A Vindication of the Principles of Seceders,

UPON THE HEAD OF

OCCASIONAL COMMUNION;

WITH

ANSWERS TO THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS.

By ROBERT CULBERTSON,

MINISTER OF THE ASSOCIATE CONGREGATION, LEITH.

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and AVOID THEM,” Rom. xvi. 17.

EDINBURGH:

PRINTED BY J. PILLANS AND SONS;

FOR OGLE AND AIKMAN; M. OGLE, GLASGOW,

AND R. OGLE, LONDON.

1800.

---

[Page 1]

A VINDICATION, &c.

---

THERE are few periods in the history of the church, wherein she appears to have been more divided than at present; and there are few parts of the world in which party-names and distinctions are more numerous than in Britain. The genuine friends of religion cannot stand idle and unaffected spectators of these evils. With them there are great searchings of heart; they bewail the broken and divided state of the church, and in fervent supplications to him whose name is ONE, they entreat that he would heal their divisions, and make them as one stick in his hand.

The prayers of these men have been accompanied with some exertions. Various schemes have been proposed and adopted, for uniting the friends of evangelical truth in one society. The most plausible which has yet appeared, is that of laying aside all the lesser points as to which good men are divided, and meeting one another solely on those grounds on which they are all agreed. The fabric of the Relief church is reared on this foundation; and this, together with some peculiar principles

[Page 2]

about lay-preaching, seems to be the leading characteristic of the Union church, a sect which has lately sprung up amongst us.

When men deviate from the good old ways of the Lord in the prosecution of any scheme, however pure the motives by which they are influenced, the fruit of their doings is most likely to be the reverse of what they intended. This has been mournfully realized in the case before us; this liberal scheme of union has not issued in the abolition of any party, nor is a single breach in the walls of our Jerusalem repaired by it. The friends of truth are as widely scattered as before, and the cry of, Lo! here is Christ, and lo! he is there, is as loud as ever. Yea, the result of this measure has been so far directly opposite to what was declared to be the great design of it, that it has added to the number of our religious denominations, and made the long catalogue of sects and parties fuller than it formerly was.

Nothing better could have rationally been expected. It was absurd to suppose, that all good men would set so little value on the lesser matters of the law, as to imagine that they were warranted to throw them aside. Many of them were more likely to judge, that if these things belonged to the system of revealed truth, they were not to be parted with for any consideration whatever; and that the external peace and unity of church-members were rated too high, when they were laid in the balance with a single gem of the Redeemer’s crown. Such an union is better adapted to the taste of those who have no fixed religious principles at all, than of such

[Page 3]

as have examined the doctrines and duties of revelation with care, have embraced a particular creed as the fruit of this investigation, and are determined to stand or fall with it. It may please those children who are tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine; but will excite an holy indignation in the bosoms of others, who are persuaded that these lesser points belong to the cause of God and of truth, and ought neither to be buried, nor lightly esteemed.

There are, however, only a few who have incorporated this lax principle with the public profession of the body with which they are connected in church-fellowship. But there are as few who have opposed and condemned it, as inconsistent with that sacred respect which is due unto truth, or with a full confession of the name of Christ. Accordingly there are multitudes in various church-communions, who act upon this principle with as much freedom as if it formed one of the articles of that public profession which they have espoused. A member of the Established Church, or one of the Burgher persuasion, may step occasionally into the public assemblies of other churches, and no fault is found with him. On the contrary, he is extolled and commended as a man of more liberality of sentiment, than to be fettered by the trammels of any party, and can therefore hear a good sermon in other churches, as well as in his own.

The General Associate Synod are almost the only denomination who dispute the propriety of such

[Page 4]

conduct. They have judged it inconsistent with that profession which they have espoused for the whole truths and interests of Jesus Christ, to have church-fellowship with any society, whose public profession, in any of its articles, is opposed to their own. And while, as a body, they have uniformly adhered to this principle, they have always suffered reproach on account of it; and from no party have they suffered more, than from those whose pretensions to candour, forbearance, and liberality of sentiment, have been most flaming.

A well-known declaimer has taken every method, both from the pulpit and the press, to direct the thunder of his zeal for moderation and lax communion against this hated sect*; and there is nothing in their peculiar principles which he appears more anxious to oppose, than those respecting communion. I am not surprised that they are the peculiar butt of his indignation. Every zealous partizan will be most strenuous in his opposition to those principles which are the reverse of his own. Laxness of communion is a favourite article in Mr Hill’s creed; and no wonder if he chastises the Associate body with far more severity than he does the other denominations in Scotland.

The principles of Seceders respecting communion have been represented by many, as the fruit of bigotry, and of a narrow mind. Few are inclined to allow that this part of their profession constitutes

_____

* See a Plea for Union, by R. Hill;—a most singular display of ignorance of Secession principles, and a strange collection of self-contradictions, scurrility, and nonsense.

[Page 5]

any part of the testimony of Jesus Christ, or that even Seceders themselves are persuaded that it does so. Such a representation is holding them up for bigots indeed! It is bigotry in the extreme, tenaciously to adhere to principles or opinions, merely because they are one’s own. It ought to be branded with a worse name than bigotry, to adhere to any thing as matter of a religious profession, without a persuasion that that article is founded on the word of God. But Seceders in general are as well acquainted with their peculiar principles, as those of other communions are with theirs; and can, with as much readiness, give an inquirer a reason why they have embraced them. And if individuals, under the protection of the Synod, hold fast their profession, without being able to assign any proper reason, there is cause to apprehend, that in other communions there is as great a proportion who do the same. But it would be both illiberal and unfair to cast that reproach upon a whole church, which is occasioned by the negligence and fault of individual members only.

There is not any thing which has proved a more insuperable obstacle in the way of different persons joining the Secession-church, than the principle of a restricted communion. Instead of tolerating, had the Synod, like those who long ago maintained the same article, only winked at the conduct of those members who paid an occasional visit to other communions, many, who were otherwise friendly to the cause of the Secession, might have stepped forward and espoused it; but the idea of being, what

[Page 6]

they call, bound, or of joining in the communion of one church, at the expence of parting fellowship with every other, struck them with terror, and kept them at a distance. Though very much dissatisfied with the profession or ordinary course of public managements in those churches to which they belonged, yet they chose to continue where they were, rather than be admitted into the communion of a church which they accounted more pure, upon the uncharitable condition of bidding all their former connections a last farewell as to church-fellowship.

The cause of the Secession has suffered no loss from the want of such adherents. These persons have not yet seen the evils of those churches with which they are connected to be of such a nature as to warrant a full separation from them; they have as little seen the necessity of that pointed testimony for truth, which the Synod have lifted up, and could not be hearty friends to it. Till they are instructed more fully in the nature and design of a witnessing profession, they would necessarily be cold and indifferent in the maintenance of it; and any church is far better without those who are indifferent to her interests, than by receiving them into communion with her. Cold, lukewarm, indifferent professors, are a dead weight upon those societies to which they belong.

Had the Synod aimed at the aggrandisement of a party, or the collecting a numerous crowd of followers from the various denominations around them, whether these followers knew any thing about the true grounds of the Secession-testimony or not, they

[Page 7]

had certainly endeavoured to make their cause a little more popular, by striking out of it that article which was most obnoxious. They had thrown the doors of their communion as wide open as those of other societies are; and if this had not been followed by an accession to their numbers, they would at least have escaped the reproach of many ill names by which they have been called. But they are taught to act from nobler principles than that of merely gaining proselytes to their opinions; they are likewise taught to esteem the reproach of Christ better than the treasures of this world: and I hope and pray that this crown of reproach may never fall from them, by any disposition to accommodate their profession to the fashionable taste of a corrupt and degenerate age.

I am far from thinking that the Secession is the only true church, or that she is the only one which deserves to be called pure. The members of the Associate body entertain no such illiberal or ill-founded prejudices against the numerous denominations around them; neither do they decline church-communion with them upon these grounds. With churches which are less pure than the great majority of these are, they could hold communion in teaching and in sealing ordinances too, provided they were going forward in reformation, and manifested a disposition to have every thing done in them according to the law of the God of the house. But they do not perceive a disposition of this nature, either in the Church of Scotland, or in any of those who have separated from her. They have long had

[Page 8]

occasion to remark the tendency of a disposition which is directly the reverse of this. They see a variety of evils in the public profession, or ordinary course of management in all these bodies, which are contrary to the rule of the word of God. They see that each of these bodies refuses to let go what is amiss in them: and while the testimony of the Secession-church is laid in opposition to the errors and corruptions of the whole, the friends of that testimony must decline church-communion with every one of them, for the following among other reasons.

1st, Because communion with churches from which we are in a state of separation, is inconsistent with the grounds of a warrantable separation.

The grounds of separation from a church ought to be real and important. It is not every error in doctrine, nor mistake in the exercise of discipline, which will be a sufficient warrant for separation. The unity of the body ought to be carefully preserved; it is never to be broken till persons are so much aggrieved with errors or corruptions which prevail, that they can hold communion with a safe conscience no longer there. Those who can fly off from the communion of one church, and run into that of another, when they have nothing but their own whim and humour for doing so, are chargeable with much guilt; they rend and divide the body of Christ from a sinful cause, and give great occasion to the adversary to blaspheme. They are unworthy of the privileges of any Christian society, and seldom or never prove an ornament to any cause which they espouse. These unstable souls do not desert the assemblies of their

[Page 9]

old friends, in obedience to any call which a well-informed conscience told them was addressed unto them, to come out from among them, and to be separate. They are as little influenced by a regard to the rule of the word, in espousing the public profession of another society: and as they can clothe themselves with such indifference in the garb of a new profession, they are in danger, from every silly temptation which comes in their way, of putting it off, and casting it aside.

There are various means to be used for reclaiming a backsliding church. Separation is one of these; but it is the last in order: and the application of it never can be warrantable, till gentler methods have been employed, and have failed of success. However corrupt a church is, while she is not turned into a synagogue of Satan, she is to be treated with respect, and her communion is not to be wantonly or rashly deserted. When the epistles to the churches of the Lesser Asia were composed, there were abuses of a flagrant nature in some of them; but we nowhere find that those who were endeavouring to keep their garments clean were instructed to leave them, or erect themselves into a separate society. We are first to plead with our mother, and this exercise is to be persisted in, till it is manifest that she refuses to be reclaimed. It is then, and not till then, that separation becomes warrantable; and when any church continues obstinate in a backsliding course, those who are sighing and crying for her abominations, are not merely permitted, they are bound by the most sacred obligations, to withdraw.

[Page 10]

When matters have come to this mournful issue, their continuing in her communion would do more harm than good; it would harden her in impenitency, and prove a confederacy with her against the Lord.

