but at the fame time appointed them to use all poffible tenderness for obtaining harmony in the congregation, and to proceed to a new election, in cafe the major part of the congregation diffented from their choice, if their diffent was not grounded on caufelefs prejudices. Now thefe elders, who were the electors, being the representatives of the people, and the most eminent in the parish for piety and knowledge, would doubtless previously confult the inclinations of the better fort, particularly the communicants, who are properly the members of the congregation; and, if they found that the most knowing and religious part of the congregation was for the fettlement, they might reckon that the causeless prejudices of others, not complete members of the congregation, were to be lefs regarded. We are firmly perfuaded the church' in that period were far from reckoning it a causeless prejudice against a man, if the most religious or knowing part of a congregation declared their diffent from the feffion's choice, because they found the preacher's gifts unfuitable for their edification; no, in that case, the session would have been appointed to make a new election. The people then were not confined to objections only against the life and doctrine of the candidate, but allowed to diffent from and object against the election itself, and give what reafons or grounds for it they thought proper; and, if the feffion could not fatisfy them after all pains taken, they proceeded to a new election. All this appears from a known pamphlet, printed anno 1733, intituled, "Account of the method of electing a minister to the parish of Strathmiglo, in two inftances in the years 1654 and 1655, in a letter to the minifter there." If it be afked, What is then to be meant by causeless prejudices mentioned in the act 1646? Anf. Any groundless or trifling objection against a man, because of his mean extract, low ftature, bodily infirmity or blemish; or because of fome groundlefs report, or the ftrictness of his walk, zeal for his principles, or the like: in which groundless prejudice the Affembly might judge that ignorant and unreasonable people were not to be too much indulged; though at the fame time they, en join 1 join all poffible tenderness in dealing with parishes to bring them to harmony, even then when a leffer part of the congregation diffent from the election without relevant objections. But, lafly, Seeing this objection from act 1649, is commonly brought to countenance the intruding of men who force themselves in upon reclaiming parithes, by accepting and holding faft by presentations; we take this occafion freely to own, that a congregation's offence' against a man for evident tokens of " earthly mindednefs, greedy of filthy lucre, and unconcernedness for the fuccefs of the gofpel, is not a caufelefs prejudice;" as for inftance, when there is a gofpel door open for preachers to get access to parishes, for a man to defpife that door, and chufe rather to enter by the door of a prefentation and violence, and thereby endeavour to thrust himself in upon a congregation against their will, fecure a title to their stipend so as no man elfe can have it, keep faft his hold againft all perfuafions and entreaties, keep the people long without gospel ordinances, bind the heavy yoke of patronage upon their neck, and hinder them from getting a minifter whom they love and defire; now, when a man acts fo directly againft the intereft of the gofpel, the advantage of precious fouls, and his own profeffed principles and engagements; and when a congregation diffents from his fettlement upon these grounds; we cannot fay their diffent is grounded upon causeless prejudices; nay, they are so well grounded, that the day hath been, when churchjudicatories would have ftopt their mouths who would be guilty of fuch things. Object." Though it be wrong for preachers to take fuch methods, yet judicatories are under neceflity by the law to fettle them, or keep parishes vacant." An 1. Seeing intrufions into churches are contrary to fcripture, reason, and our profeffed principles, no laws or commands of men can oblige us to be acceffory to them: for, feeing Chrift commands us to do all for the edification of his flock, we must never act for its destruction, as intrufions manifeftly are. Whenever human. laws 3 H 2 do. n do clash with the Divine, it is indifputably "better tó obey God than man.” 2. There is no law yet in being, that obligeth us to intrude men into churches: for though there be an act paft in 1712 for reftoring patronages, yet it doth exprefsly reserve to the Prefbytery and church judicatories the power of judging of the Prefentee's qualifications and fitnefs for the charge to which he is prefented. Now, the power of judging of a man's qualifications must not be reftricted to thefe which render him fit for the miniftry in general, but must be extended to qualifications neceffary to make him fit for being minifter of the parish to which he is presented; because a man may be fit and qualified for one charge, that is not fo for another. Now, if a Prefbytery do find that a presentee is incapable of answering the design of a gospel-minister to a parish, and is in no condition to inftruct or edify their fous, by reafon of his offending them, or their incurable