Robert Imrie of Kinkell, 1801-1812
Robert Imrie MA was the second minister of Kinkell in the Secession Church. He had been ordained on the 11th April 1792 and arrived in Kinkell in 1798. McKerrow, in his History of the Secession Church, repeated a comment that “so long as he contented himself with simply preaching the gospel and attending to his pastoral duties, he had around him an attached congregation. But this was not to continue…” (Small, p. 608).
The case is not especially significant for the miscellaneous content of Imrie’s heresy, but it is outstanding for the number of years and sessions of Synod it took to come to a final conclusion.
1801
In 1801 Imrie’s congregation brought 13 charges against him in the Presbytery of Perth. The complaint asserted that Imrie
“... was accustomed, in his public ministrations, to employ modes of expression that were novel and unguarded, and calculated to unsettle the minds of his hearers with regard to some of the fundamental articles of the Christian faith.” (McKerrow, p484.)
3. That there was no proper condition in that covenant to be performed by Christ, as the surety of the elect; that it had been better for the church if the term condition had never been heard of; that the righteousness of Christ and faith are equally not the conditions of grace, and that if there was any condition at all, it was the promises. [Guilty.]
4. That Christ merited nothing for his people, by his obedience and death; that as Mediator, he had nothing to give to God as an equivalent for the blessings conferred on his people except what he had received from God; and that all the price he gave to God was a right improvement of the qualifications God gave him. [Guilty.]
5. That although Christ was Mediator in the the eternal purpose of God, yet he was not actual Mediator until his incarnation in the fulness of time, and he never mediated actually until he had assumed a human nature; that Christ, as Mediator, has no grace to give the church, he is only a servant, and what has a servant to give, but what he receives from his master? [Guilty.]
6. That the promises of God received by faith, and not the work of Christ, is the ground of the sinner’s justification; that Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to believers, except in its fruits and effects; that it was not Christ’s work, in coming into the world, to save sinners, but to do the will of God and let God see to the salvation of sinners … [‘not fully proved.’ The Presbytery reserved the option of discussing the question further with Mr Imrie.]
7. That Christ was not the only redeemer of God’s elect, but God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. [Guilty.]
8. That the Spirit dwells not in believers, but works on the mind by the Word as a means. [Not proven]
9. That the sins of believers expose them to divine wrath. [Not proven. Again, the Presbytery reserved the issue for further discussion.]
That the possession by devils, so often narrated in the gospel, is not to be viewed as a real and proper possession, but merely as figurative of certain diseases with which these persons were afflicted: that though the devil might act upon such persons in the way of suggestion, through the medium of external means, yet he can never be /p486 said to enter into men, so as to possess their bodies and speak out of them. [Guilty.]
Judgement
Judgement was given on 28 April 1807. Perth Presbytery recapped the charges and the judgment and (in what I think to be a procedurally unconventional move) Imrie was given the opportunity of explaining his position again, and more fully.
This produced just one alteration. The first accusation turned on what was meant by ‘proper’ in the assertion that there was ‘no proper condition in the covenant of works.’ After discussion, the court presbytery decided that
“... from the idea which he had affixed to the word proper, that he did not deny that there was a condition in the covenant of works; but that he was culpable for introducing into his pulpit discourses abstract distinctions on this subject, which were apt to perplex and unsettle the minds of hearers.” (p486)
At the end of the debate the Synod voted on the question: ‘Depose’ or ‘Rebuke and suspend’. A majority voted ‘Rebuke and suspend’.
1808
In April 1808 the Presbytery met again and Imrie was as placatory as he knew how. He “admitted … he had used language that was improper and calculated to mislead, especially on the subject of the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace; also with regard to the Mediatorial work of Christ.” and he “substantially retracted” what he had said on the latter.
Another matter was brought up which must have been discussed earlier but is not obvious in the account. “On the subject of demoniacal possessions, he admitted that these possessions were real, and that it was highly improper in him to make use of expressions, on this subject, that were fitted to produce a belief in the opposite doctrine.” (Small, p.488)
Imrie was contrite. He dictated a statement to the clerk:
1801
In 1801 Imrie’s congregation brought 13 charges against him in the Presbytery of Perth. The complaint asserted that Imrie
“... was accustomed, in his public ministrations, to employ modes of expression that were novel and unguarded, and calculated to unsettle the minds of his hearers with regard to some of the fundamental articles of the Christian faith.” (McKerrow, p484.)
The charges alleged, for example, that Imrie “said there was nothing more in the wooden cross on which the Saviour died that there was in the crosses of the malefactors …” “that there was no warrant in Scripture for debarrances before communion …” or for the consecration prayer, or for everyday blessing of food, for example: “meat is equally nutritious in the stomach of a dog and in the stomach of a saint, naturally considered.” (McKerrow, p.608)
Whether Imrie enjoyed giving offence, or thought it his duty to disturb religious complacencies, or just didn’t care about the sensitivities of his audience is not clear. In any event he significantly upset his audience and persisted in causing offence.
