THE Southern Presbytery met in Glasgow on Friday the 4th April. Rev. Neil Cameron, Moderator, presided. The Clerk (Rev. J. S. Sinclair) reported that he had forwarded Mr. P. M. Chisholm, student, the resolution of last meeting, declaring that they were under the necessity of removing his name from the roll of students under their jurisdiction, and that Mr. Chisholm had sent the following reply, in which he severed his connection with the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland:—”9 Glenfield Street, Glasgow, 8th March, 1913. Dear Sir,—I am in receipt of yours of 19th February, intimating the Presbytery’s final decision in my case. I am fully satisfied that I have used every habile means with a view to obtain relief from the pernicious and unproved allegations therein laid to my charge. I endeavoured this in my explanations before the Presbytery, afterwards in my appeal to the Synod, as also in Petitions to said Synod—all which have been either contemptuously neglected or most grossly misrepresented. I have now, while protesting against the unjust and tyrannical procedure which culminated in this sentence, decided to sever my relation with the present F.P. Church, which I hereby do, and to endeavour by all lawful means to clear myself from the aspersions cast upon me by judicatures of said Church; as also, privately and publicly, to assert my position in regard to the doctrine of the Word of God, and the principles of the
Reformed Church of Scotland, as the Lord will enable me, and it is in my power to do so. If I should not adopt this course, I have no doubt but I should be guilty of injustice to myself, and to the public in permitting the truths assailed to be lost sight of, and our position at large to be misconstrued. With kind regards, yours sincerely,
P. CHISHOLM.”
The Presbytery also took notice of the fact that Mr. Chisholm had started separate Sabbath services in a hall in Glasgow. After deliberation, the Presbytery decided to appoint a Committee, consisting of the Moderator, Clerk, and Captain Macdonald, to draw up a statement with reference to this case, and to publish the same in the Magazine.
STATEMENT re CASE OF MR. P. M. CHISHOLM, STUDENT.
The Committee of Presbytery would express their regret that circumstances should require such a statement as the following in regard to the case of Mr. P. M. Chisholm, student, but at the same time they must affirm their decided conviction that such is necessary in order to dispel misrepresentations that are being circulated, and to make known the plain and undeniable truth about the matter. They draw up this statement under a full sense of their responsibility in the sight of God and men, and with a sincere desire that any who may have been misled as to the exact state of the case may come to a correct understanding of it. They divide the statement into two parts. The first is a narrative of the case from beginning to end, and the second is a brief note on some of the points of Church practice, which have been unwarrantably attacked by the said student and others who support him.
(I) A NARRATIVE OF CASE.
Mr. Peter M. Chisholm, a member of St. Jude’s congregation, was received by the Presbytery as one of the Church’s students at a meeting held in Glasgow, on the 20th February, 1908. Before he was admitted, the Moderator, according to the usual practice in such cases, asked him if he was satisfied with the constitution and practice of the Free Presbyterian Church, and he answered in the affirmative. Mr. Chisholm was also asked if he assented to a Synod Resolution, to the effect that, should any under their jurisdiction change their minds at any time as to the doctrines or principles of the Church, which they had promised to maintain, they should immediately inform the Church courts, and not pursue divisive courses, and he declared his agreement with the rule of this resolution. It is here to be noted that the Free Presbyterian Church has made no change in her constitution—as would seem at present to be suggested by some—but that if there is any change, it has taken place in the views of Mr. Chisholm, while he has at the same time entirely disregarded the terms of the rule with which he declared his agreement at his admission. He never informed the Church
courts that he had come to be dissatisfied with any part of the principles or practice of the Church, but at his own instance took the unwarrantable liberty of denouncing the stated practice of the Church in the course of ordinary sermons, before the public congregation on the Lord’s day.
