Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland

Reformed in Doctrine, Worship, and Practice

“Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, that it may be displayed because of the truth.” Psalm 60:4

  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Who We Are
    • What We Contend For
    • What We Believe
    • How We Worship
    • How We Are Organised
    • Important Documents
    • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Articles
  • Publications
    • Free Presbyterian Magazine
    • Young People’s Magazine
    • Gaelic Supplement – An Earrann Ghàidhlig
    • Synod Reports
    • Religion and Morals Committee Reports
  • Audio
    • Sermons
    • Theological Conferences
    • Youth Conferences
    • Zimbabwe Ndebele sermons
  • Congregations
    • Places of Worship
    • Current Ministers
    • Galleries of FP Churches
  • International
    • Zimbabwe Mission
    • Other International Congregations
    • Translation Work
    • Metrical Psalms in Various Languages
  • History
    • History of the FP Church
    • Congregational Histories
    • Deceased Ministers and Probationers
    • Obituaries
    • Moderators of Synod etc.
  • Spiritual Help
    • How to Find Spiritual Help
    • How may a sinner be saved?
    • How may someone know if they are truly saved?
    • Spiritual Mindedness
    • Scripture and Catechism Exercises 2018-19
  • Bookshop
Home / About Us / Who We Are / The Declaratory Act Controversy / The Constitutional Aspects of the Declaratory Act

The Constitutional Aspects of the Declaratory Act

[This article, by Rev Donald Beaton, was first published in the Free Presbyterian Magazine in 1927, vol. 32, p. 41.]

In our Deed of Separation the constitutional aspect of the Declaratory Act is very clearly set forth in the following words:

That by passing of the Declaratory Act of 1892, the said present subsisting Church, calling herself the Free Church of Scotland, through her General Assemblies, has, in so far as said Church is concerned, destroyed the integrity of the Confession of Faith as understood and accepted by the Disruption Fathers and their predecessors, and instead of the Westminster Confession of Faith as the recognised standard of orthodoxy in the Church, in all its heads and articles, has substituted what is called ‘the substance of the Reformed Faith therein set forth,’ the Church, through the majorities of the members of her Courts, being by the said Declaratory Act made the sole judge of the particular points that are to be included under this category of doctrines – a provision which overthrows the fixed doctrinal Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland, and lays its Creed at the feet of an irresponsible majority to determine the same as it will.

In making this charge of violating the Constitution of the Free Church, Free Presbyterians have appealed to the fact that this Act was passed under the Barrier Act of 1697. The title of this famous Act indicates its purpose: “Act anent the method of passing Acts of Assembly of general concern to the Church and for preventing of Innovations.” The relevant part of the Act bearing on the subject under discussion may now be quoted:

Considering the frequent practice of former Assemblies of this Church, and that it will mightily conduce to the exact obedience of the Acts of Assemblies, that General Assemblies be very deliberate in making the same, and that the whole Church have a previous knowledge thereof, and their opinion be had therein, and for preventing any sudden alteration or innovation, or other prejudice to the Church, in either doctrine or worship, or discipline, or government thereof, now happily established; do, therefore, appoint, enact, and declare, that before any General Assembly of this Church shall pass any Acts, which are to be binding rules and constitutions to the Church, the same Acts be first proposed as overtures to the Assembly, and, being by them passed as such, be remitted to the consideration of the several Presbyteries of this Church, and their opinions and consent reported by their Commissioners to the next General Assembly following, who may pass the same in Acts, if the more general opinion of the Church thus had agreed thereunto.

There are two points in this Act which have a direct bearing on the violation of the Free Church’s Constitution by the Declaratory Act.

    1. The Barrier Act expressly states the kind of Acts with which it deals, viz., Acts “which are to be binding rules and constitutions to the Church.” These words are plain enough, and lend themselves to only one interpretation, viz., that Acts which the Church sends down to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act are meant to be “Acts which are to be binding rules and constitutions to the Church,” other wise the collected wisdom of the Church, in General Assembly gathered, is betraying its utter incompetence to deal with legislation.
    2. It is also clear from the wording of the Barrier Act that, while it was intended “for preventing any sudden alteration or innovation or other prejudice to the Church, in either doctrine or worship, or discipline, or government thereof,” yet, though no doubt it was meant to hinder “sudden” alteration or innovation, it gave a significance to any alteration or innovation in doctrine or worship passed under it that it would not otherwise have but for the fact of having passed through the Barrier Act. It is this aspect of the Barrier Act which, it may safely be surmised, its framers never intended, that aided the wreckers of the Westminster Confessional doctrine in the Free Church of Scotland.

