only say,

He hath given offence, and hath vented some opinions not necessary to be taught in divinity, and that hath given more occasions to strife, than to the promoting of edification: That he hath used some expressions that bear and are used by adversaries in a bad and sound sense, though he doth disown that unsound sense. And, for answering more satisfyingly, (as he supposeth) the cavils and objections of adversaries, he hath adopted some hypothesis different from what we commonly used among orthodox divines, that are not evidently founded on Scripture, and tend to attribute too much to natural reason, and the power of corrupt nature; which undue advancement of reason and nature is always to the disparagement of revelation and efficacious free grace. The general assembly, for the reasons above mentioned, prohibits and discharges the said Mr. John Simson to use such expressions, or to teach, preach, or otherwise vent such opinions, propositions, or hypothesis as foresaid.

But, as a just rebuke upon the assembly for their lenity, Mr. Simson persisted in his unsound doctrine, contemned their sentence, and still went on in a course of error, till in a few years he is arraigned before the assembly for Arianism.

About this time there arose debates and great noise, as if some ministers were bringing in a new scheme of doctrine, because in their sermons they disused and censured several old approven words and phrases as too legal, and affected some new modes of speaking; and because they recommended to their people an old book called the Marrow of modern Divinity.—This book was laid before the assembly 1620, as containing gross Antimonian [Antinomian] errors; and several passages and propositions being excerpted from it by a committee, the assembly proceeded in a hurry to pass a condemnatory act against them all in cumulo; and, among the rest, they condemned as erroneous two propositions, viz. That believers are altogether set free from the law as a covenant of works;—And that they are set free both from the commanding and condemning, power of the covenant of works. Which two are surly sound and orthodox propositions in themselves.—Likewise that same assembly, by another act, recommended to ministers to insist in preaching several doctrines, and among others,—the necessity of a holy life in order to the obtaining of everlasting happiness. This certainly was very ill worded, however sound their meaning was.

Although there were several stumbling and unjustifiable expressions in that book called the Marrow, g&c.g yet before the assembly had proceeded to pass their acts concerning them, it had been their wisdom, to have first remitted them (as in other cases) to the consideration of Presbyteries; which happy step would have prevented the oversight or mistakes of the assembly aforementioned, and consequently the Twelve brethrens’ representation against the foresaid acts, given in to the assembly 1721, which was once likely to have landed in a schism. But it must be owned, that, when the assembly 1722 came to review and explain these hasty acts past in 1720, they did justice to truth, and declared their minds, concerning, the acts and propositions quarrelled, in very sound and orthodox terms.—And particularly, as to the necessity of holiness for obtaining everlasting happiness, they declare the expression is meant of obtaining the enjoyment and possession, of everlasting happiness, but not of the right and title to it, which (they say) all justified persons have already attained, viz. through the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Thus peace and truth were preserved in the church at that time.

No doubt it had been much for the interest of truth, as well as the honour of our assemblies, that they had manifested as much zeal against other erroneous books which have been published or recommended before or since that time by other ministers of this church, and some of them far more dangerous than the Marrow, such as Dr. Whitchcot’s sermons, &c. Oh that our ancient and trite zeal for truth and purity, and against all kind of error and corruption, were again happily revived in the land!—But, alas! how little ground have we in an ordinary way to expect any national reviving or reformation in the church and land, while the flood gates of error and corruption are still kept wide open by the laws for the Toleration and Patronages?

In consequence of applications to the king by the church, some amendments were made upon these laws by the parliament in 1719; As, 1mo, They discharged any person to preach or pray in any Episcopal meeting house in Scotland, that did not pray for king George, and take the abjuration oath, under the pain of six months imprisonment, and having the meeting house shut up. This act, had it been executed, would have put a stop to many of the erroneous Jacobite preachers; but not being executed against them, they still went on in disseminating many popish errors through the land.

2do, The parliament enacted, That presentations given by patrons to vacant churches shall be effect, if the person presented do not accept or declare his willingness to accept of the presentation given him.—By which act the parliament put it (as it were) in the church’s power to ease herself of the great grievance of patronage; which was ground of joy to many: for, at that time, it was generally thought that this limitation was equivalent to plain repealing of the patronage act, and that no Presbyterian would ever expressly declare his accepting of a presentation, or go so far to approve or comply with patronage, which Presbyterians had always declared heavy yoke and burden on the church of God. And accordingly there was no man that presumed to take, accept or make use of a presentation to a church for several years after this act was past; and so the church was easy, and continued to settle vacant churches upon the call of congregations, without any molestation from patrons.

During this lucid interval, the church seemed to turn secure, as if she feared no danger from the acceptance of presentations; and therefore was at no pains to shut or bar the door against such acceptances. Had this been done, the church was effectually delivered by the foresaid favourable act from the yoke of patronage. Now was the proper juncture for our assemblies to have made a new declaration, in corroboration of what former assemblies had done, concerning the woful corruption and evil consequences of patronage; and to have warned all the members of this church of the evil of encouraging or promoting the same, and particularly all ministers and preachers of the sin and danger of complying with this corruption, by accepting of presentations; especially seeing there was no law requiring it as necessary, but, by the late act of parliament, an open door was left for their entering into churches in a gospel way, if they pleased to chuse and accept of it. No doubt, if things had been set in such clear light by our general assemblies, the authority of the church would have restrained these woful acceptances.—But, alas! while the church slept, the enemy was busy sowing his tares, and prompting some to devise subtile conditional acceptances, wherein they might disapprove of patronages, and declare for Presbyterian principles with respect to the people’s rights, and yet, in the mean time, take such hold of the stipend presented to, that another could not make a legal title to it. When this was complained of to superior judicatories, some leading men, alas! were found to patronize these accepters, till at length they proceeded to the most open and barefaced acceptances. For these practices indeed some preachers were censured and silenced, but they were reponed [replaced] by superior courts; whereby at length acceptances went on without controul. So that, by such defections, the yoke of patronage is faster wreathed upon the church than ever, and her condition under it more lamentable than in any former period: for informer times all honest men groaned under patronage as a burden; and though they were presented by patrons to churches, yet they neither said nor wrote any thing in favour of the patron’s deed, but silently submitted the presbyteries proceeding to their settlement, when they had parishes concurring in it: but, alas! By such active written acceptances as now in use, the whole church shall in process of time be involved in approving of patronages, in such away as was never done by the church of Scotland since the reformation.

