The English acted upon this occafion upon the fame principle, and are entitled to the fame excufe as the commander of a fortrefs who deftroys the fuburbs, and who would be militarily inexcufable if he did not do it. The author believes that the inhabitants of Crabbendam were indemnified.

"As to the cruelties which General Brune imputes to the English, the author can affirm that no act of this kind nor any pillage was com→ mitted in the villages into which they entered, fuch as the Langedike, Warmenhuyfen, Schoreldam, and all that part of the country over which the corps of General Abercromby marched. On the right the troops were fo mixed, and the villages were fo often taken and retaken, that probably fome exceffes were committed in the heat of action, But it is probable, that the blame attaches as much to the French as to the Ruffians."

In the concluding chapter a mafterly review of the campaign is given, and the conduct of the Commander in Chief, in the execution of the plan, as well as that of the authors of it in projecting it, is fully juftified. The following accurate eftimate of the lofs of the Allies moft effectually remove all doubts, and filence all clamour on that head.

"In recapitulating the lofs of the English in the five different actions, it will appear that the total of officers and foldiers killed, amounted to 540; of wounded 2,761; and of miffing 1,340. Upon calculations made, and on which we believe we can rely, only one man in 70 of the wounded died. The whole then of those killed on the field of battle, or who died of their wounds, is 579, that is to fay, much less than have been loft in a fingle action, more than forty times in the courfe of the war. With refpect to prifoners, as always happens, a great number of thofe put down as fuch in the returns made immediately after the action, returned to their colours.

"The Ruffians landed 17,000 men: nearly 15,000, including the wounded, re-imbarked. They loft then very little more than 2,000 men in killed and prifoners. We fee, therefore, that the lofs of the Allies in both these respects did not exceed 4,000; and from information received, we have reafon to believe, that the lofs of the enemy of the fame defcription was not lefs. The author has already in the preceding volumes had occafion to fhew how much fmaller (happily for humanity) the number of men killed in war is, than the hafty estimates of the public and of gazetteers represent them to be."

There are four large and most accurate maps of the theatre of war annexed to the book, with an appendix containing all the official documents, including fome never before published. The tranflation is, in general, correct, though fome few gallicifms occafionally occur, particularly in rendering into Englifh the compound paft tenfes of French verbs; an error common to all translators, with very few exceptions indeed.

Addrefs of the Affociate Synod, to the People under their charge, refpecting the prefent Difference on the Subject of the Preamble to the Formula. 8vo. PP. 27. 4d. Pillans. Edinburgh. 1799.

The New Light Examined; or, Obfervations on the Proceedings of the Affociate Synod, against their own Standards. By William Porteous, D. D. 8vo. Pr. 56. Glasgow. Printed by D. Niven. 1800.

A Defence of the Affociate Synod, against the Charge of Sedition, addreffed to W. Porteous, D. D. By James Peddie, Minifter of the Affociate Congregation of Brifto-Street, Edinburgh. 8vo. PP. 78. Edinburgh. Printed by J. Ritchee. 1800.

N order to enable ourselves to judge of the merit, views, and tendency of these three pamphlets, we have taken the trouble to enquire into the hiftory of the fect to which they refer. As this hiftory will be new to most of our readers on this fide of the Tweed, and is neceffary to make the pamphlets intelligible, we will give it as fairly and diftinctly as we can.

From the establishment of Presbytery in Scotland, foon after the revolution to the year 1732, all the Prefbyterians were members of the established church. They acknowledged the Westminster confeffion of Faith as the standard which contained the doctrines of their creed, and prescribed their rules and forms in church government. The election of Minifters to vacant charges which, on the charge of the constitution of the national church, had been lodged in the hands of the heritors of the parish, and elders of the Kirk feffion* was, in 1712, abolished by act of Parliament, and bestowed upon thofe patrons who had formerly exercised that privilege. Patronage

* The Kirk feffion is a court compofed of the minifter of the parish, and a number of laymen called elders and deacons. The office of the elders, in many refpects, refembles that of our church-wardens; but the elder has a kind of fpiritual jurifdiction over his portion of the parish, which the church-warden has not. We believe he has a right to infpect the morals of the people, and to make his report to the minifter and other elders affembled in feffion; and by the vote of the majority it is decided whether the perfon accufed is to be admitted to the Lord's fupper or repelled from it. If we be not mifinformed, the minister has no vote in the decifion of these queftions except when the lay-elders are equally divided in opinion. We

do

tronage after this period was often complained of in Scotland as a grievance; but no formal oppofition was made to it till the year 1732. In that year a petition was presented against it to the General Affembly of the Church fubfcribed by more than forty clergymen. But the Affembly having no authority to repeal or alter a law made by the Parliament of Great Britain, rejected the petition. This conduct of the Affembly gave great offence. It was afferted that patronage deprived many individuals of their natural right to choose their own pastors; that it was prejudicial to the honour of the church, to the edification of the people, and contrary to the appointment of Jefus Chrift, and the practice of the Apoftles. Ab-. furd as thefe opinions muft appear to all who have studied the Scriptures and the hiftory of the church, one man appeared who was bold enough to attack the Affembly in an open and violent manner for not perceiving their truth. This was Ebenezer Erskine, one of the minifters of Stirling. In a fermon, which he preached in 1732, at the opening of the Synod of Perth and Stirling, he inveighed against the conduct of the General Affembly, and alleged that it was contrary to the word of God, and to the conftitution of the church. This public attack on the fupreme judicatory of the church naturally excited the indignation of the Synod; they ordered Mr. Erskine to be rebuked and admonished from the chair. Against this fentence he protefted, and appealed to the next General Affembly, which was to meet in May, 1733. The General Affembly affirmed the fentence of the Synod; but, instead of submitting to it, Mr. Erfkine acted in a very extraordinary manner. He protefted against the conduct of the General Affembly, from which there can be no appeal to any. court upon earth, and declared that as his conduct was agreeable to the word of God, and the ftandards of the church, he would ftill confider himself as at liberty to preach the fame truths on every proper occafion. As this was direct difobedience, and, indeed, offering open defiance to the authority of the church, had the Affembly immediately proceeded to fufpend Mr. Erfkine, they would have done nothing but what the honour and peace of the church required them to do. Intead of this, however, they acted with the most indulgent

