Biography From "Scottish Divines"
EBENEZER ERSKINE was born on the 22nd of June 168o. Until
lately the place of his birth has been a matter either of assertion or
conjecture. Most of his biographers, blindly following Chalmers, have asserted
not only that he was born in the prison of the Bass, but that from the Bass
Rock he got the name of Ebenezer, which signifies a stone of help or
remembrance. This assertion long passed unchallenged, from the fact that his
father, the Rev. Henry Erskine (a man of singular piety who had been for some
time a Presbyterian minister in the north of England, and who had with the
other Puritans been ejected by the Act of Conformity) had after his retirement
to Dryburgh, been subjected to various persecutions, and sentenced to
imprisonment in the Bass. In the best
life of Erskine, published by the Rev. D. Fraser in 1831, it was clearly
proved, not only that this sentence was not passed until two years after
Ebenezers birth, but that it was never carried into effect, - he being
reprieved, on promising to leave the kingdom. Mr. Fraser, from a comparison of
dates, conjectured that he was born at Dryburgh, although he could not speak
with certainty. The matter has, within the last few years, been put beyond a
doubt, by the discovery of a small MS. notebook by Henry Erskine, in which
there occurs the following entry: Ebenezer, was born June 22nd, being
Tuesday, at one oclock in the morning, and was baptised by Mr. Gab.
Semple, July 24th, being Saturday, in my dwelling-house in Dryburgh 1680.
His earlier years were spent at Chirnside, of which parish his father
became minister, soon after the Revolution in 1688. He does not seem to have
distinguished himself at school or college. At the age of fourteen he entered
the University of Edinburgh, taking his degree of M.A. in 1697. He was licensed
to preach the Gospel by the presbytery of Kirkcaldy in February 1702. On the
22d of September 1703 he was ordained minister of Portmoak on a call
given him by the heritors and elders of that parish, as the minute of his
ordination bears, no objection being brought against his life or
doctrine. At first he was by no means attractive as a preacher; for, as
he committed his sermons to memory, he was in such dread of forgetting what he
had learned, that he kept his eyes constantly fixed on one spot of the church
wall, and this occasioned an embarrassment in manner and a frequent hesitation
in speech.
About two years after his settlement at Portmoak, however, he
got clearer and more enlarged views of the Gospel, as well as an experimental
acquaintance with its power in his own soul; and from that moment all
constraint in manner and all hesitation in speech departed - he spoke out of
the abundance of his heart; Christ crucified became the sum and substance of
his teaching, - he became in the best sense an attractive preacher, -
attracting men to that Saviour, whom he regarded it as his greatest glory to
proclaim. Not merely did his own parishioners attend diligently on his
ministrations, and crowd his little church, whenever it was open, either for
Thursday lecture or Sunday sermon; but many came from other parishes to enjoy
his pulpit services. At communion seasons especially, Portmoak became one of
the great centres of religious attraction. They came from all quarters, in
thousands, - some travelling a distance even of sixty miles; and an entry in
one of his note-books, while he was minister at Portmoak, refers to ordering
wine for 2067 communicants.
During the whole period of his ministry there,
his labours were abundant, and discharged not only with most exemplary
diligence and fidelity, but with most encouraging success. There are few
biographies from the study of which ministers may learn more ; - for none of us
can peruse the record of his parochial duties, without feeling how far short we
come, both of what we may, and what we ought to do. During his ministry at
Portmoak, five invitations were given him to remove to other parishes; yet it
is scarcely correct to say that he remained there for eight-and-twenty years
notwithstanding several strong attempts to remove him to larger
spheres. One of these calls he declined, but two at least he would have
gladly accepted, although they came only from heritors and elders,
had not the Presbytery, Synod, and Assembly interposed. At last in the year
1731 he accepted a call to Stirling, where he continued to labour with
undiminished zeal, acceptance, and success almost to the very close of his
life. His last sermon was preached from his bed to a company assembled in his
room, where he baptized a child, after discoursing on a text with which he had
particularly wished to finish his ministry, viz. Ps. xlviii. 14, This God
is our God for ever and ever, he will be our guide even unto death. He
died at Stirling on the 2d of June 1754, in the seventy-fourth year of his age
and in the fifty-first year of his ministry.
It would be a far more
congenial task to devote this entire lecture to his Christian life and
ministerial labours, than to follow him into the thorny paths of controversy;
but as it is only in these paths that he can be regarded as one of the
Scottish Divines, I must now contemplate him as a controversialist.
While the embers of some of these controversies have died out, those of others
are merely smouldering, and ready to be fanned into a flame by the slightest
breath. I shall therefore endeavour as far as possible to avoid expressing
opinions, and shall content myself with being a narrator, - claiming only this
qualification, that I have carefully investigated the original sources of
information, have taken nothing merely at secondhand or from hostile quarters,
and have confined myself strictly to ascertained facts.
I shall now
consider Ebenezer Erskine -
(i.) as a Marrow man;
(2.) as an advocate
of popular claims; and
(3.) as the Father of the Secession.
1. AS A
MARROW MAN. The Marrow men received their names, from the prominence which
they gave in their preaching to the doctrines contained in a book called The
Marrow of Modern Divinity. Its author, Edward Fisher, was neither a
Puritan soldier in the time of the Commonwealth, as some have asserted,
nor a poor illiterate barber, as others have alleged, but a Master
of Arts of Oxford; and distinguished among the learned of his time for his
great reading in ecclesiastical history, and in the Fathers, and for his
admirable skill in the Greek and Hebrew languages. The first part was
originally published in England in the year 1646, and the second part (of which
Caryl says, the marrow of the second bone is like that of the first,
sweet and good) in 1648. It was utterly unknown in Scotland until Boston,
the well-known author of the Fourfold State and The Crook in the Lot, came upon
a copy of it, which had been brought from England in his knapsack by an old
soldier of the Commonwealth. Having purchased it from the owner, he digested
its doctrine and began to preach it.
Some years afterwards, when the
doctrines of grace were obscured by a decision of the General Assembly, Boston
mentioned The Marrow to one of the ministers, as a book which stated
clearly,and defended strongly, the doctrines which had been condemned. A copy
was with difficulty procured, and soon republished, with a recommendatory
preface by Mr. Hog, the minister of Carnock. It was eagerly read by all, but
heartily denounced by many who were very influential in the Church. A host of
polemical treatises appeared on both sides. In 1720, a Committee who had
examined The Marrow gave in a report to the Assembly, in which, from a
collection of passages taken here and there, and apart from the context, they
accused the book of containing the following unscriptural doctrines: (i) that
assurance is of the essence of faith; (2) that the atonement of Christ is
universal ; (3) that holiness is not necessary to salvation; (4) that the fear
of punishment and the hope of reward are not allowed to be proper motives of a
believers obedience ; that the believer is not under the law as a rule of
life. It will be evident to any one who carefully examines the book, that
unguarded and incautious though many of its statements are, these five
doctrines are not taught in it.