Wherefore we judge it the duty of all the lovers of truth and purity in the church of God, to bear open testimony against the yoke of patronage, and the acceptance of presentations, as we herebv desire to do, especially seeing they have been productive of such dreadful evils in this church of late years.

It is well known that the church of Scotland hath ever since her reformation remonstrated against patronages, and asserts in her 2^nd book of Discipline, chap. 12. That patronages have flowed from the pope, and the corruption of the canon law; and the intruding of persons this way into churches, hath no ground in the word of God, but is contrary thereto, &c.—Likewise the parliament 1649, in their act abolishing patronage, do say, It is an evil and bondage under which the Lord’s people and ministers have long groaned; and that it is a custom popish, brought into the church in times of ignorance and superstition; and that it is contrary to the 2^nd book of Discipline, &c.—Also the assemblies 1712 and 1715 give plain testimonies against patronages to the same purpose, and assert, That they lay a foundation for Simoniacal pactions, and many other evils. To these testimonies we do adhere, and likewise shall add some further reasons against patronages;

1mo, Patronages are neither agreeable to the rules of God’s word, nor to the apostolical practice: seeing it is evident from the word, that it was only the church herself, with her officers, that exercised the power of nominating and electing ministers and officers to the church, according to the authority derived to them from Christ their Head and Founder, Acts i. 15—vi. 2—viii. 14.—xiii. 3.—xiv. 23.—xvi. 9—1 John iv. 1—2 John 10. So that a patron’s right of nominating the officers of the church, is nothing but a manifest usurpation over the church of God.

2do, Patronage is also contrary to the practice of the primitive and purest ages of the church, and was not known in the church until true religion and Christianity began to decline, and then it came in gradually with other Popish corruptions and abuses. We find Cyprian, Athanasius, the apostolical constitutions, with many ancient councils and fathers, declaring in the plainest terms for the free liberty and power of the church to chuse her own pastors, without any extrinsic influence whatsomever [whatsoever].

3tio, As it is disagreeable to Scripture and antiquity, so it is contrary to reason, and to the interest and safety of the church, that the power of chusing her pastors should at anytime be lodged in the hands of heretics and profane men, as frequently the right of patronage is, being conveyed to them with their earthly inheritances. Can there be any thing more unreasonable and absurd than that the power of chusing officers to the church, should fall into the hands of the declared enemies of the church! or that this power, which is a spiritual and ecclesiastical privilege, should be conveyed, disponed [given to another], sold, or bought with money, like other civil rights or heritages, and so be lodged frequently with infidels and the worst of men.

4to, For patrons to impose ministers upon Christian congregations, is a plain incroachment upon the natural rights of mankind, and upon the laws of free societies; as much as it would be for them to impose physicians and lawyers upon societies, to take care of their bodies or estates. The churches of Christ are as free societies as any in the world, having their liberties from Christ to chuse their own pastors; and ought not to be brought in bondage to any in this matter.

5to, It is cruel imposition to oblige societies of men, who duly value their immortal souls, and would place them under proper spiritual guides, to intrust the edification, comfort, and eternal concerns of these precious souls, to the care of patrons; many, whereof are indifferent about the concerns of their own souls, being negligent, erroneous or profane; and so are not like to be much concerned to chuse proper pastors to take inspection of the souls of others. How can serious Christians be easy who it be that chuse their pastors, or these who know that patrons cannot secure them against the bad consequences of a wrong choice, nor be responsible for their souls at the great day.

Lastly, Patronage by long experience has been found to be an open door for a corrupt ministry to enter into the church; and this is sadly exemplified in these churches where this corruption doth reign without controul.

Upon all which accounts, we judge it our duty to hear testimony against the usurpation of patronage, as most sinful in itself, and injurious to the church of God; and to pray that God may open the eyes of all patrons, that they may be convinced and repent of it, and cease from in oppressing Christ’s church any more.

And as we bear testimony against patrons and their usurpation, so we judge ourselves bound to testify against all these who encourage and voluntarily comply with this Sinful usurpation, and particularly by accepting or declaring their willingness to accept of presentations from patrons, which, alas! is now become the common practice; and, being so common and general, both preachers and people are like to lose all sense of the evil of it.—But that these acceptances are sinful, and provoking to a holy God, is evident from these considerations:

1mo, If a patron be guilty of a sinful usurpation over the church of God, in spoiling her of the right she hath from Christ to chuse her own officers (as certainly he is) then the accepter of a presentation doth become partner with the patron in his sin, by homologating [approving of] his usurped power, and strengthning him in it. Now, the scripture expressly forbids us to be partakers of other mens’ sins

2do, As the law now stands, the accepter is more guilty of robbing the church of her right than the patron is: for the legislature have been so tender of the church by their act 1719, as to put it absolutely in the power of ministers and preachers to accept or reject the usurpation of patronage as they please; so that a patron can give no trouble to the church, if he be not encouraged and assisted in it by an accepter. His presentation would be but like a dead serpent, altogether lifeless and harmless to the church, if an accepter did not come and inspire it with life, and put a sting in it. Though patronage be a grievous usurpation and burden on the church, yet it is now so limited and tied up in Scotland by law, that the church would not feel the burden of it, if it were not pulled down upon her by accepting presentees; so that now the accepters are properly the oppressors of the church of Christ. If Christ condemns the Pharisees for binding heavy burdens, grievous to be borne, and laying them upon other mens’ shoulders; how condemnable must accepters of presentations be, who bind such a grievous burden as patronage on the shoulders of Christ’s church?

3tio, The minister or preacher, who accepts of a presentation, doth not only bring sin upon himself, by oppressing the church, and spoiling her of her just right; but also takes the ready way to encourage and harden a patron in his guilt and sinful usurpation, and to obstruct his conviction, repentance and reformation: for he will readily think that his conscience needs not be more strait-laced than theirs, who should inform his. Wherefore we earnestly wish and pray, that God would bring accepters, with their advisers and supporters, calmly to consider what a sinful hand they have in ensnaring patrons in a corrupt course and in hardening them in their usurpation over the church of God.