The founders of the Free Presbyterian Church, while holding that the majority in passing the Declaratory Act were acting ultra vires, inasmuch as a use was made of the Barrier Act for which it was never intended, at the same time asserted that the Declaratory Act, being inconsistent with the Confession, violated the Constitution of the Free Church. In taking up positions seemingly at variance, there was no inconsistency. Both positions were tenable and consistent with the real facts of the situation created by the ecclesiastical policy of one of the astutest ecclesiastical leaders Scotland ever had, though, alas! his gifts were prostituted to a bad cause.

It is true, of course, that in 1894 an Act was passed in which it is enacted “that the Assembly hereby declare that the statements of doctrine contained in the said [Declaratory] Act are not thereby imposed upon any of the Church’s office-bearers as part of the standards of the Church; but that those who are licensed or ordained to office in this Church, in answering the questions and subscribing the formula are entitled to do so in view of the said Declaratory Act.” This was only a makeshift, and deceived only those who wished to keep their eyes shut. When Principal Rainy found the Free Church in the serious position in which she was placed by the passing of the Declaratory Act his subtle brain immediately set to work on formulating some method whereby the Declaratory Act would not appear to have the formidable position it really had under the Barrier Act, he fell on what must have appeared to himself and others a real inspiration in his ecclesiastical need. According to this presentation of the case, the Declaratory Act was not the serious piece of legislation that some men took it to be; it was only a “relieving Act.” This phrase did ignoble service in many a speech, and captured the imagination of the facile followers of Dr Rainy to such a degree that those who thought differently were laughed to scorn. A relieving Act! What else was it but a relieving Act? It did not need Dr Rainy’s subtle brain to coin this phrase, but there was one thing he ought to have laid a little more emphasis on to meet the real situation, and that was that this relieving Act relieved office-bearers from doctrines which were embedded in the constitution of the Free Church. The fact that it was a relieving Act did not nullify the damaging fact that it violated the Constitution of the Free Church.

A number who were opposed to the Declaratory Act still remained in the Church, and argued that they were not under it. This plausible argument ignored the working of ecclesiastical law. Take, for instance, a supposed case – The members of a whole Presbytery, with one or two exceptions, might refuse to license a student because he wished to take advantage of the Declaratory Act, the case would be appealed to the Synod by the dissentients, and supposing the majority of the Synod supported the Presbytery, the matter would probably be appealed to the Assembly. The Assembly, in dealing with the case, had no option but to ask the Presbytery to license the student and to give him the full benefit of any relief the Declaratory Act, its own Act, gave him. No amount of ecclesiastical argumentation could alter this fact, that the Assembly had passed this Act for such a purpose, and no amount of dissents could alter the fact that it was not an inoperative piece of legislation, but operative. Students, therefore, must be licensed and ministers ordained who were in the fullest sympathy with the Declaratory Act, and all the arguments of those who were opposed to it but yet remained in the Church betrayed their incapacity to realise the real logic of the ecclesiastical situation.

It has been argued by those who remained in the Church in 1893 and afterwards refused to enter the Union in 1900, that Free Presbyterians should be silent about being under the Declaratory Act, for:

  • The Rev. D. Macfarlane remained in the Church a year after the Declaratory Act was passed, and during that year accepted a call to Raasay. In answer to this we have only to remind our readers that Mr Macfarlane explicitly stated in a letter to the press, reprinted in the Free Presbyterian Magazine, vol. XXVIII, p. 150, that it was at the request of the Constitutional party, who were opposed to the Act, that he remained in the Church, in the hope that the Declaratory Act would be repealed at the Assembly of 1893. But even though it could be proved that Mr Macfarlane was under the Declaratory Act for a year, which he denied, for the reasons stated in the forementioned letter, that does not prove that the Free Presbyterian Church was; for in the formation of the Free Presbyterian Church there was a complete break by Messrs Macfarlane and Macdonald with the Church which passed the Declaratory Act.
  • It has been argued that the Free Presbyterian Church never repealed this Act. One scarcely wishes to believe that those who use this argument are serious, as it shows an exceptionally low mental acumen, but, as it has been used time and again, and by those of whom better things might be expected, it is necessary to point out for the reason above stated that the Free Presbyterian Church, in making a complete break with the Church of the Declaratory Act, and in going back to the attainments of the Disruption Church, was under no necessity to repeal a law which never had a place on its statute book. The charge, therefore, that the Free Presbyterian Church is still under the Declaratory Act because it did not repeal the same is a piece of inconsequent reasoning that no man who wishes to be credited with even a minimum of logical acumen should ever dream of using.
  • It was entirely different with the Free Church, which claimed to have a continuity with the Free Church up to 1892 and onwards. They were in duty bound to repeal the Declaratory Act in accordance with their profession at the earliest possible opportunity. That opportunity came in 1900, but it is a matter of history that it was not repealed until after the property case had been decided, and it is also a matter of history that the reason of this delay was owing to the question of the Church property then in dispute bet ween the United Free and Free Churches.

