imprisonment, and having the meeting houfe fhut up." This act, had it been execute, would have put a stop to many of the erroneous Jacobite preachers; but not being execute against them, they ftill went on in diffeminating many Popish errors through the land.

2. The Parliament enacted, That presentations given by patrons to vacant churches fhall be of no effect, if the perfon prefented do not accept or declare his willingness to accept of the prefentation given him. By which act the parliament put it (as it were) in the church's power, to eafe herself of the great grievance of patronage; which was ground of joy to many: for, at that time, it was generally thought that this limitation was equivalent to plain repealing of the patronage act, and that no Prefbyterian would ever exprefsly declare his accepting of a prefentation, or go fo far to approve or comply with patronage, which Prefbyterians had always declared a heavy yoke and burden on the church of God. And accordingly there was no man that prefumed to take, accept, or make ufe of, a presentation to a church for several years after this act was paft; and fo the church was easy, and continued to fettle vacant churches upon the call of congregations, without any moleftation from patrons.

During this lucid interval, the church feemed to turn fecure, as if fhe feared no danger from the acceptance of presentations; and therefore was at no pains to fhut or bar the door against fuch acceptances. Had this been done, the church was effectually delivered by the forefaid favourable act from the yoke of patronage. Now was the proper juncture for our Affemblies to have made a new declaration, in corroboration of what former Affemblies had done, concerning the woful corruption and evil confequences of patronage; and to have warned all the members of this church of the evil of encouraging or promoting the fame, and particularly all minifters and preachers, of the fin and danger of complying with this corruption, by accepting of prefentations; efpecially feeing there was no law requiring it as neceffary, but, by the late act of Parliament, an open door was left for their entering into churches in a gofpel

a gofpel-way, if they pleased to chufe and accept of it. No doubt, if things had been fet in fuch clear light by our General Affemblies, the authority of the church would have restrained these woful acceptances. But, alas! while the church flept, the enemy was bufy sowing his tares, and prompting some to devife fubtile conditional acceptances, wherein they might disapprove of patronages, and declare for Prefbyterian principles with refpect to the peoples rights; yet, in the mean time, take fuch hold of the ftipend prefented to, that another could not make a legal title to it. When this was

complained of to fuperior judicatories, fome leading men, alas were found to patronize thefe acceptors, till at length they proceeded to the most open and barefaced acceptances. For thefe practices, indeed, fome preachers were cenfured and filenced, but they were reponed by fuperior courts; whereby at length acceptances went on without controul. So that, by fuch defections, the yoke of patronage is faster wreathed upon the church than ever, and her condition under it more lamentable than in any former period: for in former times all honeft men groaned under patronage as a burden; and though they were prefented by patrons to churches, yet they neither faid nor wrote any thing in favours of the patron's deed, but filently fubmitted the prefbyteries proceeding to their fettlement, when they had the parishes concurring in it: but, alas! by fuch active written acceptances as now in ufe, the whole church fhall, in procefs of time, be involved in approv ing of patronages, in fuch a way as was never done by the church of Scotland since the reformation.

Wherefore we judge it the duty of all the lovers of truth and purity in the church of God, to bear open teftimony against the yoke of patronage, and the acceptance of prefentations, as we hereby defire to do, efpecially feeing they have been productive of fuch dreadful evils in this church of late years.

It is well known, that the church of Scotland hath, ever fince her reformation, remonftrated against patronages, and afferts, in her 2d book of Discipline, chap. 12. That patronages have flowed from the pope, and the

corruption

corruption of the canon law; and the intruding of perfons this way into churches, hath no ground in the word of God, but is contrary thereto, &c. Likewise the Parliament 1649, in their act abolishing patronage, do fay, It is an evil and bondage under which the Lord's people and ministers have long groaned; and that it is a cuftom popifh, brought into the church in times of ignorance and fuperftition; and that it is contrary to the 2d book of Difcipline, &c. Alfo the Affemblies 1712 and 1715, give plain teftimonies against patronages to the fame purpose, and affert, That they lay a foundation for Simoniacal pactions, and many other evils. To thefe teftimonies we do adhere, and likewffe fhall add fome further reafons against patronages:

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

2. Patronage is alfo contrary to the practice of the primitive and pureft ages of the church, and was not known in the church until true religion and Christianity began to decline, and then it came in gradually with other Popish corruptions and abuses. We find Cyprian, Athanafius, the apoftolical conftitutions, with many ancient councils and fathers, declaring in the plainest terms for the free liberty and power of the church to chufe her own paftors, without any extrinfic influence whatfomever.