4to, This way of accepting presentations doth open a door to many sad evils, such as Simoniacal pactions and intrigues, unchristian contentions and divisions in judicatories, oppressive concussions in parishes, vexatious prosecutions and appeals, and many scandalous intrusions into churches, to the great discredit of religion, and reproach of the ministerial character: hereby congregations are robbed of their just rights to call their own ministers, and very often Christ’s flock is scattered and broken in pieces, the godly are grieved, and the wicked hardened: hereby ordinances come to be neglected, the Lord’s day profaned, ignorance and vice encouraged, and church-discipline weakened. Yea, this pernicious practice has given occasion to many violent settlements, and to a wofull schism in the church, to the deposing of several worthy ministers, and to the discouragement of many pious students and preachers from serving the church: so that our accepters have need to consider how they will answer for all these direful consequences of their practice, and whether the commonness of it will excuse the sinfulness of it; O that we could look to God, who only can open their eyes!

5to, Accepters of presentations, act contrary to the known principles of Presbyterians, and to their own engagements; and so are chargeable with sad defection and breach of faith. Our second book of Discipline, which is sworn to in our national covenant, declares patronages to be contrary to the word of God, chap. 12. And it was the general opinion of this church in the year 1719, that accepting of presentations was inconsistent with Presbyterian principles, and with the rights and rules of this church, which all ministers and preachers oblige themselves to maintain; upon which account, none adventured to meddle with them for a good many years thereafter. In our opinion, they act contrary to their engagements which they come under by the assembly’s formula 1711; wherein they subscribe and promise, that they will never directly or indirectly endeavour the prejudice or subversion of the discipline and government of this church, but that they will to the utmost of their power maintain and support the same. Now, it was still reckoned a branch of our discipline and government, for parishes to have the liberty of free elections, and for Presbyteries to have access to free moderations in the calling of ministers. And it is visible to all, that accepters of presentations do stop and hinder this free liberty and access, contrary to their engagements by the formula, and also by the national covenant.

6to, Seeing it is notour [well known] that the design of accepting, presentations is to secure the stipend to the presentee, so as another cannot have a title to it; it is plain that the accepter doth hereby invert the order, which Christ hath appointed in his church, viz.—That a minister’s right to maintenance should be consequential to his ordination to the ministry: whereas, by the method he takes, he would make a minister’s ordination to the ministry consequential to his having a right to the maintenance; which is contrary to Christ’s stated order, and the nature of things.

7mo, By accepting presentations, ministers do sadly prejudge the success of the gospel and their own ministry, by offending and stumbling the parishes concerned, besides many others, at their conduct. And is it any wonder though a parish he offended with a man for going about to secure a title to their stipend, before they have access to know him, or shew any inclination for him; and for his binding the yoke of patronage upon them, and spoiling them of their just right of chusing their own pastor; and for hindering them to get another worthy pastor whom they dearly love? What must they think of a man that tells a reclaiming parish by word or deed, I’ll be your minister in spite of your teeth, I’ll have the charge of your souls whether ye will or not; and, if ye refuse ordinances and means of salvation from me, ye shall have none? Nay, come of your souls what will, though they should perish in a state of ignorance and prejudice, I’ll possess the kirk, manse and benefice, and hold out another minister from you. Have they not too good ground to suspect such a man, of earthly-mindedness, greed of filthy lucre, or of being more concerned for his own things, than for the, things of jesus Christ, and the salvation of their souls? Which apprehensions are sufficient to stuff the breasts of people with prejudice against him at his entry, and to blast his ministrations to them for many years thereafter. For it is no wonder, though they think such language or practice is not like that of one who sincerely designs to advance Christ’s kingdom, and win souls to him, as a faithful minister ought to do; but rather of one that hath base worldly ends in view! The language of a pastor, whom Christ sends, is that in 2 Cor. xii. 14. I seek not yours, but you; whereas that of an accepter seems to be the very reverse, I seek not you, but yours.

8vo, It increaseth the prejudice of many against such accepters, when they see there is no necessity for their accepting of presentations. Indeed, if there were no coming to a church or stipend but by the Patron’s right, something might be said to alleviate the crime: but at present there is no necessity from the law to accept of them; nay, on the contrary, the law leaves an open door, by which ministers and preachers may have an orderly gospel access, both to churches and benefices, without having any dealing with Patrons at all, if they would but exercise a little patience till six months elapse. Now, how can people think charitably of these who refuse to enter by the safe gospel-door, and chuse, rather to climb up by the window of presentations and violence, when they cannot but see their so doing tends to blast their own ministry, and bring a, heavy yoke on their mother-church, after she was in effect freed of it by the tenderness of the legislature in 1719? Now, seeing these acceptances were unnecessary, and of the most pernicious consequence to the church and the interest of the gospel, it cannot but be surprising that our general assemblies were at so little pains to discourage or prevent them, when it might have been easily done at the beginning. We find indeed that the assembly 1724, referred it to their commission, to think of an overture thereanent [concerning or in reference to anything], and lay it before the next assembly; but it doth not appear that there was any more done, notwithstanding of repeated instructions from Presbyteries concerning the same. We know no reason can be assigned for the assembly’s indolence in this matter, but their pusillanimity [cowardice], or sinful fearfulness of offending the government: but this fear of man hath brought a woeful snare upon the poor church. Several synods indeed shewed a willingness to restrain these acceptances but, Presentees knowing where to have recourse, their acts were soon disregarded. At first one or two probationers began to mint at accepting presentations; but the outcry against them was so great, that they soon retracted, and past from them again. But sometime after, when Principal George Chalmers adventured to accept a presentation to the church of Old-Machir, several young men took courage and followed his example; and though at first they qualified their acceptances with having the peoples’ consent, yet they would not retract them after the people shewed their aversion to them; which occasioned many intrusions and violent settlements through several places of the church, contrary to our known principles, these intrusions came gradually into the church, but were act commonly practised, nor countenanced by superior courts, till after the year 1728. For we find the assembly 1725, after a great struggle about calling a minster to Aberdeen, appointing, that besides the voting of the magistrates, town-council and elders in the call, the inclination of heads of families shall be consulted about it. And the assembly 1725 censured the commission for proceeding to transport Mr. James Chalmers from Dyke to Aberdeen, without having due regard to the inclinations of the people of that city, who opposed his call. But, alas! our assemblies did not continue long in such a dispostion; for they and their commission began soon afterwards to pay more regard to patrons and heritors in planting of churches, though few of these were hearers, than they did to the whole body of the people that attended ordinances. The crown having the patronage of most of the churches of Scotland, this melancholy turn of affairs was thought to be brought about by strong court influence, and by the activity of several leading ministers, who had their dependence upon or expectations from that airth [probably “direction”]. These began to vent themselves in judicatories against the rights of the Christian people and to assert that there were no stated rules nor directions in Scripture about the calling of ministers, or who should be the electors. Some of them wrote pamphlets against the peoples’ rights, pretending to answer the Scripture-arguments for them; and maintained that the clergy or judicatories were the proper electors. These were sufficiently answered by Mr. Currie, Mr. Hill and others; but their opponents had the ascendant in judicatories, and carried things there as they pleased.