averfion to hear him, or submit to his ministry; they may fafely judge that fuch a man is not qualified nor fit to be fettled in that parish, and therefore may fet him afide. And if, in case of an appeal, the Affembly affirm the Prefbytery's fentence, the law is most exprefs and clear, that the cause must take end as the Affembly doth decern, 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 ftands ftill in force, being not only ratified by the Union, but also confirm. ed by queen Anne's law in 1712, for establishing patron. ages. And as the General Affemblies of this church have been always before 1712 in poffeffion of the forefaid power, fo well fecured to them by law; fo alfo, fince that time, their fentences concerning all presentations have been submitted to and held as final. which it is evident, that judicatories are under no force by law to make intrufions or violent fettlements. Why then should church-men, who ought to be guardians of the church's liberties, go about to deftroy them by violent proceedings? Is it not foon enough for church From courts courts to take fuch deftructive courfes, when the Parliament makes new laws obliging them to it? But, to return to the ftate of the church anno 1732: this was a very critical time to her, and most afflicting to many of her best friends, by reafon of the ftretching of church authority; the intrufions made upon parishes; the difregarding of remonstrances and petitions of a godly remnant both of minifters and people; the paffing that act 1732, which encouraged heritors not of our communion to impofe minifters upon many parithes; and the refufing to record minifters diffents with their reafons against fuch deeds. Thefe proceedings were grieving to the hearts of honeft minifters, and provoked many to go to pulpits and testify against them, particularly at the opening of fynods, and other occafions; and feverals of them printed their fermons, as a testimony against these prevailing evils. Though this was very offenfive to many of our leaders, and to the court chaplains (whofe number was then increased) yet none was fo much noticed as the reverend Mr Ebenezer Erfkine minifter of Stirling, whofe turn was to preach at the opening of the fynod at Perth in October 1732. The fynod judged him cenfurable, and appointed him to be rebuked for his fermon, because in it he had impugned the acts and proceedings of the Affembly, and had used fome ftrong expreflions against the judicatories and minifters of this church, which they reckoned indecent. Upon which Mr Erskine appealed to the Affembly 1733, who affirmed the fynod's fentence, and rebuked him at their bar. Whereupon Mr Erskine, with three other minifters, gave in a paper protesting against the Affembly's fentence, viz. Mr Wilfon at Perth, Mr Moncrieff at Abernethy, and Mr. Fisher at Kinclaven; and they all protefted for liberty to testify against the act of Affembly 1732, or the like defections. This proteftation the Affembly 1733 could not bear with. As it was very unwife in the fynod to proceed against Mr Erskine for his fermon in fuch a judicial manner, fo it was in the Affembly to refent the protef tation as they did. In former tinies fuch proteftations were were not reckoned fo criminal as now Mr Andrew Henter minifter proteft d against the Affembly at Edinburgh 1586, for releafing Mr Patrick Adamson from the fentence of excommunication without figns of repentance; and Mr Andrew Melvill and Mr Thomas Buchanan adhered to his proteft. Mr John Davidfon minister at Prestonpans protefted against the Affembly at Dundee 1598, for allowing minifters to vote in Parliament in name of the kirk, where the king was prefent. Mr James Melvill protefted against the Affembly their meeting at Holyrood-houfe 1602, where the king was present. Mr David Calderwood protefted against Affembly 1649, for enacting the directory for election of minifters. Yet none of all these were cenfured for their protestations: neither do the House of Peers cenfure thefe who proteft against their proceedings. Likewife the Twelve brethren, who were rebuked by Affembly 1722 for impugning the act of Affembly 1720 against the Marrow, offered their protestation against the cenfure; as did Mr Gabriel Wilfon against the admonition of Affembly 1723: yet none of thefe were cenfured for their proteftations. And doubtlefs it had been greatly for the intereft and peace of the church, that Affembly 1733 had followed the example of their wife predeceffors. But now their authority must be screwed up higher than at former times: wherefore the Affembly, without hearing the four protesting minifters any further before them, did fummarily proceed to appoint their commiffion in August thereafter to suspend them, if they did not retract their proteftation, and fhow their forrow for the fame; and to proceed to a higher cenfure, if they disobeyed the faid fentence. Accordingly the commiffion in Auguft did fufpend all the four brethren for adhering to their forefaid proteftation. And, upon their acting contrary to the fufpenfion, the commiffion in November determined to proceed presently to a higher cenfure against them, and would not delay it until March, though the Affembly's act allowed it. This decifion was carried only by Mr Goudie the moderator his cafting vote. And |