Many things fell out afterward which furnished too much matter of testimony. Seceders testify against the union between the two nations, because the support of the Church of England, with her hierarchy and all her ceremonies, is an article of it. When Presbyterians gave their consent to this article, they consented to support what, according to their professed principles, is contrary to the word of God, and consequently sinful.

Presbyterians look upon it as a very distinguished privilege of the church of Christ, that the people have a right to choose their own pastors to try the spirits whether they be of God. But the Church of Scotland was deprived of this right by the act restoring lay patronages and her courts of judicature, instead of seeking the repeal of this act, have promoted the execution of it in all its rigour, disregarding the complaints of the people, and deciding every contested settlement in favour of the patron's pretensions. Instances of this could be mentioned, which would amaze you. The people of a parish not far distant struggled in the keenest manner against the presentee for seven years-at last he was settled, and like many others, commenced stipend gatherer. By the by, patronage has always been reckoned a greater grievance, and more sensibly felt in Scotland than England. The people had been always accustomed to choose their ministers. A presentation has been such an odious thing here that scarcely ever one good man accepted it.

Seceders testify against the decision of the General Assembly about a book called the Marrow of Modern Divinity, which no doubt you will have seen; they have no peculiar attachment to it, as if it were a standard. Many good Seceders have never seen it. But they think it their duty to adhere to several important doctrines, which were either openly condemned or darkened by that assembly, such as, the freedom of a believer from the law as a covenant of works; his freedom from a slavish spirit; the particular appropriation of faith; the free, unlimited, unconditional offer of Christ in the Gospel to sinners of mankind as such, the unconditionality of the covenant of grace, &c. &c. The assembly condemned these truths in the year 1721, if I mind right. This is a very material part of the testimony of Seceders. The controversy was much the same with that which happened soon after the Revolution among the Dissenters about the city of London.

As the judicatures of this church were forward in condemning these truths, they were as backward to censure the erroneous. They have, at times, though their crimes were great, been dismissed with little censure, or rather commendations. A volume scarcely could contain an enumeration of particular instances. Two were much taken notice of, as they soon followed the condemnation of the above truths in the Marrow, happened about the beginning of the secession, and were among the first of the kind that took place in the Church of Scotland. The first instance was that of Mr. Simson. To say nothing of his opposition to the great doctrines of the Gospel, he was a bold subtle Arian; and yet was dismissed after a very long process with only a suspension from his teaching as divinity professor. The other was of Mr. Campbell, professor in the university of St. Andrews. This man boldly avowed that self-love was the sole motive of all virtuous and religious actions. The assembly approved of Mr. Campbell's explanation of his opinion with regard to the motive of virtuous actions, which was, according to him, not the glory of God, but our delight in it.

It was the conduct of the judicatures which brought on the secession. Mr. Ebenezer Erskine having testified with an honest freedom against the corruptions of the church, particularly against an act of assembly, 1732, vesting the right of electing ministers, in heriters and elders, that is, in a small part of a congregation instead of the whole, admitting only some of the Lord's people to a privilege which he had bestowed on them all. Mr. Erskine having given so plain a testimony in a sermon before the Synod of Perth and Stirling, was rebuked by that court for speaking disrespectfully of the judicatures of the church. Mr. Erskine protested against this rebuke, as putting a stop to that freedom that the ministers of Christ ought to use in testifying against the sins and corruptions of the times. He appealed to the assembly. The assembly appointed a commission of their number to take cognizance of the affair. In short, Mr. Erskine, with two other ministers who joined with him, were suspended by the commission from the exercise of their office.

Conscious of being engaged in a good cause, these ministers could by no means submit to this unjust censure. The consequence was, that they were in fact cast out of the church, and were obliged to form themselves into a Presbytery, for the exercise of those powers

of teaching, of discipline, and government, which our Lord Christ had committed to them. Thus the secession was a matter of necessity; it was brought about rather by a providential train of events, than in consequence of any formed design of those who were the instruments of it. The Associate Presbytery, (for that was the name they assumed) published, in 1738, their Act and Testimony, in which they reckon up many of the grounds of the Lord's controversy with the church and the nation.

The ground of the secession was not merely that the judicatures of the church persisted in their positive corruptions, but also that they obstinately refused to pay any attention to those pieces of reformation which had been formerly attained, particularly in that remarkable period of the history of the Church of Scotland, between 1638 and 1650. The example of our forefathers, at that time subordinate to the Scriptures of truth, was the model which the Associate Presbytery had constantly in view. On this plan they drew up a confession of sins, public and personal, acknowledged the obligation of the solemn covenant that had been entered into by our fathers, and framed a bond suited to their own situation, in which they take the Lord for their God, they take Christ for their Saviour, his righteousness for the only ground of their hope, his word for their only rule, and his Spirit for their guide, and bind themselves by oath to serve him from a principle of gratitude and thankfulness, and particularly to cleave to the testimony they had engaged in against the errors and corruptions of the times.