At this time the church of Scotland was in a most lamentable condition, and the wrath of the Almighty seemed to be kindled against her, in letting loose many adversaries at once to attack and destroy her: for at the same time we find her many ways dreadfully tossed and shaken: as by patronages, and intrusions pushed on by the court and great men;—By Independent schemes and constitutions of churches zealously promoted by Mr. Glas and Mr. Archbald;—By Arian errors taught and propagated by Professor Simson;—By many gross errors vented by others, both Presbyterian and Episcopal;—And by legal sermons and moral harangues (to the neglect of preaching Christ) introduced by many of the young clergy. All these evils, working and fermenting through the land at once, occasioned dreadful shocks and convulsions in this national church, likely to rend her in many pieces. Yet, alas! We were not sensible of, nor suitably affected with our danger and misery, nor with the sins which were the procuring cause of all.—Turn us, O God of our salvation, and cause thine anger towards us to cease. Oh, wilt thou be angry with us for ever? wilt thou draw out thine anger to all generations?—Whatever the Lord think fit to do with this backsliding church and land, we Judge it incumbent upon us to bear witness against the foresaid evils.

As to the impugning and invading the rights which congregations have to chuse and call their own ministers, and the intrusions made upon them, which, alas! still continue to be practised; we shall give our reasons for testifying against them, and for the rights of the people. And the first and great reason is, because by the rule and pattern of God’s word, and by the dictates of sound and sober reason, the Christian people have an unquestionable interest in the choice of these pastors to whom they are to intrust the care of their souls: and particularly, this right of the people is established by several passages of the Acts of the Apostles, a book intended to give us the apostolical practice and pattern in the settlement of the Christian church.

1 mo, In Acts i. 13, 14, 15, &c. when the eleven apostles met for the choice of an apostle, the laity present with them, were allowed a share in the election of two, of which God did chuse one to fill the vacancy of the apostolical college. From which we infer, That ministers should much more consult them in the choice of ordinary pastors, who are to have the stated inspection of their souls, and that this condescension of the apostles to the people in this case, doth condemn their practice who violently impose ministers upon Christian congregations, while they are dissenting and reclaiming against them, and willing to receive others every way as fit for them. And we find our reformers and Protestant divines, such as Calvin, Beza, Junius, Zanchy, Chamier, Voetius, Amesius, Turretine, Cartwright, Calderwood, Gillespie, Forrester, Lauder, and many others, improving this passage for the, peoples’ rights against Papists, Prelatists and patronages.

2do, In Acts vi. the apostles called the multitude, or body of the disciples to the choice of first standing church-officers which they appointed, viz. the deacons for taking care of the poor; from which we infer, If the disciples have a right to chuse these officers who are to dispose of their charity, then much more these who are to oversee their souls. And if these apostles reckoned the people competent to judge who had the qualifications for deacons which they prescribe, viz. who were most eminent for honesty, wisdom, and the gifts of the Holy. Ghost;. why are they not competent to give their judgment of the like qualifications in those who are to be their pastors? The apostles being under immediate Divine direction, were abundantly capable to chuse these officers without the people; yet they will needs have them concurring in it, as a pattern to the church in their after chusing of church-officers. And it is observable, the apostles took this method, to silence the complaints among the people about providing for the poor. Which loudly calls upon judicatories to follow their example, in order to silence peoples’ complaints of violent intrusions made upon them, contrary to the apostles practice and our acknowledged principles, to the great hindrance of the gospel and the edification of souls. Likewise we have the forecited Protestant divines concurring to improve this passage of the deacons for the peoples rights: and it might be expected that the ministers of the church of Scotland would not oppose them, or join with the Papists in this question.

3tio, The apostles practice in the election of church-officers being sufficiently evident by the foresaid two instances, the sacred penman of the Acts insists no more upon this subject, save that he hints at their known practice in ordinations. Acts xiv. 23. In cur version it is, And when they had ordained them elders in every church. Now, the word here rendered ordained, is but half translated; for in the original it is Cheirotonesantes, which Erasmus renders cum suffragiis creassent; and Beza, agreeing with him, hath it per suffragia creassent: So that according to these learned men, and many others, the passage should have been rendered, When they had by suffrages appointed to them elders in every church. So it is in all old English translations, and so it was brought in by our last translators, until the version was committed by king James to some of the English bishops to be revised, who altered no less than fourteen passages of the New Testament, and this among the rest, to make them speak the language of the church of England; but the original language, being that of the Holy Ghost, is to be our rule. The word here is not Cheirothesia, which signifies the action of ministers in ordaining; but it is Cheiro tonia, which is expressive of the peoples act in electing of pastors, by stretching or lifting up the hand, as was the custom: and in this sense doth the apostle make use of the word Cheirotonia, and ascribe it to the people, 2 Cor. viii. 19.