    It has often been a question of interest to us: Supposing there had been no Union, would an effort ever have been made by those who afterwards formed the Free Church to have it repealed? We are aware we are dealing with hypothetical propositions, but propositions which nevertheless are very interesting. In the famous Church Case, Lord James of Hereford put a very interesting question to Mr Salvesen, one of the Free Church counsel: “Supposing,” he said, “the majority of the United Free Church said: ‘We take that view, and we will administer the Trusts according to their original form.’ What would prevent their taking possession of and seeking to administer the property?” To which Mr Salvesen replied: “I think they would have to rescinded the Union, because our view is that the Union necessarily involves the abandonment of the principles of the Free Church; but if they rescind the Union and came back to the Church, of course they would be entitled to participate along with the Pursuers [i.e., the Free Church!]” In other words, had there been no Union the Free Church would not have been able to claim the property on the pleas she put forward in the case. Such, at any rate, seems to be the inference that may be drawn from the opinions of the learned counsel of the Free Church.

    It was because those who afterwards formed the Free Presbyterian Church believed that it was impossible to remain in the Free Church without being bound by the Declaratory Act, with its anti-Scriptural, anti-Confessional teaching, that they left the Free Church as then constituted. Events have proved that they were wisely guided in this matter. Even from a worldly standpoint any little sacrifice made for the cause of truth has been made up more than a hundred-fold. The Lord has owned the stand made in 1893 in the interests of His truth, and there are many now at rest who rejoiced to see the day of deliverance when they experienced a joy which must have been akin to that felt by Israel when they left the bondage of Egypt forever behind.

    About Us

    • Who We Are
      • The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland – Why It Exists Today
      • The Free Presbyterian Church Catechism
        • A Catechism of the History and Principles of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland – PDF
        • 1. Origins of the Free Presbyterian Church (1-13)
        • 2. The Westminster Confession of Faith (14–22)
        • 3. The Declaratory Act and the Free Church (23–53)
        • 4. The Infallibility of Scripture (54-67)
        • 5. Erroneous Doctrines (68-77)
        • 6. Innovations in Worship (78-93)
        • 7. Church and State (94-104)
        • 8. Church office-bearers (105-130)
        • 9. Church Courts (131-140)
        • 10. Church Unity (141-149)
        • 11. Modern Religious Cults (150-159)
        • 12. Modern Errors (160-170)
        • 13. Evolution (171-175)
        • 14. Christ’s Second Coming (176-179)
        • Appendix 1. Deed of Separation 1893
        • Appendix 2. Free Church of Scotland Declaratory Act 1892
        • Appendix 3. FP Synod Resolutions
        • Appendix 4. Questions put to Office-bearers and Formula to be signed by them
        • Appendix 5. Memorandum on the Church of Scotland Enabling Bill 1920
      • The Declaratory Act Controversy
        • Declaratory Act – Reasons for Separation
        • How the Declaratory Act changed the Constitution of the Free Church
        • Explanatory Criticism of the Declaratory Act
        • The Consequences of the Declaratory Act
        • The Declaratory Act and Admission into Office in the Free Church
        • The Constitutional Aspects of the Declaratory Act
        • A Brief History of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
    • What We Contend For
      • Our Free Presbyterian Heritage
      • The Authorised Version
        • The Importance of the Authorised Version for the Church in Britain
      • Evangelical or Reformed
      • A Protestant Witness
        • The Pope and the Constitution of the United Kingdom
        • The Pope as the Head of a False Religion
        • Papal Infallibility
        • The Pope in Scripture
      • The Five Points of Calvinism
        • The Canons of Dort
      • The Free Offer of the Gospel
      • Resolution on Creed Subscription
      • Church Discipline
        • The Purposes of Church Discipline
        • The Church’s responsibility to administer Biblical discipline faithfully
        • The benefits of exercising Church discipline
        • Accusations Levelled against a Church Exercising Discipline
      • Baptism
        • Subjects of Baptism – by Rev. William MacIntyre
        • Mode of Baptism – by Rev. William Macintyre
        • Should Infants be Baptised?
      • The Lord’s Supper
        • Why do the minister and elders interview intending communicants?
        • Restricted Communion
        • Fencing the Table
          • The Origins of Fencing the Table
      • Our Separate Stance
      • The Sabbath
        • Why the Sabbath should Still be Kept
        • How the Sabbath should be Kept
        • Sabbath or Lord’s Day – not “Sunday”
        • What about using Public Transport on the Sabbath?
          • Synod’s Statement in Reference to Church-going by Public Conveyances on the Sabbath
          • Historical Controversy over Using Public Transport on the Lord’s Day
      • Family worship
        • Family worship – a recent overview
        • Family worship – a recent address to young people
        • Family worship – a convicting appeal from C H Spurgeon
        • Family worship – a wartime appeal from more than a century ago
        • Family worship – a review
        • Family worship – another wartime appeal
        • Family worship – an illustration of its power
      • Distinctions between Male and Female
        • Men and Women Equal in Value
        • The Distinct Roles of Men and Women
        • Can women lead in public prayer?
        • Distinct Clothing for Men and Women
        • Long hair for women and short hair for men
          • If a Woman have Long Hair, it is a Glory to Her
    • What We Believe
    • How We Worship
      • Order of Service
      • The Right Way to Worship
        • Standing for Prayer
        • The Charismatic Movement – The Gifts have Ceased
      • The Regulative Principle of Worship
        • Does the Bible tell us how we are to Worship?
        • The Importance of the Regulative Principle for Today
        • The Regulative Principle as defined by the Scottish Reformers and others
      • Exclusive Psalmody
        • Does the Bible tell us What to Sing?
        • Why Psalms Only
      • No Musical Instruments
        • Musical Instruments in Worship
      • No Christian “Festivals”
        • Should Christians Celebrate Christmas?
    • How We Are Organised
      • Church Courts
      • Scripture does teach the right form of Church Government
      • The Apostolic Church – Which Is It?
        • Statement of the Question
        • Meaning of the word Church
        • Government of the Church
        • Apostolic Principles
        • The First Principle
        • The Second Principle
        • The Third Principle
        • The Fourth Principle
        • The Fifth Principle
        • The Sixth Principle
        • Application of the Test
        • Application of the Test to Prelacy
        • Application of the Test to Independency
        • Application of the Test to Presbytery
        • Application of the Test – Result
    • Important Documents
      • The Scots Confession
      • The First Book of Discipline
      • The Second Book of Discipline
      • The National Covenant
      • The Solemn League and Covenant
      • The Westminster Confession of Faith
      • The Larger Catechism
      • The Shorter Catechism
      • The Directory for Public Worship
      • The Form of Presbyterial Church Government
      • The Sum of Saving Knowledge
      • The Directory for Family Worship
      • The Claim Declaration and Protest
      • The Protest
      • The Deed of Separation 1893
    • Frequently Asked Questions

