I.
ON 5th December, 1733, the Secession Fathers—Ebenezer Erskine, William Wilson, James Fisher and Alexander Moncrieff met at Gairney Bridge, which lies on the Great North Road between Edinburgh and Perth, three miles from Kinross, and after some time devoted to prayer, they formed themselves into a Presbytery. There were also present Ralph Erskine and Thomas Mair who, while in sympathy with the Four Brethren, had not yet cast in their lot wholly with them. The most noted of the Four Brethren was Ebenezer Erskine whose famous sermon before the Synod of Perth and Stirling brought about the deposition of these Brethren from the ministry of the Church of Scotland and shook it to its foundations. It was the first serious disruption in the Church of Scotland and was destined to play a very important part in the religious life of Scotland. The causes leading up to the Secession of 1733 were many. At the Revolution Settlement a considerable number of ministers were admitted into the Church whose allegiance to Presbyterianism and the doctrines of the Confession was cold and lifeless. As years went on Moderatism, nourished in a congenial atmosphere in the high places of the nation and of the Church, grew stronger and began to lay its cold hand on the evangelical piety of the most loyal and faithful supporters of the Presbyterian heritage won at such a tremendous cost during the Covenanting struggle. The restoration of Patronage by Parliament in 1712 was the beginning of sorrows for the
Church of Scotland. By the law of patronage it was provided that if the patron did not exercise his right of presenting a minister to the parish within six months when a vacancy occurred the Presbytery should (jure devoluto) take measures for inducting a minister to the parish. In the case of presbyteries which were opposed to patronage it was usual to pass on this right to the people; in other cases, however, the Presbytery took the place of the patron and their presentee might be far from satisfactory to the people. Owing to the diversity prevailing in connection with such settlements it was deemed advisable by the Moderate section in the Church to have a law passed with the ostensible purpose of having uniformity in the appointment of ministers to vacant charges. In 1731, therefore, an overture was brought before the Assembly and was ordered by it to be sent down to presbyteries under the Barrier Act. By this overture it was proposed that the election of a minister for a vacant parish should belong only to the elders and Protestant heritors; in the royal burghs, to the magistrates, town council, and elders. After the election the person elected was to be proposed to the congregation, to be by them either approved or disapproved. If the congregation disapproved of the choice of the heritors and elders they were to lay their reasons before the Presbytery by whose determination the calling and the entry of the minister should be concluded according to the rules of the Church (Act VIII. of Assembly, 1732). This Act took away the liberty of the people in the election of ministers and gave it to the heritors and elders. It was not required of heritors that they should be members of the Church. They might be Episcopalian or anything at all provided they were Protestant. When the Assembly met in 1732 forty-nine presbyteries reported—thirty-one presbyteries rejected the overture; six approved of it being passed into a law; twelve gave their sanction to it on condition that certain material amendments, which they suggested, should be adopted; eighteen presbyteries sent no report. The Assembly by a logic that suited the ruling party in the Church came to the strange conclusion that the presbyteries which did not report were
favourable to the overture—a decision which called forth the following criticism from the historian of the Secession: “Whatever portion of wisdom the Assembly of 1732 possessed, it did not appear to be that which cometh from above, neither could it be said of it that it was peaceable or without partiality or full of good fruits”—a criticism which will be endorsed as eminently just by all who know the history of the case. Several ministers, among them Ebenezer Erskine, and elders protested against the passing of the Act but the Assembly refused to enter their protest on the record. At this Assembly a number of representations embodying certain grievances were presented but no satisfaction was given. The ruling party meant to carry everything before them and were blind enough not to see where their high-handed policy was leading them. Another event that caused a good deal of heart-burning was the proceedings in connection with the settlement of a minister at Kinross. A call had been given by the people to a Mr. Francis Craig but another person, Mr. Stark, had received the presentation. As Mr. Stark had scarcely a single vote the Presbytery of Dunfermline refused to ordain him. The Commission of Assembly, however, appointed a Committee to proceed to Kinross and ordain him. Both the presbytery and the parishioners protested against this high-handed action but their protests were rejected. When the Assembly met the following year (1733) those who refused to ordain Mr. Stark were summoned to the bar and rebuked and the Presbytery was commanded to encourage and strengthen the hands of Mr. Stark in the work of the ministry and the members were instructed to appear before the Commission in August and report as to their obedience and the Commission was authorised to inflict the highest censure of the Church on such as should be disobedient. Such is a brief account of the condition of things in the Church preceding and immediately following the date when Ebenezer Erskine preached his famous sermon at Perth on 10th October, 1732. The Synod of Perth and Stirling met that year in St. John’s, Perth. The Church is famous in Scottish ecclesiastical history as that in which John Knox delivered one of his rousing
sermons which set his hearers on fire. Ebenezer’s sermon was also to set the hearts of some of his ministerial hearers on fire but it was with the fire of indignation. He preached from the text: “The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner” (Ps. exviii. 22). The sermon is contained in vol. I. of his Works (1871). It consists of about 30 of our Magazine pages. The preface to the published sermon opens as follows: “The following sermon gave occasion of three days’ warm debate in the reverend Synod of Perth and Stirling, and has been the subject of much talk and speculation since that time.” “The author’s design,” it is further added, “in pitching and preaching upon that text, was what he could to raise the glory of the blessed Corner-stone, to set up the corruptions of the Jewish builders as so many beacons, that builders of our day might beware of them, and to cast in the small mite of his testimony against what, to him, appears as injury done, either to Christ personal or mystical.” He then offers his apologia for the manner in which he dealt with certain controversial matters in the sermon. “If any think,” he writes, “upon the reading of the following discourse, that there is too great freedom used with respect to the present steps of defection; let them remember, that there is now no other way left to bear testimony against such things, but by warning the world against them from press or pulpit; representations and petitions from ministers or church members at the bar, being utterly disregarded, and no access to enter any protest or dissent against these proceedings in the public records, for the exoneration of conscience, or the information of our posterity, that such things did not pass in our day without a struggle and testimony against them. If any of the author’s friends and well-wishers be afraid of further trouble to him, upon the account of this sermon, let them know, that, through grace, he chooses rather to suffer with the oppressed members of Christ, than to enjoy all the ease and pleasure of those who oppress them in their spiritual liberties; which, being the purchase of a Redeemer’s blood will be reckoned for before the scene be ended. Hebs. xi. 24-26; I. John iii. 16; II. Thess. i. 6, 7.”
(To be continued.)
The Potter.
Only a piece of common clay,
A shapeless lump of earth;
But in that clay the potter sees,
A vase of priceless worth.
He takes it, puts it on the wheel,
Then with his skilful hands.
He gently moulds it to His will,
Till earthen vessel stands.
A vessel beautiful in form,
Though still of mud-brown hue,
Far from the perfect, beauteous vase,
The potter has in view.
The drying process has to come,
Long hours in heated air;
Then coating, painting, glazing, too,
Each done with utmost care.
But ere the vase is fit for use,
It has to pass through heat—
No gentle heat, but furnace fierce,
To make the work complete.
Until the fire its work has done,
No colours can be seen;
All is dull and ugly red—
The glaze, too, has no sheen.
His handiwork the potter takes,
According to his plan;
And shuts it in the furnace hot,
For days unseen by man.
At length, the fiery ordeal o’er,
The door is broken down;
And from the oven he brings forth
A vessel of renown.
No resemblance now to common clay,
But for his use made meet.
Perfect—in colour, glaze, and form,
The vessel stands complete.
O thou, who art the Potter great,
And we the lumps of clay,
May we be plastic in Thy hands,
That thou may’st have Thy way!
—M. E. A. in Gospel Standard.