do not precifely know what are the powers of the Scotch deacons, but we believe that though they have a right to be prefent, they have no vote in the feffion. Their office has certainly very little refemblance to that of St. Stephen and St. Philip as stated in the Acts of the Apostles, or to the office of deacons in the church of England, and we are informed that they are generally uneducated men.

lenity.

Jenity. They appointed a committee to confer with Mr. Erfkine, and three other clergymen who adhered to him, in order to prevail upon them to withdraw their proteft. They refufed to withdraw it. But the Affembly still unwilling to punish them for difobedience, gave them more than two months to confider the matter; at the fame time enjoining their commiffion,* which was to meet in Auguft following, to fufpend them from the exercise of their miniftry, if they did not then comply. The commiffion met, but the four clergymen were still inflexible, and accordingly were fufpended, and cited to appear before the next meeting of the commiffion in November. All this indulgence rendered them more obftinate. They were, therefore, removed from their respective charges, and their churches declared vacant. They now protested that their minifterial office fhould be held as valid, as if no fuch sentence had paffed, and that though they were obliged to make a feceffion from the prevailing party in the church courts, they would still continue to preach the gospel according to the word of God, and the established principles of the church of Scotland. Thus, it appears that Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, and his adherents, confidered themselves as the true church, who were obliged to abandon the corrupted Babylon, which was now required by an act of parliament to oppose the word of God, and the rules which itself, in its pureft ftate, had wifely adopted!

Notwithstanding the very difrefpectful and rebellious conduct of thofe clergymen who had feceded, the General Affembly, which met in May, 1734, displayed a degree of clemency, perhaps unparalleled in ecclefiaftical courts. They' empowered the Synod of Perth and Stirling, to receive the ejected minifters into the church, and to restore them to their respective charges. But, because the General Affembly had not thought it proper to acknowlege the injuftice of their former decifions, thofe clergymen would not condefcend to accept as a favour what they deemed themfelves entitled to demand as a right. They, therefore, fpurned at the mild offers of the Affembly, erected for themselves a new church under the guidance of what they termed the Affociated Pref bytery. They publifhed, by way of manifefto, what they called an act, declaration, and teftimony, in favour of the doctrines and worship of the church of Scotland, and in oppofition to the notorious defections, which learning and wisdom had intro

*By commiffion is here meant a committee of the Affembly. The word in this fenfe is, perhaps, not English; but we ufe the legal language of the church of Scotland.

duced.

duced. Hitherto they were only fufpended from the exercise of their functions; but for their contumacy they were, in 1740, folemnly degraded, or, in the ecclefiaftical language of Scotland, depofed from the holy ministry.

This depofition they defpifed, and had even the addrefs, by pleading the merits of fuffering, to convert it to their advantage: but in the year 1747, a grievous convulfion took place, which rent their infant fociety into two parts. The inhabitants of Burghs, in Scotland, are obliged, upon certain occafions, to take an oath by which they acknowlege the religion authorized by the laws of the kingdom, to be the true religion, and promife to defend it, and to renounce the Roman Catholic religion. About the true import of this oath, the feceders differed widely in opinion. One party contended that it contains nothing contrary to the principles upon which: the feceffion was made, and that every feceder may fwear it with a fafe confcience; whilft the other party affirmed that no feceder could fwear it, without virtually renouncing his act and teftimony. The former of these parties were called burgher, and the latter, antiburgher feceders; and each party, claiming to itself the lawful conftitution of the Affociate Synod, the antiburghers, after feveral previous fteps, excommunicated the burghers, and with great folemnity delivered them over to Satan!! Ever fince this period the feceders have continued in feparate communions. Befides their different views of the nature of the Burghefs oath, they foon contrived to introduce other fubjects of contention, to render the breach wider and wider. The Antiburghers having adopted different ideas from the Burghers with respect to what they call covenanting, renew, occafionally, in their feveral congregations, the Scottish national covenant, and the folemn league and covenant; whilst the Burghers, though they acknowlege covenanting to be a moral duty, and confider the folemn vows of their ancestors as obligatory on themselves, have never renewed either of the two covenants fince their feparation from their brethren, alledging that this is not the proper season for engaging in fuch a work! After this fhort hiftory of the feceders, which we give upon evidence, which no feceder we are fure will deny, we are now prepared to examine the pamphlets to which our attention has been called by a refpectable correfpondent. They relate to the Burgher feceders only; and the proceedings which gave occafion to them, we trace back.to May, 1795. A petition. was then prefented to the Affociate Synod, by one Mr. Frazer, in which it was ftated that their ftandards taught doctrines respecting the power of the magiftrate in matters of religion, which he was afraid fome of their members did not believe.

In