: : THE ERSKINES BY MaceWEN FAMOUS •SCOTS- ^^ •SERIES- PUBLISHED BY : CHARLES '^^^iSS SCRIBNERS SONS Kis^fT HEW YORK CONTENTS CHAPTER I PAGE PRELIMINARY ....•• 9 CHAPTER n BIRTH AND TRAINING . , , I9 CHAPTER HI THB ERSKINES AS PARISH MINISTERS . » 30 CHAPTER IV THE RISING STORM ...,,. $2 CHAPTER V THE SECESSION ...... 7© CHAPTER VI RIDING THE MARCHES . , » 84 CHAPTER VII THE ERSKINES AS SECESSION MINISTERS , . ,105 CHAPTER VIII THE BREACH ....... I25 CHAPTER IX AFTER THE BREACH . ,136 CHAPTER X RESULTS .... t « * 148 PREFACE The biographies of the Erskines by the Rev. Donald Fraser, published in 1831 and 1833, present their per- sonal character with great fulness. Mr Fraser had access to documents not now available—a diary kept by Ebe- nezer from 1707 till 1722, a diary kept by Ralph from 1 73 1 till 1739, and other manuscripts in shorthand. Admirably as he portrayed their inner life, his narrative is bare and has failed to interest those to whom the events of the Secession are not familiar. As to the historical position and influence of the Erskines, many writers have blundered by following implicitly M'Kerrow's History of the Secession Church. M'Kerrow was a scrupulously careful writer, but his reluctance to reopen recently healed wounds made him silent at points where historical accuracy required frank- ness. Principal Harper's Memoir of Ebenezer Erskine^ and Dr John Brown's Memoir of Fisher^ show less reserve, and are marked as might be expected by breadth and clearness. If even Harper and Brown touch over- lightly upon the faults of the ' Secession Fathers,' Estab- lished Church writers on the other hand have not recognised their merits. It ought to be possible now to write without bias. Archbishop Eyre has kindly guided me to the authorities accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. Among the Church historians of Scotland, Mr George Grub is unrivalled in patient accuracy, and Principal Lee in fairness and research. In order to reach the reaHties, one must turn to the writings of the Erskines and compare these with con- 8 PREFACE temporary literature. With regard to the latter, the most important information is contained in rare pam- phlets, many of which have been carefully studied. Of Erskine letters and Erskine reminiscences, which have appeared at intervals in denominational magazines, a cautious use has been made. Boston's Memoirs^ Morren's A?mals of the Assembly^ Chambers' Domestic Annals of Scotland^ Tait's Border Church Life, Ferrier's Life of Wilson, M'Kelvie's Annals and Statistics and Moncrieffs Life of Dr John Erskine, have been consulted at many points. In more recent literature recognition is due to Mr E. E. Scott's Erskine-Halcro Genealogy ; Principal Story's William Carstares ; Dr Mitchell's St Giles' Lecture on the Erskines ; Mr Butler's Wesley and Whitefeld in Scotland; Mr G. H. Morrison's Introduction to Boston's Memoirs; and, above all, Dr John Ker's appreciation of the Erskines in Scottish Nationality. Mr H. G. Graham in his Social Life of Scotland gives some interesting views of the eighteenth century ; but his humorous account of the Erskines will not bear scrutiny. Mr John Mair, Librarian of the United Presbyterian Church, has been helpful in guiding me to valuable documents. Mr J. R. Anderson and the Rev. John Young have kindly read the proofs and made many suggestions. A. R. M. Glasgow, April 1900. THE ERSKINES CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY At the beginning of the eighteenth century the Church Ufe of Scotland was in transition and presented many strange contrasts. In some parts of the country these arose from conflict between Presbyterianism, Episcopacy and Roman Catholicism, and were coloured by racial and poHtical differences; but in central and southern Scotland, with which alone the following narrative is concerned, the Reformed Church and Hanoverian sym- pathies prevailed almost exclusively. Of Roman Catholics, who numbered in all Scotland about fourteen thousand, only a hundred and sixty were in 1705 resident in Edinburgh, five at Leith, twelve at Glasgow, twenty at Perth. The Episcopal Church as a separate corpora- tion scarcely existed. From 1689 till 171 2 liturgical worship was illegal, and even after the Act of Toleration it was introduced only in some private chapels and in a few towns where there were resident Englishmen. In 1726 there was not a single diocesan bishop in Scotland. Those Episcopalians who in the north retained posses- sion of parish churches, rarely sent representatives to the General Assembly, and took little concern in the general life of the Church. The desire of William of Orange to create a fusion of Episcopacy with Presbyterianism had come to nothing. Queen Anne's attempt to favour the Scottish Episcopalians was baffled by their adherence to the Pretender. Their political action, especially in the 10 FAMOUS SCOTS Rebellion of 17 15, excluded them from all districts which were loyal to the House of Hanover. To the Scotsmen about whom we have