been so long running through the present judicatories of this Church; and that heads of families carefully instruct their children and servants in the above principles; and the Presbyteries appoint their clerk to give abstracts hereof to such of the commissioners as shall desire it."

This recommendation was generally respected, and scriptural knowledge and devotional feeling were thereby greatly promoted. These societies rapidly declined after "The Breach "*-an unhappy result of that unfortunate division, and greatly deplored by both parties. The Associate (Burgher) Synod attempted to counteract this declension by passing the following resolution at a meeting held in Stirling, October 1, 1754: "The Synod, considering the great decay of practical godliness and serious religion in the several corners of the Secession, and particularly the sinful and shameful absenting and withdrawing from social meetings for prayer and conference, which were formerly attended, to the edification of souls and honour of religion among the people of the Secession, the Synod therefore earnestly recommend to the people under their inspection, to set up and keep up society meetings for prayer, and to stir up one another to the practice of this duty, and appoint that this recommendation be intimated in the several congregations within their bounds, between and the next ordinary meeting of Synod, with suitable exhortations. Further, the Synod recommend to these societies to inquire, in the spirit of meekness, and in such a way as is competent to them, at any of the members of these meetings who are absent, and the grounds and reasons why they are so."

That some concomitant evils attended these societies cannot be denied, and need not be concealed. But these arose, not from the nature of the institutions themselves, but from the peculiar manner in which they were frequently conducted. It were to be wished that such societies were at present more numerous in our congregations than they now generally are. Under proper management they might become powerful incentives to religious inquiry and vital godliness, which, far more than numbers and wealth, constitute the strength of a congregation. "The holy seed shall be the substance thereof."

2. The Marrow Controversy.

It is allowed by all who have studied the subject, that "The Marrow Controversy" was one of the remote causes of the Secession, but authorities are not at one respecting the extent to which this cause operated. The late Rev. Dr M'Crie,† in his reported evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Church Patronage, said—“ I do not think the controversy had much influence on the Secession. The book is an English work of the seventeenth century, and in consequence of a minister of the Church of Scotland having put a recommendatory preface to a new edition of it, Professor Haddow of St Andrews laid a number of extracts from it before the General Assembly of 1720, which they pronounced erroneous. At the following Assembly (1721) twelve ministers gave in a Representation against that Act condenining 'The Marrow of Modern Divinity,' stating that they

The division of the Secession in 1747 into two branches-the Burghers and the Antiburghersoccasioned by a difference of opinion respecting the lawfulness of taking the Burgess Oath, which included a clause bearing on religion, which many Seceders could not conscientiously adopt.—Eds. + Dr Thomas M'Crie of Edinburgh, author of the Life of Knox, etc.—EDs.

"The Marrow of Modern Divinity," by Edward Fisher, A. M., of Brasenose College, Oxford, was published in 1646. The edition, which gave rise to the "Marrow Controversy," appeared in 1717, and the Preface was written by James Hog, minister of Carnock.-EDS.

did not intend to appear in defence of that book, or to defend every expression that was to be found in it, but they considered that the Assembly, in their Act condemning that book, had inadvertently thrown a reflection upon a number of Scripture doctrines, which they specified. Among the twelve ministers that signed that Representation, there were two who became Seceders thirteen years after that period; the other ministers who joined in forming the Secession had taken no part in the controversy."

In this statement the learned doctor overlooks the fact that the Secession was more a popular than a clerical movement, and that, though certain ministers took the lead in it, they were as much influenced by the people as the people by them. The Rev. Messrs Bathgate of Orwell, Boston of Ettrick, and Kid of Queensferry, three of the ministers who subscribed the Representation to the Assembly in reference to the decision against "The Marrow" (as the book was briefly called), had died before the Secession took place, and could not, therefore, be participators in it. A reference to the narratives in the sequel of this work, in which are detailed the rise of the first Secession congregations of Milnathort and Selkirk, will show that they were made up at their formation to a great extent of persons who had been reared under the ministry of Mr Bathgate and Mr Boston; and it is known that they were influenced in no small degree, in their accession to the associate Presbytery, by the sentiments they had imbibed during the controversy in which their ministers had actively engaged. There is no positive evidence that any of the parishioners of Queensferry joined the Secession at the commencement, but there is strong presumptive proof that several of them were included in "The Correspondence of West Lothian," out of which afterwards sprang the Secession congregations of Craigmaillen, Bathgate, Torphichen, Linlithgow, Bo'ness, and Mid-Calder, and that Mr Kid, though dead, had contributed to the formation of the Secession by the sentiments which he had advocated, and which were afterwards retained by several of his flock. The Rev. Ralph Erskine, as well as his brother Ebenezer, and the Rev. James Wardlaw, colleague of the former, were subscribers to the Representation mentioned by Dr M'Crie; and it is well known, not only that the first two were founders of the Secession, but also that great majorities of their former parishioners left the national Establishment with them. Of the remaining six subscribers to whom Dr M'Crie refers in the evidence quoted, clear indications are afforded in the succeeding part of this work, that though they did not secede themselves, their people did so in considerable numbers, and that several Secession congregations, if not wholly formed, were at least greatly enlarged by accessions from among them. Thus the congregation of Cairneyhill owes its origin in part to parishioners of Carnock, who had been trained under the ministry of Mr Hog, the leader of "The Marrow" controversy. The Associate congregation of Musselburgh was in part composed at first of persons belonging to the parish of Inveresk, who deserted Mr Williamson, then minister there, and one of "The Marrow" men, because he did not secede with the Erskines. The congregation of Stow was increased by members from the parish of Galashiels, of which Mr Davidson was minister, as was also the congregation of Midholm, from the parish of Lilliesleaf, over which Mr Hunter presided, for part of their members; while the now extinct congregation of Torphichen was, at its formation, largely made up of persons who had enjoyed the ministry of Mr Bonar, adhering out of respect to him to the Establishment while he lived, but passing over to the Secession after his death. The Rev. G. Wilson of Maxton, the only one of the twelve Representers of whose instrumentality in helping to bring about the Secession in the way described any

