The Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland met in the hall of St. Jude’s Church, Glasgow, on the 16th November. Sederunt—Northern Presbytery—Revs. D. Macfarlane, Raasay; John R. Mackay, Gairloch, and John Macleod, Ullapool, ministers; and Mr. Finlay Macdonald, Shieldaig, elder; Southern Presbytery—Revs. Alexander Macrae, Kames; Neil Cameron, St. Jude’s, Glasgow; and J. S. Sinclair, Knox’s Tabernacle, Glasgow, ministers; and Messrs. Benjamin Dawson, Kames; Duncan Crawford, Oban; Donald Kelly, St. Jude’s, and Jonathan Anderson, Knox’s Tabernacle, elders.
The proceedings began at 12 noon with a service conducted by Rev. Alexander Macrae, Kames (retiring moderator), who preached from the words “Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.”—(2 Sam. xxiii. 5.) At the end of the service, Mr. Macrae constituted the Synod with prayer. He then intimated that his term of office as moderator had expired. It was moved by Rev. D. Macfarlane, and seconded by Rev. Neil Cameron, that Rev. John R. Mackay, Gairloch, be appointed moderator for the ensuing year. Mr. Mackay accordingly took the chair, and thanked the Synod for the confidence reposed in him. He stated that by his new appointment the office of Clerk was vacant. The Synod then appointed Rev. John Macleod, Ullapool, as Synod clerk. Mr. Macleod thanked the Synod, and promised to perform the duties of his office to the best of his ability. The minutes of last meeting were read and approved of. A committee was appointed to arrange the order of business for another sitting. The Synod then adjourned to meet again in the evening at half-past five.
The Synod met at half-past five and was constituted, Rev. John R. Mackay, moderator. The minutes of the former meeting were read and approved of. The court proceeded to take up the case of the Fraser Street Congregation, Inverness. At meeting of Synod on 7th July, Revs. Neil Cameron and J. S. Sinclair, were appointed to frame answers to the protest and reasons tabled by the Rev. Allan Mackenzie against the Synod’s finding in the above case. Mr. Sinclair read the answers that were prepared, and they were unanimously adopted by the Synod. (These answers are given hereafter.) The Clerk then read a series of resolutions adopted at a meeting of the Fraser Street Congregation on 22nd July, 1897, and shortly after forwarded by Rev. Allan Mackenzie to clerk of Synod. He further stated that Mr. Mackenzie had been cited three times before the Northern Presbytery to answer to the charges; (1) of having refused to carry out the instructions of the Synod held at Inverness on 7th July, 1897, affecting the Fraser Street Congregation, Inverness; (2) of having refused to call a meeting of the kirk-session at the request of his elders in a letter addressed to him by them on 23rd July, 1897; and (3) of setting up a new order of things in the Fraser Street Congregation, of which he is pastor. On each of these occasions Mr. Mackenzie had failed to attend, and the Presbytery at its last meeting had remitted the whole case to the Synod. Of this course Mr. Mackenzie had been advised. Rev. Alexander Macrae, Kames, in rising to propose a resolution, said that Mr. Mackenzie had been advised to do everything in his power to bring about cordial relations between the divided sections of his congregation, and when the Synod came to the finding referred to, it was with the view of bringing about a settlement. But from the resolutions that had just been read, it was evident that Mr. Mackenzie had renounced the jurisdiction of the Synod. The Synod asked Mr. Mackenzie to call a meeting of the kirk-session. Mr. Mackenzie did not call a meeting of his kirk-session, but on the contrary he called a meeting of the congregation, without having any authority from the kirk-session to call it, so that the congregational meeting was unconstitutionally called. Mr. Mackenzie having renounced the jurisdiction of the Synod, and also the jurisdiction of the kirk-session, it was the duty of the Presbytery to call him to account for the irregularity of his conduct. The resolutions passed by him at the congregational meeting were the data on which the Northern Presbytery proceeded. They thought it was the right of the Presbytery to act as it did. Although Mr. Mackenzie’s case had come before the Synod, and it was the Synod’s duty to dispose of it, nevertheless this was a new phase of the case, for by this step he renounced the jurisdiction of the Synod. Having done so, and set up a new order of things in his congregation, it was the duty of the Presbytery to call him to account. As the clerk of Synod had told them, Mr. Mackenzie had been cited three times to appear at the bar of the Northern Presbytery. He failed to comply. The Presbytery having referred the matter to the Synod, it was the Synod’s duty now to pronounce judgment in the case. Mr. Mackenzie had been notified that the whole case had been referred to the Synod. He had not put in an appearance, and therefore he moved that the following be the Synod’s finding. This finding (which we give in full elsewhere), is based upon the resolutions adopted by Mr. Mackenzie and those adhering to him on 22nd July, and upon Mr. Mackenzie’s refusal to answer the citations of the Northern Presbytery. The result is thus expressed:—”Therefore, the Synod find that the said Rev. Allan Mackenzie must by fair and necessary inference be regarded as having separated himself from the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and as having by his own act in passing the aforesaid resolutions, ceased to be a minister of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.” It is added, however, that Mr. Mackenzie will have a final opportunity to reconsider his position before a meeting of the Northern Presbytery, to be held at Portree, on Wednesday, 1st December, 1897, and that if he does not come then, the case will take end.