Nevertheless the Assembly Passed the
following act : - The General Assembly do hereby strictly prohibit and
discharge all the ministers of this Church, either by preaching, writing, or
printing, to recommend the said book, or in discourse to say anything in favour
of it; but, on the contrary, they are hereby enjoined and required to warn and
exhort their people, into whose hands the said book is or may come, not to
read, or use the same. The result of this decision, as might have been
expected, was a much more extensive circulation of the Marrow; and when men
contrasted the severity of this sentence with the leniency with which ministers
and professors had been treated, who held Arian, Socinian, and Pelagian
opinions, there was cause for fear lest the distinctive doctrines of the gospel
should be utterly ignored.
A draft by Boston was intrusted to Erskine, who
was authorised to prepare a representation on the subject, which was signed by
twelve ministers (who in consequence received the names of the
Representers or the Marrow men) and laid before the Assembly.
In it the representers express their sorrow that the Assembly by their
condemnatory act had condemned, or greatly obscured, the following precious
truths: That the gospel, strictly viewed, contains neither precepts nor
threatenings, but is merely a declaration of the glad tidings of salvation that
in it God makes a gift of Christ as a Saviour, to sinners of mankind as such,
warranting every one who hears the gospel to believe on Him for
salvation; that saving faith includes personal appropriation and assurance;
that believers are entirely freed from the law as a covenant of works, though
not as the law of Christ; and that the servile fear of hell, and hope of heaven
as a reward, something due to our works, are not the proper motives to
Evangelical and acceptable obedience.
Their representation was
referred to the Commission, who recommended the Assembly to adhere to their
former Act, and to censure the representers for their conduct. The Assembly
accordingly reaffirmed the Act of 1720 in a very lengthy document, and ordered
the twelve brethren to be rebuked and admonished. They submitted to this
rebuke, merely protesting by the hands of a notary. The doctrines of the
Marrow, however, were neither refuted nor destroyed; but spread throughout
Scotland, and became the source of spiritual life to many a soul; and,
unguarded and exaggerated though many of its statements are, and by no means to
be received without qualification, there are few books so worthy of
republication even now, or which would be more likely, under God, to
counterract the negative theology which is at present so prevalent. We owe, in
this nineteenth century, a deep debt of gratitude to those twelve brave men who
contended so earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.
Scarcely
was this controversy ended, when he was called on to engage in another, which,
though more protracted, was less important; and we have now to consider
him,
II. AS THE ADVOCATE OF POPULAR CLAIMS. The treatment which
Erskine and his friends had experienced at the hands of the dominant party did
not predispose them to look with favour on its procedure generally, and it
merely required an occasion, to make a rupture inevitable. This occasion was
furnished by an overture of the Assembly of 1731 regarding the election of
ministers. As in the course of this controversy Erskine asserted, in
unqualified terms, the divine right of the people at large to elect their own
ministers, it is necessary before entering on its consideration to give a brief
summary of the history of patronage in the Church of Scotland. The First Book
of Discipline, drawn up hastily, when the government of the Church was
confessedly semi-episcopal, distinctly says that it appertaineth to the
people and to every several congregation to elect their own ministers.
This Book never was sanctioned by law, and was superseded in 1578 by the
Second Book of Discipline. In it the election of a minister is declared to be
by the judgment of the -eldership (Presbytery) and consent of the
congregation. In 1592, in the Act which established the Presbyterian form
of church-government - an Act which was hailed by
Melville and others as securing beyond
expectation the liberties of the true kirk - patronage was
distinctly recognised; for Presbyteries were bound and astricted to
receive and admit whatsomever qualified minister, presented by his Majesty or
other laic patron. It is a long time before we find the people
complaining of this Act as a grievance, although there are various indications
of the clergy desiring to secure the right of patronage for their own order.
That patronage existed during the period which followed, and when Episcopacy
was for a time in the ascendant, needs no proof; but when Episcopacy was
overturned in 1638, and when the Church was not only established but supreme,
so far from the famous covenanted Assembly of Glasgow proposing the abolition
of patronage, it merely renewed the Act of Assembly 1595, to the effect that
none seek presentations to benefices without advice of the Presbytery
within the bounds of which the benefice is.
Patronage continued to be
exercised during the years that followed, and often without much regard to the
wishes of the people; and in 1649 an Act was passed by the Scottish Estates
abolishing patronage, enacting that, in the election of ministers, presbyteries
were to proceed upon the suit and calling, or with the consent of the
congregation, on whom none is to be obtruded against their will; and it
was recommended to the next Assembly to determine what is the
congregation having interest, and to condescend upon a certain standing way for
being a settled rule in all time coming. The Church, so far from
conferring the right of election upon the people at large, merely transferred
the choice from the patron to the kirk-session, giving indeed to the people a
full liberty of objecting ; but reserving to the presbytery a power to settle
the person elected, even though the congregation were dissatisfied, if they
determined that the opposition resulted from causeless prejudice, and enjoining
moreover that in the event of the Church courts considering a congregation
disaffected or malignant, the Presbytery should provide them with a
minister.
Troublous times succeeded, and this Act, during the twelve
years it was in force previous to the Restoration, did not render them more
tranquil. Episcopacy was again established, and Presbyterianism was thoroughly
disorganised. At the Revolution of 1688, Presbytery was re-established, and
almost immediately thereafter patronage reappeared. The terms of the Revolution
Settlement in 1690, a Settlement to which the Church has ever since referred as
the charter of her rights and liberties, admit of no dispute: Their
Majesties, with the consent of the Estates of Parliament, do statute and
declare that in case of the vacancy of any particular Church, and for supplying
the same with a minister, the heritors of the said parish (being Protestants)
and the elders, are to name and propose the person to the whole congregation,
to be either approven or disapproven by them; and if they disapprove, that the
disapprovers give their reasons, to the effect that the affair may be cognosced
upon by the Presbytery of the bounds, at whose judgment, and by whose
determination the calling and entry of a particular minister is to be ordered
and concluded.
