II.
(Continued from page 241.)
THE sermon to which reference has been made in the preceding article caused the greatest offence to a number of the ministers in the Synod. The court was no sooner constituted than complaint was made of Erskine’s sermon. A proposal was made by Adam Ferguson, Logierait, and supported by other ministers that a committee be appointed to confer with Erskine and to report to the Synod. Three days were spent in keen debate; and at last, when several of Erskine’s friends had withdrawn through sheer fatigue, the Synod by a majority of not more than six decided that he was censurable for some expressions in his sermon “tending to disquiet the peace of the Church, and impugning several Acts of Assembly and proceedings of Church judicatories.” Mr. Alexander Moncrieff, Abernethy, entered a dissent which was adhered to by twelve ministers and two elders. E. Erskine appealed to next Assembly. Notwithstanding, the Synod proceeded with the case and agreed to rebuke Mr. Erskine at their bar and “admonish him to behave orderly for the future.” They also appointed “the Presbytery of Stirling to inquire anent his after behaviour at their privy censures and report to the next Synod.” When the Synod met again at Stirling in April of the following year (10th April, 1733), Mr. Erskine could not be persuaded to express regret for what he had said in his sermon against the objectionable Acts of the Assembly. A Representation and Petition, subscribed by fifteen Elders of the Kirk-session of Stirling, was laid before the court beseeching the Synod to reverse the sentence passed against their minister. Among other things, they call attention to the dangerous consequences likely to follow from the execution of the sentence. “Though the condemnatory sentence passed against our minister,” they say, “cannot lessen his character among us, nor diminish from the just esteem that we, and many others through the land, have for him; yet, what wide breaches such proceedings may occasion, we leave it to the more deliberate judgment of this reverend court.” The Petition was not transmitted to the Court by the Committee of Bills and the Synod, after reasoning, refused to hear it. The Presbytery of Stirling made an abortive attempt to have a conference with a Committee of the Synod. Mr. Erskine was then called and when the Synod was about to pronounce sentence he told them he adhered to his appeal. He then read the following paper: “According to the utterance given by the Lord to me at Perth, I delivered His mind, particularly with relation to some prevailing evils of the day, which to me are matter of confession, and therefore I dare not retract the least part of that testimony. I am heartily sorry that ever the reverend Synod should have commenced a process against me, for what I am persuaded was nothing else but truth; especially when they have never yet made it appear that I have in the least receded from the Word of God, and our approved standards of doctrine, worship, discipline, or government. Every man has his own proper gift of utterance; and, according to the gift bestowed on me, so I expressed myself at Perth; and, if I had given offence by any expressions uttered by me at that time, I should very willingly retract, and beg pardon. But I hope my reverend brethren will excuse me to say, that I am not yet convinced of any just ground given for a rebuke and admonition.”
When the General Assembly met in May, 1733, it began with the notorious case of the intrusion at Kinross and pronounced a rigorous sentence against the Presbytery of Dunfermline for their refusal to receive and enrol Mr. Robert Stark as a member of Presbytery. When Mr. Erskine’s case came up the Reasons of Appeal were read. The Assembly, after hearing parties at the bar, by a majority of votes “found the expressions vented by Mr. Erskine, and contained in the minutes of the Synod’s proceedings, with the answers thereto made by him, to be offensive, and to tend to disturb the peace and good order of the Church; and therefore, approve of the proceedings of the Synod, and appoint him to be rebuked and admonished at their own bar, in order to terminate the process.” While he submitted to the rebuke Mr. Erskine made a protest in which he says: “I hereby adhere unto the testimonies I have formerly emitted against the Act of Assembly 1732, whether in the protest entered against it in open Assembly, or yet in my Synodical Sermon; craving this my protest and declaration to be inserted in the records of the Assembly.” Messrs. Wilson, Monerieff, and Fisher adhered to this protest. The paper on which the protest was written fell from the Assembly Clerk’s table and was picked up by one of the members of Assembly who called the Assembly’s attention to the terms of the protest. When read it roused strong feelings of indignation and orders were given that the Four Brethren should be cited to appear before the Assembly next day. When they appeared a committee was appointed with the purpose of persuading them to withdraw their protest. The committee reported that they had failed in their efforts; whereupon, the Assembly by a great majority passed sentence to the following effect: That the Four Brethren should appear before the Commission in August next, to express sorrow for their conduct, and retract their protest; that in the event of their refusal to submit, the Commission is appointed to suspend them from the exercise of their ministry; that if they shall then act contrary to the sentence of suspension, the Commission, at their meeting in November, or any subsequent meeting, must proceed to a higher censure. When the Commission of Assembly met on 8th August representations and petitions were presented by the Kirk-session of Stirling, by the Magistrates and Town Council of the Burgh, and also by the Presbyteries of Stirling, Dunblane, and Ellon but all to no effect. The Commission, after a Committee had made an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the Four Brethren to acquiesce in the General Assembly’s sentence, passed sentence suspending “the Four Protesting Brethren from the exercise of the ministerial function, and all parts thereof.” When the sentence was announced to them they protested for themselves, and as many as adhered to them that the sentence was null and void and that it would be lawful for them to exercise their ministry as they had previously done. Protests were at the same time made by the ruling elders of the four congregations concerned. The suspended brethren continued their ministerial labours as formerly notwithstanding the sentence of suspension. They were again summoned before the November Commission when renewed efforts were made to induce them to withdraw their protest but these proved fruitless. A number of Synods and Presbyteries also sent up communications counselling forbearance and tenderness towards the suspended ministers. Many members of the Commission also pled for delay. When the question was put to the Commission: “Delay” or “Proceed,” it was decided by the Moderator’s casting vote to proceed with a higher censure. On the 16th November the Commission therefore passed sentence on them, loosing their relation from their respective charges, declaring their churches vacant and prohibiting all ministers of the Church of Scotland to employ them in any ministerial function. Mr. Gabriel Wilson, Maxton, immediately made a protest declaring that it would be lawful for them to complain against this sentence to any subsequent Assembly; to testify in a becoming manner, on all occasions, against the defections of the Church; and to hold ministerial communion with their brethren as if no such sentence had been passed against them. A few weeks after their expulsion from the Church of Scotland the Four Brethren met at Bridge of Gairney, a small village about three miles south of Kinross. The first day of their meeting, 5th December, was wholly spent in prayer. The following day was also spent in similar exercises. The question was raised at this meeting should a Presbytery be formed. “After much and serious reasoning on both sides of the question,” as is recorded by one of their number, “the Four Brethren did all, with one voice, give it as their judgment that they should presently constitute into a Presbytery.”
(To be continued.)