to speak, Episcopalians were 'prelatists' and ' malignants,' who must be kept at a distance, with disregard of personal ties, as the opponents of the Reformed Church and of the reigning dynasty. It is true that, even in the lowlands, the Established Church included among its ministers many who had been trained and ordained as Episcopalians. In 1710 there were about sixty south of the Tay. In some cases those men occupied the parish manses and preached in the parish churches to empty pews, while the parishioners frequented and supported the ministry of Presbyterians, being as it were Established Church dis- senters. In other cases the irregularity was still more glar- ing. At Dunfermline, for instance, which was a collegiate charge, an Episcopalian conducted the service in the parish church on Sunday mornings, and a Presbyterian on Sunday afternoons. But those anomalies rapidly disappeared. Within thirty years of the Revolution the race of Episcopalian parish ministers had almost died out. Even while they lived they had little influence. Episcopalian historians have perhaps been too sweeping and severe in denunciation of their personal character; but at their best they were place-holders, who had acknowledged Presbyterianism to be 'the only govern- ment of the Church in this land,' in order to retain their manses and their stipends, and as such they were every- where discounted or ignored. There is no foundation for the statement frequently made by controversialists, both Roman Catholic and Presbyterian, that they swayed the counsels of the Church. Nor had they any effect upon the religion of their parishioners, who adhered to Presbyterian worship and doctrine, cherished proud re- collections of the Covenanting days, and spoke with gratitude of the * glorious Revolution.' The only traces THE ERSKINES ii they left when they died were in the disorder of church fabrics and of parochial organisation. Undoubtedly there was a difference between localities. In some districts, especially south-east of Edinburgh, the landlords had established a species of serfdom, with an accompanying social degradation in which independent church life was impossible. In the south-west and south, on the other hand, where the Cameronians had gained sway, a spirit of stubborn and suspicious isolation prevailed, and asserted itself in condemnation of the Revolution Settle- ment as not thorough in its dealings with Episcopacy. When Boston settled at Ettrick he found that every hamlet had its separatists. But those extremes were local and exceptional. Novelists and essayists in search of the picturesque have greatly exaggerated their importance. In parish after parish and town after town, indeed in county after county, the Established Church, the Church of the Revolution, was the church and the only church of the people. In that dearth of literary, artistic, and intellectual production which characterised the period, it supplied them with their mental as well as their spiritual food. The parish church was their only meeting-place. The pulpit was their only source of information regarding national affairs. Presbyteries and Sessions gave them their laws of living, laws which affected them more than the legis- lation of the Scots Estates or the British Parhament. Presbyterianism was undivided and undisputed in its rule. The religious life of the people, so far as it was spiritual and free, depended largely upon the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the observance of which was a distinctive feature of eighteenth century Presbyterianism. Individual congregations observed the Sacrament rarely, often with intervals of years. In the parish of Liddesdale, for instance, when the minister persuaded his elders to revive the observance, it was discovered that there were no 12 FAMOUS SCOTS Communion vessels. Yet it is only ignorance which has led ecclesiastical writers to the idea that in such parishes there was no recognition of Sacramental grace. The observance was not a parochial one. When a celebration was intimated in any one parish, hundreds and often thousands of people poured into it from the neighbouring parishes and remained for three, four, or five days, listening from morning till night to a series of sermons which culminated in the sacred rite. There were none of the abuses of this usage which crept in afterwards, and which Burns has branded in his description of Holy Fairs. It was the more serious and earnest of the people who frequented such assemblies. Young men when pre- paring for ordination would spend many weeks in attend- ing Sacraments, riding or walking across country from one parish to another. When the faithful preachers of the day condemned those who ' ran from Sacrament to Sacra- ment,' their condemnation rested upon the strain which the practice laid upon religious emotion. Their language, which was always respectful and kindly, might be applied with but slight modification to the modern practice of attending conferences, congresses and retreats.