It was further provided that the heritors and
life-renters of each parish, and the town-councils for burghs, should pay to
the patron, on or before Martinmas 1690, the sum of 6oo merks (6s. 8d.) as a
compensation for his being deprived of the right of presentation. To enforce
the mutual rights of parties under the Act, diligence was competent after the
said term, at the instance of the patron against the heritors for payment of
the 6oo merks, and at the instance of such of their number as were ready to
pay, against recusants, as well as against patrons who were unwilling to accept
of the said sum. Seeing that the right of patronage was originally acquired by
the building of a church, or granting money to endow a church, or giving ground
for a church, on which one was afterwards built, it was only just that a small
sum should be paid to patrons when they were deprived of this right. Had the
money been paid, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to impose the
yoke of patronage again upon the neck of the Church; for pith the sum of 6oo
merks each congregation in Scotland would have purchased its freedom. So far,
however, from this being the case, notwithstanding the anti-patronage clamour,
only three parishes, during the twenty-one years that this Act was in
operation, availed themselves of its provisions to secure the full and formal
renunciation of the patronage of the patrons. There were during the same period
upwards of a hundred cases of disputed settlements, arising chiefly from the
scarcity of Presbyterian ministers to fill the numerous vacancies, occasioned
by the removal of their Episcopal Incumbents.
These cases, however, were
made the most of, and used as an argument for the Act of Queen Anne 1711,
whereby the British Parliament by large majorities repealed the Act 1690, and
expressly restored to patrons the right of patronage, and required Presbyteries
to receive and admit such qualified persons as the patrons might present, in
the same manner as such presentee ought to have been admitted before 1690. For
several years this Act remained almost inoperative on the statute-book; patrons
for the most part had little inclination to incur the odium which would have
been incurred by exercising their rights, and settlements of ministers were
generally effected on a call from the people, under the superintendence of the
presbytery. Ministers and probationers were unwilling to accept presentations
which might bring them into collision with the courts of the Church, for the
Assembly year after year continued to protest against patronage. Nevertheless
several of the Jacobite patroics availed themselves of this Act to keep
parishes vacant, and to reap the fruits of the benefice, by presenting within
the six months allowed them by the law, some one who would not accept the
presentation, as, on his declining, a fresh period of six months was allowed
them.
In 1719, in accordance with the wishes of the Church, an Act of
Parliament was passed, by which it was enacted that the currency of the six
months within which the patron had the right of presentation, was not
interrupted by the acceptance of a presentation which was afterwards declined,
and that at the end of six months from the date of the actual vacancy, the
right of presentation fell to the presbytery. As ministers and probationers
were unwilling to accept presentations, the Church thus practically got the
appointment of ministers into her own hands; but so diverse was her practice in
different presbyteries, and so conflicting the decisions of her different
courts and of the same courts at different times, that with the laudable object
of securing a uniform practice and to get rid of the numerous disturbances
which arose in cases of disputed settlements, the General Assembly,
unfortunately for the peace of the Church, in 1731, resolved to transmit an
overture to the several presbyteries to the effect that in all cases where the
filling up of vacant parishes devolved upon presbyteries, they should appoint
one or more of their number to meet with the heritors and elders that they
might elect and call one to be their minister.
No sooner was this overture
and interim Act sent down to presbyteries for their opinion, than a strong
feeling of discontent was excited through the country; and when the Assembly
met in 1732, a representation of grievances, with a petition for redress,
signed by forty-two ministers, was presented. It was not allowed to be read.
Ebenezer Erskine was not only one of those who had signed the representation,
but, being a member of Assembly, he was one of fifteen members who protested
against its rejection. When the returns from presbyteries were examined, it was
found that eighteen presbyteries approved of the overture as it stood; twelve
were in favour of it with certain alterations; thirty-one were against it;
while eighteen had given no expression of opinion. It had thus not received the
sanction of a majority of presbyteries, without which, according to the Barrier
Act, no overture could be enacted into a standing law of the Church.
Nevertheless the ruling party in that Assembly contrived to procure its
enactment, on the ground that the presbyteries which had made no return were to
be regarded as in its favour, seeing that the overture of 1731 had contained
the intimation that in case presbyteries shall neglect to send up their
opinion on it, the next Assembly would pass it into a standing Act or not, as
they saw cause. Ebenezer Erskine with others dissented from the overture
being passed into an Act.
On the following day, on the minutes being read,
he said: Moderator, I find by the reading of the minutes, that the
dissent that was entered yesterday by some members of Assembly is not marked,
and I crave that it may be marked, it being a privilege common in every free
country. The reason why I insist that it may be marked is, that I consider this
Act of Assembly to be without warrant from the Word of God, and inconsistent
with the Acts and constitution of this Church since our Reformation,
particularly in our Books of Discipline. . . . I am so far from thinking this
Act, conferring the power upon heritors, beyond other men, to come and choose
ministers of the gospel, to be founded on the Word, that I consider it
diametrically contrary to it. What difference does a piece of land make between
man and man in the affairs of Christs kingdom, which is not of this
world? It is not said, God hath chosen the heritors of this world, as we have
done; but He hath chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith and heirs
of the kingdom. And if they be heirs of the kingdom, I wish
to know by what warrant they are stript of the privileges of the kingdom. I
consider that by this Act, the Assembly have sunk one of the principal branches
of our Reformation inserted in our books of discipline; I mean the right of the
Church and members thereof to choose their own pastors - a privilege with the
custody of which we are intrusted. Our worthy forefathers handed down this at
the expense of their blood and treasure, and that I may not be accessory to the
betraying of a trust, which we are obliged to hand down in safety to our
posterity and the generation following, I insist that my dissent may be marked
in the records of this Assembly.
With this request he was
entitled to expect compliance; and had the demand been granted, he would in all
probability have been satisfied with recording his protest, as he had already
been in the much more important question of false doctrine. But his request was
refused, in accordance with an illegal Act of the Assembly of the former year,
which was passed without being previously submitted to presbyteries, and
prohibited the recording of reasons of dissent against the determinations of
church judicatories. By this refusal to record his dissent, the safety-valve
was shut; and it was no cause for wonder that Erskine exploded against the Act
of Assembly a few days after, in a sermon in his own pulpit on the evening of
his Communion Sunday; when, without much regard to the special occasion, he
dealt what destruction he could, to the Act so recently passed.
Selecting
as his text, The government shall be upon His shoulder, Isaiah ix.
6, and speaking of those who attempt to jostle Christ out of His government and
take it upon their own shoulders, he describes them as those professed
Presbyterians, who, under that disguise, exercise a lordly prelacy, and
dominion, over the church of Christ, in thrusting in men upon congregations
without, and contrary to, the free choice, their King has allowed them.