1806
Five years later new charges were formulated. The process was excessively attenuated in part because the Presbytery met just once a year.
On this occasion the complainants took no chances and detailed their accusations at length [judgement in square brackets.] Imrie was accused of asserting (McKerrow, p.484ff):
1. That there was no proper condition in the covenant of works; and that Adam would have fulfilled no condition though he had stood. [Accepted.]
2. That there was no proper covenant between the Father and the Son from eternity about man’s salvation; for how could God make a bargain with /p485 himself? and the Scriptures nowhere make mention of a proper covenant between these divine persons. (He would defy any one to find the word covenant used in Scripture, except when it refers to something else.)
Whether Imrie enjoyed giving offence, or thought it his duty to disturb religious complacencies, or just didn’t care about the sensitivities of his audience is not clear. In any event he significantly upset his audience and persisted in causing offence.
1806
Five years later new charges were formulated. The process was excessively attenuated in part because the Presbytery met just once a year.
On this occasion the complainants took no chances and detailed their accusations at length [judgement in square brackets.] Imrie was accused of asserting (McKerrow, p.484ff):
1. That there was no proper condition in the covenant of works; and that Adam would have fulfilled no condition though he had stood. [Accepted.]
2. That there was no proper covenant between the Father and the Son from eternity about man’s salvation; for how could God make a bargain with /p485 himself? and the Scriptures nowhere make mention of a proper covenant between these divine persons. (He would defy any one to find the word covenant used in Scripture, except when it refers to something else.)
[The court felt the general point was not proven. However, Imrie had asked “How could God make a bargain with himself?” and had said that such a covenant was not scriptural.]
3. That there was no proper condition in that covenant to be performed by Christ, as the surety of the elect; that it had been better for the church if the term condition had never been heard of; that the righteousness of Christ and faith are equally not the conditions of grace, and that if there was any condition at all, it was the promises. [Guilty.]
4. That Christ merited nothing for his people, by his obedience and death; that as Mediator, he had nothing to give to God as an equivalent for the blessings conferred on his people except what he had received from God; and that all the price he gave to God was a right improvement of the qualifications God gave him. [Guilty.]
5. That although Christ was Mediator in the the eternal purpose of God, yet he was not actual Mediator until his incarnation in the fulness of time, and he never mediated actually until he had assumed a human nature; that Christ, as Mediator, has no grace to give the church, he is only a servant, and what has a servant to give, but what he receives from his master? [Guilty.]
6. That the promises of God received by faith, and not the work of Christ, is the ground of the sinner’s justification; that Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to believers, except in its fruits and effects; that it was not Christ’s work, in coming into the world, to save sinners, but to do the will of God and let God see to the salvation of sinners … [‘not fully proved.’ The Presbytery reserved the option of discussing the question further with Mr Imrie.]
7. That Christ was not the only redeemer of God’s elect, but God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. [Guilty.]
8. That the Spirit dwells not in believers, but works on the mind by the Word as a means. [Not proven]
9. That the sins of believers expose them to divine wrath. [Not proven. Again, the Presbytery reserved the issue for further discussion.]
That the possession by devils, so often narrated in the gospel, is not to be viewed as a real and proper possession, but merely as figurative of certain diseases with which these persons were afflicted: that though the devil might act upon such persons in the way of suggestion, through the medium of external means, yet he can never be /p486 said to enter into men, so as to possess their bodies and speak out of them. [Guilty.]
Judgement
Judgement was given on 28 April 1807. Perth Presbytery recapped the charges and the judgment and (in what I think to be a procedurally unconventional move) Imrie was given the opportunity of explaining his position again, and more fully.
This produced just one alteration. The first accusation turned on what was meant by ‘proper’ in the assertion that there was ‘no proper condition in the covenant of works.’ After discussion, the court presbytery decided that
“... from the idea which he had affixed to the word proper, that he did not deny that there was a condition in the covenant of works; but that he was culpable for introducing into his pulpit discourses abstract distinctions on this subject, which were apt to perplex and unsettle the minds of hearers.” (p486)
At the end of the debate the Synod voted on the question: ‘Depose’ or ‘Rebuke and suspend’. A majority voted ‘Rebuke and suspend’.
1808
In April 1808 the Presbytery met again and Imrie was as placatory as he knew how. He “admitted … he had used language that was improper and calculated to mislead, especially on the subject of the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace; also with regard to the Mediatorial work of Christ.” and he “substantially retracted” what he had said on the latter.
Another matter was brought up which must have been discussed earlier but is not obvious in the account. “On the subject of demoniacal possessions, he admitted that these possessions were real, and that it was highly improper in him to make use of expressions, on this subject, that were fitted to produce a belief in the opposite doctrine.” (Small, p.488)
Imrie was contrite. He dictated a statement to the clerk:
“I am unfeignedly sorry, that by the introduction of certain expressions and distinctions, I have given cause of offence to the church, and I am resolved in the strength of grace to avoid all such in future, and I acquiesce in the judgment of the synod with respect to doctrine on the several articles, as stated in the minutes of synod.”
