A resolution of sorrow and sympathy in connection with Mr. Gladstone’s death was also adopted by this Assembly. The retiring moderator, Dr. Macmillan, and the new moderator, Dr. Whyte, indulged in excessive praise of Mr. Gladstone. Dr. Macmillan, in his opening prayer, made reference to that day being Ascension Day, an allusion to the Romish and Episcopal calendar quite unworthy of a Presbyterian minister. Too much, altogether, has been made of Mr. Gladstone’s religious character. If he did any good in his lifetime, he also did much evil. Any temporal benefit he may have secured for the masses can never compensate for the harm he did in encouraging dangerous ritualistic practices in the Church. The generality of the men whom he appointed during his ministry to office in the Church of England were such as favoured Ritualism and Romanism. He was never known to nominate a thoroughly evangelical bishop. On the 20th May, Mr. Howie (Govan) gave in the statistics of Church membership. There was an increase in the Highlands. “The figures indicated that in the Lowlands there was a growing tendency among the young not to join the membership of the Church, but that in the Highlands there was an increasing proportion of those above 18 years of age in the membership of the Church. Last year, there were in the Highlands 3,420 adherents above 18 years of age per 1,000 members; this year there were 2,358. The corresponding figures in the Lowlands were 196 last year and 200 this year. If there was in the Highlands the same proportion of members to adherents above 18 years of age as there was in the Lowlands, the figures meant that the membership of the Church in the Highlands—which amounted to 28,667 at 31st December—would be 90,530, showing that, although last year the increase of the membership in the Highlands per 10,000 of the population was 14, as against an increase of 2 in the Lowlands, there were still marvellous possibilities of further increase of members in the Highlands, in view of the very large proportion of the population adhering to the Free Church who were above 18 years of age.” In whatever way the present tendency among the young in the south not to join the Church may be accounted for, a clue is easily found to the opposite tendency now reported as prevailing in the north. In the Highlands, a large number of people, old and young, have of late left this so-called Free Church, and the ministers in it have necessarily been more diligent in securing additions to their communion rolls. Having got rid of “impracticable elements”—such as faithful and conscientious elders and members—they, with their kirk-sessions, have been admitting young people to the Lord’s table who would not dare to take such a solemn step in better days. The increase of Free Church membership in the Highlands is a witness there to the decrease of true piety in pulpit and pew. The south is notorious for opening the doors of sacred communion to almost everybody and anybody, and, if the ambition of Mr. Howie and other leaders is to bring down the Highlands to the level of the Lowlands, they are manifestly bent upon a universal work of demoralisation in the Free Church. Let them not boast, but hang their heads with shame!
On Tuesday, the 24th, the moderator, Dr. Whyte, welcomed in enthusiastic terms corresponding members of the U.P. Church. He said he felt in his own heart as if the union were accomplished, though he could not assume it was. He made reference to the life of Ebenezer Erskine, and to all intents impressed upon the Assembly the idea, was pointed out in our last issue, that the present U.P. body is the representative of the Church of the Erskines. No greater delusion could be cherished. Dr. Whyte should know very well that the Original Secession Church is the only rightful claimant to that connection. He is equally wrong in another matter, about which he should know better. When any person from England asks him about the Free Church, and wishes him to define their existence and where they stand, he refers them to the “Ten Years’ Conflict,” the “Life of Dr. Chalmers,” and the Witness articles by Hugh Miller. Now, any person who knows the present position of the Free Church must inevitably fail to find in her the Church of Chalmers or of the “Ten Years’ Conflict.” The two Churches are at an immeasurable distance from one another in everything but the name.In the union debate of the 26th, referred to in last issue, Principal Rainy dismissed objections to union as if they were unreasonable prejudices and dislikes, and urged that, as union was coming, objectors should make it as cordial and edifying as possible. Under the feet of such imperious declarations, the poor “Constitutionalists” are now humiliated, and so demoralised in spirit have they become that it appears that, rather than throw off the yoke of slavery by stepping out into liberty like Christ’s freemen, they are willing