He immediately thereafter published the sermon, with a preface, in which he
avows that he had reference to the Act of Assembly which had been passed
a few days before. Not content with this, however, he availed himself of
the opportunity presented to him, as retiring Moderator of the Synod of Perth
and Stirling, when preaching the opening sermon on the 10th of October of the
same year (1731) to make some very offensive references to those by whose
instrumentality the obnoxious Act had been passed. His text was Psalm cxviii.
22, The stone which the builders rejected is become the head stone of the
corner. It seemed to those who heard the sermon, as it seems still to
many who read it, that he compared the ministers of the Church to those Jewish
priests and teachers who crucified Jesus Christ, and that he more than hinted,
that all who had not been chosen by popular election were thieves and robbers,
and could not have Gods call; while he expressly affirmed his belief that
if Christ were personally present, as he (Mr. Erskine) was that day, by
appointment of the Synod, in His stead, He would say with reference to that Act
of the Assembly just passed, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least
of these, ye did it unto Me.
It has often been said that he was fully
justified in selecting that time and place, inasmuch as the pulpit was the only
sphere left open to him for faithful and intrepid witness-bearing. But it is no
mark of intrepidity or fearlessness to make such charges in the pulpit, where
there is no opportunity of reply - it is rather a mark of cowardice; and
besides, there remained to him the proper judicatories of the Church, where he
could have taken the regular steps to secure the repeal of the Act complained
of. Acts of Assembly have never been like the laws of the Medes and Persians,
which alter not; and it was then, as it is now, a very usual occurrence, for
one Assembly to unsay, what a former Assembly has said.
He had also the
press, of which he extensively availed himself, to circulate his opinions
throughout the length and breadth of the land. It is, therefore, no matter of
surprise, however much it may be of regret, that there were brought under the
notice of the Synod several expressions in the sermon that day, which had given
offence. A committee was appointed to consider the several expressions
complained of, and to get Erskine to acknowledge that he was wrong in uttering
them, and to promise that in future he would not express himself in that
manner. The interview was fruitless; and though they proposed that he should
give them another opportunity of conversing with him on the subject, he said to
them it was in vain, for he was fixed; and if it were to do, he would do
it again.
His friends have claimed for him, as a distinguishing
feature of his character, a readiness to retract any rash expression that had
escaped him; and to change his sentiments, when sufficient evidence was
presented, of his having entertained a misapprehension; and his own words are
quoted in proof of this, for on one occasion he said, I am so far from
pretending to infallibility, that I hope I shall never be ashamed publicly to
retract what upon conviction shall be found to be amiss. In opposition to
this view of his character I hold that its great defect was, that he never
seems to have believed that he was mistaken. I have read through all his
published works, have examined carefully his speeches, and with great interest
perused his diary, but I have not been able to find one single case in which he
honestly and frankly confesses that he was wrong, or that he had uttered a
single expression which he ought to retract. The ecclesiastical condition of
Scotland would have been very different this day, could Erskine ever have been
brought to admit that he was mistaken. The impression left on my mind by a
minute examination of his whole writings, and a careful study of his whole
character, is, that he never knew, or saw, any other view than his own, which
could possibly be taken of any matter, either by intellect, or heart, or
conscience.
In the special case before us this doggedness led to lamentable
results. The committee had no alternative but to lay the objectionable passages
before the Synod; and, time having been allowed him to prepare a written
defence, he was found censurable on account of the said expressions. Against
this sentence twelve ministers and two elders (several of whom had not heard
the sermon) protested. The Synod thereafter unanimously resolved to rebuke him,
and to admonish him to behave orderly for the future. He was not present, and
he was ordered to be rebuked and admonished at the April meeting. At that
meeting various Committees were appointed, one after another, to deal with him,
and he was assured again and again, that he was by no means blamed for holding
different sentiments from the Church with respect to the Act 1732; that he
might not only enjoy his own opinions, but reason decently against the Act on
all proper occasions; and that what he was to be rebuked for was, that instead
of taking the regular steps, to have redressed what he reckoned grievous, he
had declaimed against the Church in a. manner which savoured more of
self-conceit and passion, than of the spirit of meekness and humility.
It
was to no purpose. He took an appeal to the Assembly, who remitted to a
Committee to deal with him; but they, making no progress, gave it as their
opinion that the Assembly must determine the cause themselves. The Assembly
found that the expressions used in his Synod sermon were offensive, and tended
to disturb the peace and good order of the Church, and appointed him to
be rebuked and admonished by the Moderator, in order to end the process, which
was done accordingly; that is, - the rebuke was administered, but the
process was not ended; for he immediately gave in his protest, declaring that
he adhered to the testimony which he had already borne against the Act of
Assembly in his Synod sermon. In this protest, he was joined by his three
ministerial friends, William Wilson, of Perth, Alexander Moncrieff of
Abernethy, and James Fisher of Kinclaven,his son-in-law. TheAssembly regarded
this protest as a defiance of their authority, and therefore the four were
again summoned to appear.
There was another Committee, and another
conference, with the usual, no result. To give time for reflection, and to do
nothing rashly, the Assembly remitted the case to the Commission, with power at
the Meeting in August, to suspend the four from the exercise of their ministry,
if they did not withdraw their protest, and express their regret for their
conduct: and at the November meeting, to proceed to a higher censure if they
had not obeyed the sentence of suspension. When the Committee met in August the
four brethren, so far from withdrawing their protest and expressing their
regret, adhered to their protest and vindicated their conduct. They were then
suspended from all exercise of their ministerial functions.
On being
summoned to the bar of the Commission in November, they were asked if they had
obeyed this sentence. They all replied that they had not, but that they had
exercised all the parts of their ministerial office, as if they had been
under no such censure. Several Presbyteries and nearly one-half of the
Synods had sent up representations, pleading for delay in proceeding to a
higher censure; and so nearly were parties balanced in the Commission, that
when the vote was taken, whether to proceed immediately to inflict a
higher censure or delay the same till March, the votes were
equal; and it was only by the casting vote of the Moderator that the decision
was given against Erskine and his party.
Sentence however was not passed
immediately, as so many popular narratives would lead readers to infer. A
Committee was appointed to confer with them; who, after some time spent in
conference, reported that the suspended ministers had empowered them to desire
the indulgence of the Commission, to allow them till the following day to
consider what had been laid before them. To this the Commission agreed, and it
is necessary, to a right understanding of the case, to have before us the
actual proposals made by the Committee to secure the peace and unity of the
Church. One of these proposals was - If the next General Assembly shall
declare that it was not meant by the Act of last Assembly to deny or take away
the privilege and duty of ministers to testify against defections; then we
shall be at liberty, and willing to withdraw our protest against the said Act
of Assembly; and particularly we reserve to ourselves the liberty of testifying
against the Act of Assembly 1732, on all proper occasions. Even this
proposal shows that the Church was willing to make concessions; and that it
needed only the manifestation of a similar spirit on the part of Erskine and
his friends to secure a complete reconciliation.