The Rev. Neil Cameron, Glasgow, in seconding the motion that the foregoing be the finding of the Synod, said it was remarked once of the sons of Levi, “They do not know their brethren.” When it came to tampering with holy things, and trampling upon the cause of Christ as if it were a thing that ought to be allowed to be trampled upon at the caprice of men and their own peculiar ideas, which they could not defend in any court, either ecclesiastical or civil, it was high time for the Church to act. Mr. Mackenzie had all along, as it were, held his hand between the eye of the public and the real state of matters in his congregation. When Mr. Mackenzie spoke of the congregation in Inverness, he spoke of the part of it which followed him in this division that had taken place. When their Synod spoke of the congregation of Inverness, they spoke of the congregation they gave Mr. Mackenzie at his ordination in Inverness. As had already been mentioned, it was agreed on both sides that this congregation was split almost into two. Now, it was but right that the people should know that according to Mr. Mackenzie’s own statement, which they had a right to take into consideration, the petition which demanded of the Presbytery the Sacrament of the Supper—though the congregation was so divided that they might not be able to speak to one another on the street—was signed by 52 of the congregation. They were aware that either six or eight of these withdrew their signatures. There are over 80 members in the congregation. That would not leave more than 46 in his petition, and they had 34 on the other side. They might say that the congregation was just in two halves. One half of the congregation, agitated and excited by Mr. Mackenzie’s speeches, demanded what was non-constitutional, while the other half did not make any demand at all. The Synod was not acting in any one-sided way. They were speaking from facts that would stand the test of being examined in Inverness at any time. The law of the Church demanded of a congregation that it should first of all go about the election of minister, elder, or deacon, in the spirit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They asked any person if it was the Spirit of Christ that appeared in all the letters and speeches which the Rev. Allan Mackenzie sent to the ends of the earth, as far as Scotch newspapers went. They desired to bring one thing more before them which was concealed from the public. They were told that the congregation was almost quite unanimous, only four or five being against the minister. They could tell them from the very best authority that there were 120 against him in Inverness, who never made such a demand. Not only that, but they saw that Mr. Mackenzie, instead of taking the advice of the Synod and trying to make it possible to bring about an amicable arrangement, went on exactly on the old lines, and refused submission to the three Courts of the Church; also trampled the laws of the Church under foot, and claimed in the face of that that he alone of all the ministers and office-bearers of that Church contended for truth, for principle, and for everything that was right in the constitution of the Church. He had great pleasure—not because he was dealing with a brother—in supporting the motion, and for this very reason, to show that neither Mr. Mackenzie nor he, nor any other one, could be allowed to trample upon the Church of Christ in any way without being brought to task; and to show that the Church was strong enough to defend its constitution.
The motion was unanimously agreed to. The moderator, in declaring it to be the Synod’s finding, took the liberty of quoting one sentence from Mr. Mackenzie to show that the finding, so far as it said that he renounced the jurisdiction of the Church, was correct. In his last sentence in a paper on this controversy, he said:—”Therefore I say, to abide by our principles we must now show our determination by the grace of God to refuse submission to a Church that forces quasi courts upon us.” It was evident that they had not come to a different conclusion from what Mr. Mackenzie himself had come to in regard to his relation to the Church.
The Synod next proceeded to deal with the finances of the Church. In regard to salaries, Mr. Macrae moved that the sum of £65 instead of £80 be paid to ministers for this half-year, and that missionaries and others be paid at a corresponding rate. This was agreed to. It was also decided that Rev. Allan Mackenzie be paid up to 23rd July of this year. A reference from the Southern Presbytery in regard to a petition from the interim kirk-session over Edinburgh Congregation for the sanctioning of this congregation as a regular charge, was spoken to and supported by the Rev. J. S. Sinclair, who concluded by moving that the petition be granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Donald Kelly, elder. The Synod unanimously agreed to grant the petition. A similar case was taken up from congregations in Harris. Rev. J. R. Mackay spoke to the enthusiasm of the people in that quarter, and the desirability of having a regular charge established among them. The Synod sympathised with the case, and remitted it back to the Northern Presbytery to make further enquiries, and to take any proper steps in the matter. At this stage, Mr. Jonathan Anderson, elder, Knox’s Tabernacle, Glasgow, rose and proposed that the Synod should take steps to define the position of the Free Church between 1852 and 1893, and that certain persons should be appointed as a committee to consider the matter. The moderator stated that Mr. Anderson had already sent him some days before similar resolutions making specific reference to the relation between the Free Church and the separate position taken up by the late Rev. J. R. Anderson, in 1852. He had replied to the effect that when Knox’s Tabernacle was received as a congregation of this Church, the supreme court of the Church never had Mr. Anderson’s special testimony before it so much as to consider it, and while we do not at all condemn that testimony, it is and ever will be incompetent for us to define the late Mr. Anderson’s relation to the Free Church, and that this was the opinion, he believed, of the other ministers. He had brought the whole matter before the committee appointed for the arrangement of business, and they had concurred in his reply, so that the matter could not now come up. Mr. Anderson’s present motion, though changed in expression, was practically the same. It was then moved, seconded and agreed to, that it was incompetent for the Synod to discuss the motion. Mr. Anderson was, therefore, not allowed to proceed with his speech on the subject. It was agreed that the Synod should meet again in Inverness on Tuesday after the first Sabbath of July, 1898. The meeting was closed with the benediction.