doubt is entertained, was himself virtually a seceder from the moment the Assembly condemned "The Marrow," inasmuch as he immediately afterwards formed a congregation upon Independent principles, built a place of worship for them in his parish, and ministered to them himself, at the same time retaining his incumbency in the Established Church.

There were other ministers besides the twelve named who advocated the same views, though withholding their names from the Representation to the Assembly; and it is a circumstance to be noted that the parishes over which they presided, in common with those already named, were the parishes from which the Associate Presbytery drew most largely, after those in which the founders of the Secession themselves resided. Thus the parish of South Leith, of which Mr Shaw was then minister, furnished many members to the Secession congregation of Bristo Street, Edinburgh; the parish of Bothkennar, over which Mr Lindsay presided, contributed largely to the formation of the first Secession congregation of Falkirk; and the first Secession congregation north of the Tay consisted at its formation of many persons who had been under the ministry of the Rev. Mr Willison, the highly popular minister of Dundee, who, with all his attractiveness, could not prevent his people from practically testifying against him in a matter in their estimation of vital importance, in which he seemed to succumb. It would carry us beyond our limits to trace the influence of "The Marrow" controversy to all the extent in which it operated directly and indirectly in originating the Secession. The cases adduced are sufficient to show that its influence was neither so limited nor so weak as some have supposed. That controversy was indeed settled, so far as the General Assembly could settle it, thirteen years before the Secession took place, but its influence was not thereby destroyed or arrested, but only confined within a narrower sphere, and, like all other compressed power, was augmented by its concentration. "The prevalence of error," as Mr Ferrier has well remarked in his Life of Wilson,* "brought the friends of evangelical truth among the clergy and laity into closer contact. Evangelical ministers confined their correspondence on sacramental occasions almost exclusively to each other; and the Christian people, by whom evangelical truth was most valued and relished, and by whom, from their intimate acquaintance with Scripture, it could very easily be distinguished from error, crowded to hear them. As they came from distant parts of the country, this encouraged the practice, less necessary now, of a multiplicity of week-day preachings, it being considered a hardship to the people to come so far without having their desire to hear the Gospel as fully as possible gratified, especially as many of them might not enjoy the same privileges at home. By such frequent intercourse, the distinction of party, which had long existed in the Church of Scotland, was more confirmed and became more visible. So much was this the case, that the Evangelical party, both of ministers and people, though in outward fellowship with the National Church, seemed to be but nominally united to her, and almost presented the anomalous appearance of a prospering Evangelical Church amidst surrounding error and declension."

3. Agitation Produced by the re-enactment of Patronage, and consequent Intrusion of Ministers upon Reclaiming Congregations.

Church patronage, which had been abolished in Scotland in 1690, was restored by Act of Parliament in 1712. The settlement of ministers by presentations was at

"Memoirs of the Rev. William Wilson, A. M., of Perth," by the Rev. Andrew Ferrier, Airdrie ; afterwards Dr Ferrier, President of Madison College, Pennsylvania, U.S.—EDS.

first very sparingly resorted to, and when so effected, the presentees were generally acceptable to the people. Even then, however, there were instances of the abuse of patronage, which caused disorder. So early as 1715 twenty-eight ministers, including Mr Ebenezer Erskine, subscribed "Reasons of Dissent" from the deed sanctioning such settlement, in which they pronounced patronage "subversive of the right of election belonging to Christian congregations by the Word of God." This paper was withdrawn, in consequence of the General Assembly addressing a memorial to Parliament on the subject the same year. But whilst asking the civil powers to abolish, or at least to modify patronage, the Assembly itself sanctioned the violent intrusion of ministers upon reclaiming congregations, and many of the vacancies occurring in the Church were filled up in this manner. During the three years immediately preceding that in which the Secession took place, the parishes of Balfron, Kinross, West Linton, and St Cuthbert's, Edinburgh, were settled in this way, and out of these settlements arose the Secession congregations of Holm of Balfron, Kinross, West Linton, and Bristo Street, Edinburgh. For, though they did not come into existence for some time after these took place, yet it was these settlements, and others of a kindred nature occurring in the same locality about the same time, that prompted the disaffection which at length led to their formation.