Another and still more
important proposal made by the Committee has strangely enough found no place in
any modern account which has been given of these proceedings. It is contained
in A Narrative and State of the Proceedings against Messrs. Ebenezer
Erskine, etc., and published in 1734. Of this narrative these ministers
in the same year published a review for their own vindication. In
it they admit that the Committee made two different proposals to them; the
second proposal which we have given above, they quote at length;
but, they add, some objections being made against the first,
it was not insisted on, therefore there is no need to insert it here. As
they have subjected the narrative to a most minute and searching
analysis, allowing no jot or tittle, on which adverse criticism can be made, to
pass unchallenged, we are fully entitled to regard the Narrative as
correct,when it states: Here it is proper to subjoin a copy of an
overture proposed by the Committee to the suspended brethren, as it was drawn
up in presence and by the assistance of Mr. Erskine and his adherents, and
which, after finishing, they took under consideration till next Meeting, viz.
The Committee of the Commission having sustained a Conference with the
four suspended brethren concerning the grounds of the last Assemblys
sentence, do find that they are under apprehensions, that the Assembly did
condemn Mr. Erskine for uttering his sentiments against the Act of Assembly
1732, and that thereby ministers are precluded from speaking against any Act of
the Assembly, whatsoever it may happen to be, which they think inconsistent
with their Christian liberty, and the power they have received from the Lord
Jesus Christ. Whereas the Committee, after reading the Act of last Assembly,
find that the sentence proceeded only against Mr. Erskine for offensive
expressions, tending to disturb the peace and good order of this Church. Whence
they concluded, that they did not doubt but the reverend Commission would
distinguish between the matter and the manner of Mr. Erskines sermon, and
declare to the brethren that they judge nothing else to be intended by the late
Assembly. In which case the said brethren are willing to retire their protest,
and to resolve, in the strength of God, to behave with all regard to the peace
and authority of the Church, exercised in the Lord.
From this
proposal, as well as from that already given, it is evident that what was
objected to throughout, was more the manner in which Erskine had expressed
himself in his Synod sermon, than his actual condemnation of the Act; and that
provided he would have admitted that the language employed was indiscreet, and
unbecoming (as it appears to most dispassionate people now), the matter might
at any time have taken end.
We are now able, with these proposals before
us, to judge with how little reason it has been frequently asserted, that
no proposal was made to them which did not involve a dangerous concession, and
even a sinful compromise. We may also see, how baseless is the further
assertion, that the concessions made by subsequent Assemblies were wrung from
them by the mere dread of the multitudes who were found to sympathise with
these ministers, after the sentence of this Assembly had been pronounced; for
here we find proposals, made in the secrecy of a Committee, and without any
external pressure, which contained the principles of all that the Church
afterwards conceded. As regards these proposals themselves, Erskine and his
friends, having taken a night to consider them, told the Committee, that after
mature deliberation, they had no freedom to go into them. When the Committee
gave in their report to that effect, the Commission, after full reasoning and
mature deliberation, by a great plurality of votes resolved to loose the
relations of these ministers to their respective parishes, and to declare them
no longer ministers of the Church. But the Commission further agreed to declare
that in case they should behave themselves dutifully and submissively to this
sentence, and should make application to the meeting of the Commission in
March, and give satisfaction to them, the Commission would then recommend them
for favour to the next General Assembly. The four ministers being called in,
had this sentence intimated; on which Mr. Erskine read a protest in his own
name, and in that of the three brethren adhering to him, that
notwithstanding of this sentence passed against them, their pastoral relation
be held and repute firm and valid; that notwithstanding of their being cast out
from ministerial communion with the Established Church of Scotland, they still
hold communion with all and every one who desired, with them, to adhere to the
principles of the true Covenanted Church of Scotland, in her doctrine, worship,
government and discipline; and that as the prevailing party of the Established
Church, who had now cast them out from ministerial communion with them, were
carrying on a course of defection from the reformed and covenanted principles,
they protested that they were obliged to make a secession from them, and that
they could have no ministerial communion with them, till they saw their sins
and mistakes and amended them. And they appealed to the first free, faithful,
and reforming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
We must
therefore from this time regard Ebenezer Erskine -
III. AS THE FATHER OF
THE SECESSION. Although the Church had left the door open for their return,
yet so far as he and his followers were concerned, the Secession had virtually
taken place, about three weeks after the decision of the Commission. On the 3d
of December 1742, the four brethren met at Gairney Bridge, a small village
about three miles from Kinross, and there after solemn prayer, they constituted
themselves into the Associate Presbytery, of which Ebenezer Erskine was chosen
the first Moderator. Shortly after this they published their First
Testimony, as it was afterwards called, in which the Church of Scotland,
or the prevailing party, was accused at great length of breaking
down the beautiful Presbyterian Constitution, of pressing such measures as did
actually corrupt, or had the most direct tendency to corrupt, the doctrines of
the Confession of Faith; of imposing sinful and unwarrantable terms of
ministerial communion, and of carrying on all these corrupt courses with a high
hand. In short, all public evils, as well of former as of present times, were
mentioned as grounds of their secession.
Notwithstanding the provocation
given to the Church by such a Testimony, the Assembly, in 1734, did all they
could reasonably be expected to do, to secure if possible the peace of the
Church. They repealed the first Act complained of,viz., that of 1730, which had
forbidden reasons of dissent to be recorded,and also the Act of 1732, by which
the call was to be given by the elders and Protestant heritors; on the ground
that they were not in accordance with former Acts and that they were found to
be hurtful to the Church. They sent a deputation to London to procure if
possible the repeal of the Patronage Act, and they also passed an Act in behalf
of due and regular ministerial freedom, permitting ministers to
declaim against the alleged backslidings and defections of the Church. These
steps were not taken with the exclusive view of conciliating Erskine and his
brethren. There were in the Church many ministers who were as loyal to the
truth, both in Ebenezer Erskine. doctrine and discipline as he, and who felt as
much aggrieved by the conduct of former General Assemblies although they
believed that they would be more likely to accomplish their object by remaining
in the Church than by separating from it; and in deference to them, and by
their votes, were these decisions arrived at.