The first Seceders were cool and deliberate in their conduct towards the Church of Scotland. They did not, like some of the sectaries which have sprung up of late, fly off from her communion in an abrupt and inconsiderate manner, or without shewing, as forcibly as they could, that they had too just cause to withdraw. They knew that the evils which abounded in her were very great; but they were far more eager to see her recovered from the snare, than to erect themselves into a separate society. The very thought of separation was painful to these men; and the slow and deliberate manner in which they proceeded, was an incontestable proof that they were not actuated by the spirit of those who are given to change, but had the interests of their mother lying very near their hearts. For many years they testified against her corruptions, before they once entertained the idea of declining her authority, and leaving her communion. They petitioned, they complained, they dissented, they protested, and remonstrated against her backslidings; they did not withdraw either from her judicatories or from her assemblies, till every other mean had failed of success; nor even then, till, by the restrictions she laid upon them, they were prohibited from declaring unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin. Placed in these circumstances, there was no other course but that

[Page 11]

of separation, which these men could pursue; and till those matters of public offence, which were the grounds of separation, were removed, it could never be their duty to return.

If the present state of matters in the National Church be examined and compared with her situation at the æra of the Secession, it will be as obvious as noon-day, that if separation was warrantable then, it is equally, yea, much more, warrantable at this day. Her progress in apostacy has been amazingly rapid; and if communion could not be maintained with her any longer before, but at the dreadful risk of being chargeable with her sins, and exposed to her plagues, Seceders could not shun these evils at present, were they running into her communion again, especially as the call to separation is waxing louder and louder. The direction of the Spirit of God unto all those who have separated from her is plainly this, “Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them.” The grounds of our separation from the Church of Scotland are, then, of such a nature, as to preclude our return in the way of having full and stated fellowship with her.

But occasional fellowship is equally incompatible with the grounds of a warrantable separation. Where full and stated fellowship would not be consistent with our duty to God, to the church, or to ourselves, occasional fellowship could as little be consistent therewith. The difference betwixt stated and occasional communion, is merely a circumstantial thing. In their nature, these kinds of fellowship are the same. In both, the communicants say, that they

[Page 12]

are one body and one bread; and accordingly, where the first is unlawful, the second must be unlawful. The rule of duty is invariable: “Where many actions of a particular kind are sinful, every action of that kind must be sinful.” The repetition of a sinful action is an aggravation of the offence; but the nature or quality of that action is not affected by the repetition thereof. Upon this principle, the practice of occasional communion must be condemned, where full and stated fellowship would be unlawful. For, as occasional church-fellowship is the same in its nature with stated, where the last is condemned, the other must be condemned, by that rule which cannot approve of and condemn those things which in their nature are the same. The grounds of our separation from the National Church have been shewn to be valid; and while we cannot, in a consistency with these grounds, have full or stated fellowship with her, we can as little have any of that fellowship which has been termed occasional.

2dly, Seceders refuse to join in communion with churches from which they are in a state of separation, because it would be inconsistent with stedfastness in the maintenance of a Christian profession.

It is every man’s duty to appear upon the side of Christ, by an open and explicit confession of the truth, and a life and conversation regulated thereby. “Confess thy God, O Zion!”—“Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the saints,”—are precepts sanctioned by the highest authority. Having once espoused a religious profession, founded upon and agreeable to the word of God, we are never to

[Page 13]

reckon ourselves at liberty to throw it aside; though the maintenance of this profession should cost us the loss of all things, we are still to adhere to it. Stedfastness is one great ornament of a Christian profession. We are commanded “to be stedfast, and immoveable; to hold fast that which we have received, and to be faithful unto the death.” But communion with churches from which we are in a state of separation, is utterly inconsistent with stedfastness. In so far as the public profession of these churches is opposed to that of our own, joining in communion with them is a material dereliction of our former profession. What is church-communion, but “the public association of those who are agreed in the profession of their faith, and obedience to Christ, for the celebration of all divine ordinances?” It is impossible that a person can be in a state of fellowship with two churches at one and the same time, where the public profession of the one, in any of its parts, contradicts that of the other. His cleaving to the one, must be at the expence of renouncing fellowship, at least for the time, with the other. Were a Seceder, therefore, to join in the communion of any of those churches against which the Secession-testimony is lifted up, he would inevitably pull down every thing peculiar to his old profession, and which he had solemnly engaged to build up.

It will not make any alteration in the nature of the case here, that it is not intended persons should remain in the communion of any church, but the one with which they are already connected, and which they

[Page 14]

are persuaded is most agreeable to the word of God. All that the friends of lax communion plead for, is only an occasional visit to the places of public worship belonging to other churches; and that as soon as the public services of the day are over, these occasional communicants should return to the bosom of that church with which they have stated and ordinary fellowship.—But this also is inconsistent with stedfastness. Going into these communions without any intention of abiding there, is of itself a sufficient proof of the person’s dissatisfaction with these churches, so that he could not have stated fellowship with them. And where a person cannot have full and stated fellowship, it has been shewn already, that he ought not to have occasional. If the first would be sinful, the last would be sinful likewise.

But this conduct is also inconsistent with the duty of holding fast that which we have already received. Were a Seceder to give up with a pointed testimony for truth altogether, and join the communion of those churches where no such testimony is displayed, he would certainly be considered as an apostate from his old profession. But if deserting the communion of a pure church, and joining statedly with one which is corrupt, would justly fix upon him the charge of apostacy; the deserting of her communion, were it but for a single day, must likewise fix upon him the same charge while that day is continued. If a testimony for truth is not held fast in every season, it is not worth the contending for at any time. Having once put our hand to God’s plough, instead of drawing back, we

[Page 15]

are not permitted so much as for a single moment to look back.

If occasional communion with churches from which we are in a state of warrantable separation were consistent with stedfastness, I cannot see upon what principle many of the martyrs, especially since the Reformation, have laid down their lives. No Protestant will refuse that their separation from the church of Rome was warrantable; but it is equally incontrovertible, that if they would only have paid an occasional visit to a Romish chapel, or bowed the knee to the consecrated host, the lives of many of them would have been spared. The mother of harlots would have been contented with occasional homage, rather than wanted it altogether. But this cloud of witnesses refused to touch the accursed thing, or bow in the house of Rimmon, for a single day longer. They chose strangling and death, rather than life upon dishonourable terms. But if this principle of occasional communion were consistent with stedfastness in the maintenance of a Christian profession, there are few supposable cases in which any man could suffer persecution for the sake of his profession. The man of lax principles has only to yield occasionally to the blast, and then he will be in safety; they are only such as are so stiff to their profession, that they will rather die for it than deny it, who will suffer any damage from the storm. In short, this principle appears to be one of the most admirable expedients which the ingenuity of the corrupt mind has devised for personal ease and outward safety in the day of trial.

[Page 16]

Corrupt churches have always much of a persecuting spirit; and the more corrupt they become, they always drink deeper and deeper into this spirit. But communicating with these churches has generally been sufficient to glut the cruelty of their temper; and if any of them should be so thirsty as not to be satisfied by members of churches which are pure joining in their communion for a single day, why not give them two or more? If a man is not chargeable with apostacy, who has deserted his profession, and communicated with a corrupt church for one day, I cannot see how he can be chargeable with this evil, though he had communicated with her twenty or a thousand days in succession. Mere length of time makes no change in the nature of the acts themselves; neither does it establish or refute the charge of apostacy. That man is as really guilty of theft who has pilfered his neighbour’s property in the space of a few minutes, as another is who has spent a whole night in rummaging his coffers, and carrying off the prey. And that person is as really chargeable with apostacy, who deserts a pure profession for a single day, as another who deserts it for the space of twenty years. What is apostacy but the falling from former attainments in religion? and can any man be said to hold fast these attainments when he joins in the communion of a church, where her public profession, or ordinary course of public managements, are in the most direct opposition to those things whereunto he had attained? Seceders therefore must decline all communion with those churches from which they are in a state of separation, because it is inconsistent

[Page 17]

with that stedfastness which is required of them in the maintenance of their holy profession.

3dly, Seceders refuse to join in communion with churches from which they are in a state of separation, because it is inconsistent with the character which they sustain, of being witnesses for the present truth.

The followers of Jesus Christ are frequently designed his witnesses, and never any were cited to bear witness in a cause of greater importance, than the cause of God and of truth. Such as are faithful and true will witness for nothing here but what they are persuaded is scriptural; and in as far as they are enlightened in the knowledge of the several articles which belong to it, they will not, through fear or favour, conceal what they know respecting them.

In a particular manner, it is the concern of these men to bear testimony in behalf of those truths which are most keenly opposed, and in greatest danger of being lost. The controversy betwixt God and the devil has in former ages turned upon some particular points. It has been in a great measure reserved for the bold infidelity of the present age, to attack the whole system of revealed truth at once. Jerusalem is encompassed with armies, which are playing off their artillery against her, from all quarters. But even in the present contest, there are some particular parts which are more remarkably assaulted than others. To this quarter, the friends of Zion’s righ-

[Page 18]

teous cause are to turn their attention and their zeal. Here the shield of their testimony is to be lifted up, and their military skill and fortitude are in an especial manner to be displayed. Those truths against which the artillery of hell and earth has been particularly pointed, have been emphatically styled the present truth, and the word of Christ’s patience, yea, Christ’s name, Rev. iii. 8.; and it is the business of all those who would do honour to the cause of God, that they witness in the most full and pointed manner for these articles, whether they lie at the foundation of their hope of a better life, or are only such as belong to the lesser matters of the law. Unless the depositions of these men have an immediate reference to the point in debate, they can have no claim to the character of witnesses for the present truth.

In a litigated cause, it is necessary, not only that what the witnesses depone be matters of fact, or the naked truth, but that their depositions bear upon the point at issue. Without this their testimony is good for nothing; and in the great cause of religion, in which all Christians profess to be embarked, they are not only to declare what is truth; but they are bound to testify and declare what they know and believe respecting these letters of the name of Christ, which are the word of his patience, and the present truth.

Seceders are witnesses for the present truth. The testimony of their church is lifted up in behalf of this, and in opposition to prevailing errors and corruptions. They have avowed their attachment to this testimony in the face of the sun, by publishing

[Page 19]

it, to be known and read of all men; and they cannot, in a consistency with the truth and dignity of that character which every honest Seceder is emulous to maintain, make any deposition which would contradict a single article of that testimony which they have espoused. Did they do otherwise, they would have no claim to the high character of being faithful. The witness who can swear to, and forswear the same thing, has no title whatever to the reputation of an honest man; and that person has as little claim to the character of being faithful for God, who can appear with Christ’s Father’s name upon his forehead to-day, and on the morrow can conceal it as in the hollow of his hand, or flatly deny it by an opposite profession.

