Page:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 3.djvu/205

Rh ner," he delivered himself, on the disputed points, more at large, and with still greater freedom. In this sermon, Mr Erskine asserted, in its full breadth, the doctrine which we have above proved, from her standards, to have all along been the doctrine of the church of Scotland that the election of a minister belonged to the whole body of the people. "The promise," said he, keeping up the figure in the text, " of conduct and counsel in the choice of men that are to build, is not made to patrons and heritors, or any other set of men, but to the church, the body of Christ, to whom apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers are given. As it is a natural privilege of every house or society of men, to have the choice of their own servants or officer; so it is the privilege of the house of God in a particular manner. What a miserable bondage would it be reckoned, for any family to have stewards, or servants, imposed on them by strangers, who might give the children a stone for bread, or a scorpion instead of a fish, poison instead of medicine; and shall we suppose that our God granted a power to any set of men, patrons, heritors, or whatever they be, a power to impose servants on his family, they being the purest society in the world?" This very plain and homely passage, which, for the truth it contains, and the noble spirit of liberty which it breathes, deserves to be written with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever, gave great offence to many members of synod, and particularly to Mr Mercer of Aberdalgie, who moved that Mr Erskine should be rebuked for his freedom of speech, and admonished to be more circumspect for the future. This produced the appointment of a committee, to draw out the passages complained of; which being done, and Mr Erskine refusing to retract any thing he had said, the whole was laid before the synod. The synod, after a debate of three days, found, by a plurality of six voices, Mr Erskine censurable, and ordered him to be rebuked and admonished at their bar accordingly. The presbytery of Stirling was also instructed to notice his behaviour in time coming, at their privy censures, and report to the next meeting of synod. Against this sentence Mr Erskine entered his protest, and appealed to the general assembly. Mr Alexander Moncrief of Abernethy also protested against this sentence, in which he was joined by a number of his brethren, only two of whom, Mr William Wilson of Perth, and Mr Fisher of Kinclaven, Mr Erskine's son-in-law, became eventually seceders. Firm to their purpose, the synod, on the last sederunt of their meeting, called Mr Erskine up to be rebuked; and he not appearing, it was resolved that he should be rebuked at their next meeting in April Personal pique against Mr Erskine, and envy of his extensive popularity, were unfortunately at the bottom of this procedure, which, as it increased that popularity in a tenfold degree, heightened proportionally the angry feelings of his opponents, and rendered them incapable of improving the few months that elapsed between the meetings of synod, for taking a more cool and dispassionate view of the subject. The synod met in April, under the same excitation of feeling; and though the presbytery and the kirk session of Stirling exerted themselves to the utmost in order to bring about an accommodation, it was in vain: the representations of the first were disregarded, and the petition of the other was not so much as read. Mr Erskine being called, and compearing, simply told them that he adhered to his appeal. There cannot be a doubt but that the synod was encouraged to persevere in its wayward course by the leaders of the assembly, who were now resolved to lay prostrate every shadow of opposition to their measures. Accordingly, when the assembly met, in the month of May following, 1733, they commenced proceedings by taking up the case of Mr Stark, the intruder into the parish of Kinross, and the presbytery of Dunfermline, which they finished in the highest style of authority; probably, in part, for the very purpose of intimidating such as might be dis-