Previous to the year 1732 it had been the practice of many Presbyteries, when the patronages of parishes fell into their hands by the jus devolutum, to allow the people the choice of their pastors. The General Assembly of that year adopted an overture, having for its object the establishment of a uniform procedure by the whole Presbyteries of the Church in all such cases. The rule for this uniformity, however, was not the practice of those Presbyteries which had formerly waived their rights in favour of the people, but that of those which had restricted the right of election to elders and Protestant heritors in landward parishes, and to magistrates, town councillors, and heritors, in royal burghs—a rule which completely destroyed the little liberty the people had in the election of their pastors. A remonstrance against the injustice of this Act was subscribed by forty-two ministers, of whom eight afterwards became Seceders. But though the clerical seceding remonstrants were few, their lay adherents were many, and great numbers of them were furnished by the parishes of which the non-seceding remonstrants were ministers. Thus, portions of Mr M'Intosh's congregation in Errol, and Mr Coventry's in Kilspindie, helped to form the Secession congregation of Perth, from which the Secession congregation of Errol subsequently came. In like manner, adherents of Mr Laing of Newburgh, Thomson of Auchtermuchty, and Gillespie of Strathmiglo, increased the Secession congregation of Abernethy; and their representatives, along with others, subsequently formed the Secession congregations of Newburgh, Auchtermuchty, and Edenshead. So, also, adherents of Mr Currie of Kinglassie helped to form the Secession congregation of Leslie, as did those of Mr Stevenson of Glendevon, the Secession congregation of Muckart. Again, adherents of Messrs Drummond of Crieff, and Halley of Muthil, helped to form the Secession congregation of Kinkell, out of which sprang the Secession congregations of Crieff and Greenloaning. So of all the other parishes in which the non-seceding remonstrant ministers then resided.

It has been shown that the origin of many Secession congregations is traceable to causes operating anterior to the Secession itself, which causes would almost certainly, sooner or later, have produced a Secession of some kind, though the one which is the subject of our remarks had not taken place. The evidence of the

late Dr Cook of St Andrews,* before the Committee of the House of Commons on Church Patronage, confirms this remark. Having been asked "Whether the Secession, which actually took place in 1733, would have taken place at that time, if the question of patronage had not been one of the grounds of it?" he replied, “I think it exceedingly likely that it would not, at that particular time. But there might have been some other cause for it, and my opinion is, that, in the progress of the human mind, and in the progress of civilisation, there would have been a Secession, though not the particular Secession which was connected in its origin with that particular subject." In the progress of the human mind, and in the progress of civilisation, another Secession has taken place, and that from causes precisely similar to those which produced the first, modified only by a few particular circumstances. Reasoning after the manner of the venerable professor, we are led to the conclusion, that the further progress of the human mind, and the further progress of civilisation, will lead to other Secessions; and these causes, by their accumulated force, will bring about greater results than have ever yet been produced. It was a hundred years, speaking in round numbers, from the Reformation in Scotland till the adoption of the Solemn League and Covenant; it was a hundred years from the adoption of the Solemn League and Covenant till the rise of the Secession; it was a hundred years from the rise of the Secession till the Disruption of the Established and the formation of the Free Church, called by its friends "The Third Reformation." What the progress of the human mind, and the progress of civilisation, will achieve at the end of another century, must be left, we presume, to time to declare; for, notwithstanding the disposition of the age to prophesy, none of the seers have ventured to tell us what we may then expect in reference either to the Church of Scotland or any other of the religious sects supported by the State; but the present and more recent past seem to say, that in the course of that time we may expect changes in Church and State, unparallelled in their importance.

SECTION II.

CONGREGATIONS ORIGINATING AT ONCE IN THE SECESSION OF MINISTERS AND PEOPLE FROM THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.

The Rev. Ebenezer Erskine of Stirling preached a sermon before the Synod of Perth and Stirling, October 1732, in which he animadverted upon certain recent proceedings of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the course of defection he considered that Church to be then pursuing. For the sentiments thus expressed, censure was passed upon him. Against this censure, Mr Erskine protested, and was joined in his protest by the Rev. Messrs Wilson of Perth, Moncrieff of Abernethy, and Fisher of Kinclaven. The General Assembly 1733, to which the case was referred, ordered the four protesters to appear before their Commission in August following, "and then show their sorrow for their conduct and misbehaviour, in offering to protest, and, in case they should not retract, the Commission was empowered to suspend them from the exercise of their ministry." The protesters did not retract, and were suspended accordingly. At the meeting of the Commission in November of the same year, they were loosed from their respective charges. They met by agreement on the 5th December thereafter, at Gairney Bridge, near

Dr George Cook, Professor of Moral Philosophy in St Andrews, and the well-known leader of the Moderates during the Non-intrusion Controversy.—EDS.