In some of those communions with which the Secession church is surrounded, the word of Christ’s patience is accounted as a thing of nought; in others it is furiously opposed; and in all of them there are some things which Seceders have declared they are bound, from a regard to truth and duty, to oppose. How then could any Seceder be consistent with himself did he join in these communions? In so far as the profession of any of these churches keeps the word of Christ’s patience out of view, a Seceder, joining in that communion, would forfeit his claim to the title of a witness for it; and in as far as any of them are opposing the truth, and are aiding the common enemy in his warfare against it, a Seceder, joining with such a synagogue, would forfeit his claim to honesty and integrity in the matters of God. In short, every occasional visit paid by him to these

[Page 20]

communions would not only rob him of his character as a witness for the present truth, but would be a practical declaration, that his testimony in other matters was not to be depended on; seeing in those articles, where uniformity in the deposition is most to be regarded and expected, he could occasionally contradict all that he had asserted before. His character, therefore, as a witness for the present truth, requires that he shun the communion of those churches where this article is counted as a thing of nought, and especially the communion of those who trample it under foot.

4thly, Seceders refuse to join in communion with churches from which they are in a state of separation, because communion with these churches is calculated to do them great harm, and throws an insuperable obstacle in the way of discharging some of the leading duties which they owe to them.

It has been bluntly insinuated, that they are influenced wholly from selfish considerations in the application of their received principles respecting communion. The Seceding clergy, in particular, have been represented as if they warned those under their inspection against occasional hearing, and all other acts of church-communion, not from any fear lest the interests of those hearers, or of others, should suffer damage, but lest an indulgence of this nature might be followed by the desertion of their ministrations altogether. Men that were capable of acting such a part, would be a disgrace to any people, and a reproach to any communion. I trust, however, that

[Page 21]

both ministers and private Christians are influenced by principles which are far more liberal and disinterested. They know that separation from corrupt churches does not free them from obligations to promote the reformation of these churches, nor to accomplish what is within their sphere for their good. But they can perceive no evidence from whence they are warranted to conclude, that occasional communion could be of the smallest benefit to either party. On the contrary, it appears calculated in its nature to do much harm, and to throw an insuperable bar in the way of discharging many of those duties which are binding upon Seceders towards the churches from which they are in a state of separation.

In a particular manner, it is calculated to impress the mind with a belief that the matters of difference betwixt the General Synod and other public bodies in Britain, are exceedingly trivial. The most important of these matters are looked upon by many as things of little value. Not to mention what opinion the man has imbibed respecting them, who has never experienced the power of divine truth upon his heart, this false opinion is embraced by many of those whom we cannot but consider as the friends of Christ. Every honest Seceder is persuaded these men are under a grievous mistake; and that the matters of difference betwixt them and the various denominations around them are so intimately connected with the divine glory and the best interests of men, that therefore every thing should be shunned by them, which might have a tendency to confirm these in

[Page 22]

their opinions who are otherwise minded. There is nothing which can have a more hardening influence upon wicked men, than to countenance them in their evil deeds; and I know of few things which can have a more hardening influence upon a backsliding church, than communion with her. If we would bid her God speed, we cannot take a more lively method of testifying this desire, than to say, as every one does who joins in her communion, “We are united together in the profession of the same faith, we are embarked in the same cause, and will celebrate all divine ordinances together.”

That occasional communion which many sectaries have with the church of Scotland, has certainly impressed the minds of many good men in that corrupt church, with an idea, that they may warrantably stay where they are; and that, bad as matters in their church are, they are not yet arrived at that height when separation becomes a duty; seeing the very persons who have separated from her communion practically declare, that they can join with her still. And if this communion is calculated to have such influence upon the minds of those who are sighing for her abominations, what evil consequences must flow from it as to those who are active in promoting them! This communion is a confederacy with these men against the Lord; it strengthens their hands, and encourages their hearts, in apostasy, and induces them to think very lightly of all the ills they have done in the sanctuary of the Lord. Ought not this practice, then, to be carefully avoided? While it hardens the wicked, and misleads the pious and well-mean-

[Page 23]

ing, it is a greater evil than persons at first are ready to suppose. “Do thyself no harm,” is a leading duty binding upon us toward ourselves; “Do harm to no man,” is equally binding upon us toward others.

But while occasional communion is calculated, in its nature and tendency, to harden and to mislead, it likewise throws an insuperable bar in the way of discharging some of those duties which are binding upon us towards churches which are obstinate in their backsliding courses. It is not sufficient that we do them no harm; we must strive, by the diligent use of every mean with which we are furnished, to be as generally useful to them as possible. Separation is one of those means which we are bound to use towards a church which has refused otherwise to be reclaimed; and the same diligence is to be observed in the application of this mean for the recovery of a backsliding church, which is called for with regard to an obstinately offending brother. We are to note that man, and to have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Separation is a mean of making corrupt churches ashamed; and till once it has produced this effect, we are to have no company with them. But it is impossible that there can be the diligent use of this mean where occasional fellowship is maintained. Every time that the separatist joins these communions again, he is throwing it aside as a weapon that can stand them in no stead.

5thly, Seceders refuse to join in communion with those churches from which they are in a state of separation, because they cannot otherwise discharge

[Page 24]

many of those duties which are binding upon them towards themselves.

When we are striving to promote the spiritual interests of our brother, we are by no means to neglect our own; and if there is any thing in that line of conduct which he requires us to observe towards him, which would mar the spiritual improvement of our own souls, we can have no reason to believe that it is our duty to comply; otherwise, while we are keeping the vineyard of others, our own would lie neglected. Occasional communion with these churches can do them no good, and is calculated in its nature to do the occasional communicant a great deal of harm. It would stain his character; and while a good name is better than riches, every thing which might justly rob him of it ought to be lawfully avoided.

It has been shewn already, that this sort of communion is inconsistent with stedfastness in the maintenance of a Christian profession, and with the character of a witness for the present truth; it is equally inconsistent with that uniformity in the matters of religion which is expected of all those who are united together in the profession of the same faith; and accordingly all those who are chargeable with it are guilty of a schism in the body.

Seceders have been often branded with the odious name of schismatics. Upon what principles the enemies of the Secession-church have proceeded, when they loaded them with this reproach, I never yet could learn. I can see no other way of accounting for it, than from ignorance or prejudice. The generality of those who are most liberal in this sort

[Page 25]

of abuse seem not to know the true meaning of what they say, or whereof they affirm. The scriptural meaning of the word schism is very different from that which is given to it by these men. It is the following of a divisive course, or the pursuing of a line of conduct, different from what is the received order of the body with which the person is connected in church-fellowship. Now, though Seceders should follow courses very different from what are regarded in those churches from which they have separated, as long as they do not break through the stated order and regulations of their own church, they cannot be charged with the evil of schism. But were any of them to have occasional fellowship with these churches which they have left, their character would suffer so great damage thereby, that with too much justice it might be said of them they are schismatical. In this case, they would be following a divisive course, as the avowed principles and order of that church with which they are connected expressly prohibit all such practices.

It is long since schisms of a very serious nature appeared in the church of Scotland, similar to what obtained in the church of Corinth; one has been saying, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos. And this schism has been carried to such a length, that, like the Corinthians also, they have got into a divided way of communicating in solemn ordinances, so that they refuse to sit at one communion-table together. Few of the orthodox clergy will employ one of the moderates for an assistant at a sacrament-

[Page 26]

al occasion; and the bulk of those who are their stated hearers have shewn such a dislike to the ministrations of the heretical and intruders, that they will rather step occasionally into the places of worship belonging to the Secession, than take the seals of the covenant from the hands of such men, or listen to the sermons which they deliver. While both the Calvinist and the Socinian belong to the same church, they are one body and one bread; but while the one shuns the ministrations of the other, they are chargeable with a schism in that body to which they belong. When the late minister of Stirling was openly countenancing the scheme of Itinerancies and Lay-preaching, and yet continued in ministerial and Christian communion with the church of Scotland, both parties in the General Assembly were agreed, that he was chargeable with schism. But now that they have declared him no longer in communion with them, they can no more charge him with this evil. Equally absurd is it to charge the Secession with this crime, since we have long ago declared that we can have no fellowship with them. With equal propriety might we charge both the King and the Pope with being schismatics, seeing Seceders are no more of their communion than these distinguished personages are. But were Seceders, or any of those who have separated from the church of Scotland, to join occasionally in her communion, they would be justly branded with the name of schismatics. I cannot conceive it possible for them to avoid it. And that they may avoid both this stigma upon their cha-

[Page 27]

racter, and also a sin which is branded with peculiar marks of the divine displeasure, they must abide by the communion of that church with which they are connected.

Besides this grievous blot which occasional communion brings upon the character, it is attended with many other evils which are still more prejudicial. It mars the spiritual improvement of those who are chargeable with it. I never yet knew of any who made great progress in godliness by running from one teacher to another; much less is this to be expected, by running from one church-communion to another. Persons of this description soon heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and when once they are infested with this malady, their spiritual profiting is at a stand. Change of speakers will please those who are heady and speculative, or who act as if the whole duty of man consisted in hearing sermons. But the thriving Christian is a person of a different cast; he is not among those who are given to change; he finds his spiritual nourishment most under the ministry of his stated and ordinary pastor, and in the communion of that church with which he is connected, whose constitution, profession, and order, he is persuaded, is nearest to the rule of the word.

Occasional communion throws persons in the way of that instruction which causeth to err from the words of knowledge. A regard to our own interest certainly requires that all communion of this kind ought to be shunned. The very constitution of some

[Page 28]

of those churches with which we are surrounded, carries this dangerous instruction in it. Both Episcopalian and Independent churches are holding forth this instruction unto all, That Presbytery has no foundation in the word of God. And if any Presbyterian was joining in these communions, he would not only practically say the same thing, but in the communion of these churches he would be upon the scene of temptation, to believe as they have declared. He would thus follow a course directly opposite to his own interest, unless we could suppose, that the espousing and retaining of right principles respecting the constitution and order of the kingdom of Christ, had no relation to the interests of the subjects of this kingdom.

But the public administrations of all those churches from which Seceders are in a state of separation, carry something of this dangerous instruction in them. Admitting that the administrator advances nothing in his pulpit-discourse in opposition to any article contained in the Testimony of the Secession-church, but confines himself solely to those doctrines of Christianity upon which all good men are agreed; yet in all his ministrations he is bearing a practical testimony against our separation, and against the necessity of any judicial vindication of those truths, in behalf of which our testimony has been lifted up. By dispensing ordinances under the banner of the profession of that church with which he is connected in ministerial and Christian communion, he is saying, in a much more forcible manner than by any sermon he can deliver, that it is the

[Page 29]

duty of all others to join statedly in her communion, as he does, and that the conduct of those who have separated themselves from her is unwarrantable. What clergyman of the church of Scotland, however much esteemed for his piety and for his evangelical principles, does not every Sabbath, and on every occasion when he appears in his official capacity, teach these doctrines? These men are as practically opposed to the interests of the Secession, and to any pointed testimony for the truths of Christ, as the other ministers in that communion are; and have done far more to prejudice the minds of multitudes against the warrantableness of our separation, than the other party ever did. And while the whole body of the ministers of that church are holding forth these instructions, no Seceder can countenance their ministrations, without throwing himself in the way of that instruction which causeth to err.