to wait as long as the slaveholders care to bind the yoke on them. Witness Mr. Galbraith, Lochalsh:—“He was not going to leave the Free Church. He was a Free Churchman, and to speak of a Free Churchman going out of the Free Church was about the most absurd thing to say. Therefore, he proposed to stand on the principles he held, and stand to the last as long as there was an inch of ground to stand upon, and if they put him out of the Church he could not help it. Until then he would not go, and, if he must go, then perhaps he would not go alone.” Now, these words appear to us childish in the extreme. It is our firm opinion that the Free Church ceased to exist in 1892, when the Declaratory Act was passed. The present body simply retained the name, along with its separate organisation. But now, in the proposed union, name and separate organisation are to disappear altogether. When this union is consummated, Mr. Galbraith, even from his own point of view, will surely have not an inch of ground to stand upon, and it will be seen then whether he will act the part of a Free Churchman. He talks about being put out of the Church, and, if it is physical compulsion he requires, let him be assured that, not until he renounces the corrupt ecclesiastical courts which he at present acknowledges, will he be ejected from Church and manse as Messrs. Macfarlane and Macdonald were. He must allow the claims of principle and conscience to have their due effect upon his conduct, otherwise they will never put him out, but will pat him on the back and allure him deeper and deeper into the snares of voluntarism.
Dr. Henderson, Crieff (the junior clerk), in the course of a speech, discussed the question addressed to candidates for office, in respect of the Claim of Right and the principles contained therein. He pointed out that this question only bound office-bearers to the spirituality and independence of the Church of Christ, and that the Union Committee had found there was really no difference between the U.P. Church and them in regard to this question. The whole drift of Dr. Henderson’s contention was that the present question, addressed to office-bearers in the Free Church in regard to their acceptance of the Claim of Right of 1843, did not bind them to the doctrine of State acknowledgment and support of the Church, but bound them only to the Church’s spirituality and freedom. But this is mere Jesuitical sophistry. The Claim of Right was a claim to be the Church of Scotland. The Claim of Right was a claim to be that Church, freed from the unlawful and tyrannical interference of the civil magistrate in spiritual matters. The Claim of Right admits and maintains that “the magistrate hath authority, and it is his duty, in the exercise of that power which alone is committed to him—namely, ‘the power of the sword,’ or civil rule, as distinct from ‘the power of the keys,’ or spiritual authority, expressly denied to him—to take order for the preservation of purity, peace, and unity in the Church.” The Claim of Right proceeds from beginning to end upon the principle that the union of Church and State is a lawful one, and appeals to the State, in the exercise of its own authority and power, to protect the Church from the infringement of its rightful spiritual claims and functions. In view of all this, which is plainly exhibited in the Claim of Right, one cannot but feel amazed at the audacity of men who try to delude people into supposing that the establishment principle is not in the Claim of Right, and that the formula doesn’t bind office-bearers to that principle. Of course, the Claim of Right necessarily lays special emphasis upon Christ’s headship over the Church, as that was the peculiar contention of the time, but to imagine for one moment that it ignores Christ’s headship over the State, and the State’s duty to Christ’s Church, is to make a big mistake with one’s eyes open. In the closing part of the debate, Principal Rainy admitted that the Church, in the Claim of Right, claims establishment as well as freedom, but got out of the difficulty as follows:—”That being so, of course, the Claim of Right remains as one of our hereditary documents. We are not bound to our hereditary documents. This is one of the superstitions of the Scottish Churches.” Here, under the odious name superstition, he contemptuously throws away the constitution of the Free Church. The only conclusion one can draw is that, nowadays, it is a superstition to be bound to any document whatsoever that you solemnly swear to believe, maintain, and defend. In letting go this kind of superstition, you let go not merely religion but common worldly morality. Principal Rainy also made it clear that, in both Churches, they did not impose the Confession on anyone apart from their Declaratory Acts. These Acts, he said in his former speech, were so nearly parallel that they presented no difficulties in the matter of divergence.
