If there is one thing we learn from history, it is that
few people learn from history. Nowhere is that more true than in the
realm of church history. In the 1730s, the Rev Ebenezer Erskine, the
Rev Ralph Erskine and other faithful evangelical ministers were forced
out of the Church of Scotland by the Moderates, simply for testifying
against the doctrinal and moral corruption in the Church. The parallels
between the Erskine's situation and our own are many, and their struggles
appear to us sadly and uncannily familiar, as can be seen from the following
quotations from "The History of the Secession Church" by McKerrow:
"The situation of the faithful ministers of the Church of Scotland was
at this time sufficiently distressing. They had the mortification to
behold measures, which they considered unscriptural and oppressive,
carried by triumphant majorities. Against these measures in vain did
they remonstrate and petition: their remonstrances were not listened
to, and their petitions were disregarded....Beyond this, ecclesiastical
despotism had but one step further to advance - and that was to impose
restraint upon ministerial faithfulness in the pulpit. Here also it
endeavoured to carry its terrors, and it was the foolish attempt to
do so that led directly to the Secession. Those ministers who belonged
to the faithful party, considered it their duty to testify from the
pulpit against those measures which they deemed injurious to the interests
of religion, but which they had not sufficient influence to prevent
from being carried in the church courts. This was a privilege which
the ministers of Scotland had long claimed and enjoyed; and...in some
of the past periods of our history, the exercise of it by faithful ministers
has been productive of much benefit both to the church and to the country....The
ruling party in the church courts thought otherwise...so they were resolved
to stretch forth the rod of their authority, with the view of preventing
their opponents from exposing their unscriptural proceedings, in the
ministrations of the pulpit. Such a practice as this could not but be
galling to them, and it was natural for them to endeavour to suppress
it" (pp.56-57).
The majority party proceeded to discipline the Rev Ebenezer Erskine
for preaching a Synod sermon which pointed out the Church's sins. "Erskine
protested against the rebuke and admonition of the Assembly: 'Although
I have a very great and dutiful regard to the judicatories of this church,
to whom I own my subjection in the Lord; yet, in respect the Assembly
have found me censurable, and have tendered a rebuke and admonition
to me, for things I conceive agreeable unto, and founded upon, the word
of God, and our approven standards, I find myself obliged to protest
against the said censure, as importing that I have, in my doctrine at
the opening of the synod at Perth, October last, departed from the word
of God, and the foresaid standards; and that I shall be at liberty to
preach the same truths of God, and to testify against the same or like
defections of this church, upon all proper occasions'" (p.68).
"Provided they [Erskine and his supporters] were permitted to protest,
when they saw cause, against the unconstitutional and unscriptural proceedings
of the prevailing party; provided also they were permitted to testify
in public against the corruptions that marred the beauty of their Zion,
they were still willing to continue in her [the Church's] fellowship.
But an overruling Providence had ordered it otherwise. These good men
were driven violently onward, step by step, by the tyrannical measures
of those who were opposed to them, until at length they were compelled
formally to declare a secession from a church, which, with all its faults,
they loved" (p.70).
"Having refused to withdraw their protest they [Erskine and his supporters]
concluded with the following declaration: 'That any sentence of suspension,
or of a higher nature, that should be inflicted upon them, should be
held and reputed as null and void in itself; and that it should be lawful
and warrantable for them to exercise their ministry as hitherto they
had done, and as if no due censure had been inflicted upon them, in
regard they were not convicted of departing from any of the received
principles of this church, or of counteracting their ordinary vows and
engagements; but on the contrary, were sentenced to censure by the late
General Assembly, for protesting against a decision whereby injury was
done to some truths of God, which they were obliged to own and confess;
and whereby they were brought under new and unwarrantable terms of ministerial
communion, inconsistent with the word of God, and their ordination vows
and engagements'" (p.76). "Others dissented along similar lines and
added, 'If in consequence of this sentence, any minister or probationer
shall exercise any part of our pastoral work, the same shall be held
and repute as a violent intrusion upon our ministerial labours'" (p.77).
"Whatever the intentions of the leaders of this [prevailing] party might
be, there can be no doubt that the tendency of the measures which they
pursued was to secularise the church...and to extinguish everything
like independence of thought, as well as freedom of action, amongst
both ministers and people....Either a resolute stand must be made for
the truth, on Scriptural grounds, whatever might be the consequences;
or conscience and freedom of judgment must be surrendered by tamely
submitting, on all occasions to tyrannical and unjust enactments....They
were resolved that they would not, on any account, passively acquiesce
in measures which their soul abhorred, as dishonouring to God and destructive
of religion, and against which they were forbidden, by stern authority
to lift a condemnatory voice" (p.85).
"In bearing testimony against these and similar abuses, he [Erskine]
considered he was doing nothing more than his duty; and no occasion
could be more fitting for expressing his sentiments upon these points,
than when his brethren were assembled in their synod to deliberate concerning
the affairs of the church. Besides, if any apology were necessary for
the ministerial freedom which he exercised on this occasion, it ought
to be remembered that the supreme court had refused to receive any representations
on the subject of the prevailing corruptions...so that faithful ministers
were reduced to the alternative, whether of appearing to sanction, by
their silence, the grossest abuses, or of letting their voice be heard
against them in the pulpit" (p.87).