By the same Assembly,
however, a special Act was passed concerning Ebenezer Erskine and his
adherents, whereby they empowered the Synod of Perth and Stirling to restore
these brethren to their respective ministerial charges, uniting them to the
Communion of the Church. Accordingly, in July following, the said Synod, as in
the place of the Assembly, did take off the sentence pronounced by the
Commission of the Assembly 1733. One, at least, of his colleagues would
have re-entered immediately by this open door, but Erskine stood firm, and
over-persuaded him. The Presbytery of Stirling, to show how sincere was the
spirit of reconciliation, elected him Moderator, and sent two of their number,
who waited on him with great courtesy, to invite him to take the chair, - which
was actually kept vacant for him till 1735. He then, in a somewhat haughty
spirit of righteous isolation, declined the honour; assigning, among other
reasons, that the Act which restored them, did not proceed upon the
consideration of the sinfulness, and injustice of the sentences which had been
passed against them. Notwithstanding this, the Church, under the influence of
those within her pale, who were like-minded with those who had seceded, still
continued to remove every obstacle which seemed to stand in the way of an
honourable return; and the Assembly of 1736 passed one Act, declaring that it
was, and had been, a fundamental principle of the Church since the Reformation,
that no minister should be intruded into any parish contrary to the will of the
congregation; and another Act, enjoining all her ministers to insist
continually, on the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel.
But the more the
Church endeavoured to conciliate the secessionists, the more embittered they
became against her, - the fewer the points of difference, the greater became
their enmity; and the overtures of reconciliation by the Assembly were met by
the publication of a Judicial Testimony, in which the seceders laid
at the door of the Church all the real and imaginary sins and shortcomings of
the country.
So minute and exhaustive is the catalogue of sins, which the
Church has either committed, or connived at, that among the defections of the
Church, and as one of the causes of the Lords departure from her, they
mention that of late the penal statute against witches has been repealed,
contrary to the express letter of the law of God, Thou shalt not suffer a witch
to live? It is worthy of notice that in this lengthened enumeration of national
sins, the connection of Church and State is never once referred to. It will
scarcely be believed, except by those who have read carefully some impartial
history of the period, that the seceders, notwithstanding their separate
presbytery, and separate professor of divinity, had up to this time, kept, and
been allowed to keep possession of, manses, glebes, and stipends, as well as
the churches of the Establishment. From these they had never proposed to
secede; but at last becoming bolder through impunity Erskine brought matters to
a crisis. Continuing as he did, to officiate in the church at Stirling,
notwithstanding the sentence of suspension, there were five of the elders, who
differed from him in regard to his secession from the Church, and who declared
that all the deeds of the session were null and void, so long as he sat there,
as moderator, or member.
On the 25th of February 1739, Erskine, in presence
of the congregation, summoned the five pretended and intruded
elders by name and surname to appear before the judgment-seat of Christ,
on the day determined in Gods secret decree, to answer for their conduct,
and warned all the congregation under his inspection, to beware of
countenancing any of these five men, as lawful officers in the Church of
Christ, as they would not partake of their sin and punishment.
Irregularities such as these were complained of from various quarters, and
could no longer be tolerated. As they would not be grafted into the Church,
they must be cut off.
Further attempts to reclaim them, were as ineffectual
as those which had preceded. At the meeting of the Commission in March 1739, a
libel was served upon them, accusing them of constituting themselves into an
independent Presbytery, licensing a young man to preach, etc., and otherwise
following divisive courses from the Church established by law, and contrary to
their ordination vows. With this libel, when the Assembly met in May, it was,
by a small majority, resolved to proceed. The seceders appeared at the bar, but
as a fully constituted Presbytery. A last attempt was made to win them back, by
declaring that if they would return they would be heartily welcomed. Not only
was the invitation declined, but a declinature of the Assemblys authority
was read, in which a torrent of indignant abuse was poured upon the Assembly.
After this they were ordered to withdraw; but instead of being immediately
deposed from the office of the ministry, a whole year was allowed to elapse;
and only on the 15th of May 1740, were they solemnly deposed; and thus by the
act of the Church, that secession was completed, which by the act of the
seceders themselves had been virtually accomplished eight years before.
The
necessity of this course was bitterly lamented by many ministers of the Church
who held the same views as Erskine and his followers, but who were not so
intemperate in their expression of them ; and these men felt that the
doctrines, and principles, for which they were contending, would have made far
more rapid progress within the Church, had Erskine and his friends remained
within her pale. The secessionists were supported, as was natural, by large
multitudes of people throughout Scotland; while some licentiates of the Church
soon afterwards cast in their lot with them. For a time they were fully
occupied in making provision for the supply of gospel ordinances among those
who became their followers. That the Gospel was fully, and faithfully, preached
in their churches, ought to be thankfully acknowledged; but unfortunately, from
the first, they seem to have looked upon themselves as the only pure and
undefiled Church in the world, and as being more holy than all the other
Churches of Christ. Their sympathies were too much confined to the members of
their own sect; while the fact that others differed from them, prevented them
from judging impartially of their actions.
A lamentable instance of this
soon occurred. The fame of George Whitefield as a preacher, at that time filled
the religious world; and the Erskines, naturally desirous that he should pay a
visit to Scotland, entered into correspondence with him for this purpose. While
they desired doubtless that he might be instrumental in promoting a revival of
religion in Scotland, they at the same time desired that he should identify
himself and his ministrations with the Associate Presbytery. In
answer to this suggestion Whitefield wrote that he could not altogether come
into this proposal, and that instead of connecting himself with any particular
party, he meant to preach the simple Gospel to all, of whatever denomination,
who were willing to hear him. To this Ebenezer replied, giving an account of
the treatment which they had received from the Assembly, and saying, If
you could find freedom to company with us, to preach with us and for us, and to
accept of our advice in your work while in this country, it might contribute
much to weaken the enemys hand and to strengthen ours, in the work of the
Lord, when the strength of the battle is against us.
When Whitefield
arrived in Scotland, he went at once to Dunfermline, where he preached his
first sermon in Ralph Erskines pulpit. A few days afterwards a conference
was held in Dunfermline attended by five ministers and two elders of the
Associate Presbytery. Ebenezer opened the meeting with prayer. The question
proposed for consideration was, What is the form of church-government
which Christ has laid down in His Word? The articles relative to
Presbytery were read to him, along with passages of Scripture in support of
them ; and one of the brethren addressed him at considerable length for the
purpose of showing him that neither Episcopacy nor Independency was agreeable
to the Word of God. He did not attempt to argue with them, but professed to
regard church-government as a matter of no great importance. He thought, as
many think still, that in the New Testament there is sea- room for various
theories of ecclesiastical government.