4to, The spoiling congregations of their right of calling their ministers, and imposing pastors upon them, is not only against the example of the apostles, but also contrary to the commands of our glorious Head, to our own prayers, and to the very spirit of the gospel. Doth not Christ enjoin us in his word to glorify him in all things, to do all to the glory of God, and to do all things to the edification of his people! to condescend to men of low estate, and to be gentle towards all men? Doth he not forbid us to exercise dominion over the church, to set at nought our brother, and rule over his people with rigour? Doth he not command all Christians to judge of what they hear, to try the spirits, to beware of false prophets? Are not all ministers and others bound to pray that God’s name may be hallowed, that his kingdom may come, and that the whole earth may be filed with his glory? And do not they act the very reverse of these commands and prayers, who would in a magisterial way intrude ministers upon Christian congregations, and thereby stop the spreading of his gospel, the conversion of souls, and the increase of his kingdom upon earth? Are forced settlements agreeable to the meekness and gentleness of Christ our Master and Pattern? Or are they like the mild disposition and condescensions of the apostle Paul, who used the most tender, soft and condescending methods to advance the gospel among men, and was willing to become all things to all menfor their spiritual good? and, when he saw it needful to for the winning of their souls, he laid aside his authority, and fell to intreaties and beseechings with them, Rom. xii. 1. 2 Cor. v. 20.—x. 1. Philemon 9, 10. And observe what he says, I Thess. ii. 7, 11. We were gentle among you as a nurse cherisheth her children; And (saith he) we exhorted you as a father doth his children. Now, as a tender nurse or father will not impose any upon weak children to feed them at whom they have the greatest aversion, nor tell them that they shall have no food unless they take it from such hands; so neither ought judicatories to intrude pastors upon dissenting or reclaiming parishes. They pray for the spreading of Christ’s glory and kingdom, and therefore should not counteract their prayers, as they manifestly do by violent settlements; for thus they lay the foundations of strong prejudices in peoples breasts against ministers and the success of the glorious gospel, and frequently drive people quite away from the gospel-net, to the great increase of ignorance and immorality. This course is directly against the Bible, that forbids us to give any occasion of stumbling or prejudice unto others, whereby their edification may be hindered, Rom. xiv. 13, 19, 21. Alas! people have naturally strong enough prejudices against the gospel itself, be the pastor never so acceptable; and what a pity it is that occasion should be given them to conceive prejudice also against the preacher of it? seeing thereby the strong holds of Satan are rendered more impregnable. For how can it be expected that a parish will be free of stumbling or prejudice against a man, that makes it his first business to obtain a right to their stipend, and will not part with it when they shew the utmost aversion to him, but gets himself viis & modis thurst [sic] in upon them? Will they not be ready to look upon him as an earthly-minded man, greedy of filthy lucre, that thrusts himself into the priest’s office for a piece of bread, that seeks the fleece more than the flock, and minds his own things more than the things of Jesus Christ? Is not this the way to bring both the person and ministry of such a man into contempt among the people, to shut their ears against his admonitions, and render his labours among them unsuccessful? Whereas, should a minister come among a people by their call, he has a fair door opened to him to promote their salvation: they think themselves bound to attend his ministry, receive him into their houses, hearken to his counsels, and submit to his reproofs; and so the gospel hath free course among that people.

5to, Seeing the right of Christians to judge for themselves in matters of religion, is undeniably secured to them both by the light of nature and of revelation; they must consequently have an interest in the choice of their teachers. For if a man may judge for himself concerning the schemes of doctrine and ways of salvation laid before him, and may prefer one to another; it must follow, that he hath also a right to judge who is fittest to instruct him according to it; otherwise he might fall into the hands of these who would lead him into schemes quite opposite to what he hath chosen. It is evident that both Scripture and reason allow men a judgment of discretion about the pastors to whom they are to commit the instructing, guiding, and edifying of their precious souls. That text is plain for it, in I John iv. 1. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world, Likewise that text, Mat. vii. 15, 16. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. And that in 2 John, ver. 10. If there come any to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not. From all which texts it is evident, that Christians have right to judge concerning these who bring them true gospel doctrine, and whom they are to receive, and whom not. The Bereans are highly commended for their using this right, Acts xvii. 11. And Christ declares it to be the privilege of his people to distinguish the voice of a stranger or hireling from the voice of a true shepherd, and to flee from the one, and follow the other, John x. 4, 5.

6to, The consent of parishes to the settlement of a minister is requisite to constitute the pastoral relation betwixt him and his flock, and the obligation of mutual offices and duties one to another. It was anciently a received maxim among Presbyterians, That the consent of the flock is as necessary to fix the pastoral relation, as the consent of the minister; seeing the tye is mutual and reciprocal.

7mo, The apostles’ example in ordaining pastors by the choice and consent of the people, was followed by the primitive church for many centuries after them, as Eusebius and others testify. And the learned Turretine, vol. 3. ques. 24. De jure vocationis, quotes many of the ancient fathers and councils as maintaining the peoples’ right. And Mr. Petrie in his church history, pag. 63, 65. observes, That the church of Rome in the 7th century had not given up with this principle of Christianity. It hath been the fixed principle of this church, and of our reformers from the very dawning of the reformation, That congregations ought to have ministers settled among them with their own consent. This can be made evident from our books of discipline, and many acts of assemblies; and this is confirmed by assembly 1736, act 14. Wherein in they declare, that it is and hath been since the reformation, the principle of this church, that no minister shall be intruded into any parish contrary to the will of the congregation; and therefore they seriously recommend to all the judicatories of this church, to have a due regard to the said principle in planting vacant congregations, as they regard the glory of God, and the edification of the body of Christ.—But it is to be regretted, that neither the ancient principles of this church, nor the recommendation of assembly, 1736, are much regarded in the settlement of churches at this day, more than the Scriptural arguments aforementioned for the peoples’ right. O how great ground hath this backsliding church to imitate that famous general assembly 1596, who made the thrusting of men into congregations one special cause of their keeping a day for solemn fasting and humiliation before the Lord! Likewise it is to be noticed, what they observe of these intruders, That they manifest thereafter, that they were not called of God. O that judicatories would keep in mind the apostle’s warning against being Partakers of other mens’ sins, by laying hands suddenly upon them; and would consider how far they may be accountable for these souls, who may perish in an ignorant and Christless condition during the scatterings and prejudices of congregations intruded upon! Surely that text hath an alarming sound to all concerned in intrusions, Jer. xxiii. 1, 2. Wo be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pastures, saith the Lord. Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel, against the pastors that feed my people, Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them; behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord. Likewise the 34th chapter of Ezekiel hath some very awful things relative to this case. O that the Spirit of God would carry them home to the hearts of men, with such power and efficacy, that their eyes may be opened in time; so that intrusions, scatterings, and contempt of Christ’s flock, may not issue in the destruction of vital religion, and of this once famous national church!