Dr. Rainy’s motion for union was carried by 486 to 41 for Mr. Galbraith’s. The “Constitutional” party are truly in a sorry plight. We fear that if even the 41 were sifted they would not be all true-blue Presbyterians. Has the Church of Christ come so low that it cannot exist apart from connection with Dr. Rainy and his down-grade followers? “Come out from among them, and be ye separate.”
On Friday, 27th May, Principal Rainy submitted the report on Church and State, and moved in favour of disestablishment in these terms—”The General Assembly, in conformity with the findings of many previous Assemblies, afresh declare that the present alliance of Church and State in Scotland ought to come to an end, in the interest alike of public justice, of ecclesiastical freedom, and of the unity, welfare, and efficiency of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland.” Rev. Dr. Thomas Smith seconded. He did so on the ground that the present Established Church was not entitled to the immunities and emoluments of the Established Church of Scotland. Dr. Smith still professes to be a believer in the establishment principle, but how he can reconcile his present conduct—in supporting Principal Rainy’s motion, which is opposed to any Established Church, however good—with that belief, and with his own past support of the late Drs. Begg and Kennedy in better days, we cannot understand. Dr. Smith’s conduct is just a phase of the compromising spirit that has taken hold of the ‘Constitutional’ party at large.
The discussion on Romanism and Ritualism, which took place on Monday, the 23rd, revealed the weak-kneed character of the Protestantism of many in the Free Church. Indeed, we have no faith in its Protestantism as a whole, for it cannot be strong or consistent in its opposition to Rome as long as it tolerates so much error within its own borders. Dr. Ferguson, Kinmundy (elder), said “he had long felt that there was a great deal of almost persecution in some of the methods that had been adopted with reference to this subject. He knew a great many good Roman Catholics, and was very intimate with some of them, and he found that there were a great many among them just as good Christian men and women as any of those present could possibly be.”—(Applause.) Dr. Ferguson emphasised the ignorance of Romanists, and concluded by seconding the report.
Faithful exposure of Romanism is here rated “almost persecution,” while a great many Romanists are extolled in high terms for their personal goodness. We believe many of them, considering their light, are much better than some in the Free Assembly, but that doesn’t say a great deal. Another elder, Mr. W. M. Maclean, Paisley, went further than Dr. Ferguson. He took exception to the first paragraph of the deliverance, which bore that the Assembly was gratified to learn that the membership of the Roman Catholic Church was diminishing rather than increasing. He did not think they should give vent to such a sentiment as objecting to an increase of membership in another Christian Church. They differed from that Church, but it could not be denied that it was a branch of the Church of Christ. (Cries of “Question.”) He also objected to deploring the accessions gained by the Scottish Episcopal Church from Presbyterian sources. Their Church, in his opinion, was a good deal to blame for that; it arose from denying to their people the reasonable æsthetics of worship (voices, “No, no,” and “Order”), anything that made the services more attractive.
However, notwithstanding the above voices, the paragraphs objected to were modified to suit the ideas of the un-Protestant part of the Assembly.
This Assembly was closed by an address from Dr. Whyte, the moderator, on “The Minister in his Pulpit and Pastorate.” This address, a very objectionable one from many points of view, we notice elsewhere.
A Sermon.
BY REV. JAMES S. SINCLAIR, JOHN KNOX’S, GLASGOW.
“How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?”—HEB. ii. 3.
THE apostle in the opening chapter of this epistle points out that the same God who spoke in ancient times unto the fathers by the prophets hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son. He then proceeds in the majestic language of the book of Psalms to enlarge upon the divine glory and mediatorial sovereignty of the Son of God. This glorious person is infinitely exalted above men and angels, and is destined to reign until all His enemies are made His footstool. After giving expression to these lofty views concerning the dignity and glory of Christ as the Messenger of the Covenant, he is led to speak of the responsibility of those who were privileged to hear the Word of God from Christ’s lips or the lips of His servants. “Therefore, we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we let them slip.” And he impresses this obligation with a powerful argument. “For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward, how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation.” That is to say—If the word spoken by the instrumentality of angels in former ages failed not of fulfilment, and every act of disobedience to that word received in due time just punishment, how shall we, who have heard the word spoken by the Son of God, the King of angels, possibly escape deserved judgment if we neglect so great salvation? These are the weighty considerations which the apostle by the Holy Ghost here presents to the Hebrews, and such are the considerations which require to be impressed upon all who hear the gospel to the end of time.