The ministers first entered into this bond, and then they proposed to admit the people of their respective congregations to join in it. This resolution led the ministers to inquire whether the people were involved in any oaths inconsistent with the bond. In consequence of this inquiry one of the ministers moved, at a meeting, in 1744, that the religious clause of some Burgess oaths should be taken into consideration. About this time their number being considerably increased, they divided themselves into three Presbyteries, subordinate to their general meeting, which took the name of the Associate Synod. In 1746 there was a great deal of reasoning in the Synod, on the religious clause of some Burgess oaths. The clause is in these words, "I profess and allow with my heart the true religion presently professed within this realm, and authorized by the laws thereof." The Synod passed an act,

declaring that this oath was inconsistent with the bond they had entered into, and with their present state of secession from the church established by law. The ministers who were afterward called Burghers, from their defence of the Burgess oath, entered their protest against this decision of the Synod. Their opposition increased, till it brought on a separation between the parties, so that there are now two different bodies of Seceders; each of them has its Presbyteries, and each an Associate Synod; both pretend to adhere to the same testimony.

With regard to principles, the Antiburghers adhere to the whole of the act and testimony published by the Associate Presbytery; the Burghers charge it with errors and mistakes; the Antiburghers testify against the manner of settling religion in Scotland at the Revolution; the Burghers defend it; the Antiburghers maintain the reasonableness of covenanting at present; the Burghers deny it. In fine, the cause of all these differences is, that the Antiburghers hold the Burgess oath to be sinful, while the Burghers regard it as quite lawful.

With regard to practice, the Antiburghers are pursuing the path which the Associate Presbytery had marked out; but the Burghers have been going farther astray from it ever since they left their brethren; they seldom take any notice of the act and testimony, and they never enter into the bond.

Thus much for what I thought necessary to give you some notion of the secession, and the difference between the Burghers and Antiburghers, which, in fact, is very great. I have been long, but could not make it shorter. 'Tis true I am an Antiburgher, but am not conscious of writing one word dictated by partiality. Though the account is badly executed, it is well meant, and may be firmly depended upon for truth. After all, I am afraid you will enter into the spirit of this controversy. The difference between the established church and the Seceders, and that again between them, is very great, and though volumes were written, it could not be taken up, unless a person were living in the country.

I beg leave to write you one letter more on what may be called the interior police of the Seceders. You will understand it at first view. After that I shall contract my bounds.

Mr. Jn had been a little acquainted with Mr. Townsend. He had been fond of him, and thought him remarkably religious;

he has since heard some things unfavourable and hurtful to his character; he would wish to know how he is doing, and if his character is good.

I know not if your books are entered or not. If it would be no hurt to the printers in England, I would cause them to be printed here. What we cannot have in London under 5s. is easily got here at 2s. If in the smallest degree against the London booksellers, I would be quite against it. I have only the interest of religion at heart. I would beg you to satisfy me in this particular.

This letter is so silly and mean, that I am almost ashamed to send it to you. It puts me in mind of the prayers and other religious services I am daily trying to offer up to the Lord. What sad pieces of blundering work are they! What with hypocrisy, heart-wandering, vain and sinful thoughts, Atheism, unbelief, stupidity, carelessness; what with legal confidence at some times, and slavish fear at other times, they are all covered over with blots. I send you this letter with all its defects and blunders, persuaded that candour and friendship will cover them all. Why should I not do the same with my poor tattered performances in religion? Why should I not put them in Christ's hand, believing that his friendship will cover them, will recommend them, and make them come up with acceptance before God? Christ is the best friend of poor sinners. Good news it is for us, that his friendship and his advocacy do not proceed upon any thing in us or done by us; but only upon his own righteousness. He is our advocate, because he is our propitiation. May the Lord interest us in both.

I beg you would write me as soon as possible. Write little or much as is convenient. I would wish you to write a great deal ; but never neglect to write me, because you have not leisure to write much.

MR. WM. BARLASS TO THE REV. JOHN NEWTON.

I AM quite ashamed that I am so long in acknowledging your very valuable letter, which came duly to hand. It was really not in my power. I got it only a day or two before I went from home on business to Perthshire, from which I but lately returned.