6thly, Seceders refuse to join in the communion of those churches from which they have separated themselves, because the great design of their existence as a distinct body would otherwise be lost.

A church is not to be viewed merely as a number of Christians associated together for the public worship of God, but also as a society united for the defence of certain truths or principles, which its members hold in common, and which they believe to be agreeable to the word of God. Let any of them throw away the peculiarities of their profession, and then their existence as a separate society could

[Page 30]

have no meaning or design in it. Ask any of them, why they do not coalesce with some of the other denominations around them? and the only answer which they can give will be to this amount, That they do not find the peculiar principles which they have espoused, professed and embraced by others; and that they consider these principles to be of such importance, as completely to warrant their existing in a separate capacity, in order to maintain them. The peculiar principles of the body are the immediate ground upon which the whole fabric of their church-state is reared. Remove this, and the building either falls, or becomes like one of the monstrous pyramids in Egypt, of which no man can say what valuable purpose it was meant to serve.

Whence is it that Lutheran churches do exist, but for their favourite doctrine of consubstantiation? Whence do Baptist churches exist, but for maintaining that infant-baptism is a nullity, and that adults are the only proper subjects of baptism? Or whence do the various denominations exist, but for the sake of those peculiar principles which they have espoused? The Associate Synod, like the other public bodies with which they are surrounded, exists for the sake of the peculiar principles of their profession. They consider them of such importance, as to warrant a full separation from all the different denominations, in order to the defence of these principles, and that they may transmit them, pure and uncorrupted, to the generation which is to follow. When the members of any of these churches assemble for the public worship of God, they meet together as a

[Page 31]

professing body, acknowledging their attachment and regard to all the peculiarities of their creed. They have fellowship one with another, not only in all these things which they hold in common with others, but in every one of those things by which they are distinguished from others. The minister who takes the direction of the worship is considered, not merely in his general character as a minister of the word, but as a minister of that particular church, ordained and set apart for the defence of the received principles of the body; and in all his public administrations, his audience have ground to expect that he will countenance and support these principles. They are the peculiar points upon which they have separated from other societies; the design of their existence as a separate society, and of the election and appointment of office-bearers among them, is for the support of these principles; and therefore every thing done by these office-bearers must be viewed, directly or indirectly, for the defence of the peculiar principles which the society have espoused.

From these observations it must follow, that communion with churches from which we are in a state of separation, is destructive of the very end and design of our existence as a separate society. To what purpose do we exist as a body distinct from others, if all may freely communicate with them? Have we no peculiar principles to maintain? or are these principles not worth the contending for? Let, then, our existence as a separate society be for ever blotted out. But if these prin-

[Page 32]

ciples are of such importance as to warrant our existing in a separate capacity for their defence, we must, for the sake of these principles, decline church-communion with all those societies where they are either opposed, or treated as a thing of nought.

To render these remarks still more obvious, let us suppose, that all the members of the General Synod, for one Sabbath at least, join in church-communion with those of the Burgher persuasion; would not the design of their existence as a body distinct from them be completely lost there? Would not this communion be a material condemnation of that strenuous opposition which was formerly managed against the Burgess Oath? The ostensible ground upon which the Burgher Synod exists as a body, distinct from those with whom they were formerly in the closest fellowship, is that of maintaining the consistency with their received principles, of those under their inspection swearing this oath. We may therefore consider the motto or inscription upon their sacred banners to be this,—Toleration to all Seceders to swear the Burgess Oath. Did the General Synod rank under these banners, they would certainly declare, that they had no purpose to serve by their existence as a separate body, distinct from what their brethren of the Burgher persuasion have; that now they are one body and one bread, and shall manage their opposition to the burgess oath no longer; that that question in their Formula which requires of candidates for office an approbation of the decision of Synod condemning that oath, shall be expunged; that every thing else by which they have been distin-

[Page 33]

guished from their brethren in the matters of a public profession shall be laid aside; and, in short, that they have no valuable purpose to serve by keeping up a separate society. Even occasional communion could not be held by the Synod at large, without involving all this in it. And if this evil could not be tolerated in the body at large, it could not be tolerated in any member of that body. Occasional communion cannot therefore be held with any of those churches whose profession is opposed to that of our own, without losing our great end, in remaining, as a professing body, distinct from them.

Before concluding this part of a Vindication of the Principles of Seceders upon the Head of Occasional Communion, I would beg the attention of the reader to the following, among many texts of sacred scripture, which might be adduced in support of the principle of a restricted communion.

Prov. xix. 27. “Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.”

Under this instruction is comprehended all those methods which are employed to turn persons away from the faith, love, and profession of the truth. In all the public administrations of those churches against which the Secession-testimony is lifted up, there is always something of that instruction which causeth to err laid before the worshippers. If it is not done in a doctrinal, it is laid in a practical, and much more forcible manner, before them. And if any Seceder should reckon himself sufficiently proof

[Page 34]

against all temptations to imbibe this false instruction, let him keep in mind, that the Spirit of God enjoins him not to hear it.

Rom. xvi. 17. “Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.”

This passage of scripture sets the true nature of schism in the clearest light, and at the same time points out the conduct we are bound to observe, with regard to all those who are of a schismatical spirit. Schism is something contrary to what have been the professed principles or order of that church of which the delinquent is a member. It is a division or an offence contrary to what had been formerly learned and received. And accordingly, though the minor party in a church should separate from their brethren, yet unless they espouse principles in opposition to what had been formerly received by them, they cannot be charged with the evil of schism; on the other hand, though the major party should call themselves the church, yet, if their deviation from the original principles and laws of the society have given just occasion to their brethren for separation, they are the true schismatics, and these brethren are blameless.

If the church of Scotland is considered as her principles are contained in the word of God, and summed up in her subordinate standards, the Synod refuse that they have made any secession from her. They are contending for none other than the prin-

[Page 35]

ciples of the church of Scotland in her purest times of reformation, and as these principles are still held forth from the excellent standards of that church. But if she is considered as represented in her present judicatories, they are free to acknowledge, that they have separated from them, and that they have no connection whatever with them. Or rather, the judicatories of that church have seceded from their former principles, and have caused mournful divisions and offences; and as they persist in their divisive and schismatical courses, we are bound from this and many other texts of scripture to avoid them.

To the same purpose does the apostle express himself, in his second epistle to the Thessalonians, chap. iii. 5, 6. “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us.” And in ver. 14. “If any man obey not our words by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” The duty which is pointed out from these passages of scripture, as binding upon a church towards a disorderly member, or one who refuses a practical subjection to the received principles and order of the society, is necessarily binding upon individual members towards a disorderly church, or one which has renounced, either in whole or in part, her holy profession, and refuses to be reclaimed. Their duty is to withdraw from her communion; and till once she is ashamed of her apostacy, and evidences a dis-

[Page 36]

position to reform what is amiss in her, they have no toleration from this, nor any other texts of scripture, to mingle in her communion again. The church has no warrant to admit any into her communion whom she has justly cast out of it, till they repent and reform. Were they to act otherwise, a little leaven might soon leaven the whole lump. And while churches continue leavened with the error of corrupt doctrine, or tyrannical administration of discipline and government, those who have separated from them upon these grounds, are still to avoid them.

Isaiah. lii. 11. “Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from hence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her.”—2 Cor. vi. 17. “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing.”—Rev. xviii. 4. “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”

The first of these passages of scripture has an immediate reference to the duty of the members of the church in Babylon, when the period of their deliverance was come, and an opportunity afforded them of returning to their own land. This passage is accommodated by the apostle to illustrate the duty of church-members in the early periods of Christianity, when they were exposed to manifold temptations to communicate with the heathen in their idolatrous worship. And the last immediately respects the duty of the members of the church in separating from

[Page 37]

the Romish Babylon. In these remarkable periods of reformation, it was the duty of all those who were endeavouring to be faithful for God, to keep at a distance from those corrupt communions which were on every hand of them. There was no toleration given to communicate with them for a single day longer, nor to pay so much as one occasional visit to these communions, after they had lifted up their testimony against them. I am not disposed to entertain such a wretched opinion of any of the reformed churches, as to imagine that they are no better than the Chaldean or Romish Babylon was; but if any of them have so far apostatised from the truth, and are become so obstinate in their backslidings, that it is the Lord’s call unto his people to come out from among them, and to be separate, I cannot see what can be the intent and meaning of this call, if they are not likewise to continue separate from their communion, till they repent of their deeds and reform. There was no permission granted unto any to return, either statedly or occasionally, unto Rome; and there can be no permission granted unto any to return to those churches which have this prominent feature of the mother of harlots in them, that they refuse to be ashamed of their abominations.

1 Cor. i. 10. “Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, and that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgement.”

[Page 38]

PHIL. iii. 16. “Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.”

It is impossible, while church-members are in this state of imperfection, that they will all be of one way of thinking. As they know only in part, and objects are presented before them in so many different points of view, perfect sameness of opinion cannot be expected. Neither is it requisite, either to Christian or church-communion. In order to the last, it is requisite only that they be of the same mind with respect to all the matters of the public profession of the body, as far as they have had opportunities to examine, and do understand these, and that they do not force their own private opinions upon one another. In those matters to which a church has not yet attained, the members are to bear with one another, till God in his providence throw further light upon them. But in all those articles which belong to the public profession of the body, they say to each other, that they are of one heart, and of one mind. And it is impossible that they could walk together in church-fellowship, unless they were agreed. On the other hand, communion with churches from which we are in a state of separation, is inconsistent with this oneness of judgement, and uniformity of practice. If a Seceder is persuaded that the peculiarities of his profession are scriptural, it is impossible that he can be of one mind with those of an opposite profession. To join with them in church-communion, is solemnly to declare that he is of one

[Page 39]

mind with them, while at the same time his heart and conscience bear witness that he is not. To run into their worshipping assemblies, and yet to retain a persuasion that his former principles are well founded, is to go thither with a lie in his right hand.

[Page 40]

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

HAVING shewn that communion with churches from which we are in a state of separation is unwarrantable, I shall now propose and obviate some of the principal objections which have been stated in opposition to the doctrine contained in the preceding pages.

OBJECTION I. To decline all church-communion with those of other denominations, is contrary to the example of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. In the days of his personal ministry, the Jewish church was exceedingly corrupted. There are few, if any, of the churches of the reformation in a more deplorable condition than she was. He was nevertheless regular in his attendance upon all divine ordinances dispensed in her; though they were much adulterated, and frequently dispensed by the worst of men. He went up to Jerusalem at the solemn feasts; and when in Galilee, or in other parts of the country, he attended in the synagogue on the Sabbath day. Very different is the practice of Seceders. When the public ordinances of religion are not dispensed in their ordinary place of meeting, rather than enter one of the places of worship belonging to the Establishment, or other denominations, they will spend the Sabbath of the Lord in private.