When, however, he was informed that
he must at least confine his preaching entirely to them, this was more than he
could stand. Why confine my preaching to you? asked Whitefield.
Because we are the Lords people, said Ralph Erskine.
Are there no other Lords people but you? said he, and
supposing all others are the devils people, certainly they have the more
need to be preached to. And he wound up by informing them, that if the
Pope himself would lend him his pulpit, he would gladly proclaim the
righteousness of Christ therein. The result of the conference was a resolution,
that until his views on church-government underwent a change, they would
neither hear him, nor employ him, in any part of ministerial work. From that
time all intercourse between him and the seceders was broken off.
Soon
after this interview Whitefield visited Stirling, and having entered the tent
where Ebenezer Erskine was preaching to the people on a week-day, he sat and
heard him. Whitefield was to follow him with an address, but Erskine would not
remain to hear him, because he would not break off his connection with the
Church of England. When Whitefield afterwards occupied several of the pulpits
of the Established Church, the sentiments of esteem with which the seceders had
formerly regarded him were changed into a spirit of bitter hostility; and he
was stigmatised by them as a wild enthusiast, who was engaged in doing the work
of the devil.
The narrowing, blinding influences of sectarianism were never
so unmistakeably manifested as in the following year, in connection with the
Great Revival at Cambuslang, and Whitefields second visit to Scotland.
Mr. Macculloch, the minister of that parish, a man of piety as well as
learning, had for nearly twelve months been preaching a course of sermons
explaining the nature and necessity of regeneration according to the different
lights in which that important subject is represented in Scripture. The result
was that a more than ordinary concern about religion appeared among the people;
and soon a petition for a week-day service, got up by some who had heard
Whitefield in Glasgow, was presented to the minister, who gladly complied with
its request. Societies for prayer had existed in the parish for several years,
and on Monday the 15th of February their members met for prayer in the manse ;
they held a second meeting on Tuesday, and a third on the Wednesday; and after
the Thursday sermon on the 18th of February about fifty people came to the
manse, under deep convictions of sin, and alarming apprehensions about the
state of their souls, desiring to speak with him. He spent the most of that
night with them, and with many others on many successive nights. The week-day
services required to be increased; for the number of persons, who were brought
to a deep concern about salvation, amounted by the end of April to upwards of
three hundred.
Many ministers of high standing in the Church, most of them
men of calm dispassionate judgment and not given to enthusiasm, - including
such men as John Maclaurin of Glasgow, still known by his sermon on
Glorying in the Cross of Christ, and well described as being as
spiritual as Leighton, and scarcely less intellectual than Butler, - visited
the parish, and conversed with many of the converts. They testified that in
their judgment the state in which they found them was such as agreed with the
Scripture accounts of conviction and conversion, and with none of the marks of
delusion or imposture. They observed nothing about them visionary or
enthusiastic; their speech was sober and their experiences Scriptural. In the
beginning of May, similar religious awakenings took place at Kilsyth and
elsewhere, and Whitefield, hearing of this great work, returned to Scotland and
hastened to Cambuslang, where he preached with all his usual eloquence, and
more than his usual impressiveness. He took part in the open-air services at
the Communion in August, preaching on Saturday, Sunday evening, and Monday.
Upwards of 30,000 were gathered together,and about 3000 communicated,
twelve ministers taking part in the services. It would have occasioned no
surprise if merely irreligious men had calumniated the Cambuslang revival, or
if even the so-called Moderates had looked upon the whole as the
delusion of enthusiastic fanatics; but it was scarcely to have been expected
that the fathers of the secession should have been the foremost to denounce it
and to attempt to arrest its progress. They had come to the conclusion that the
Church of Scotland was so thoroughly corrupt that it would be derogatory to the
Holy Spirit to imagine that He would manifest His presence, and revive His
work, in a Church so fearfully polluted; and so, though the doctrines preached
were those for which they had contended in the Marrow Controversy, and to which
they professed still to adhere, they denounced the revival, and all who were
instrumental in promoting it, in epithets of abuse, which were limited only by
the inability of the language, to supply worse, or more. Whitefleld was one of
the great objects of their calumny and resentment.
As a specimen of the
manner in which he was assailed, I shall quote from a sermon preached by the
Rev. Adam Gib, in Bristo Church, on 6th June 1742. This Mr. Gib was the author
of the Display of the Secession Testimony, and which is still a standard work
among the secessionists. It was he who after Erskines death said to one
who had never heard him preach, Well then, sir, you never heard the
gospel in its majesty. The title-page of the sermon to which I have
referred is bad enough, viz., wherein are shown that Mr. Whitefleld is no
minister of Jesus Christ; that his call and coming to Scotland are scandalous;
that his practice is disorderly, and fertile of disorder; that his whole
doctrine is, and his success must be, diabolical, so that people ought to avoid
him from duty to God, to the Church, to themselves, to their fellow-men, to
posterity, and to him. Yet this titlepage gives only a faint idea of the
coarseness of the language employed in the sermon itself. There are some
expressions in it which I would be ashamed to quote; but let the following
suffice. Gods blessing cannot rest upon Whitefields work, but
only a blasting curse; to countenance his ministry is to
countenance a lie; he is blasting and deluding souls, and that as
to their eternal interests ; he comes hither with a most wicked and
scandalous design; the noise of his ministrations introduces the
awful profanation of the Lords day, while the fact that his
public ministrations are of enormous frequency, ordinarily every day, and
oftener than once, cannot be seen to be reconcilable with the Fourth
Commandment, which, as it enjoins the proper exercise of a seventh day, so it
not only permits, but enjoins the proper work of the intervening six;
he discredits and condemns part of the counsel of God, declaring and
promoting the opposite counsel of Satan, unto the ruin of souls and the
subversion of the kingdom of Christ; and all this in the name of Jesus
Christ.
That these were no mere solitary utterances is evident from
the fact that the Associate Presbytery proceeded so far as in the following
month to pass an Act, appointing the 4th of August 1742 to be observed as a
fast, chiefly, because (i) the Lord hath in His righteous displeasure left this
Church and land to give such an open discovery of their apostasy from him, in
the fond reception that Mr. George Whitefield hath met with, and (2) because
the people are so much imposed upon by several ministers who,
notwithstanding all the ordinary symptoms of delusion attending the present
awful work upon the bodies and spirits of men, yet cry it up as a great work of
God. It was not without good reason that Mr. Robe of Kilsyth, who had
been one of the most honoured instruments in promoting the revival there,
characterised this Act of the Associate Presbytery as the
most heaven-daring paper that hath been published by any set of men in Britain
these three hundred years past. Even in the judgment of charity, only one
inference can be drawn from their conduct, viz.: that they did not believe that
the ministry of any other persons than the members of the Associate Presbytery,
and those whom they had licensed to preach, could be countenanced by the Holy
Spirit.
