Page:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 3.djvu/247

Rh cess; and in the case of the Marrow, had his own share of the toil, trouble, and opprobrium cast upon the few ministers who at that time had the hardihood to make an open appearance for the genuine faith of the Gospel. Before the commencement of the secession, he was engaged, along with his copresbyters, of the presbytery of Dunfermline, in a dispute with the general assembly, in behalf of the liberties of the presbyterian church of Scotland, in which, however, they failed. This was in the case of Mr Stark, who had been most shamefully intruded upon the burgh and parish of Kinross, and whom, in consequence, the presbytery of Dunfermline refused to admit as one of their members. The case was brought before the assembly, 1732, and summarily decided by ordering the presbytery to assemble immediately, and enrol Mr Stark as one of their members, give him the right hand of fellowship, and by all means in their power, to strengthen his hands, and hold him up against the opposition that was raised against him by the parish, under the pain of being visited with the church's highest displeasure. Against this decision, protests were offered by Mr Ralph Erskine and others, but they were peremptorily refused. Another act of the same assembly became the ostensible cause of the secession. In this controversy, however, Mr Ralph Erskine had no share, farther than that he adhered to the protests that were offered in behalf of the four brethren who carried it on, took their part on all occasions, attended many of their meetings, and maintained the closest communion with them, both Christian and ministerial; but he did not withdraw from the judicatures of the established church, till the month of February, 1737, when seeing no hope of any reformation in that quarter, he gave in a declaration of secession to the presbytery of Dunfermline, and joined the associate presbytery.

The fame of Mr Ralph Erskine was now, by his taking part with the secession, considerably extended; for the circumstances attending it were making a great noise in every corner of the country. It particularly attracted the notice of Wesley and Whitefield, who at this time were laying the foundations of Methodism in England. The latter of these gentlemen entered shortly after this period into correspondence with Mr Ralph Erskine, in consequence of which he came to Scotland, paid a visit to him, and preached the first sermon he delivered in this country from that gentleman's pulpit in Dunfermline. The professed object of Mr Whitefield was the same as that of the secession, namely, the reformation of the church, and the promoting of the interests of holiness; and one mode of doing so he held in common with seceders, which was the preaching of the doctrines of the cross; in every thing else they were directly opposed to each other. Equally or even more decidedly attached to the doctrines of free grace, the seceders considered the settlement of nations and churches as of the last importance for preserving, promoting, and perpetuating true and undefined religion. Nations, in consequence of the baptismal engagements of the individuals of which they may be composed, they held to be under indispensible obligations to make a national profession of religion; to cause that all their laws be made to accord with its spirit, and to provide for the due celebration of all its ordinances. Oaths, bonds, and civil associations, they held to be, in their own proper places, legitimate means of attaining, promoting, and preserving reformation. Hence they maintained the inviolable obligations of the national covenant of Scotland, and of the solemn league and covenant of the three kingdoms, and issued their testimony as a declaration for the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the church of Scotland. Of ill these matters, Whitefield was utterly ignorant, and utterly careless. He had received priest's orders in the English church, and had sworn the oath, of supremacy, which one would suppose a pretty strong declaration of his being episcopal in his views. Of government in the church, however, he made little