ANSWER. The history of our blessed Lord confirms the opinion, that he was not an occasional, but a stated communicant with the Jewish church. Grievous as her corruptions were, he did not desert

[Page 41]

her communion, but was regular in attending upon all the ordinances of religion dispensed by her ministers. But what argument can this furnish for the cause of occasional communion? Does it not militate very powerfully against it? The occasional fellowship for which many plead, receives no countenance from the history of the life of our Lord, and is equally without a precedent in the whole history of the Jewish church; if we except those who feared the Lord, and served other gods; or such as were willing to worship at Jerusalem, only they wanted a toleration to bow occasionally in the house of Rimmon. The objection carries along with it the shadow of an argument against separation from a church which is become very corrupt, but says nothing whatever in favour of occasional fellowship with one from which we are in a state of separation already.

Could the friends of occasional communion shew, that on account of the superstition and corruptions of the Jewish church, our Lord and his followers had made a secession from her, and that they nevertheless joined occasionally in her communion, their plea for occasional communion with those churches from which we have warrantably separated ourselves, would have some weight with it. But the keenest advocate for occasional communion will not presume to affirm this. What then is the amount of this objection which has been brought so frequently from the example of our Lord? It is simply and shortly thus: “He was a member of the Jewish church, and was so regular in his attendance upon all the

[Page 42]

ordinances of religion dispensed there, that we never find him joining in the mongrel worship of the Samaritans, nor bowing in the house of Baal nor Rimmon, nor any where else.” Does not, then, the example of our Lord, so far from justifying, flatly condemn the practice of occasional communion?

OBJECTION II. There were many corruptions in the Jewish church. But even when corruption had arrived at the greatest height, none of her members were directed to leave her communion. Soon after the apostolic churches were erected, the most damnable doctrines were published, and scandals of the most atrocious nature were tolerated, in some of them, and yet no call was addressed to any person to desert their communion: and if those who were endeavouring to keep their garments clean, might join in stated fellowship with churches which were so notoriously corrupt; upon what grounds can Seceders decline even occasional fellowship, with those whose errors and corruptions are not more flagrant?

ANSWER. The case of these churches is by no means parallel, and no argument can be drawn from the one to the other. In reference to the Jewish church, it is admitted, that in different periods of her history her corruptions were very great; but it is manifest, that while the New-Testament church was not founded, there could be no secession but at the dreadful expence of throwing one’s self out of the communion of the visible church altogether. The solemn festivals could be celebrated no where but at Jerusalem; and none of the public ordinances of re-

[Page 43]

ligion could be dispensed by any in that country, but such as belonged to the tribe of Levi. But in New-Testament-times, the qualifications of ecclesiastical office-bearers do not turn upon their lineage; nor is the dispensation of any ordinance limited to a particular city. And if any church-member is so aggrieved with the errors and corruptions of that church to which he belongs, that he can stay in her communion no longer, he will find a more pure and scriptural dispensation of gospel-ordinances in another.

The objection from the case of the apostolic churches, is equally futile. It militates neither against our separation from the National Church, nor our refusing to have any occasional communion with her. If this objection has any weight, it pleads far more than what the proposers will themselves allow. It intimates, that while a church has any of the scripture-characters of a true church, no separation is to be made from her: or, if any have been so imprudent to state a separation from a true church, whatever her errors and corruptions be, they ought either to return unto her communion, or at least to have occasional communion with her. Now, I do not apprehend that any genuine friend of Christ, however warm in the cause of occasional communion, would really wish to continue his connection with a particular church, till she was turned completely into a synagogue of Satan; nor do I apprehend that he would be very fond of paying her even an occasional visit; he would rather stand at a distance, and bewail her corruptions and her plagues, than be inclined to return.

[Page 44]

To give this argument against separation the greatest weight imaginable, let it be supposed, that the errors and abominations in the apostolic churches were greater than those which abound in the church of Scotland; and that, notwithstanding of these evils, there was no call addressed unto any in the days of the apostles to come out from among them, and to be separate; it could not from thence follow, that our separation from the church of Scotland is unwarrantable, or that we may have occasional communion with her. There is one feature in the character of this church, for which there is no parent or original in any of the apostolic churches; this is her obstinate adherence to the evils which prevail in her. She has not only added drunkenness to thirst, but I am afraid we have too just cause to adopt the language of the prophet, when speaking in allusion to the case of a dissolute female, “Thou hadst a whore’s forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed,” Jer. iii. 3. And while none of the churches alluded to had manifested any thing like a temper of this kind, there could be no warrant, even for the most godly persons in their communion, to desert them. They were to plead with them till they either repented and reformed, or refused to listen to their entreaties any more. Nor was it long till some of those churches evidenced that they were not hardened against admonitions and reproofs; for the evils which abounded in them were no sooner pointed out, than they repented of their deeds, and purged out the old leaven. Very different is the case in the church of Scotland. She has had nothing of the appearance

[Page 45]

of a reforming church for more than half a century back; and though her corruptions and abominations have been faithfully pointed out, and every scriptural method to reclaim her has been employed, yet she refuses to let them go. It was not on account of the errors and corruptions of this church, abstractly viewed, but for her obstinate adherence to these evils, that a secession from her communion was stated. And whether occasional fellowship would be consistent with these warrantable grounds of separation, has been shewn already.

OBJECTION III. There are many in those communions from which Seceders have separated themselves, who enjoy the sweetest and most intimate fellowship with Jesus Christ; to decline all church-communion with these favoured persons, can be nothing better than a material condemnation of Christ.

ANSWER. It is a leading principle in this objection, that we ought to have church-communion with all those who are in a state of fellowship with Jesus Christ. This scheme of church-communion is liable to many exceptions. In the first place, we do not know who they are that enjoy communion with Christ; and were we to take the communion of saints for our rule of church-fellowship, we would wander perpetually in error and mistake: “For many that are first will be last, and many that are last will be first.”—Secondly, It is in opposition to the regular exercise of government and discipline in the church. Many of the saints have been justly expelled for a season from her communion. No

[Page 46]

one will doubt of Miriam’s being a saint, and yet, at the command of God, she was turned out of the camp. And many others who enjoyed the sweetest fellowship with Jesus Christ, have stumbled and fallen in such a gross and scandalous manner, that the church would not have acted a becoming part to them, nor to herself, if she had not thrown them out of her communion for a season. We are not to suppose, that all excommunicated persons are reprobates; nor that a saint, when he is cut off from the communion of the church, ceases to have communion with Christ. Even then he receives every moment gracious communications from above, whereby the principle of grace in his soul is kept alive. But if we are to have communion with all those who are in union with Jesus Christ, and enjoy communion with him, there can be no room for the exercise of discipline in the case of saints; at least the sentence of excommunication should never be passed upon any but a reprobate.—In short, if this principle is adopted as the rule of church-fellowship, we ought to have communion, not only with all the churches of the reformation, but with the church of Rome also. There have been different ministers in the Romish church, who, while they maintained the supremacy of the Pope, have had very clear and scriptural views of the doctrines of free grace, and have laboured with much diligence in scattering the seeds of these doctrines among their hearers. Will any venture to say, that the administrations of these men were never rendered useful to one soul, or that all the millions which belonged to the church of Rome

[Page 47]

were damned? Seceders have more charity than to entertain such a suspicion. But, according to the principle of this objection, if there are saints in them, we ought to have church-communion with them, otherwise we are viewed as upon the matter condemning Christ himself.

The truth is, we have a far more certain rule to walk by, than that secret fellowship which obtains betwixt Jesus Christ and his people. The written word is to regulate the whole of our behaviour. By it all our religious connections are to be established, and the various duties of the Christian life are to be regulated thereby: “To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

OBJECTION IV. There are many able and pious ministers in other churches besides the Secession. The labours of some of these men have been remarkably useful. Many souls have been converted to Christ, and comforted and built up in the faith of the gospel, through their means. While the Holy Spirit countenances their ministrations, no man can decline church-communion with them, but at the expence of throwing himself out of the way of his own interest; and from this it may justly be inferred, that he would be out of the way of his duty likewise.

ANSWER. It is not refused that there are eminent ministers and private Christians in other communions. The ministration of the Spirit is not confined

[Page 48]

to the Secession church; nor is it confined unto any particular society. It is impossible for us to calculate the measure of success with which the labours of any minister is attended; nor what portion of the Spirit is granted unto one church, or unto another. It would make nothing at all in support of the plea for occasional communion with churches from which we are separated, were I to admit, that the ministrations of evangelical ministers in these churches were far more successful than those of the Seceding ministers are. The Lord is an absolute Sovereign, and he may do as he pleaseth. His sovereignty has been frequently manifested in plucking the chief of sinners as brands out of the fire, while many of those who were clean in their own sight, and of irreproachable characters in the estimation of their fellow-men, were left to perish in the flame. It has shone with equal splendour in crowning the labours of one servant with the most abundant success, while another, equally faithful and diligent in his Master’s work, has had reason to complain, “Who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?” This sovereignty is no less conspicuous as to churches. He that rains upon one city, and not upon another, will sometimes cause the spiritual showers to descend in great plenty upon one church, and not upon another. And very often these showers may descend upon parts of a church which is exceedingly corrupt, while those whose profession is far more pure and scriptural, are parched as with the drought of summer.

But what argument can these sovereign operations

[Page 49]

of the Holy Spirit furnish in behalf of occasional communion? Whether are the operations of God’s hand, or the judgements of God’s mouth, the rule of our conduct? or whether is the manifestation of the divine glory, or our own interest, the first object that we ought to have in view? The secret workings of the Holy Spirit can be a rule of duty to no man. And though this Spirit should work very powerfully in the hearts of many belonging to that church from which we have separated ourselves, while the grounds of our separation are valid, we can have no warrant to return; nor can we have the smallest encouragement to expect that the dispensation of ordinances in her would be blessed as to us. Multitudes have deserted corrupt communions, and joined themselves with such as were comparatively pure, who have been exemplary for faith, for love, for purity, and every thing that is good and commendable. But I never yet knew of an individual who deserted a pure church, and connected himself with one that was corrupt, and prospered. These persons generally become leaner from day to day. Others around them may be basking in the sunshine of spiritual prosperity, but they are starving for want. Callousness and indifference in the things of God usually mark the character of those men; many of them throw off the form of godliness altogether, and become openly immoral.

There is a wide difference betwixt the case of one who has not seen it warrantable to separate from the communion of a corrupt church, and another who

[Page 50]

has both seen this, and has actually separated from her. While the first attends upon ordinances dispensed there, he is walking according to his light; and though error and corruptions will never be advantageous unto any, yet the Lord often renders these things which a backsliding church still retains, of the most essential benefit to those in her communion, who are endeavouring to be faithful according to the measure of light which they enjoy. But when others, who are better informed with respect to the warrantable grounds of separation, return to her communion, they are not walking according to that light they have received; and instead of being enriched by the dispensation of ordinances there, they have too good reason to fear, lest that saying of our Lord should be fulfilled upon them: John, ix. 39. “For judgement I am come into this world, that they which see might be made blind.”