In speaking on these words for a little, we shall, in dependence on the Spirit of God, direct attention to :—
- I. The great salvation.
- II. The neglect of it.
- III. The warning here given to all neglectors.
I. Let us consider the great salvation.
Salvation is the central theme of the gospel message. Salvation is the great need of man’s soul. Man in his present condition is far from blessedness. The Scriptures tell us he was created a holy and happy being, who continued for a time in the favour and converse of his Creator, but eventually fell from that high estate by sin. He incurred the righteous curse of God, exposed himself to all the miseries of this present life, and to the pains of hell in the life to come. He is now manifestly in a wretched condition, and it is to proclaim a salvation adequate to meet his case that the gospel of Christ has been sent forth into the world. Not that all men who hear the gospel will inevitably be saved by it, for multitudes, to whom it comes, with amazing blindness reject it against themselves. Nevertheless, God in His eternal purpose has determined that it shall be the means of saving a company which no man can number, a company that shall be made willing in the day of His power. The gospel shall not fail until all the elect of God are gathered in from the north, south, east, and west, and are made partakers of the great salvation procured for them by Jesus Christ.
We now proceed to point out some of the things that exhibit the greatness of this salvation:—
1. The greatness of the Saviour who procured it.
(1) Observe His divine greatness. He is infinitely exalted above all created beings; He is the Son of God; He is co-equal and co-substantial with the Father and the Holy Ghost in the undivided Godhead; in one word, He is God. The apostle dwells at large upon this glorious truth in the preceding chapter. He tells us that the Son is the heir of all things, the creator of the worlds, the brightness of God’s glory, the express image of His essence, and the upholder of all things. He was once in this world purging away the sins of His people. He is now at the right hand of the majesty on high. The apostle quotes several passages from the book of Psalms wherein the Messiah is set before us as the Son of God, yea, as God himself. “Unto the Son,” he (the Father) saith, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” So great then was the need of sinners that no less exalted a person than the great God required to come into this lower world for their deliverance’s sake. Men or angels were insufficient to act the part of a Saviour. But God in His infinite mercy and wisdom found within Himself the very person that such as we required. The only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father came forth to perform the work, and we may well admire the greatness of the gospel salvation in the light of the infinite greatness of Him who procured it. He is “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
(2) Notice His human greatness. The Word who was with God and was God, was made flesh.—(John i.) He assumed a perfect humanity into union with His divine person. The Son of God became also the Son of man. As the Son of man, He is incomparable among the sons of men. He had no blemish or imperfection. He was holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners. He combined in matchless proportions awe-inspiring majesty and winning meekness, unerring wisdom and purest guilelessness, immovable rectitude and tenderest sympathy, perfect holiness, and richest love. He was great in all the excellencies of perfect manhood. He was perfect man as well as infinitely perfect God. “Thou art fairer than the children of men.”—(Psalm xlv. 2.) (3) Notice He is God and man in two distinct natures and one person for ever. All divine and all human greatness subsist together in the one person of the Son of God. No wonder though the Church in the Song of Songs should exclaim, “My beloved is white and ruddy, he is the chiefest among ten thousand,” “Yea, he is altogether lovely.”—(Song v. 10, 16.)