This woful contempt and disregarding of the flock of Christ, by intruding pastors upon them, neglecting their petitions, and otherwise, could not but be very provoking to a holy God: wherefore he was pleased to visit this church with several awful rebukes, and particularly with violent attacks upon her beautiful constitution, running it down, and promoting Independent schemes of government, and setting up new models of congregational churches with new improvements. This was first attempted by Mr. John Glas minister at Tealing, and Mr. Francis Archbald minister of Guthrie.—After a while’s more secret management, they came at length to vent their principles openly, and go about preaching them in the streets, fields, &c. and printed several pamphlets in favours of their new opinions. They found fault with our Confession of Faith and Formula, and refused to subscribe them.—They maintained, That there is no warrant for national churches under the New Testament, but only for congregational; That single congregations are not subject to any superior judicatory, nor censurable by them: That they may ordain their own pastors, and that all the members have right to govern. That the church of Israel was but a typical church, and their kings were ecclesiastical officers; That their national covenanting with God was typical, and not to be imitated by Christian nations. That our national covenanting was unwarrantable and is not obligatory on us; That our martyrs, who suffered for adhering to our covenants, were so far unenlightened. That, Christian magistrates have no more power in religious matters than others, and ought not to employ their power to advance religion, to make laws with penalties favours of it, nor to restrain or punish heretics or false teachers, nor to give encouragement to good Christians more than other good subjects; That the Christian religion ought not to be defended by arms; That the example of the reforming kings of Judah in punishing idolatry and false worship, or encouraging true religion, is not to be imitated. These and a great many other new and strange doctrines they spread; and would by no means be reclaimed, nor forbear venting them.—At length the church did process them both for their singular doctrines and practices. It was the opinion of many, that seeing they were both very pious men acting according to their light, and had been and might be further useful in the church, they should not be severely dealt with, but only brought under prohibitions and restraints; and if they could be engaged to stay with their own congregations, and no more to spread their new opinions, they might be connived at. Likewise many had greater sympathy with Mr. Archbald than with the other, in regard he was led off by him in his simplicity to these new things, neither did he vent himself so against our covenants as he did: but, seeing none of them would promise to forbear, they were both suspended; and, upon their contemning the church’s sentence, they were afterward deposed. Yet the church shewed much regard to them both; for, sometime after, they took off the sentences, and reponed [replaced, restored] them both to the ministry in general, though not to their churches.—They did all they could to shake the established church-government, by setting up Independent churches in several places of the land, and ordaining several mechanics and illiterate persons to be their ministers: and they preached and wrote for Independencey: but their pamphlets are confuted, the Divine right of Presbytery established, and the absurdities of the Independent scheme laid open, by Mr. Aytone in his Original Constitution of the Christian church, and by several others: so that we need add no more to what is already written, but our approbation thereof.

At the same very time the Lord was pleased to visit this church with a far more terrible rebuke, by permitting Professor Simson to vent Arian error’s among his students at Glasgow, for which a process was commenced against him by the presbytery of Glasgow; and after some time it came to the assembly, and continued before them, assemblies 1727, 1728 and 1729. And though the process was drawn out to a great length, by the extraordinary methods he took to defend himself; yet it must be acknowledged that all the three foresaid assemblies manifested their zeal and concern for the orthodox faith against any thing that tended to Arianism, as appears from the long process in print. At length the assembly found proven that Mr. Simson had denied the necessary existence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the numerical oneness of the three Persons of the Trinity in substance or essence; and had utterred several other words derogatory to the supreme Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding the Professor still refused that he taught these opinions as he calls them (the assembly in their act calls them gross errors) and said, They were contrary to the sentiments of his mind; and, if he uttered such words, they must be only a slip of his tongue. He likewise came to give it under his hand that he disclaimed and renounced all these erroneous expressions, and made an orthodox confession of his faith concerning the glorious Trinity and the supreme Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, both before the Ass. 1728 and 1729. And whereas he had said that Christus est summus Deus, is to be taken cum grano salis; and that summus Deus, and the only true God, may be understood in a sense as including the Father’s personal property, and so not applicable to the Son; he declared he was exceeding sorry for giving any offence by such ways of speaking, and said, That summus Deus, and the only true God, are equally applicable to the Father and the Son, and not in any lower sense to the Son than to the Father; and that he adhered to the truth of Christ’s necessary existence, and the numerical oneness in essence of the blessed Trinity. But notwithstanding of all these renunciations and declarations (which came so very late) many in the assembly declared that he deserved deposition, because at the beginning of the process he refused to answer questions for clearing himself, and had neglected many opportunities for two years time of giving satisfaction to the judicatories as to the soundness of his faith concerning these important articles, when called upon to do it. But the assembly 1728, because of his confessions and orthodox declarations, and for other considerations, proceeded no further than to suspend him from preaching and teaching, and all exercise of any ecclesiastical power or function and delayed the finishing of the process till next assembly, that they might know the mind of Presbyteries concerning him.—When the assembly 1729 met, he made a long moving speech before them, declaring his orthodoxy; which was printed. The assembly finished the affair, by confirming the sentence of suspension formerly past, and giving it as their judgment, “That it is not fit nor safe that he be further employed in teaching divinity, and instructing of youth designed for the holy ministry.” The generality of Presbyteries, notwithstanding of his confessions and declarations, had sent up to this assembly their instructions for his deposition, with which they ought to have complied; especially seeing by a former process in the year 1717 he had been found teaching Arminian doctrine, which the assembly discharged him to do for the future: and yet, contrary to that prohibition, it was found proven by a committee of assembly, that he persisted to teach the foresaid doctrine. This the assembly knew very well, and might have called for that other process.—Some alledged, it would be better to keep it over his head undiscussed, to prevent after designs of reponing him to teach.—And some said, it would be safer for truth to bind up his pen by a suspension, and by keeping him under it, than by a deposition to provoke a man of his learning to make open attacks upon the most important truths of our holy religion. And it must be owned that he replied nothing to all that was written against him, but continued silent under the suspension for many years until the day of his death, without any motion or mint by any to get it taken off. It is desirable also to find the assembly, in their last act concerning him, expressing

their thankfulness to God, for directing all the judicatories of this church which had this process under their consideration (which includes all the Presbyteries thereof ) so happily, that there hath not appeared the least difference of sentiment; but on the contrary, there hath been the most perfect and unanimous agreement among them, as to the doctrine of the glorious Trinity, and the proper supreme Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, according as the same is revealed in the holy Scriptures, and contained in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms.