No man can expect benefit to his soul, but in the way of commanded duty. The consideration of interest may influence to diligence in the discharge of duty, but can never be the rule of it. Though it could therefore be shewn, that the labours of evangelical ministers in corrupt churches, were far more successful than those in purer churches are, this could not be a sufficient reason why we should countenance them. It could be no proof that it was our duty to do so; and till once the great point is established, what the law of God requires in a case of this nature, the consideration of interest held forth from their great success, is really no encouragement at all. There is a considerable number carried away at pre-

[Page 51]

sent by visionary schemes of more general usefulness. They imagine that they can be of far more advantage to their fellow-men, by preaching to them Christ and him crucified, than, even in those times of extraordinary dearth, they can be useful by labouring with their hands, that they may be able to give to him that needeth. They therefore conclude, that they ought not to abide in that calling whereunto they were called, but should instantly desert it, and commence Itinerant preachers.—There are others, who apprehend that the Spirit in his influences is poured out more plentifully upon this denomination of professors, than upon another; and that as their personal interest is more likely to be promoted in the first than the last, it must be their duty to join them. They consider the language of these dispensations to be much of the same import with the saying of Moses to his father-in-law. “Come thou with us, and we will do thee good.” In both cases they infer the obligation to duty from the consideration of interest. Such reasoning is mere sophistry. It is not consistent with any principle either of reason or of revelation. We may safely conclude, that it is our duty and our interest to go, wherever the revealed will of God has pointed out the way: But till once we can adduce a divine authority, for this or the other religious exercise we intend to be engaged in, we have no ground whatever to conclude that our observation of it would profit either ourselves or others. If it cannot be shewn from the word of God, that we may warrantably have occasional fellowship with

[Page 52]

churches which are obstinate in their backsliding courses, there cannot be a single grain of encouragement held forth unto us to join these communions, though in different parts of that church the ministration of the Spirit should be most abundant.

In answer to this objection, I shall only observe further, that I am not without fears, that the prospect of interest is a flag hung out by the great adversary with an intention to deceive. Selfish motives will often rouse the temper, when a generous and tender concern about the manifestation of the divine glory, will have no influence. By this selfish principle, the enemy is endeavouring to detain those in corrupt communions where they are, and to induce such as have left them to return. But whatever may be said as to the great success with which the labours of some ministers in corrupt churches is attended, I think it is most natural to conclude, that the success is likely to be greatest, where the seeds of evangelical doctrine are scattered in the most liberal way, and all divine ordinances are dispensed in the greatest measure of purity. Now, whether this is the case in the Secession church, or in that from which she has separated, let the impartial who know any thing of their history determine. There is not a single minister under the inspection of the General Synod, who does not entertain his audience every Sabbath with the pure doctrines of the cross of Christ: In the national church, how rarely is this the case! in the former, all divine ordinances are dispensed; in the latter, several of the most distinguished are laid aside. Another gospel is introduced

[Page 53]

in the room of the gospel of Christ, by many; and not a few have discarded the ordinance of preaching altogether, by substituting the reading a few pages of a written or printed paper in its place; an ordinance which is purely of human authority, and will no more supply the room of preaching, than writing will supply the room of praying. In the Secession, no minister receives the pastoral charge of a particular congregation, who is not vested with the office of a ruler, and appointed to the exercise of discipline and government, as the state of his flock may require. In the National Church, a very respectable part of her ministers, and who were generally upon the orthodox side, have been cut off, by a late decision of the General Assembly, from a seat in that court. And so limited are the powers of many of them within the sphere of their own congregations, that the decisions of their sessions are liable to the review of the parochial court. Let these things be reflected upon, and say, whether the prospect of interest is most inviting in the former or in the latter.

OBJECTION V. We are commanded to prove all things, and to try the spirits, whether they be of God. Seceders cannot be said to do this, when they will not so much as go and hear them.

ANSWER. We are likewise commanded to hold fast that which is good. In order to this trial of the spirits, and proving of all things, it is not necessary that men should become sceptics in every thing. Seceders have the most convincing evidence

[Page 54]

already, that there are many points of doctrine and rules of conduct flatly contradicted and opposed in that church from which they have separated themselves. They have therefore no occasion to return to her communion, to learn whether these things are so. Were they going back upon such a design, they would justly incur the reproach of having deserted her communion, without being fully satisfied in their own minds, that they had a sufficient warrant to do it.

Besides, the public administrations of individual ministers, can be no sufficient criterion whereby to judge of the public profession and managements of the body. Were we to form our opinion of the National church from what is known respecting the orthodoxy of some ministers in her communion, we could not but conclude that she was purely Calvinistic, yea, that she was still friendly to the solemn duty of covenanting; as I am credibly informed, that some of her ministers pray as publicly for the revival of that neglected and despised duty, as the ministers of the General Synod do. On the other hand, were we to judge of her from the doctrines taught in other pulpits, we could not but conclude that she had forfeited all title to the character of a true church; as some of her ministers have openly denied the only Lord God that bought them. It would likewise be very unfair, to lay every unguarded expression which may drop from the lips of a public speaker, to the charge of a whole church. The public administrations of individuals can be no criterion of the doctrines held by the body collective. If we would

[Page 55]

know these, we must look into the standards of that church, we must compare these standards with the public managements of the body, and both of them with the word of God. And this can be done with far more propriety at home, than in a worshiping assembly.

To prove all things, in the sense of the apostle, is to bring every doctrine and line of conduct to the infallible standard of the scriptures, and to receive or reject, as they are consonant or repugnant thereunto. Seceders have brought many of the doctrines and public managements of the church of Scotland to this standard already, and in their judicial testimony they have declared that they found them wanting. To turn back into her communion, with a view to examine whether that judgement they have expressed is right or wrong, would be a gross insult to themselves. It would hold up the standards of their own church in a very contemptible light indeed, and themselves as mere children, who have been ever learning with respect to the grounds of their secession, but have never acquired such a knowledge of them as to be capable of deciding whether they are warrantable or not. The other passage, John, iv. 1. about trying the spirits whether they be of God, points out a line of conduct which all Christians are bound to follow in regard to those who labour among them. They are to receive no doctrine or commandment upon the bare authority of him that delivers it. They are endowed with the right of private judgement; that judgement they are bound to exercise in all the matters of God. They

[Page 56]

must bring the doctrines of the most able and faithful ministers to the infallible rule of the word, and must receive these doctrines no farther than they are agreeable to this rule. But what countenance does this text give to the scheme of running into other communions, and seeing whether their teachers deliver sound doctrine or not? To their own master they stand or fall. It is not with their ministry that we have to do, but the ministry of those belonging to the same church with ourselves. And while we are enjoined by the highest authority to try those with whom we are connected, we have no charge given us to hear or judge others.

Neither does the reason which the apostle adduces to enforce this exercise of private judgement, favour in the smallest degree the cause of occasional communion. He tells us, that many false prophets were gone out into the world. This is mournfully the case in our times. They are little acquainted with the character of their own times, who need to travel to other communions to know this. The Secession knew, that there were many false prophets in that church from which they have now separated themselves. They used every mean, consistent with the situation in which they were placed while in her communion, to reclaim them; but in vain. Shall we now return to that communion, when we have the most indubitable proof, that they are proceeding from evil to worse? No; “An heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject. Beware of dogs, beware of the concision, beware of evil-workers.”

[Page 57]

OBJECTION VI. Seceders do not refuse to hold communion with members of other churches in private; they will frankly join in all the exercises of religion in the families of these persons when they are occasionally with them; upon what grounds can they vindicate themselves against the charge of inconsistency, when they refuse to hold communion with them in the most public manner possible?

ANSWER. The distinction betwixt Christian and church-communion has long been admitted. The holy scriptures, which ought to be our sole guide in the matters of religion, plainly recognise the distinction. In the case of an excommunicated person, it is abundantly evident, that we are to have no public or church-communion with him; but we are not prohibited from having private fellowship with him; on the contrary, we are commanded to admonish him as a brother, 2 Thess. iii. 6, 14, 15.

In order to Christian communion, nothing farther is requisite, than that the persons who join in it do, in the judgement of charity, consider one another as the friends of Christ. The peculiar principles of neither party enter into this fellowship. But in church-communion it is very different. Here there is an open avowal of attachment to the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of that church. The profession of the several individuals, is the profession of that church with which they communicate. And it cannot be otherwise; for in all her public assemblies the church avows the public profession which she has espoused. We cannot, therefore, join in the communion of any church, whose public

[Page 58]

profession contradicts our own, without contradicting it also. No such evil can flow from private Christian communion; and therefore Seceders are perfectly consistent when they join occasionally in private fellowship with members of other denominations, while, at the same time, they refuse giving them any countenance in their public profession, and decline all church-communion with them.

OBJECTION VII. The scheme of principles adopted by the General Synod, with respect to communion, puts all the different denominations upon a level. All the churches are not equally corrupt. There are some of them in which many good things are yet to be found. But Seceders keep at an equal distance from them all; they will no more enter a parochial church, than a Popish chapel; nor will they countenance the ministrations of the most orthodox, any more than those of the most erroneous, in other communions. Is it possible that that principle of theirs can be right, which makes no distinction betwixt those which are comparatively pure, and such as are grossly corrupted?

ANSWER. Good men are not to be countenanced in what is wrong, any more than bad; nor are the iniquities of the former less aggravated than those of the latter. The character which they sustain is rather an aggravation, than a palliation or excuse for their offences. In the exercise of godly zeal, the magnitude and importance of its objects are duly regarded; and, as far as the situation of the Christian will admit of it, he is disposed to shew, that he

[Page 59]

has those things most at variance, which are calculated to do the greatest harm. But it is not possible that his outward conduct towards all can be such as to mark the different degrees of respect or detestation, with which he observes the conduct of different persons. He may be often placed in situations, where he is obliged to keep at as great a distance from the saint as from the sinner; but it is impossible that his heart can ever be the same to both these men. The excommunicated saint is as completely cast out of the communion of the church, as the avowed infidel is: and there is no more toleration granted to have church-communion with the former, while he is justly lying under that sentence, than with the latter. Somewhat similar to this is the case of the Secession church, with respect to those denominations around her; but she is by no means disposed to put them all upon a level. She apprehends that the Spirit of God has somewhat against each of them, but she can easily perceive, that there are far more grievous corruptions in some than in others. No person will say, that the church considers the sin of a petty theft and of adultery in the same light, because she refuses to have communion with thieves and adulterers; equally absurd is it to infer, that the General Synod puts all churches and individuals in Britain upon a level, because they will not hold church-fellowship with any but their own body.

OBJECTION VIII. The scheme of principles which the Associate Synod have adopted with respect to

[Page 60]

communion, is the way to keep all our mournful divisions alive. If every party were to act upon the principles of Seceders, we might despair of seeing the friends of evangelical truth united in one body. Would each of them throw aside the little peculiarities of their party, and meet together upon the broad and sure basis of the doctrine of free grace, they would then be as one stick in the hand of Christ. How pleasant is the sight at Missionary sermons, Missionary designations, and Missionary prayer-meetings, when so many ministers and private Christians, belonging to various denominations, meet together, and harmoniously worship the Lord of hosts? At these meetings one would think that bigotry were buried! Seceders and the heterodox party in the General Assembly, are almost the only persons who refuse to come forward, and assist in putting on the grave-stone.

