John Willison · 9 of 19

Testimony · Part 7

But, lastly, Seeing this objection from act 1649 is commonly brought to countenance the intruding of men who force themselves in upon reclaiming parishes, by accepting and holding fast by presentations; we take this occasion freely to own, that a congregation’s offence against a man for evident tokens of earthly mindedness, greed of filthy lucre, and unconcernedness for the success of the gospel, is not a causeless prejudice; as for instance, when there is a gospel door open for preachers to get access to parishes, for a man to despise that door, and chuse rather to enter by the door of a presentation and violence, and thereby endeavour to thrust himself in upon a congregation against their will, secure a title to their stipend so as no man else can have it, keep fast his hold against all persuasions and intreaties, keep the people long without gospel ordinances, bind the heavy yoke of patronage upon their neck, and hinder them from getting a minister whom they love and desire; now, when a man acts so directly against the interest of the gospel, the advantage of precious souls, and his own professed principles and engagements; and when a congregation dissents from his settlement upon these grounds; we cannot say their dissent is grounded upon causeless prejudices: nay, they are so well grounded, that the day hath been, when church judicatories would have stopt their mouths who would be guilty of such things.

Object. “Though it be wrong for preachers to take such methods, yet judicatories are under necessity by the law to settle them, or keep parishes vacant.”—Ans. 1mo, Seeing intrusions into churches are contrary to Scripture, reason, and our professed principles, no laws or commands of men can oblige us to be accessary to them: for, seeing Christ commands us to do all for the edification of his flock, we must never act for its destruction, as intrusions manifestly are. Whenever human laws do clash with the Divine, it is indisputably better to obey God than man.

2do, There is no law yet in being, that obligeth us to intrude men into churches: for though there be an act past in 1712 for restoring patronages, yet it doth expressly reserve to the Presbytery and church judicatories the power of judging of the Presentee’s qualifications and fitness for the charge to which he is presented. Now, the power of judging of a man’s qualifications must not be restricted to these which render him fit for the ministry in general, but must be extended to qualifications necessary to make him fit for being minister of the parish to which he is presented; because a man may be fit and qualified for one charge, that is not so for another. Now, if a Presbytery do find that a Presentee is incapable of answering the design of a gospel-minister to a parish, and is in no condition to instruct or edify their souls, by reason of his offending them, or their incurable aversion to hear him, or submit to his ministry; they may safely judge that such a man is not qualified nor fit to be settled in that parish, and therefore may set him aside. And if in case of an appeal, the assembly affirm the presbytery’s sentence, the law is most express and clear, that the cause must take end as the assembly doth discern, according to act 7. parl. 1567, which act is confirmed by act 1. parl. 1581; and this act is again ratified by act 1. parl. 1592, which act is ratified by act 5. parl. 1690, and stands still in force, being not only ratified by the union, but also confirmed by queen Anne’s law in 1712 for establishing patronages. And as the general assemblies of this church have been always before 1612 in Possession of the foresaid power, so well secured to them by law; so also, since that time their sentences concerning all presentations have been submitted to and held as final. From which it is evident, that judicatories are under no force by law to make intrusions or violent settlements. Why then should church-men, who ought to be guardians of the church’s liberties, go about to destroy them by violent proceedings? Is it not soon enough for church courts to take such destructive courses, when the parliament makes new laws obliging them to it?

But, to return to the state of the church anno 1732: this was a very critical time to her, and most afflicting to many of her best friends, by reason of the stretching of church authority; the intrusions made upon parishes; the disregarding of remonstrances and petitions of a godly remnant both of ministers upon many parishes: and the refusing to record ministers’ dissents with their reasons against such deeds. These proceedings were grieving to the hearts of honest ministers, and provoked many to go to pulpits and testify against them, particularly at the opening of synods, and other occasions; and severals of them printed their sermons, as a testimony against these prevailing evils. Though this was very offensive to many of our leaders, and to the court chaplains (whose number was then increased) yet none was so much noticed as the reverend Mr. Ebenezer Erskine minister of Stirling, whose turn was to preach at the opening of the synod at Perth in October 1732. The synod judged him censurable, and appointed him to be rebuked for his sermon, because in it he had impugned the acts and proceedings of the assembly, and had used some strong expressions against the judicatories and ministers of this church, which they reckoned indecent. Upon which Mr. Erskine appealed to the assembly 1733, who affirmed the synod’s sentence, and rebuked him at their bar. Whereupon Mr. Erskine, with three other ministers, gave in a paper protesting against the assembly’s sentence, viz. Mr. Wilson at Perth, Mr. Moncrieff at Abernethy, and Mr. Fisher at Kinclaven; and they all protested for liberty to testify against the act of assembly 1732, or the like defections. This protestation the assembly 1733 could not bear with.