    Calendar

    1. 14 Feb - 18 Feb - Communions: Stornoway, Carterton
    2. 21 Feb - 25 Feb - Communion: Zenka
    3. 26 Feb - Meeting of Presbytery: Southern

    View All Events

    Latest Articles

    • The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
    • January 2019 Magazines available online
    • Special Offers on New Books for February

    Recently Added Audio

    • Sin totally cleansed 14 Feb 2019
    • Forsaking God 14 Feb 2019
    • ‘Thy kingdom come’ (2) 13 Feb 2019
    • Christ all, in all (2) 10 Feb 2019
    • Christ all, in all (1) 10 Feb 2019
    • Holiness is vital 7 Feb 2019
    • Lessons from the dying thief 10 Feb 2019
    • Journey across the lake 10 Feb 2019
    • The ascended Christ and His gifts 3 Feb 2019
    • What is your soul worth? 3 Feb 2019

    View All Sermons

    Download Latest Issues:
    The Free Presbyterian Magazine
    Young People’s Magazine

    Free Presbyterian Places of Worship

    Browse the Church Bookshop

    Bookshop Special Offers

    Sermons to the Natural Man by W G T Shedd (pbk) £12.76
    Essential Truths in the Heart of a Christian by Wilhelmus Schortinghuis  (pbk) £8.79
    Christ’s Glorious Achievements by C H Spurgeon (pbk) £4.79
    Preacher of God’s Word: Sermons by Christopher Love  (hbk) £11.99
    Moses’ Self Denial by Jeremiah Burroughs (hbk) £10.99

    Back to top

    Website Contact

    Rev Keith M Watkins
    kmwatkins@fpchurch.org.uk

    Moderator of Synod

    Rev Allan W MacColl
    Free Presbyterian Manse, Swainbost, Isle of Lewis, HS2 0TA, UK.

    Clerk of Synod

    Rev Keith M Watkins
    Free Presbyterian Manse, Ferry Road, Leverburgh, Isle of Harris, HS5 3UA, UK.
    kmwatkins@fpchurch.org.uk

    General Treasurer

    Mr William Campbell
    133 Woodlands Road, Glasgow,
    G3 6LE, UK.
    wc.fpchurch@btconnect.com

    Copyright © 2019 Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland · Log in · Subscribe via RSS · Privacy Notice

    This site uses cookies to improve your experience. Read more.