His colleagues were not universally won over and delayed their final decision for a further year.
At the Synod of April 1809 Imrie backtracked and equivocated on some of the answers he had previously given. Some members proposed immediate deposition, others that he remain suspended for a further year. Against the formal dissent of some, he was given another year’s wait, or grace.
1810
In April 1810 the Synod came a third time to the case of Mr Imrie. Another long debate took place, at the conclusion of which,
“The synod, considering that Mr Imrie, after being found chargeable with error, was restored to the exercise of his office in the holy ministry, without any judgment of the court acquitting him of the charges under which he stood, or expressing their judicial satisfaction with the explanations he had given; without any explanation on his part, that he had retracted the errors found against him; without any expression of sorrow for the part he had acted; and without any pledge as to his future ministrations, they now proceed to consider what influence these and other facts should have on the sentence.”
The Synod then voted to reverse their previous censure (by a majority of 7), to reverse the suspension, and “to restore Mr Imrie to the exercise of his ministry.” (Small, p. 488). 21 ministers and four elders protested.
1811
The matter was not at an end. One final time, in April 1811, the Synod returned to Mr Imrie. Even the author of the account was bored by now: he described the process, spread over two sessions of the Synod, as “a long and tedious investigation” (Small, p.490).
A formal protest against the previous year’s decision was read at the synod. After a long debate the Synod voted to reverse the decision of the previous year’s meeting, with 10 dissentients. (McKerrow says 40 for deposition, 11 against, 14 ‘silent’):
“The synod, considering that Mr Imrie, after being judicially found chargeable with error, was restored to the exercise of his office in the holy ministry, without any judgement of the court acquitting him of the charges under which he stood, or expressing their judicial satisfaction with the explanations he had given; without any explanations on his part, that he had retracted the errors found against him; without any profession of sorrow for the part he had acted, and without any pledge as to his future ministrations, they now proceed to consider what influence these and other facts should have on the sentence.” (Small, p. 489)
This time there were 14 accusations. It was alleged that Mr Imrie affirmed
- That to say there are three persons in the Godhead, is a dangerous expression; such as say so are right only if they mean three modes of subsistence; such as say, only one, are right if they mean only one agent of will.
- That there were no distinct personal actings of the distinct persons of the Godhead in the making of the covenant of grace, on account of the divine will; and that to maintain distinct personal actings in the making of the covenant, or in the application of (Small, p. 490) redemption, is equivalent to the assertion of three Gods.
- That there was no eternal covenant between the Father and the Son, with reference to the salvation of lost sinners; but that it was made with Christ in time, as man, because he then had a will distinct from the divine; that the Son made the Covenant with the man Christ, as much as the Father and the Holy Ghost;
- That the Father and the Son, being equal in glory and dignity, and one in will, it is impossible that the Son could become the Father’s servant.
- That God could have brought all mankind to heaven, if he pleased, without a sacrifice.
- That Christ is not the head of the Church, but a member of her, the first man in her, or head in the church.
- That Christ was not a priest from eternity; that Melchisedec was a type of Christ, and the type must exist before the antitype.
- That Christ was not Mediator, in fact, till the period of his incarnation, and his human nature itself was the Mediator.
- That the human nature of Christ received no assistance from God, when going through the work of our salvation; and that Christ, in his sufferings, was supported by his own grace, and not by any special assistance from Omnipotence.
- That reconciliation is not the reconciliation of God to sinners, but of sinners to God; that the term reconcile signifies to change or alter, which could not be applied to God; and that it is unscriptural language to speak of God as being reconciled.
- That we did not need a divine righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ as man; and it is only his human righteousness that is imputed to us.
- That the first sin of Adam and the righteousness Christ, are imputed to persons only in their effects.
- That Christ is only relatively God, but not really God.
- That there are no degrees in mystery, and that the work of redemption is no more above reason than the work of creation; and that if we devote ourselves to the study of it, we may understand or comprehend it as much as farming or any other business.”The last judgement
Formal notice of the sentence of deposition was pronounced on Friday May 1st, 1812 (or perhaps, in keeping with the confusing process, on the following day.) The vote had been: for deposition 40, against 11, ‘silent’ 14. (McKerrow, p.608)
Subsequently
Many of Imrie’s congregation did not desert him. Together they removed themselves out of the jurisdiction of the Associate Synod and built a new church in Auchterarder where “they continued to enjoy his ministrations till the close of his life.” (Small, p.492)
Perhaps McKerrow was right when he commented that “To trace Mr Imrie’s case all through would occupy time to little purpose.” (p.608)
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments and corrections are welcome. But please note that the focus is on the historical examination of heresy cases, not the rights and wrongs of the theology..