2. The greatness of the price the Saviour paid for this salvation.
(1) He paid a life of humiliation and suffering. It was no little thing He did when He condescended to assume our nature, to dwell in this lower world, and to veil His divine glory for a season. He “gave his life a ransom for many.” He lived more than thirty years a life of humiliation. He who was the King eternal became a servant. He who was the sovereign Lawgiver was made “under the law.” He who knew no sin was made sin. He who knew no suffering “suffered the just for the unjust.” He obeyed and suffered in the room of sinners. His whole life was occupied with this work of obedience and suffering. By the latter He satisfied divine justice for the sins of His people; by the former He wrought out a positive righteousness on their behalf. “With his stripes we are healed.”—(Isa. liii. 5). And “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”—(Rom. v. 19.) “Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it.”—(Eph. v. 25.) He suffered much during His life. He was despised of men, tempted of the devil, and bruised of God. Every groan that came from His lips, every weary step He trod, every pang of suffering He endured, went to make up the ransom price of His people’s salvation. Hear His own words:—”I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”—(John x. 11.) (2) He paid the penalty of an accursed death. We have already spoken of His life of suffering, we now speak of His death of suffering. Sin deserved death, justice required death. Nothing less than a death of unspeakable suffering could meet the demands of God’s justice. The guilty cannot go unpunished, and as the Son of God stood as substitute for the guilty, He must needs suffer even unto death. The apostle says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.”—(Gal. iii. 13.) His people were under the curse of God’s law, and would have suffered that curse throughout eternity, had He not shed His blood for them. When the Bible speaks of the blood of Christ, it intends His suffering both in body and soul. He suffered unspeakable shame and pain in His body. He also “poured out his soul unto death.”—(Isa. liii. 12.) God the Father as a righteous Judge hid His face from Him, and caused His holy wrath to descend upon His soul. Witness the greatness of His heartrending agony upon the cross. Here is holy ground indeed. Men and angels may well tremble in the innermost depths of their being at this awful sight. The eternal Son cries—”My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” Again He cries—”It is finished,” and gives up the ghost. The full price is paid. It is good measure, pressed down, and running over. “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things such as silver and gold, . . . but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.”—(1 Pet. i. 18, 19.)
3. The greatness of the deliverances it brings.
(1) It delivers from sin. Sin is the great root evil. All the other evils that have befallen our race have flowed from it. Sin destroyed the image of God in man’s soul. Sin brought death spiritual, temporal, and eternal upon the human race. Now, this salvation brings deliverance from the guilt, the dominion, and, finally, from the very being of sin. There is nothing that degrades man like sin, nothing in fact that degrades him but sin, and therefore to be freed from this soul-debasing and soul-ruining evil is one of the most precious things in this “great salvation.” “The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin.” (1 John i. 7.) (2) It delivers from Satan. This evil spirit is “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit which now worketh in the children of disobedience.” The salvation that is in Christ procures deliverance from his mighty grasp. The believing soul passes from under the thraldom of Satan into the kingdom of God’s dear Son. The Son of God took flesh and blood that “through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil,” and so everyone who is made a partaker of the redemption purchased by Christ is emancipated from the devil’s yoke. He may molest, but he cannot destroy. He himself shall be in the end completely crushed. “The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.”—(Rom. xvi. 20.) (3) It delivers from the curse of God. All are by nature under His righteous curse. “Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.” But the apostle says, speaking for the Church, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.” It is an awful thing to be under the curse of God, our Creator. The displeasure and enmity of all wicked men, and all the devils in hell, are nothing to this. Behold, then, the glory of this salvation. There is freedom in it from the curse of the great God of heaven and earth. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.”—(Rom. viii. 1). (4) It delivers from the everlasting miseries of hell. The psalmist tells us that “the wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.”—(Ps. ix. 17.) The Lord Jesus proclaims the same truth with greater power and vividness than any of His prophets or apostles. Witness His testimony concerning the rich man who lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torments, and also the man without the wedding garment who is cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. It is from the same mouth we hear the words—“The wicked ‘shall go away into everlasting punishment.’”—(Matt. xv. 46.) O my friends, people nowadays seem to have forgotten that there is such a place as hell, but it exists all the same, and multitudes are hastening with ceaseless rapidity to its devouring flames. Surely it is glad tidings to hear of a way of deliverance from this awful danger. How gladly we should welcome the very thought of a salvation such as is offered in the Gospel! Salvation from everlasting woe! Glad tidings of great joy indeed, and truly they are to be pitied who do not realise these tidings to be so. The psalmist knew their value, and sang—“For great is thy mercy toward me; and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.”—(Ps. lxxxvi. 13.)