Shortly after his admission, the Presbytery employed Mr. Chisholm to conduct public worship in congregations and stations within their bounds. Last summer he was asked by the Rev. Neil Cameron, St. Jude’s, Glasgow, to occupy his pulpit for six Sabbaths in succession during the time of Mr. Cameron’s absence at Communion services in the Highlands. Mr. Chisholm came and occupied the pulpit. After two or three Sabbaths had elapsed it was reported to Mr. Cameron by thoroughly reliable witnesses that Mr. Chisholm, in the course of his sermons, was indulging in severe censures of the ministers, elders and courts of the Free Presbyterian Church. It was stated that he had explicitly denounced the usual practice of employing elders (when need required) to speak on the Word at Church services, as an evil thing that was bringing God’s displeasure on the Church. He had also spoken words which were a direct incitement to division in the congregation. After Mr. Cameron returned home and weighed matters, he sent a letter to Mr. Chisholm, who was residing in Edinburgh, requesting him to come for a friendly interview on the subject of his utterances. He came, but he took up an entirely defiant attitude and absolutely refused to express any regret for what he had done. He was then informed that the matter would have to go before the Presbytery, unless he took up a more becoming attitude, but he still refused to give any satisfaction. Mr. Cameron, now considering the seriousness of the reflections that had been cast upon the Church, and the friction that had been produced in St. Jude’s congregation, brought a complaint before the Presbytery, met at Kames on the 22nd day of August. The Presbytery, having considered the case, agreed to cite Mr. Peter M. Chisholm to appear before the court at its next meeting to be examined as to the statements complained of. The Presbytery next met in the Hall of St. Jude’s Church on the 29th August, and Mr. Chisholm appeared. The Clerk put a series of questions to him as to the various reflections according to report he had cast upon the ministers, elders, and courts of the Church. Some particular statements which had been credibly reported were brought before him, and he was asked whether he had expressed himself in substance to the effect stated, though it might not be in the very words given. He denied that he had used the precise words of the greater number of the statements quoted, but admitted that he had employed some of the expressions and had indirectly cast reflections upon the action of ministers and Church courts. He also admitted that he had made a personal charge against one of the elders of St. Jude’s, based upon his knowledge of a private correspondence between the
elder (Mr. Maclean) and an adherent of the congregation. As to the matter of denouncing the recognised practice of employing elders on occasion to speak upon the Word at Church services, he admitted that he had publicly condemned the practice.
At the close of the examination, Mr. Chisholm was reminded that at the time he was received as a student of the Presbytery he was directed to the Synod’s Resolution already mentioned, that if office-bearers were at any time conscious of a change of mind as to the doctrines or principles of the Church they should immediately inform the Church courts and not pursue divisive courses, and that he had expressed his agreement with the rule of that Resolution, but that he had now broken it in its application to his own case and had gone to the pulpit with matters which he should first have brought before the Presbytery. He was then asked if he was prepared to apologise or express regret of the disorderliness of his proceedings, and he answered, “No.” He was appealed to a second time, but he adhered to his refusal. Rev. Ewen Macqueen then moved the following resolution, which was seconded by the Rev. John Robertson, and unanimously agreed to:—
“The Presbytery, having considered the complaint against Mr. Peter M. Chisholm, student, with regard to certain public statements made by him when recently supplying St. Jude’s pulpit, find: (1) That Mr. Chisholm did on several occasions deliver personal and unfounded attacks on ministers, elders, and courts of this Church, as also did denounce the recognised practice of employing elders (when need required) to speak from the Word at Church services. (2) That Mr. Chisholm, in doing so, has violated the ordinary rules of Christian and ecclesiastical procedure, in not having previously brought any such charges before the proper tribunals, namely, the courts of the Church, and has also been guilty of a specific breach of faith, inasmuch as when he was received as a student he was received as one in full sympathy with the constitution and practice of the Church; and was directed by the Presbytery to a Resolution of Synod passed in November, 1904, the substance of which was that if office-bearers were conscious of a change of mind as to the doctrines or principles of this Church, they should immediately inform their Presbytery and not pursue divisive courses—a Resolution which Mr. Chisholm then expressly declared his agreement with, but which as applicable to him in a responsible position (though not an office-bearer) he has entirely disregarded. And (3) That Mr. Chisholm refuses to apologise or express regret for his disorderly proceedings, though he has been privately and publicly admonished to do so.