It was much feared that the seeds of Arianism were sown in this church by Professor Simson and others: wherefore there were many excellent books written at this time against Arianism and Socinianism, and in defence of the foresaid doctrine of the glorious Trinity, and the proper supreme Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and, being so well written, we need add nothing, but join our testimony therewith, and pray that Arianism may never more set up its head in this land. Amen.

Although God was thus visibly contending the judicatories of this church, for their disregarding his flock and remnant in the land; yet it is matter of deep regret, that, in stead of reforming they proceeded to greater heights in their arbitrary decisions relating to them: for in the, years 1729, 1730, 1731, and afterwards, we find the complaints of worthy ministers, elders, and bodies of Christian people, concerning intrusions upon congregations greatly increased; which occasioned many remonstrances, dissents and protestations in the assemblies, commissions, and inferior judicatories. In the assembly 1730, when the stream of violence began to run very high, many entered their dissents against the settlements of Sutton and Old Machir, but were denied liberty to record them; which made a great noise, and increased the ferment among the people, but, instead of yielding or doing any thing to quiet them, that assembly did summarily make an act, discharging the recording (as usual) of reasons of dissent against the determination of church-judicatories; without remitting the affair to presbyteries to know their mind about it, according to former acts of assembly.—There were several remonstrances and petitions presented by numbers of people to the synods of Merse and Lothian, but not regarded. Likewise they gave in a paper, signed and adhered to by great numbers, to assembly 1731, complaining of violent settlements; but got no hearing.—All which proceedings did awaken many honest and zealous ministers to correspond and meet for drawing up a representation and petition to the assembly 1732, concerning the intrusions and other grievances; which was accordingly drawn up, signed and adhered to by 42 ministers and three elders; wherein: they expressed, not only their own sense of these evils but also the sense of many officers through the church, who had not access to sign the said paper. And seeing we think ourselves called to adhere to the honest testimony given therein against many of the evils of the present time, we shall, as an evidence of our approbation and adherence, briefly insert the contents of it in this our testimony.

In their petition offered to the assembly 1732, they humbly move that the assembly should address the king and parliament concerning several grievances of this church, which they only can redress such as the imposing of the sacramental test, and conformity to the English liturgy mid ceremonies, upon the members of this church, when serving the king in England and Ireland: The, toleration established in Scotland, whereby error, superstition and profaneness are greatly encouraged, and church discipline weakened:—The establishing of patronages, subversive of the right of congregations to chuse their pastors:—The not receiving addresses from this church to the house of peers, because not directed to the Lords Spiritual:—The introducing from England into some courts in Scotland a new form of swearing, by laying the hands and kissing the gospels. Also, they represent, that notwithstanding it is the undeniable right of Christian congregations to have the free choice of their own pastors, and their call and consent is necessary to found the pastoral relation betwixt ministers and them, according to the word of God, our book of discipline, acts of the general assembly, and the concurring suffrages and unanswerable arguments of the most eminent divines both at home and abroad; yet many ministers have been imposed and forced upon Christian congregations when dissenting and reclaiming, and that especially by sentences of the commission, for several years past; and not only where presentations were insisted upon, but also where there was none, but the right fallen into the presbytery’s hands. And the commission have appointed committees to try and ordain ministers for vacant congregations, not only without the concurrence of Presbyteries and synods concerned, who have best right, and are fittest to, Judge therein, but in direct opposition to their minds: and calls have been received, not moderated in Presbyteries, but attested only by notars public. Likewise the commission have repealed several sentences of synods, when they had but a scrimp quorum of ministers, much inferior in number to these who past them: and of late years especially in the years 1729, 1730 and 1731, there were many supernumerary elders named to be members of commissions, beyond the proportion allowed by acts of assembly, many, whereof reside at Edinburgh, and are brought in to vote upon occasions; and there is ground to question if they be qualified according to acts of assembly.—Wherefore, for remedying and preventing such intrusions, the they humbly move, that the assembly should repeal the commission’s sentences appointing them, such as may come regularly before them; and discharge in time coming all settlements without the consent of elders and, Christian people and enact, that no call or subscriptions for ministers be sustained but such as are attested by order of Presbyteries, or verified before them or their committees; and, if the commission shall in time coming appoint committees to try or ordain ministers without consent of the congregation and Presbyteries immediately concerned, that the said committees shall be discharged to proceed, until the assembly give their judgment, in case the causes are sisted [summoned] before the assembly by complaint or protestation: and that appeals from sentences of synods be not referred in time coming to the determination of the commission, but reserved for the assembly’s decision, unless it be provided that the sederunt [meeting of the court] of the commission judging there in be supernumerary to the synod in ministers as well as elders; it being disagreeable to our principles, that a greater number of ministers should be subjected to the authority of a lesser: and that the commission be better regulated both as to the number and qualifications of elders therein than at present: and that the assembly enact, at appointing of their commission, that if any of their actings shall be found contrary to the acts, constitutions and known principles of this church, that they shall not only be censured for the same, but their said acts shall also be reversed; and, if any protestation or complaint be entered against their sentences, it shall be sufficient to gist all parties concerned before the general assembly.—Also they plead, that the assembly may repeal the 7th act of assembly 1730, discharging the recording reasons of dissent, as being past irregularly without consulting Presbyteries, and which must prove a very heavy grievance to many, if it stand in force

They complain likewise, that sonic judicatories who have testified their just displeasure against ministers and Probationers for their unworthy and offensive practice in accepting presentations contrary to our known principles, have been condemned by the commission for it. And therefore desire the assembly may give an effectual check to such dangerous practices, and that none be licensed or ordained that favour this course.—Also they complain of several innovations in the method and strain of preaching introduced of late by some preachers and young ministers, which are very offensive to many of God’s people, and an obstruction to spiritual edification. And, though some former assemblies have referred it to their commissions to bring in an overture thereanent [in reference to], nothing is yet done; therefore they humbly move that the assembly may provide an antidote against these evils.—They also desire the assembly to emit a solemn warning against Professor Simson’s errors, and others which are spread through the land, in order to prevent the infection of them.

