Extracts from Hetherington’s History of the Church of Scotland. See also the book review on p 247.
1714.
There is a melancholy interest attached to the Church of Scotland in 1714. It was the first year in which the General Assembly manifested a disinclination to proceed with due strictness against ministers who were accused of holding and teaching doctrines contrary to Scripture and to the standards of the Church. There had for some time been reports that John Simson, professor of divinity at Glasgow, taught Arminian and Pelagian doctrines; but the members of his own presbytery appear to have been unwilling to institute a process against him. The report was, however, taken up by James Webster, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, as a matter of too serious importance to be permitted to continue without being investigated. When the case came before the Assembly, the task of conducting the prosecution was cast upon Webster, instead of remitting it to the Presbytery of Glasgow – with instructions to make due inquiry, as if it had been a private affair – and not one which deeply concerned the whole Church. The leaven of Moderatism was now beginning to put forth its corrupting power, producing laxity of principle and that pernicious tendency to screen delinquents and to discourage men of fidelity and zeal – by which Moderatism has always been characterised.
The teaching that man is able by his own power, quite apart from grace, to serve God.
1715.
When the Assembly met in May 1715, its attention was chiefly occupied by two topics which have always manifested a peculiar affinity for each other by their simultaneous appearance – unsoundness of doctrine and the grievance of patronage. An act was passed appointing a committee for preserving the purity of doctrine and for considering Webster’s complaint against Professor Simson. The instructions to the committee, contained in this act, exhibit but too plainly a determination to throw every possible obstruction in Webster’s way, so as to render the proof of the accusation almost impossible; while every facility was given to Simson to frame such evasive explanations as might eventually secure his acquittal.
The practice by which ministers are nominated by landowners, for instance, rather than being called to a charge by the people of the congregation.
1716.
Nothing of special importance was done by the Assembly. The case of Simson was again referred to a committee, who were directed to proceed with all due expedition in preparing the matter for a final decision by the next Assembly.
1717.
The course of defection on which the Church of Scotland had entered became more and more apparent every year, and the Assembly of 1717 was guilty of several acts more glaringly evil than those of its predecessors. The case of Professor Simson was finally decided by this Assembly; and although it was clearly proved that he had taught Arminian and Pelagian doctrines, the Assembly merely found that he had vented some opinions not necessary to be taught in divinity; he had used some expressions which are capable of bearing a bad sense, and are employed in that sense by adversaries; and that, in answering the objections urged by the antagonists of the gospel, he had made use of hypotheses that tend to attribute too much to natural reason and the power of corrupt nature: which expressions and hypotheses they prohibited him from using for the future. This culpable leniency appears to have arisen in a great measure from the deplorable fact that a large proportion of the Assembly were themselves tainted with opinions which were equally unsound, many of the members having been the pupils, or the relations and personal friends, of the heretical professor. Great alarm was felt by the more sound and orthodox part of the Church, lest this unfaithful procedure should tend to encourage that proneness to innovations and to laxity of doctrine which were already too prevalent, especially among the young ministers admitted recently.
1727-28.
A new accusation was brought against Professor Simson in 1727, charging him with holding and teaching Arian opinions. The culpable leniency of the former sentence of Assembly seems to have encouraged the unhappy man to persevere in his course of error, sinking deeper and deeper as he advanced. The subject had been partially under the notice of the preceding Assembly; but it was now formally taken up, a committee appointed to make due inquiries, and to prepare the affair for decision. It was brought before the Assembly of 1728, and sentence of suspension from teaching and preaching was passed, till the investigation should be completed and a final decision given.
Views that denied the divinity of Christ.
1729.
The Assembly of 1729 gave its final decision in the Simson case. He had made, on the whole, a skilful defence, though one which proved that his own mind was deeply tainted with sophistical insincerity; partly attempting to explain away his erroneous tenets by the aid of philosophical subtleties, partly by strenuous assertions that he really held the very doctrines of the Confession of Faith. Great reluctance was manifested by the Assembly to pass a sentence appropriate to his demerits, and the utmost that could be obtained was a confirmation of the previous sentence of suspension, with an additional declaration that it was not fit that he should be further employed in teaching divinity and instructing young men intended for the ministry. Against this sentence, as totally inadequate to mark a due condemnation of such deadly heresy as he had taught, Boston rose and declared his dissent, in his own name and that of all who should adhere to him; and no other person expressing adherence, he continued, “And for myself alone, if nobody shall adhere”. A deep and solemn awe filled the Assembly, to see this great and good man placing himself in sole opposition to the weak and guilty unfaithfulness of a declining Church, and not a voice was raised in condemnation of his majestic Christian fortitude. The heretical professor yielded to the letter of the sentence; he did not even attempt to defend his errors in print, as had been feared; and so far as he was personally concerned, the matter gradually sunk into oblivion.