When the faithful were forced out of the Church of Scotland, they said:
"Our Secession is not from the Church of Scotland; we own her doctrine
contained in her Confession of Faith; we adhere to her covenanted Presbyterian
church government, discipline, and worship: but it is from a party who
have got the management in their hands, and who have got the majority
on their side in the Judicatories, particularly in our Assemblies and
Commissions, and who are carrying on a course of defection from our
reformed and covenanted principles, and who are suppressing ministerial
freedom and faithfulness in testifying against their present backslidings
by inflicting censures upon ministers for witnessing by protestation
and otherwise against the same" (p.90).
"Nothing is more plain, than that every minister is bound to declare
the whole counsel of God. As he is to teach the observance of all things
contained in the word, so he is to show Israel his transgression, and
the house of Jacob their sin; and if the sin be committed by the officers
of the church, it is so much the more dangerous to the whole body, and
therefore ought to be testified against because that, when the leaders
of the people do cause them to err, they that are led of them are destroyed"
(p.102).
"From all which it is plain that the prevailing party will not allow
us to maintain a proper testimony, in a way of ministerial communion
with them, against their present steps of defection and backsliding;
and therefore it is not only warrantable for us, but we are laid under
a necessity, to lift up a testimony, in a way of secession from them,
against the present current of defection, whereby our constitution is
subverted, our doctrine is corrupted, and the heritage and flock of
Christ are wounded, scattered and broken, that we may not partake with
them in their sins, and may do what in us lies to transmit unto succeeding
generations these valuable truths that have been handed down to us by
the contendings and wrestlings of a great cloud of witnesses in Scotland
since the dawning of reformation light amongst us" (p.103).
"They believe that it is the duty of faithful ministers, when defections
prevail in a church, and when iniquity is established by law, to give
faithful warning against the prevailing evils of the time; and when
censured for it, though at the bar of an Assembly, it is their duty
to protest for the cause of truth, that it may not fall in the streets;
and, when suspended or otherwise censured, that it is their duty to
continue in the exercise of their ministry, necessity being laid upon
them by their dedication to that office and the command of God to preach
the Gospel, and so to obey God rather than man; especially when it is
considered that submission to arbitrary authority, in a case wherein
the public cause is concerned, is a plain giving up with their testimony"
(p.105).
"It will be difficult to find in the records of any ecclesiastical court
a sentence more unjust and tyrannical, than that which the Assembly
at this time pronounced against the Fathers of the Secession. The reader
will naturally ask, for what was it that these good men were deposed
from the office of the holy ministry? Was it because they were chargeable
with error in doctrine? Was it because they were immoral in practice?
Was it because they held principles at variance with the constitution
of the Church of Scotland? No! They were eminently distinguished for
their soundness in the faith, for the purity of their lives, and for
their warm attachment to the constitution of that church from which
they were expelled....They were deposed because they refused any longer
to co-operate with the established judicatories, in carrying on that
system of ecclesiastical tyranny..." (pp.175-176).
"To these charges the Seceders replied that while they readily admitted,
that separation from a church was not to be lightly or hastily made,
even though corruptions did prevail in it, yet when a church, in her
judicative capacity, carries on a course of defection, in an obstinate
way, and suppresses all attempts at testifying against her defections,
by preaching, by petitions, and protestations, then it is the duty of
all who wish to maintain the purity of the faith and the interests of
religion, to withdraw from her communion. They farther maintained, that
they did not pretend to be a distinct church from the Church of Scotland,
but to be a separate party in that church, who had withdrawn from the
corrupt majority, until they should effect a reformation of the abuses
and corruptions that prevailed. The reasoning of their opponents, they
alleged, if it proved anything, in reference to the question at issue
between them, proved too much; for the same arguments might be employed
to show that separation from the Church of Rome or from any other church,
however corrupt, was sinful and unwarrantable" (p.186).
Conclusion
We conclude with a summary of the obvious parallels with the present
day Free Church. Firstly, unscriptural, suppressive and oppressive measures
are carried by triumphant Assembly majorities. Secondly, libels, petitions
and overtures to address these concerns are improperly blocked and rejected,
without consideration, on the slightest of technicalities. Thirdly,
ministerial faithfulness in testifying against the church's defections
and corruptions, in print and in the pulpit, is prohibited on pain of
censure. Fourthly, new and unscriptural terms of ministerial communion
are imposed (eg: support for FCDA or the Stornoway Relief Free Church
are now censurable offences). Fifthly, ministers are censured, not for
immorality or heresy, but for protesting against measures which they
believe are unscriptural, unconstitutional and inconsistent with their
ordination vows. Sixthly, increasingly tyrannical measures are forcing
the faithful out of the majority Free Church in order to rescue and
reconstitute the historic Free Church of Scotland.
Any comments or questions please E-Mail
me or Rev William Macleod
the Editor.
[Back to Reformed Christian Pages][Back
to Free Church Foundations]