As it was very unwise in the synod to proceed against Mr. Erskine for his sermon in such a judicial manner, so it was in the assembly to resent the protestation as they did. Informer times such protestations were not reckoned so criminal as now. Mr. Hunter minister protested against the assembly at Edinburgh 1586, for relaxing Mr. Patrick Adamson from the sentence of excommunication without signs of repentance; and Mr. Andrew Melvill and Mr. Thomas Buchanan adhered to his protest, Mr. John Davidson minister at Prestonpans protested against the assembly at Dundee 1598, for allowing ministers to vote in parliament in name of the kirk, where the king was present. Mr. James Melvill protested against the assembly their meeting at Holy rood house 1602, where the king was present. Mr. David Calderwood protested against assembly 1649, for enacting the directory for election of ministers. Yet none of all these were censured for their protestations: neither do the house of peers censure these who protest against their proceedings. Likewise, the Twelve brethren, who were rebuked by assembly 1720 for impugning the act of assembly 1720 against the Marrow, offered their protestations against the censure; as did Mr Gabriel Wilson against the admonition of assembly 1723: yet none of these were censured for their protestations. And doubtless it had been greatly for the interest and peace of the church, that assembly 1733 had followed the example of their wise predecessors. But now their authority must be screwed up higher than at former times: wherefore the assembly, without hearing the four protesting ministers any further before them, did summarily proceed to appoint their commission in August thereafter to suspend them, if they did not retract their protestation, and show their sorrow for the same; and to proceed to a higher censure, if they disobeyed the said sentence.

Accordingly the commission in August did suspend all the four brethren for adhering to their foresaid protestation. And, upon their acting contrary to the suspension, the commission in November determined to proceed presently to a higher censure against them, and would not delay it until March, though the assembly’s act allowed it. This decision was carried only by Mr. Goudie the moderator his casting vote.—And it is to observed, the commission went on in this forward and hasty procedure against the four brethren, notwithstanding of the earnest applications and intercessions of many synods presbyteries, kirk sessions, magistrates and others through Scotland in their behalf, pleading that the commission might delay them, spare them, or deal tenderly with them. The sentence which the commission came to against the four protesting ministers was, to loose their relation from their respective parishes, and declare them no longer ministers of this church, and prohibit all ministers of this church to employ them. And they declared their charges vacant from the date of this sentence.

As the judicatories at this time seemed to act with much heat and severity, in order to support or screw up their authority; so we must own that the four brethren seemed to shew no little humour and stiffness in opposing their authority, and despising their sentences: for they would give no ear to their friends, who dealt with them to show some subjection to the judicatories as to their fathers and superiors; and though they were just now abusing their church power, and unwarrantably provoking their children, yet some regard is to be shewn to their authority, even when so doing, as we to our natural parents, though correcting us in an arbitrary way; according to Heb. xii. 6.—As to Mr. Erskine, though he was contending for the truth, many of his friends wished that he had not used such asperity and tartness of expression about the ministers and judicatories of the church as he did; and many of the leading men in judicatories said, This was the only thing they quarreled in his sermon: but Mr. Erskine would make no acknowledgment or submission of any sort, though even Mr. Wilson and Mr. Moncrieff said in their reasons of dissent, that they do not pretend to justify his modes of expression in that sermon; and they grant that in several cases it is most proper to use soft and modest expressions in maintaining of truth.—We do not see that it would have been any loss to the truth the four brethren appeared for, that they had all shewed more respect to the supreme authority of the church in their conduct than they did; particularly, though they had forborn to protest, as they did in express words, against the sentence of the assembly as Unjust, and against and censure they should inflict on them as null and void of itself; and if, upon their being suspended, any minister or probationer should preach in their parishes, the same should be held as intrusion upon their charges. And as they protested, so they submitted not to the sentence for one day; though many worthy ministers have formerly submitted to unjust sentences of this sort, to shew their regard to the authority of lawful judicatories of a church, which they owned as a true church: and this is approven by the most orthodox and judicious divines of the Presbyterian persuasion. Again, the brethren had the more encouragement to have submitted for a time, that they had reason to expect the next assembly would take off the sentences, consider their complaints, and do them all manner of justice; and this they might have looked for, from the interposition of so many synods and presbyteries with the commission of their favours.—And though offended at them for their contemning the authority of the church, yet there was a great plurality in the assembly 1734 for restoring them to their charges and the communion of the church; and neither that nor any subsequent assembly did ever approve the commission who past the hard sentences against them.

