"1. As it is a matter of great importance to swear b}' the great name of God, so the utmus-t caution should be taken to ascertain the lawfulness of any oath which we are required to take ; and it is the duty of ministers and Church courts to give direction and warning to their peo- ple in such cases, especially when the oath embraces a pro- fession of religion, and more especially when the persons required to take it are already under the obligation of an- other oath sanctioning an explicit profession of religion, in consequence of which they may be in danger of involv- ing themselves in contradictory engagements. 2. We can- not be understood as objecting to tiie clause in question on account of its requiring an adherence to the true re- ligion, and in an abstract view of it as determined by the standard of the Scriptures (if it could be understood in that seuse). in opposition to the Komish, which is renounced, or an adherence to the Confession of Faith, and any part of the standards compiled for uniformity in the former Reformation, so far as these are still approved of by the acts of the Church of Scotland, and auihorized by the laws. In these respects we account the RevoUuion settle- ment and the present laws a privilege, and agree to all which the Associate Presbytery thankfully expressed in commendation of them in their Testimony, and in the declaration and defence of their principles concerning the present civil government. 3. The profession of re- ligion required by the burgess-o;Uh is of a ditlei-ent kind. If this were not the case, and if it referred only to the true religion in the abstract, and every swearer were left to un- derstand this according to his own views, the oath would not serve the purpose of a test, nor answer the design of the imposer. The Romish religion is specially renounced ; but there is also a positive part in the clause, specifying the religion professed in this realm and authorized by the laws of the laud ; while the word preseatlii will not admit of its applying to any profession different from that which is made and authorized at the time when the oath is sworn. 4. The profession of the true religion made by Seceders, agreeing with that which was made in this country and authorized by the laws between 1638 and 1650, is different from, and in some important points in- consistent with that profession which is presently made by the nation and authorized by the laws of the land. The judicial Testimony finds fault with the natioual profession and settlement made at the Revolution, both materially and formally considered, and condemns the state for excluding, in its laws authorizing religion, the divine right of presbytery and the intrinsic power of the Church — two special branches of the glorious leadership of the Redeemer over his spiritual kingdoms— and for leaving the covenanted reformation and the covenants under rescissory laws; while it condemns the Church for not asserting these important parts of religion and reformation. On these grounds we cannot but look upon the religious clause in question as inconsistent with the secession Testimony ; and accordingly must disapprove of the decision of the synod commentling the swearing of it by Seceders. 5. As that which brought matters to an ex- tremity, and divided the body, was a vote declaring that all might swear that oath, while at the same time it was coudemued as unlawful, we cannot help being of opinion that this held out a dangerous precedent to Church courts to give a judicial toleration or allowance to do what they declare to be sinful; but, provided this were disclaimed, and proper measures taken to prevent the oath from be- ing sworn in the body for the future, and as the use of the oath has been laid aside in most burghs, we wt>uld hope that such an arrangement may be made, so far as regards this question, as will be at ouce agreeable to truth and not hurtful to the conscience of any. With respect to the censures which were inflicted, and which had no small in- fluence in embittering the dispute, we think it sufficient to say that they were transient acts of indiscipline, and that no approbation of them was ever required from min- isters or people. If any difference of opinion as to the nature or effects of Church censure exist, it may be re- moved by an amicable conference."
At the formation of the United Secession Church, in 1820, by the union of the "Associate (Burgher) Synod" and tlie " General Associate (Antil)urgher) Synod," a number of ministers belonging to the latter body pro- tested against the Basis of Union, and nine of them formed themselves into a separate court, under the name of Associate Synod. This body of Protesters, as they were generally called, having merged themselves, in 1827, in the body which took the name of the Synod of Original Seceders, it was only liclitting that the'L'es- timony then issued should speak in decided language on the defects of the Basis of Union, which led the Protest- ers to occupy a separate position. Dr. IM'Cric accord- ingly tlius details the chief points protested against :
" 1. The Basis is not laid on an adherence to the cov-