Our space allows but a brief reference to the subsequent history of
the Secession even during Ebenezer Erskines life. By the end of 1742, the
number of ministers in the Associate Presbytery had increased to twenty,
including those whom they had licensed and ordained; and in 1744 they formed
their three Presbyteries of Dunfermline, Glasgow, and Edinburgh into a Synod,
which met for the first time as the Associate Synod at Stirling on
-the 6th of March 1745, having then about thirty settled congregations under
its charge, in addition to sixteen vacant in Scotland, besides several in
Ireland.
The first meeting of the Synod was by no means harmonious. The
atmosphere of protests and dissents in which its members had so long lived, and
the spirit of controversy which they had so long breathed, were not without
their influence; and they soon began to turn against each other the weapon
which they had often turned against their opponents. An overture came up from
the Presbytery of Dunfermline to consider whether or not the Burgess Oath
be agreeable to the Word of God, and to the received principles of this Church
founded thereon. The Burgess Oath was that imposed upon burgesses, in
Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Perth, and contained the following clause: Here I
protest before Ebenezer Ersk Inc. 185 God and your lordships, that I profess,
and allow with my heart, the true religion presently professed within this
realm, and authorised by the laws thereof: I shall abide thereat, and defend
the same, to my lifes end; renouncing the Roman religion, called
Papistry.
The question of taking or not taking the oath, might fairly
have been left to the individual conscience, and been a matter of
mutualforbearance; but the Synod resolved to give a deliverance on the subject,
and immediately plunged into a controversy which lasted for nearly two years.
To give a detailed account of the arguments advanced either for, or against,
the taking of the oath, would neither be interesting nor profitable, for
according to their description of each other, they employed such methods
of reasoning as may well be reckoned a disgrace to the reasoning faculty of
human nature. Countless public, and private, sederunts were spent upon
this affair; besides two public fasts throughout the whole Secession body,
three fasts publicly observed by the members of Synod, and five private diets
of prayer, for light and direction. The result was, that at the meeting of
Synod on the 1st of April 1746, the decision was arrived at by thirteen to
nine, that those of the Secession cannot, with safety of conscience and
without sin, swear any burgess oath, with the said religious clause, while
matters with reference to the profession and settlement of religion continue as
at present. A protest was, of course, lodged against this decision.
At the September meeting Ebenezer Erskine, who had been absent on the
former occasion, after asking in vain whether the Synod would reverse their
decision, adhered to the protest. The time between this and the meeting of
Synod in Ebenezer Erskine. April 1748 was spent, according to the description
which the members give of each other, in circulating and industriously
propagating gross misrepresentations of what had actually occurred,
publishing pamphlets tending to sink the readers into confusion and error
on the subject; while the same writer, who speaks of Erskine and his
friends in their conflict with the General Assembly, as men of great
natural talents, great eloquence, and unquestionable piety, now describes
them as behaving in a manner disgraceful not only to the Christian, but
to the human character; violating, in their rage to carry a favourite point,
the very fundamental principles of order, without preserving which, it is
impossible rationally to carry on the affairs of society. When the Synod
met on the 7th of April, the proceedings were characterised by still greater
bitterness; but it was finally moved that the decision condemning the
oath should not now or afterwards be a term of ministerial or Christian
communion, until the question of its being so shall be referred to presbyteries
and kirk-sessions. Repeated protests were taken against the putting of
this motion as disorderly; notwithstanding which, it was put; and (as those who
had protested against it did not vote) carried.
Of the fifty-five members
who were present, only twenty (nine ministers and eleven elders) voted on this
question, and all of them gave their vote in favour of the decision that was
carried twenty-three (thirteen ministers and ten elders) did not consider
themselves at liberty to vote, having previously protested -against putting the
question; while a few took no part, as they were anxious that the Court should
delay coming toa final decision. The twenty-three protesters left the house,
claiming to be the Associate Synod; the twenty who had given the vote objected
to, remained, and they also claimed to be the Associate Synod; but the names by
which the rival camps were popularly and generally known were the
Burghers (of whom Erskine was one), who held that the oath might be
taken ; and the Antiburghers, who held that it ought not. Each accused the
other of making false charges in plain matters of fact, and in a style
most indecent and undutiful. The Burghers passed an Act nullifying the
Synod of the Antiburghers; while the Antiburghers prepared and served a libel
on Ebenezer Erskine and other eight brethren, and on the 14th of February 1750,
after a sermon suitable to the occasion, the Moderator solemnly pronounced the
sentence of greater excommunication, in these words: The Synod did, and
hereby do (in the name, and by authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, the only
King and head of His Church, and according to the powers committed by Him to
them as a court constitute in His name), actually excomunicate the said
Ebenezer Erskine, etc., and with the greater excommunication, casting them out
from the Communion of the Church of Christ, declaring them to be of those whom
the Lord Christ commandeth to be holden by all and every one of the faithful as
heathen men and publicans, and delivering them unto Satan for the destruction
of the flesh, that their spirits may be saved in the day of the Lord
Jesus.
He died only four years afterwards. Though he disregarded the
sentence, yet he felt it bitterly, and from that time his health gave way. His
illness was increased not only by the Breach, as it was termed,
between the Burghers and Antiburghers, but breach after breach was made in his
own family. In the following year he lost his wife, and a year later, his
brother Ralph died. Well might he say in a letter to a friend, Many of
Gods billows are going over me, yet still I hope the Lord will command
His loving-kindness in the day-time, and in the night His song shall be with
me. While we admire his honesty and courage, the great lesson to be
learned from his life, is not to endanger peace and to wound charity, by making
the implicit reception of our peculiar statement of truth the test of
orthodoxy; but while we hold fast the truth ourselves, to make allowance for
the different aspects which the same truth may present to the minds of others
who hold it as firmly. Alas, how few are there, of whom it can in any measure
be said, as of the great champion of the Churchs truth, against the Arian
heresy, only in Athanasius there was nothing observed throughout the
course of that long tragedy, other than such as very well became a wise man to
do, and a righteous man to suffer!
From
"Scottish Divines" - The St. Giles' Lectures.
Home | Links | Hall | Writings | Biography