3. As it is difagreeable to scripture and antiquity, fo it is contrary to reafon, and to the intereft and fafety. of the church, that the power of chufing her pastors should at any time be lodged in the hands of heretics and profane men, as frequently the right of patronage is, being conveyed to them with their earthly inheri

tances.

tances.

Can there be any thing more unreasonable and abfurd, than that the power of chufing officers to the church, fhould fall into the hands of the declared enemies of the church! or that this power, which is a fpiritual and ecclefiaftical privilege, fhould be conveyed, difponed, fold, or bought with money, like other civil rights or heritages, and fo be lodged frequently with infidels and the worst of men.

4. For patrons to impofe minifters upon Chriftian congregations, is a plain encroachment upon the natural rights of mankind, and upon the laws of free focieties; as much as it would be for them to impofe phyficians and lawyers upon focieties, to take care of their bodies. or eftates. The churches of Christ are as free focieties as any in the world, having their liberties from Chrift to chufe their own paftors; and ought not to be brought in bondage to any in this matter.

5. It is a cruel impofition to oblige focieties of men, who duly value their immortal fouls, and would place them under proper fpiritual guides, to entrust the edification, comfort, and eternal concerns of these precious fouls, to the care of patrons; many whereof are indifferent about the concerns of their own fouls, being negligent, erroneous, or profane; and fo are not like to be much concerned to choofe proper paftors to take inspection of the fouls of others. How can ferious

Christians be easy who it be that choose their pastors, or those who know that patrons cannot fecure them against the bad confequences of a wrong choice, nor be refponfible for their fouls at the great day?

Laftly, Patronage, by long experience, has been found to be an open door for a corrupt miniftry to enter into the church: and this is fadly exemplified in thofe churches where this corruption doth reign without controul.

Upon all which accounts, we judge it our duty to bear teftimony against the ufurpation of patronage, as moft finful in itself, and injurious to the church of God; and to pray that God may open the eyes of all patrons, that they may be convinced and repent of it, and ceafe from oppreffing Chrift's church any more.

And

And as we bear teftimony against patrons and their ufurpation, so we judge ourselves bound to testify against all those who encourage and voluntarily comply with this finful ufurpation, and particularly by accepting or declaring their willingness to accept of prefentations from patrons, which, alas! is now become the common practice; and, being fo common and general, both preachers and 'people are like to lofe all fenfe of the evil of it. But that these acceptances are finful, and provoking to a holy God, is evident from these confiderations:

1. If a patron be guilty of a finful ufurpation over the church of God, in fpoiling her of the right the hath from Chrift to choose her own officers (as certainly he is) then the accepter of a prefentation doth become partner with the patron in his fin, by homologating his ufurped power, and ftrengthening him in it. Now, the fcripture exprefsly forbids us to be "partakers of

other mens fins."

2. As the law now ftands, the accepter is more guilty of robbing the church of her right than the patron is for the Legiflature have been fo tender of the church by their act 1719, as to put it abfolutely in the power of minifters and preachers to accept or reject the ufurpation of patronage as they please; fo that a patron can give no trouble to the church, if he be not encour aged and affifted in it by an accepter. His presentation would be but like a dead ferpent, altogether lifeless and harmless to the church, if an accepter did not come and infpire it with life, and put a fting in it. Though patronage be a grievous ufurpation and burden on the church, yet it is now fo limited and tied up in Scotland by law, that the church would not feel the burden of it, if it were not pulled down upon her by accepting prefentees; fo that now the accepters are properly the cppreffors of the church of Chrift. If Chrift condemns the Pharifees for "binding heavy burdens, grievous to be born, and laying them upon other mens fhoulders;" how condemnable muft accepters of prefentations be, who bind fuch a grievous burden as patronage on the fhoulders of Chrift's church?