ANSWER. The General Associate Synod, and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, are not so much of one mind with respect to the cause of Missions, that they could give the right-hand of fellowship to one another, either in opposing or encouraging the present scheme. The grounds upon which the Synod opposed the present plan of Missions, were so very different from those upon which the Assembly opposed them, that I cannot conceive how a zealous friend of Missions, and of lax communion, in a note to his printed sermon, could have represented them to be the same; if it were not from ignorance of the principles of the Secession, or a desire to sully the reputation of that body, or a bi-

[Page 61]

gotted attachment to his own plan of Missions. The Synod never yet opposed the scriptural plan of missions; and I hope they never will have so little concern about the extension of the Redeemer’s kingdom, as to do this. On the contrary, they have done more than all the Missionary Societies in Scotland have yet accomplished; and while the zeal of many has cooled with respect to the present measures, the Synod have never evidenced more ardency of desire than of late in this glorious cause. But they had too just ground to be persuaded, that the Missionary Societies were constituted upon principles which were utterly subversive of all that beautiful order which Jesus Christ, as a son over his own house, had instituted there; and while there was poor encouragement to expect that much good would result from the plans of these Societies to the Heathen abroad, they had every reason to fear the mournful consequences which might flow from them to the professors of religion at home. They therefore warned all under their inspection, against public religious co-operation with them. Already the evil consequences are too manifest in many parts of the country. The minds of multitudes appear to be thrown quite loose, as to any fixed principles in religion; and among those who were the keenest advocates for the Missionary schemes, you will now find the most violent opponents to the divine right of the Presbyterian order and government of the church of Christ. That very gentleman who has done the Synod the honour to class them with the General

[Page 62]

Assembly of the Church of Scotland, is a striking instance of this. After having solemnly subscribed the confession of a Presbyterian church, and submitted to ordination by fasting and prayer, and the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, he is now become one of the most lax Independents, and has turned multitudes unto the same path.

If it gives unfeigned joy and satisfaction to the heart, to witness at the religious exercises of the Missionary Societies, such multitudes convene belonging to so many different church-communions, it cannot fail to give the most pungent sorrow when the blessing is pronounced; for then the little peculiarities of their parties which were thrown away, are picked up, and all their party names and distinctions are revived. If the constitution of these societies is warrantable, the members ought to abide in this as their church-state; and then the party names and distinctions which subsisted among them before, would be abolished as to them. But no one goes to these meetings, but with an intention of returning to his former church-connections. What then is done by them, either to the burial of bigotry or of party among us? For my part, I can see nothing.

The Synod have very different sentiments with respect to the most effectual method of promoting union among the friends of truth, from what is proposed in the objection. They do not reckon themselves at liberty to throw away a single gem of the Redeemer’s crown, because some good men do not perceive any lustre in it, nor because others may be at a loss to perceive that it really belongs to Christ.

[Page 63]

Did they use such liberties with one article of revealed truth, in order to purchase peace and union with one party, they might soon be called upon to do the same with another; yea, they might hold on till they had left nothing of Christianity but the name. For what doctrine in the system of revealed truth has not been represented as a thing of nought? There is not one article laid down in the scriptures, which the great Prophet of the church did not consider as worthy of a place there; and no society should reckon these unworthy of a place in that public profession which they make of his name. Whatever a church has attained, according to the word of God, she is not at liberty to throw away. She is under the most sacred obligations to hold it fast; and the more it is despised and undervalued, and accounted as a thing of nought, she is to cleave the more closely unto it. The Synod are no enemies to the union of Christians in one church-state. They earnestly wish and long for that day when party-names will be abolished, and our mournful divisions will be healed. But it never entered into their minds to suppose, that this union could be accomplished by throwing aside any thing which constitutes a part of the cause of God and truth. On the contrary, they are persuaded, that this union shall be the effect of gracious discoveries of the truth. And no society upon earth is doing more to prevent the union of Christians, than those who would either sully or bury any article of it. When the people are gathered together, and the kingdoms to serve the Lord with one consent, they

[Page 64]

will then take pleasure in the stones of Zion, and favour the very dust thereof.

OBJECTION IX. It is not intended that occasional communion should be carried all the length of sealing ordinances: Pray what harm can there be in hearing a good sermon any where?

ANSWER. In answer to this objection, I would carry the point a little farther than is commonly pleaded for, and say, What harm can there be in taking a seat at a communion-table likewise? If we may warrantably hear a good sermon any where, we may also sit down at a communion-table wherever it is covered. There is a fellowship in the apostle’s doctrine, as well as in breaking of bread and in prayers. In public prayer, in public praise, and in all the other acts of public worship, the worshippers say, that they are one body, and one bread. If they can make such declarations as these before God, and before one another, in one ordinance, why not in another? Why not at a communion-table? Upon what principle can they decline this? The dispensation of the word and the dispensation of the seals of the covenant are so closely connected, that where it is a person’s duty to join in the one, it must be his duty to join in the other. The primitive Christians continued in the apostle’s doctrine, and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread. And how these things come to be separated now, ought to be accounted for by those who are guilty of this irregularity. I can find no warrant from scripture to communicate with a church in teaching, but not in sealing ordinances.

[Page 65]

Wherever it is a person’s duty to do the first, there it appears to be his duty to do the last. The scriptures uniformly enjoin a diligent attendance upon all divine ordinances, and warn us in the most solemn manner against parting asunder, what God has joined together. Not to communicate therefore in sealing ordinances, where communicating in the hearing of the word is vindicated, instead of being any apology, is an additional aggravation of the offence.

OBJECTION X. The first Seceders separated only from the corrupt majority in the church of Scotland, and declared their readiness “to hold communion with all and every one who desire, with them, to adhere to the principles of the true Presbyterian, covenanted church of Scotland, in her doctrine, worship, government, and discipline; and particularly, with every one who are groaning under the evils, and who are affected with the grievances, we have been complaining of; who are in their spheres wrestling against the same*.” To this their practice corresponded. For many years they maintained ministerial as well as Christian communion with different ministers, who lived and died in the communion of the church of Scotland. When the general Synod decline all church-communion, even with the orthodox and pious ministers of that church, they draw the cords of their communion much straiter than was at first intended. Did the ministers and private Christians of this body relax only a

_____

* Gib’s Display, vol. 1. page 35.

[Page 66]

little upon the article of church-communion, and have occasional fellowship with orthodox and pious ministers of other denominations, they would act more agreeably to the original declaration, and in stricter conformity with the example of their fathers.

ANSWER. As this objection is laid in the very words of the protestation of the four brethren, given into the commission of the General Assembly, November 16. 1733, and has been often adduced against the general Synod, in attempts to point out some inconsistency betwixt their present and former scheme of communion; and especially as it is now pleaded by some who pretend to be Seceders, and are not, in behalf of that fellowship which they occasionally maintain in sealing ordinances, with reputed pious and orthodox Christians belonging to the church of Scotland;—the reader will bear with me a little, while I consider more fully than in the former objections, what these strange sons of the Secession-church have to say in vindication of their conduct, from the solemn language of protestation and secession uttered by their fathers.

It is granted, that the Secession was declared from the prevailing party, or corrupt majority, which then constituted the judicatories of the church of Scotland; and that the Seceding ministers were willing to hold communion with the faithful party in that church. It is likewise granted, that the practice of these men for some time corresponded with this declaration of theirs, and that for some years they held communion with several ministers, who still continued their connection with the

[Page 67]

Established Church. But it is refused that this is a rule for persons in this present period, and in present circumstances of the church. There were many things expedient for them in their circumstances, which would not be proper for us. And these very brethren, in process of time, found their situation so much altered, from what it was in the most early stage of their secession, that they were bound in conscience to act in a different manner towards the orthodox party in the church of Scotland, from what they did at first.

But to see the force of this observation more distinctly, it is necessary to attend to the situation in which the first Seceders were. They had been engaged, together with many of their brethren, in contending against the gross corruptions which had infected the church; and which were countenanced and maintained by the prevailing and major party in her judicatories. While thus engaged, four ministers were violently and tyrannically thrust out from ministerial communion with her. They were thus led forward to take a step which they had not formerly considered as their duty;—to declare a secession from those judicatories, which were carrying on a destructive opposition to the principles of the reformation; at the same time expressing their willingness to hold communion with any who were faithfully witnessing for these principles.

Although the first Seceding ministers constituted themselves into a presbytery, so early as December the same year, they were not sudden in proceeding to acts of jurisdiction; but resolved, before any such

[Page 68]

procedure, to wait that they might see if the judicatories of the church would return from their course of defection. And in pursuance of this resolution, for three years they held their Presbyterial meetings mainly for prayer, mutual advice, and the strengthening of one another’s hands in the work of the Lord. When the General Assembly, which met 1734, manifested a disposition apparently opposite to the measures of some former Assemblies, the brethren of the Presbytery seriously deliberated on the question, Were the grounds of their secession so far removed by what the Assembly in 1734 had done, as that they might with faithfulness return to the judicatories of the church? and although they judged that they were not, yet they resolved to continue their meetings as formerly, without proceeding to any acts of government or discipline. It was not till after the Assembly in 1736, the proceedings of which convinced them, that it was in vain to expect reformation from that quarter, that they proceeded to enact and publish a Judicial Declaration and Testimony, and to other acts of jurisdiction.

During the foregoing period, they maintained ministerial communion with those who were grieved with, and opposing the corruptions of the times, although they had not yet that freedom to make a secession. Even after their testimony was enacted, this communion was maintained for some time. They knew that the question of separation was of great importance, and that it required time for faithful persons to satisfy themselves respecting it. And although, within two years from this period, four mi-

[Page 69]

nisters from the Established Church acceded to the Associate Presbytery; yet, they soon began to find, that the great body of those brethren from whom better things might have been expected, instead of having their doubts respecting joining in the Secession removed, were confirmed in them, and continued to strengthen the hands of the prevailing party, by remaining in the judicatories, and even joining in their opposition to the testimony which the Presbytery had emitted.

A striking proof of this was a book written by Mr Currie, minister at Kinglassie, one of the persons alluded to, which appeared in 1738, and was strongly recommended by ministers of both parties in the Established Church; a publication which contained a most violent attack on the Secession, and a vindication of some of the most offensive proceedings of the national judicatories. The members of the Presbytery still, however, continued, in the most tender and affectionate manner, to inculcate upon these brethren a duty which daily became more urgent and more clear; but when it was manifest they could not prevail with them, they justly considered their conduct as highly offensive and criminal,—as a refusal to appear in behalf of the reformation-principles of the church of Scotland, according to the loud call which providence had given them, and in a manner that promised, through the blessing of God, to preserve and promote the true covenanted religion, which was in such danger. They could therefore no longer countenance them by maintaining ministerial communion with them.