When the sentence of the commission in November 1733, loosing the relation of the four brethren from their charges was past; many protested against it, as did the four brethren themselves, who also appealed to the first free, faithful and reforming general assembly of the church of Scotland. Had they sisted [stayed the proceedings] here, they had done well! but they went a great deal further, by making secession from the judicatories of this church, and in a short time after constituting themselves into a distinct judicatory for licensing preachers, and ordaining ministers, wherever they should find encouragement. At the same time they protested they would still hold communion with all who were true Presbyterians, and groaned under, and wrestled against, the evils they had been complaining of. This was then their declared resolution, though, alas! they soon departed from it. At first they seemed to be determined to continue in ministerial communion with many worthy ministers they had been formerly intimate with, though these had not freedom to secede as they had done, nor go all their lengths: and Mr. Erskine, in his answers to the synod, owned that there was still a body of faithful ministers in the church of Scotland, with whom he did not reckon himself worthy to be compared. Which body had the truths contended for heart, together with the peace of the church, as well the four brethren. And, seeing the case was such, the brethren ought in justice to have communicated counsels with that faithful body of ministers, who were willing to meet with them at the ensuing assembly, before they had taken two such strong steps as their secession and constitution: which uncommon steps, they might easily see, tended greatly to affect that whole body, yea, even to divide and rend them asunder, together with the people who should adhere to them respectively, in case that faithful body should not have light to go into all the measures of the four brethren. Whatever thoughts the brethren might have about the union of the church in general, it might have been expected they would have shewed something of concern for the union of that faithful body of ministers, for whom they did then profess a great regard.—Moreover, since they had appealed for redress to the first faithful general assembly they should have delayed any such extraordinary steps until the meeting of the next assembly then approaching, and so have kept the matter entire until the whole case was laid before them; which the brethren themselves should have been ready to do. For, considering how sensibly touched the whole church was with their case, and what preparations were making for the approaching assembly, the brethren could not be sure but it might prove the reforming assembly they had appealed unto. O what dreadful calamities to the church might have been prevented, had the four brethren continued praying, and deliberating upon the foresaid two steps until the meeting of the assembly in May 1734; and not have so precipitantly seceded from the national church, and constituted themselves into an Anti presbytery, by which means, alas! they became too much engaged in honour to persist in their separation, whatever steps the assembly should take to redress their grievances; and we know not if there was an assembly since the revolution, more willing to do it than the assembly 1734, had the brethren applied to them for it, as they were urged by many to do.