4. The greatness of the blessings it confers.
(1) A new spiritual life. We are by nature dead in trespasses and sins, and need a new life. To the soul made sensible of this by God’s spirit, the Gospel salvation, when it comes with power, is life from the dead. The soul feels a new power pulsating through its faculties, is taken up with new objects, and moves in a new world. United to Jesus Christ, the light and life of men, the quickened soul enters upon a life of faith which ends in a life of glory. “Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”—(2 Cor. v. 17.) (2) A complete justification. This blessing consists in the pardon of sin and the imputation of righteousness. The soul is freed from its filthy garments, and clothed with white raiment. It enjoys peace of conscience, and acceptance before God. It rests its hope for eternity on the finished work of Christ, and glories in His righteousness alone. “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”—(Rom. v. 1.) (3) A loving adoption. The great salvation also holds forth the offer to the sinner of a loving adoption. If he accepts the offer, he is admitted into God’s family. In other words, the criminal who deserves to lie with the devil and his angels throughout eternity is taken from his prison cell and made to sit as a son at the table of the King of kings. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power (or right) to become the sons of God.”—(John i. 12.) (4) A sure sanctification. Christ is made unto His people sanctification. The new-born soul begins to grow in holiness. Sometimes the growth is retarded by opposing forces, sometimes it is hastened by special effusions of God’s quickening grace. The Spirit of God will eventually complete the work, and at death the soul will be freed from all sin, and perfectly conformed to the image of Christ. The partakers of this salvation will be at the end of the day “a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.”—(Eph. v. 27.) (5) A glorious inheritance. We deserve an inheritance of never-ending misery and shame, but here is offered an inheritance of never-ending happiness and glory. You may be at present on the verge of everlasting ruin, but if, as a lost helpless sinner, you accept of the gospel offer, you shall immediately be an heir of everlasting blessedness. This salvation is so great that it raises poor sinners from the lowest hell here to the highest heaven hereafter. Come then, and you are welcome at the free offer of Christ to “an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away.”—(1 Peter i. 4.)
The remainder of this discourse will (D.V.) appear in next issue.
Professor Story on the Status and Education of F.P. Ministers.
ON the closing day of the Established Assembly, 30th May, the subject of the admission of ministers from other Presbyterian bodies was discussed. Professor Story supported an overture from members of the house on this subject. The overture desired that Act 4, 1896, should be so amended as to apply only to persons who could produce satisfactory evidence of their having received a certain education in Arts and Theology. Dr. Story remarked that since the passing of Dr. Cunningham’s Act there had arisen a new body—the Free Presbyterian Church—which claimed the right and privilege of that Act of having their licentiates recognised by other Presbyterian bodies. The new body which “hived” off the Free Church on the occasion of the passing of the Declaratory Act, consisted originally of two ministers and one elder, and Dr. Story expressed doubt whether such a body could canonically grant ordination. It is here stated that the Free Presbyterian Church claimed the right and privilege of having their licentiates recognised by other Presbyterian bodies. No one, we hope, will understand this to mean that our Church has formally claimed the recognition of the other Presbyterian bodies for her licentiates. She has never asked their recognition in one way or another. But if Dr. Story means that our Church by claiming in her standards to be a Presbyterian Church, inferentially claims for her licentiates an equal footing with those of other Presbyterian bodies, he is quite at liberty to draw the inference. Dr. Story goes on to say that “the new body consisted originally of two ministers and an elder.” Of course, our learned professor is profoundly oblivious to the fact that ours is not a new body at all, but an old body, namely, the Church of Scotland Free. His ignorance, however, does not change in the least the actual state of the case. To say that it consisted originally of two ministers and one elder, gives the wrong impression that there was only one elder in it. The fact is that forty elders would be much nearer the mark. No doubt in our Deed of Separation the name of only one elder occurs along with the two ministers, for one was quite sufficient to make up a Presbyterian quorum. Professor Story, in his endeavour to bemean our body as much as possible, expresses the doubt whether it could canonically grant ordination. We fail to see the ground for the doubt. A regularly constituted Presbytery of two ministers and one elder has all the rights and privileges of a Presbytery in the Christian Church, as much as a Presbytery containing ten times as many office-bearers. Dr. Story’s expression of doubt suggests the conduct of the jester rather than that of the serious man of business.
