about, and a proposal of dividing our Synod, which was not gone into, as unseasonable at this juncture. I am, yours most affectionately.

October 20, 1718.

LETTER CXX.

THE CASE OF MR DRUMMOND OF CRIEFF.

The Rev. William Wilson to Wodrow.1

Perth, October 20, 1718.

REV. DEAR SIR,-After my sincerest respects to yourself, your spouse, and children, and all our dear friends with you, receive the following account of what passed at our Synod which met here last week.

The melancholy controversy about doctrinals is again revived amongst us with very much warmth, and if the Lord do not interpose remarkably, it may come to a very great height.

The occasion of the awakening of the controversy is this:-Mr Drummond, minister of Crieff, in a sermon at the admission of Mr David Shaw to Auchterarder, where some of the brethren of the Presbytery of Perth were present, had several expressions which gave very much offence to the brethren of Perth. They made a representation of this to the Presbytery of Perth, who advised them to discourse with Mr Drummond, in order to get satisfaction from him, and, at the same time, resolved unanimously that if Mr Drummond should not give satisfaction, that the Presbytery of Perth should have a brotherly conference with the Presbytery of Auchterarder for removing the offence. The brethren discoursed with Mr Drummond, but said they had not obtained satisfaction. The brethren of the two Presbyteries met together, and the Presbytery of Auchterarder told that some of their brethren were offended at

Letters to Wodrow, vol. xiii. No. 57.

some things in that sermon, and that they were begun to inquire into it. This satisfied the Presbytery of Perth; yet at privy censures in the Synod, the matter is tabled, and the Synod ordered the brethren offended, who heard that sermon, to give account of the expressions that stumbled them. They told several, such as, that there are no gospel precepts nor threatenings, faith and repentance are only commands of the law, &c.' After long reasoning, the Synod appointed the Presbytery of Auchterarder to go on in their begun inquiry, and they appointed the brethren of Perth to give information to the Presbytery of Auchterarder of what had offended them, if that Presbytery should think fit to require it from them; with this proviso, that they should not be held accusers, nor rejected from being witnesses upon the head of their information.2

Our Non-jurant brethren had a meeting about the affair of the Address. We had a brother from Fife at our meeting, who told us the brethren in Fife would do nothing till once they had advised with us; and, therefore, they desired a meeting of the Nons in

1 Mr Warden of Gargunnock gives a fuller account of the points found fault with in Mr Drummond's sermon. "At our privy censures, some represented that some brethren were offended at some things delivered in a sermon by Mr Drummond at Crieff, at Mr David Shaw's admission at Auchterarder. So far as I can mind, the particulars were, Imo, That it is unsound to assert the absolute necessity of new obedience, as a necessary condition to eternal life. This Mr Drummond positively denies he had. 2do, That it is abominable doctrine to clog the Gospel offer with previous qualifications in the sinner. 3tio, That he asserted the Gospel had no precepts. 4to, That others had a right to Gospel blessings besides believers. 5to, They alleged several contradictions in this admission sermon. The text was 1 Cor. ix. 16."— (Warden's Letter to Wodrow, dated October 21, 1718.)

Of the future proceedings in this case, Mr Wilson gives an account in a letter to Wodrow, dated December 26, 1718. I had almost forgot Auchterarder affair. That Presbytery have only met twice since the last Synod. At their first meeting, Mr Drummond's sermon was read before them. He was heard viva voce upon what they themselves quarrelled in his sermon, after which they declared themselves satisfied with his orthodoxy, but dissatisfied with some ways of expressing himself which he had used; and they appointed him to give in written answers unto these things they had excepted against, at their next Presbytery. Accordingly, at their last meeting, he gave in written answers, which, as I am informed, were for the most part dissatisfying. He has made the matter by them rather worse than better. The Presbytery have written to the offended brethren in Perth to come to their next meeting, when they are to be heard upon these things that offended them."

both Synods, at Kinross, the first Wednesday of November, for concerting joint measures. This was unanimously agreed to. I understand some in Fife demur about signing the Address, and so do several in our Synod. I shall be glad to hear what resolution our brethren with you have taken.

I am appointed to correspond with your April Synod, when I hope, if the Lord will, to see you. I must yet adjourn, till another time, the accounts about the boy in Errol. This is all from, Dear Sir, yours, with much affection, [WILLIAM WILSON.]

LETTER CXXI.

ABJURATION OATH.

To Mr John Warden, at Gargunnock.