The whole church had been so much alarmed by the arbitrary proceedings of former years, and the present threatened confusions, that there came up to the assembly 1734 from all parts, and even the remotest, many pious and experienced ministers, with sincere intentions to have matters settled upon a better footing if possible. And, upon trial, the plurality of the assembly was found to be upon their side, to the great joy of the friends of peace and truth. Now, it would have exceedingly strengthened their hands in their good designs to redress grievances and advance reformation, if the four brethren had tabled their complaints before them, and represented what they would have the assembly to do for to satisfy them; but this they declined to do, though they were all in the town at the time. But notwithstanding of this discouragement from the brethren, and the mighty opposition of great men, ruling elders, who had a strong party in the house to support them; the assembly, in the short time they had, did all that was in their power to satisfy the friends of reformation, and to put a stop to violent settlements and the prevailing evils of the time; and they were zealously inclined to have done much more, if their time and the situation of their affairs could have allowed. Particularly, they renewed and strengthened the old acts of assembly, which were made to be barriers and fences of our constitutions against innovations such as these made by ass. 1639, ass. 1697, ass. 1700, and ass. 1705. And they rescinded the 7th act of ass. 1730, which hindered members to testify against wrong deeds of judicatories, by recording their reasons of dissent; because the said act was not made according to the foresaid rules and barrier-acts. And, upon the same account, they repealed the 8th act of ass. 1732, anent [regarding] the method of planting vancant churches; and because it gave too much countenance to violent settlements, and too much power to disaffected heritors, and was unfavourable to the liberties of the people. They reversed the settlement of a minister made by the commission, at Auchtermuchty, against the will of the congregation, and of the Presbytery of the bounds; and by that decision they declared the commission’s sentences reversible. Also they brought the commission under several new regulations, and discharged them to execute any settlements of churches when the presbytery or synod of the bounds declined to do it. They impowered their commission to address the king and parliament for relief from patronages; which they did, though in vain. Also they impowered the synod of Perth and StirIing to restore the four ejected brethren to their charges and the communion of this church; Which they did very soon after the assembly, without requiring any acknowledgments from them. And, to facilitate their return, the assembly sincerely designed in act for removing their apprehensions, that, by the late sentences past against them, they were laid under greater restraints than before as to their ministerial freedom in testifying against acts and deeds of the church: wherefore, for the satisfaction of the four brethren, and all others, the assembly made an act, declaring, That due and regular ministerial freedom is still left entire to all ministers. They also appointed a committee to draw up an overture for an act to give directions as to the right preaching of the gospel, and to restrain the legal preaching and moral harangues of many not so agreeable thereto. This had been several times attempted in former years, but still dropt, till now that the assembly formed and referred the overture to their commission to ripen it They also referred it to their commission to appoint a national fast, which had been long neglected, that all ranks might mourn for the prevailing evils and defections of the church and land; which they did immediately after the rising of the assembly. This ass. 1734 was a singularly faithful and reforming assembly, who did very much in a short time, against great opposition, to rectify what was wrong, and put matters upon a better footing.—They gave remarkable checks to violent settlements, and relief to several parishes oppressed by them; for at this assembly methods were concerted to get sealing ordinances to these persons who submitted not to them, from other ministers they chused to apply to. As this assembly turned out one minister violently settled, so they were ready to have cast out others, if complaints had been regularly tabled before them. Their time of sitting did not allow them to consider and provide remedies for every thing amiss, and particularly for that wrong act of ass. 1733, concerning the presbytery of Dunfermline and their behaviour toward the minister that was forcibly settled at Kinross, wherein the said assembly threaten high censures against these who refuse to own him as minister of Kinross, or who admit of any of that parish to sealing ordinances without his consent. This was plainly oppression, and a very high strain of church authority, to settle ministers contrary to the rules of the word and of the church, and then oblige presbyteries to receive them, and people to submit to them. But the assembly 1734 gave a seasonable check to such oppressive courses; and for the people of Kinross, it was afterward referred to the synod of Fife to do what was proper for their relief, who thereupon allowed them the benefit of church-privileges wherever they should think fit to ask them. And letters were written to presbyteries in other places, to indulge people in such circumstances in the like manner.

Thus did the faithful body of ministers (of whom Mr. Ebenezer Erskine did speak) use their utmost strenuous endeavours in the assembly 1734, and in the meetings of their commission, and in after assemblies, to get the door opened, stumbling blocks removed, and the way paved for the return of their four brethren to communion with them as before. Yea, they got ministers sent up year after year to London, to solicit the king and parliament for relief from patronages. And when honest ministers were in this manner travelling, sweating, labouring and struggling, even above their strength, to get things that were wrong, reformed and rectified; it was extremely afflicting to them, that the four brethren, with whom they had formerly taken sweet counsel, would by no means return to their assistance, though invited and pressed to it; but, instead of that, would be still disparaging their actings, and misconstructing their most sincere intentions. Notwithstanding of this discouragement, they continued struggling, and doing all they were able, to promote reformation in the assembly 1735 and assembly 1736: still hoping the four brethren would bethink themselves, and cease from their dividing course. And though that honest body of ministers could not get all done which they designed, yet they got several good things carried; such as an act for better regulating the commission, and limiting their powers; an act against intrusion of ministers, and declaring it to be the principle of this church, That none should be intruded into any parish contrary to the will of the congregation. How happy were it if this act were observed, and the foresaid principle maintained and adhered unto! Some things also were done at this time for the relief of those parishes that had been intruded upon; and an excellent overture was agreed upon, with respect to evangelical preaching, which was transmitted to presbyteries, and their consent to it was obtained; so that after long dependence it was got enacted by assembly 1736, May 21st, act 7th, in which

they recommend to ministers and preachers to warn their hearers against any thing that tends to Atheism, Deism, Arianism, Socinianism, Arminianism, Bourignianism, Popery, Superstition, Antinomianism, or any other errors: And that they insist in their sermons upon our sinful and lost estate by nature, the necessity of

supernatural grace, and of faith in the righteousness of Christ, without which the best works cannot please God: And that they make it the great scope of their sermons to lead sinners from a covenant of works to a covenant of grace for life and salvation and from sin and self to precious Christ our Surety and Saviour.—And as they are to