He further says:—”Some of the men engaged in the ministry of the new Church were men without the educational qualifications which the Church of Scotland regarded as necessary.” Now this is a statement that Dr. Story would require to have very good ground for making, and where he has got his information we cannot tell. We are in a general way aware of the requirements of the Established Church, and do not know any of our ministers whose education is behind its standard. Recently one of them joined the Establishment, but we are certain he cannot be pointed at as an instance of inferior scholarship. At present we have six ministers who have been ordained since this body was constituted. Of these, two were very distinguished students in Arts and Theology, and have the degree of M.A., while the other four passed through a regular course of study in the two departments mentioned, some of them taking a high place in several of their classes. We have no desire to boast, but make these statements solely for the sake of truth.
Professor Story concludes by saying:—”It is quite within the competence of the Free Presbyterian Church to ordain some of the crofters who did ministerial work, but who have no more education than was given at a village school, and so soon as that was done, these licentiates were eligible to any parish in Scotland. The possibility was rather serious. He moved in the lines of the overture.” Here the professor doesn’t venture to say our Church has ordained or will ordain men who have had only a village education, but, by suggesting its competence to do so, throws out the insinuation that this is a very likely thing to take place. We emphatically protest against the idea that our Church has given any ground for such suggestions or insinuations, and affirm that she has paid careful attention from the beginning to the education of her ministry. Certainly she has employed, apart from the regular ministry, worthy men as catechists and exhorters, who have been conducting meetings on the Lord’s day, but these have never infringed on the ministerial office. We have yet to learn that the employment of these men is contrary to the laws of the ancient Church of Scotland. Well it would be for the present Established Church if she had as many ministers of sound attainments in Christian knowledge and piety as we have of catechists and exhorters.
In conclusion, we remark that piety mingles with indignation at the zeal displayed by Dr. Story and his friends for intellectual education in the ministry, while they have to all appearance little concern for the overwhelmingly more important qualification, sound piety. What is all the education in the world without the new birth? An educated but an unregenerate ministry is the greatest curse that canfall any country, and that is what poor Scotland is largely afflicted with in these days. We fear most of the Scottish Churches are being wrecked on the rock of education. If a man is fairly well educated, has a little touch of literary culture, and is comparatively moral in his life that is all that is required. He may be as dead as a stone spiritually, may not be able to preach a word without paper, or utter a prayer that is not a piece of laborious formalism, and yet he is counted a man of satisfactory education for the Gospel ministry. He has got the minor literary education, the dead external accoutrements, but the spiritual life and understanding to employ them aright for the glory of God and the good of souls, he is utterly destitute of. There is a danger even that the Scottish Churches at their best may err in this matter. We must be guided by the Scriptures in this as well as the other affairs of the Church of Christ. Witness the apostles. Were they men of learning and high educational attainments? The most of them in this respect were “unlearned and ignorant men.” The apostle Paul himself, the most learned of them all, was very chary about giving prominence to man’s eloquence, wisdom, philosophy, and science in the declaration of the Gospel. Let us, therefore, beware of rushing into an extreme on this point. Some ministers in the past who were highly honoured of God in the conversion of sinners, and the edification of saints, were men of only moderate education. In England the same thing has been exemplified. Our modern worshippers of the god of learning would have very effectively shut out from the ministry of the Gospel such men as John Bunyan and C. H. Spurgeon. These, it may be replied, were men of great natural gifts, suitable for the work. But the point is, they had not what is commonly rated learning, and therefore would have been excluded from the ministry by Professor Story. We believe piety and natural gifts to be two essential qualifications, but we protest against this invariable demand for a formal standard of mere book learning.
“BE not deceived: God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.”—(Gal. vi. 7, 8.)