[Page 70]

It is not to be supposed that this communion broke off all at once. Mr Wilson, in his Defence of the Reformation-principles of the Church of Scotland, after mention of the readiness of the protesting ministers at first to hold communion with the true friends of the covenanted church of Scotland, adds, “But it is matter of regret, that so many who have sometime appeared against a course of defection, are involving themselves in the sins of the judicatories, either by justifying or extenuating their defections, or by their continuing in conjunction with them, though they are still going on in a course of backsliding, and refuse to be reclaimed; whereby the door of communion with them is more and more shut*.” Mr Gib observes, “That it gradually ceased betwixt the publication of the judicial testimony and the declinature†.” Mr Fisher, in a pamphlet written against Mr Whitefield’s scheme, acknowledges the fact of their having given up that communion, and assigns reasons for it.

If ministerial communion with these brethren was now become unlawful, private Christians could not be innocent in countenancing their ministrations. It is probable that no particular act, prohibiting this communion, was requisite, but that ministers and others harmoniously agreed in laying it aside, as a practical, and, when consistently attended to, a solemn testimony against the unfaithful conformity of those ministers.

It appears from this narrative, that the first Seceders found themselves at length placed in such

_____

* Wilson’s Defence, p. 32. † Display, vol. 1. p. 35.

[Page 71]

circumstances, where communion with the orthodox party in the church of Scotland could be maintained no longer. I admire the conduct of these venerable fathers, in maintaining communion with them so long. They thereby testified their strong reluctance to part fellowship with them; and that, if ever matters should come to this issue, those from whom they separated could have only themselves to blame. At the same time, I am disposed equally to admire the decided part which they took with regard to communion, when these brethren continued to act so unbecoming the character of those who would be faithful for Christ. Though the Seceding ministers loved them as brethren, yet when they walked disorderly, and refused to be reclaimed, with the true spirit of Christian friendship, they lifted up this solemn testimony against their behaviour, by refusing to join company with them.

Nor were they acting any wise inconsistent with the protestation given in to the Commission of the General Assembly, or the original grounds of secession, when they did so. They were only following out that protestation, and practically shewing, that their grounds of secession were so valid, they could not adopt any other line of conduct. It is nothing better than an outrage upon common sense, to say, That because the four brethren at first declared their secession only from the corrupt party in the church of Scotland, they were therefore to continue in the bonds of ministerial fellowship with the other. If this last should become so far corrupt, as to strengthen the hands, and countenance and support the measures of the former, the whole would

[Page 72]

thus be leavened into one lump; and Seceders were bound, by their own protestation and declaration, to renounce ministerial fellowship with the one, as well as with the other. What were the original grounds of Secession? Was it not because the church with which they had been connected refused to be reclaimed? and when the orthodox party in that church, after long tenderness exercised with them, refused also to be reclaimed, were not these grounds equally valid as to them? The first Seceders could not have been consistent with themselves, if they had not parted fellowship with them; nor can Seceders, in our day, act consistently with the original grounds of Secession, if they do not decline all church-communion with those who still go by the name of the orthodox party in the General Assembly, but are strengthening the hands, and encouraging the hearts, of the corrupt and prevailing party in that court; and also weakening the influence which that testimony for truth, lifted up by Seceders, is calculated to have upon the minds of persons in that communion.

It will not be pretended, that the present orthodox party in the General Assembly are either more numerous, or more faithful, than those were from whom the first Seceders found it dutiful to withdraw: except in the article of doctrine, respecting which they have long ago practically agreed not to differ, where is the difference betwixt them and the other party? Where now are the persons among them, who will answer the description of those whom Seceders at first declared they would hold commu-

[Page 73]

nion? Do they “adhere to the principles of the true Presbyterian covenanted church of Scotland, in her doctrine, worship, government, and discipline?” Are they “groaning under the evils, and affected with the grievances,” of which the first Seceders complained? Or are they, “in their several spheres, wrestling against the same?” Have not all tamely cringed under those gross indignities which have been offered to many of their number, by being justled more than half-way out of those spheres in which they were solemnly ordained to move? Has not that bold thrust which was made at the radical principles of a Presbyterian church, in the decision with respect to the chapel-ministers, met with a practical compliance from every individual among them? For any vote they now have in that court, it may be either the God of Israel, or the god of Ekron, who is acknowledged to bear rule there. And have not many other indignities been offered to the church’s King, when they have been equally silent and submissive?

I highly venerate the Christian character of the great body of these men, and do not dispute the sincerity of their secret groans at the mournful state of their Zion; but in their public career, I see nothing that they do for reformation more than others. They are too much of Ephraim’s temper, “silly doves without heart;” they neither desert her communion, nor have the fortitude to use those measures for reformation, which their connection with her still affords them. Their former attempts have been so

[Page 74]

feeble and fruitless, that, like an army which is broken and dispirited, by being driven back from one station to another, they either decline appearing upon the field of battle, or, when at any time they muster with the host, they do not employ, to any great advantage, those constitutional weapons which they still hold. With persons who were so tamely submissive to all the measures and decisions of the General Assembly, the first Seceders never once proposed to hold ministerial fellowship. They apprehended those godly men, whom they left behind them, were of a different temper; and when they saw, by the conduct of many of them, that they had just ground to change their opinion, ministerial fellowship was broken up.

We are by no means placed in such circumstances, with regard to those who are called the orthodox party in the church of Scotland, as our fathers in the early periods of the Secession were. Moderation, tenderness, forbearance, and every thing of this nature, were loudly called for towards their brethren. Secession was a new thing in the history of that church: and it could not be expected that all her ministers, any more than those in private stations, would come to a decisive judgment in one day, as to those grounds upon which separation is warrantable. Though many of those who were endeavouring to be faithful, and who were eager to know the road of duty, were halting betwixt two opinions, in a case which was rather singular; this was only what might have been looked for. It would have been both cruel and undutiful, to have deserted the communion of

[Page 75]

those men abruptly. While the Seceding ministers continued in connection with the church of Scotland, these brethren went along with them in the measures which they adopted for reformation. It was natural for them to suppose, (and that charity which thinketh no evil could not but strengthen the opinion), that their not proceeding all the length of separation was owing, rather to a want of proper information with regard to the course they should take, than any disposition to connive with the corrupters of the truths and ordinances of the Lord, or indifference about his interests.

But is that party entitled to the same indulgence still, after a period of sixty years has elapsed, in which they have certainly got full time to reflect upon their situation, and to consider whether they will abide where they are, or join the Secession? Formerly they were like men at their wits end, and did not know what to do. But their successors manifest no hesitation or doubt about what is proper to be done. They have taken a decided part, and are the most formidable opponents with which the Secession have to contend in the church of Scotland. Our circumstances are so widely different from those of our fathers, that occasional fellowship which their peculiar situation warranted, and which was maintained with such honour to themselves, would be utterly inconsistent with the true grounds of Secession in the present day. And those Seceders who would plead the language of the protestation of the four brethren, in

[Page 76]

vindication of their conduct, seem not to understand either its meaning or application.

The truth is, since they espoused the cause of the Burgess Oath, they have changed their ground. The loosest principles upon the head of church-communion have been embraced and tolerated among them. And in order to render the scheme more acceptable, they would now pretend that these were the original principles of the Associate Presbytery. Let any person of candour examine that paper alluded to, and say, if it has any application to present circumstances. Let him also compare the conduct of the ministers of the Associate Presbytery, towards the orthodox party in the church of Scotland, when their circumstances were somewhat similar to our own, and say, if they did not then decline all ministerial fellowship with them, as the General Associate Synod now does. It is insulting to the memory of our fathers, to plead either their principles or example for such communion.

CONCLUSION.

A VINDICATION of any of the peculiar principles of a religious society, naturally suggests the idea of a divided state in the church. Our divisions are so numerous, and the power of godliness among all the different denominations is so remarkably low, that they must be deafer than the adder, who do not perceive that the exercise of mourning is loudly called for. On account of these things we ought to

[Page 77]

weep: our eye should run down with water, because the Comforter that should relieve our soul is far from us. Our incessant prayer to the God of our salvation should be, that as he hath torn, he would heal us; as he hath smitten, he would bind us up; that after two days he would revive us, in the third he would raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. But by what outward means shall this dead and divided state of the church be repaired? Is it by keeping out of view any article of truth, or dropping any part of testimony against prevailing errors and corruptions? None of the prophets ever got any such instructions; and ministers of the gospel have it still in charge to declare the whole counsel of God, and to teach men to observe all things whatsoever they have been commanded. The unity of the Spirit is an union in truth; and without this, a right peace never can be maintained.

Seceders, in virtue of that profession which they have espoused, are like speckled birds in the land. Though a despised body, they are much noticed, and ought to be as much distinguished by the love and practice of holiness. They are certainly under special obligations to study holiness, and are entitled to the name of Seceders, no farther than as they depart from all manner of iniquity, and follow holiness, without which no man can see the Lord. An immoral Seceder is one of the most finished pictures of hypocrisy and inconsistency which this age is capable to produce. What do ye more than others? is a question which ought frequently to re-

[Page 78]

cur to the mind of every one, but especially of those who testify against all the errors, in practice as well as in principle, which abound. Persuaded that a godly life is the best ornament of a religious profession, Christian brethren, I have no greater joy than to hear that you are walking in truth.

FINIS.

J. PILLANS & SONS, Printers,

North College-Street, Edinburgh.

---

[Advertisement page]

Of OGLE and AIKMAN, Parliament Square,

also may be had,

HINTS ON THE ORDINANCE OF A

GOSPEL-MINISTRY,

By the same Author;

CONTAINING,—1. A Short Defence of the Office of a Gospel-ministry;—2. The Call and Qualifications requisite for the Ministerial Office;—3. The Principles and Tendency of the Scheme of Lay-Preaching considered;—together with, 4. A Candid Examination of some Passages of Sacred Scripture, which have been interpreted as favouring that Scheme.

Stennet on Domestic Duties, superfine, 5s.; fine, 4s. 6d.; common, 3s. 6d. N. B. In the press, Dr Stennet’s Personal Religion, conform with the above.

Essay on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, by John Dick, A. M. minister of Slateford, price 3s. fine, and 2s. 6d. common.

Scripture-marks of Salvation, drawn up to help Christians to know the state of their souls, by Risdon Darracot; to which is annexed, a Meditation found among his papers after his death. Price 4d. stitched, and 6d. bound.

New-Year’s Gift for Youth, by Andrew Fuller, Kettering. Price 4d. in gilt paper, 3d. plain, or 2s. 6d. in dozens, to them who give them away.

Progress of the Pilgrim Good Intent, in these Jacobinical times, price 3s. 6d. sewed.

Steuart’s Account of a late Revival of Religion in the Highlands of Scotland, price 4d. fine, 3d. common.