press the practice of all moral duties, so also to shew the nature and excellency of gospel holiness, without which no man can see the Lord: and, in order to attain it, they are to shew men the corruption and depravity of their nature by the fall, their natural impotence for, and aversion to, what is spiritually good; and to lead them to the true and only source of all grace and holiness, viz. Union with Christ by the holy Spirit’s working faith in us, and renewing us more and more after the image of God: and that they must count all their best performances and attainments but loss and dung in point of justification before God, and to make it their it great desire only to be found in Christ their Surety, clothed in his righteousness, which is infinitely perfect and law-biding; and to make gospel

subjects their main theme and study, &c. And they recommend to all professors of divinity, to use their best endeavours to have the students under their care well acquainted with the true method of preaching the gospel as directed by this act; and appoint presbyteries at their privy censures to enquire concerning the observation of this act.

—This is a short abstract of that excellennt act, which godly ministers had been intent about for many years past, in order to give some check to the legal way of preaching, and the loose moral discourses of several preachers, to the neglect of the true preaching of Christ and him crucified, introduced by many of the younger clergy.—However long this act had been delayed, yet it was most seasonably past in 1736, when a little before there had been a great noise of Deism spreading among the students of divinity at Edinburgh; and one of them, Mr. William Nimmo, had delivered a discourse in the divinity-hall, March 1735, to the prejudice of the Christian revelation; for which he was extruded by the masters, and excommunicated by the presbytery of Edinburgh.

But seeing there is no great reason to fear that the foresaid excellent act concerning preaching is but little noticed and observed by many, and that there is in this church and land very much of a legal or moral way of preaching, exclusive of Christ and to the neglect of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity; and seeing the church of God, and the souls of men, to be in the greatest danger from this airth: we judge it our duty to give plain and open testimony against this sort of preaching, and to declare for the true gospel way of preaching Christ and him crucified, which ought to be the great study of every gospel minister, as it was of the apostle Paul, I Cor. ii. 2.

We grant that morality, or obedience to the moral law, is an excellent thing, and absolutely necessary to be studied by every true Christian, seeing God requires it, and without morality and true holiness no man can see the Lord; but then it must be preached, otherwise by a gospel-minister than by a moral philosopher: Why? It must flow from gospel-principles, be performed in a gospel-manner, and be pressed mainly, by gospel motives and arguments. But it must be sad indeed, when there is almost as little of Christ or an evangelical strain to be found in the sermons of Christian preachers, as in the discourses of Seneca, Plato, Socrates, or other Heathen moralists.

This Christless way of preaching morality is an inlet to Deism and Infidelity: for, when men are accustomed to hear moral sermons with little of Christ in them, they are apt to think there is but little difference between them and the discourses of moral Heathens; and therefore they may be good enough, and win to heaven by their morality, without Christ or his righteousness.—O how natural it is for men to go about to establish a righteousness of their own, with a view to be saved by it, and to neglect that new righteousness which the eternal wisdom of God hath established as alone sufficient for it! And therefore they need often to be called, after their utmost lengths in moral attainments (which are but poor and wretched at best) to renounce them all, and go to the imputed righteousness of Christ, to wit, the obedience of his holy life, and his sufferings unto death, for justification and salvation.

Morality is a desirable thing, when kept in its due place; but, when allowed to possess the place of Christ’s righteousness, imputed to us, it is a soul-ruining thing, and the greatest hindrance of the soul’s coming to Christ, and of its entering into heaven. God will have us come entirely off from the old bottom of a covenant of works, and from resting upon any thing done by us, or wrought in us for acceptance with God; and look only for attaining to it by believing on him whom God hath sent, and resting upon his righteousness only: nothing of ours must be added to it, otherwise we mar it. Though faith be required of us as the mean or instrument whereby we receive and apply Christ and his righteousness, and also true repentance and sincere obedience are required as evidences and fruits of our faith; yet neither faith, repentance or obedience, nor all of them together, are any part of our justifying righteousness in the sight of God, nor are they the foundation of our acceptance, or of our title to eternal life: Christ must be all our righteousness, or nothing. So that none must think to be saved partly by his own obedience, and partly by Christ’s in order to make up his defects; but we must be saved wholly by the complete morality and obedience of Christ imputed to us. Our proud natures must be humbled and changed, and must be brought to submit to accept of an entire new clothing, instead of our own righteousness; for the glory of God will not allow the least place to this in our justification, he will have all boasting excluded for ever.

Quest. “Seeing morality and the duties of the moral law are to be preached and pressed, in what manner then must we do it?”