As to the act of assembly 1732, concerning the method of planting vacant churches (which was then but an overture) they shew their dislike to it, as it gives much power to Jacobite and disaffected heritors in the settling of parishes, which is not agreeable to the Scriptures and our known principles: but (say they) it cannot be turned to a standing act, unless the generality of presbyteries consent to it, which they hope is not to be expected in this case.

Now, though the evils above complained of were manifest grievances, and the brethren’s representation concerning them was drawn up in a humble and modest strain, and signed by 42 worthy ministers, and several of them old reverend fathers, and was presented in a dutiful manner according to order; yet it is to be regretted that it was not allowed so much as hearing by the assembly; which obliged the petitioners to protest, and published their paper to the world. Likewise there was a petition of the same nature from many hundreds of elders and Christian people given into that assembly, which had the same fate. This strange conduct of that and preceding assemblies towards many godly ministers and people, did exceedingly stumble many, lessen the regard which wont to be paid to general assemblies, and pave the way to the schism which soon followed upon it. Yet the assembly 1732 did not stop here, but proceeded to turn the overture anent [regarding] planting of churches into a standing act, tho’ evidently disagreeable to the mind of presbyteries, and the general opinion of the church: which increased the ferment thro’ the land to a higher pitch than ever. Alas! this was not like the conduct of our old suffering fathers, who dreaded a schism in the church like fire, and were careful to prevent and crush it at the first appearance. But when God hath a controversy with a church or people, and designs to bring a stroke upon them, he ordinarily leaves their leaders to infatuate measures, so as they have neither skill nor will to take any wise step to ward off the blow.

That act of the ass. 1732 did greatly inflame this poor church for two or three years: but seeing at that time unanswerable arguments were brought against it in several pamphlets and sermons then published, to which we adhere, and seeing like wise it was repealed by a subsequent assembly, as contrary to the mind and rules of this church, and prejudicial to it; we shall not here insist much upon the evil of it. Only in regard there are many dissatisfied with the repealing of it, and alledge it was the same with the act of parliament 1690, for which the church had great regard for many years, we shall shew the manifest difference that is betwixt them, both in the words, and the sense which was put upon them.—The act 1690, runs thus;

That in case of the vacancy of any particular church, and for supplying the same with a minister, the heritors of the said parish (being protestants) and the elders are to name and propose the person to the whole congregation, to be either approven or disapproven by them; and, if they disapprove, that the disapprovers give their reason, to the effect the affair may be cognosced [pronounced] upon by the presbytery of the bounds, at whose judgment, and by whose determination, the calling and entry of a particular minister is to be ordered and concluded.

The act 1732 being notour, we shall not resume the words, but observe the difference in these things;—1mo, The act 1690 is by a civil court, the act 1732 by an ecclesiastical; and tho’ it might be expected that the latter would in their acts keep closer by the rule of the word than the former, yet the act 1732 is more distant from that rule than the act of 1690, in regard the act 1732 tends more to spoil congregations of their rights, and countenance intrusions upon them, than the act 1690 doth.—2do, By the act 1690, the heritors and elders are only impowered to name and propose a person to the whole congregation; but, by the act 1732, they are impowered to elect and call one to be minister of the parish.—3tio, According to act 1690, the election was not to be held as finished until the man was proposed to the congregation and their approbation had; and, if they disapproved, the affair was to stop as unfinished until the presbytery give their judgment whether to proceed further in it or not; but the act 1732 holds the election as finished by the votes of the heritors and elders, and the man to be legally elected and called to be minister of the parish, before the consent of the people be asked.—4to, By the act 1690, and another soon past after to explain it, all unqualified or disaffected heritors were excluded from voting; but, by act 1732, all heritors whatsomever, whether hearers or not, were allowed to vote, if they were not professed Papists: so that, in many parishes where the disaffected heritors were supernumerary to the other, they had power to thrust in a minister upon a well affected congregation.—5to, For what appears from the words of the act 1690, the heritors and elders might have acted as distinct bodies in the nomination, and the bone might have had a negative upon the other therein, and so the heritors’ nomination would not be valid without the concurrence of the body of the elders; for by the act the man was to be named by the elders as well as by the heritors: but, by act 1732, it was expressly provided that the heritors and elders should elect in a conjunct body; so that, considering the superior number and influence of heritors in most places, ministers might be chosen where the eldership and whole body of the congregation reclaimed, as frequently has happen.—6to, The act 1790 and the act 1732 differed prodigiously as to the sense and meaning put upon the words thereof. The execution of the act 1690 being intrusted to presbyteries, the sense they then put

upon the approbation of the congregation, and the Reasons of the disapprovers, was far from the late sense put upon them: by their approbation the church then understood their judgment concerning the candidate’s gifts of preaching and prayer, that they judged them suitable to their capacities, and adapted to their edification; and if the body of the congregation disapproved the man nominate, and gave for their reasons, that his gifts were not edifying to them, nor suited to their capacities, and that they could not in conscience consent to his being their minister: such reasons, given by a knowing well disposed people, were then judged sufficient to stop the affair, lay aside competing candidates, and to proceed to a new election. But, by the sense put upon the act 1732, no reasons or objections could be received but against the man’s life or doctrine; and, if the people did not prove error or immorality against him by witnesses, they must receive him as their pastor: so that by this sense the people had no more interest or concern in the settlement of their pastor, than these of any other congregation; which is most absurd, and different from the sense of the act 1690.