Page:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 3.djvu/212

240 sistent with the oath of the covenants, and with the secession testimony. The associate presbytery had already determined the oaths of abjuration and allegiance to be sinful, as embracing the complex constitution, and was of course incompatible with the testimony which they had emitted against that complex constitution. At the last meeting of the associate presbytery, Mr Alexander Moncrief gave in a paper, stating his scruples with regard to the religious clause of some burgess oaths, which he apprehended, would be found when examined, to be equally sinful with those they had already condemned. The dis- solution of the associate presbytery being determined on, the question was reserved for a first essay of the associate synod. Accordingly, when the synod met in the month of March, 1745, it was among the first motions that came before them; and after much discussion, the synod, in the month of April, 1746, found "that the swearing the religious clause in some burgess oaths, 'Here I protest before God and your lordships, that I profess and allow within my heart, the true religion presently professed within this reahn, and authorized by the laws thereof; I shall abide thereat and defend the same to my life's end, renouncing the Romish religion, called papistry,' by any under their inspection, as the said clause comes necessarily in this period to be used and applied in a way that does not agree unto the present state and circumstances of the testimony for religion and reformation which this synod, with those under their inspection, are maintaining ; particularly, that it does not agree unto nor consist with an entering into the bond for renewing our solemn covenants, and that, therefore, those seceding cannot farther, with safety of conscience and without sin, swear any burgess oath with the said religious clause, while matters, with reference to the profession and settlement of religion, continue in such circumstances as at present," &c. When this subject was first stated, it did not appear to be attended either with difficulty or danger. Questions of much more intricacy had been discussed at great length, and harmoniously disposed of by the associate presbytery; and the above decision, we are persuaded every unbiassed reader, when he reflects that it was intended to bind only those who had already acceded to the sederunt act and testimony, will think that it should have given entire satisfaction. This, however, was far from being the case. Some personal pique seems to have subsisted between two of the members of*co:irt, Mr Moncrief and Mr Fisher; in consequence of which, the latter regarded the conduct of the former with some suspicion. Being son-in-law to Mr Ebenezer Erskine, the latter, too, was supported by both the Erskines, who were the idols of the body, and on this occasion gave most humiliating evidence of the power of prejudice to darken the clearest intellects, and to pervert the purest and the warmest hearts. The question was simple What was meant by those who framed and now imposed the oath: 1 Was it the true religion abstractly considered, that was to be acknowledged by the swearer? or was it not rather the true religion embodied in a particular form, and guaranteed by particular laws, to insure the integrity of which, the oath was principally intended? Either this was the case, or the oath was superfluous and unmeaning, and of course could not be lawfully sworn by any one, whatever might be his opinions, as in that case it would have been a taking of the name of God in vain. True, however, it is, that volumes were written, of which no small portion came from the pens of the venerable Ralph Erskine and the worthy Mr James Fisher, to prove that nothing was sworn to in the oath but the true religion, abstracting from all the accompanying and qualifying clauses thereof. A protest against the above decision of synod was taken by Messrs Ralph Erskine, James Fisher, William Hulton, Henry Erskine, and John M'Cara, in which they were joined by two elders, and by the time of next meeting of synod, the whole body was