[Mr WARDEN was one of the most respectable ministers of his day. He was close in his application to study, assiduous in the discharge of his pastoral duties, and exemplary in private life. The manner of his preaching was impressive, and followed by no small measure of success. "Mr Warden," says Alexander Archibald, in' An account of his own experience,' which has been several times printed, "in an Action Sermon from Isaiah lv. 2, Eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness,' with great clearness and earnestness held forth Jesus Christ and his fulness, and our warrant as sinners to take him as our own. Trickling tears and eager looks marked the inward frame of almost every hearer. My heart was almost melted with the views of redeeming grace, and filled with joy unspeakable, and full of glory."-(Brown's Gospel Truth, p. 440.) Like some other noted preachers of the doctrine of free grace, upon which the leading men in the Church, at that period, looked with no friendly eye, Mr Warden was summoned to attend the Committee for purity of doctrine, to meet at Edinburgh about the beginning of April, 1720, to be examined on a book he had published on the Lord's Supper. The Committee, however, only found in it some errors of the press.-(Account of Marrow Controversy in Christian Instructor, vol.

xxx. pp. 546, 547.)-Mr Warden was at first considered on the side of the "Marrow Men," and was invited to some of their meetings; but at length he joined in the proceedings against them. He was fond of management, and was solicitous to act as a mediator between the contending parties. With the view of effecting a reconciliation, he requested a correspondence with the Rev. Ralph Erskine, with whom he had formerly been in terms of intimate friendship; but the letters which passed between them were, in no degree, successful in accomplishing that object.-(Fraser's Life of Ralph Erskine, p. 175.)— Boston says of Mr Warden that he was a man well seen in the doctrine of free grace, but of some vanity of temper."-(Memoirs, p. 372.) -He was a Non-juror, and refused to swear the Abjuration Oath, even after the change of its form in 1719, which induced the greater number of scruplers to take it. Besides his work on the Lord's Supper, he published a treatise on Baptism. The former has been republished, and recommended by the late Drs Colquhoun and Ireland of Leith.-ED.]

66

REV. DEAR BROTHER,—I have yours, Oct. 21. As to the Address upon the Oath, I had the first accounts of it at Edinburgh in August, and gave my opinion that I much doubted if it would take, though I was of the mind that all who signed the Address sent up to Mr Gusthart would come into this. Our brethren at Edinburgh are persons of great worth and merit, and we are much indebted to them for the pains and trouble they are at about our common concerns. But their going in separately to the Allegiance and Assurance, which I do not at all judge them for, more than I do our brethren who have gone a greater length, and their signing the Address, wherein they declared their only difficulty was upon the relative clause. Several of our Jurant brethren attacked me upon the Address, which I had not then seen, and I found them. very earnest. I hear they are changed since, and was told Mr Mitchell wrote to some of our Jurant brethren at our Synod to delay this matter a little. Accordingly, we found them coldrife, and we were so likewise, and nothing is done or to be done among us. I proposed several queries to our Jurant brethren,--what assurance they had the ministry would come into the alteration; what security they had no choaking clause would be cast in. They said they

VOL. II.

2 C

would use their interest for both. I signified to our brethren Nonjurors, that I was apprehensive this was a politick to bring on a reimposition at our application, and to prevent our sending any to court. They answered, a re-imposition was inevitable, and if we got our alterations by the Commission, it would be more healing. I wished they might not be disappointed, and matters continue as they are. I am, yours.

Oct. 28, [1718.]

LETTER CXXII.

PRINTING OF WODROW'S HISTORY.

To Colonel Erskine, at London.

MY DEAREST COLONEL,-I had yours of the 11th instant, by Shawfield, only yesterday, with the two memorials, which I have disposed of as you order. By my last, I doubt not but you'll understand by this time, that I have all the assurances I can seek from my Lord Ross that he will appear for this church and you, in the affair of the Address to the Parliament. I see nothing can be added to your memorial upon that head in point of argument, and for my share, I can perceive no answers to what is advanced there, and it's my earnest wish it may have due weight with people concerned, and if it be not our own members who decline to appear for the interests of this church, that by their negligence and divisions prevent it, I have little doubt it will prevail among the English.

1 Colonel Erskine having occasion to apply to Parliament with respect to some of his personal affairs, had scruples in acknowledging the civil places of the Bishops in the House of Lords. He presented to Parliament a memorial, in which he stated his opinions in this matter; having printed a number of copies, he transmitted two to Wodrow, one for himself, and the other for another friend. At the same time, he requests Wodrow to use his endeavours to prevail with Lord Ross to appear for the interest of the Church in this matter, and was anxious that the Commission, at their approaching meeting, should do something for obtaining redress to Presbyterians, with respect to it.-(Letters to Wodrow, vol. xiii. No. 69.)