“In view of these findings the Presbytery resolve that until Mr. Peter M. Chisholm expresses regret for such disorderly proceedings and breach of faith, and humbly submits to the authority of the Church courts, they withdraw the privilege they have given
him of preaching to their congregations, and direct that copies of this decision be sent to the other Presbyteries of the Church.”
Mr. Chisholm intimated an appeal to the Synod, and craved extracts. The Presbytery held its next meeting on the 16th September, when the minutes of the previous meeting were approved. A day or two thereafter the Clerk sent the extracts to Mr. Chisholm, who forwarded Reasons for his Appeal upwards of a month afterwards, on the 25th October.
THE CASE BEFORE THE SYNOD.
The case came before the Synod at Glasgow, on the 12th day of November. Rev. J. R. Mackay moved that, inasmuch as Mr. Chisholm failed to give in Reasons for his Appeal within ten days after the Southern Presbytery pronounced sentence in his case, the Synod finds that the said Appeal falls to the ground. Mr. Mackay, in giving reasons for his motion, pointed out that the law of the Church was quite clear in matters of this kind, and that a man in Mr. Chisholm’s position ought to know at least the elements of Church law, when he would set out to fight a fundamental court of the Church before the Supreme Court. Moreover, he said, that to depart from the ordinary rule would be setting a bad precedent in an important matter. He then showed that the Synod was not dealing harshly with Mr. Chisholm, as it still regarded him as a member of the Church and a student studying for the ministry, and would still treat him as such in the matter of financial help through the bursary scheme. What had happened to Mr. Chisholm was that he was deprived of the privilege of preaching until he satisfied the Southern Presbytery concerning certain matters on account of which they had called him to task. In conclusion, Mr. Mackay explained that there was a great difference between the case of a student such as Mr. Chisholm, who might be employed by the Presbytery, according to its discretion, in a way of conducting services, and the case of a man who had been regularly licensed to preach the Gospel. In the case of the latter, license could not be withdrawn without a regular process, proving against him fault of life or doctrine; but in the case of the former, a student was, during all the time of his studentship, under probation as to his suitableness as a preacher, and that a mere charge of imprudence on the part of a student would justify the Presbytery in saying that he was not to preach further during the Presbytery’s pleasure. The motion was unanimously agreed to. Another motion bearing on the case was then moved by the Rev. A. Macrae, and unanimously agreed to. It was as follows: “The Synod, considering the desirability of giving the Southern Presbytery definite instructions as to how they are now to deal with Mr. Peter Chisholm, student, at present under suspension from preaching owing to certain irregularities, and having full confidence in the said Presbytery, instruct them that if Mr. Chisholm do not satisfy the Presbytery in respect of
those irregularities before the 14th day of February, 1913, they remove his name from the roll of students under their jurisdiction; and if the said Mr. Peter Chisholm act contumaciously at any time prior to the said date, the said Southern Presbytery deal with him forthwith.”
The Clerk sent copies of these findings to Mr. Chisholm, and received the following reply in a letter, dated Edinburgh, 4th February, 1913:—”Dear Mr. Sinclair,—In acknowledging yours of 26th November, 1912, intimating findings of Synod in my case, I am resolved to adhere to the position already taken up by me. I have nothing further to concede.—With kind regards, I am, yours sincerely, P. M. CHISHOLM.” The period allotted to Mr. Chisholm to satisfy the Presbytery came to an end on the 14th February, and the Court met on the 17th. The above reply was read, and the Presbytery unanimously adopted the following resolution in the case:—”The Presbytery, having considered a note received from Mr. P. M. Chisholm, student, stating that he is ‘resolved to adhere to the position already taken up’ by him, and that he has ‘nothing further to concede,’ express their regret at this attitude, and declare that Mr. Chisholm has left them no alternative, in view of such an unsatisfactory statement, but to proceed in accordance with the Synod’s special instructions in the case, and to remove his name, as they now hereby do, from the roll of students under their jurisdiction.” The Clerk sent a copy of this decision to Mr. Chisholm, and received the reply, on 8th March, already recorded in the report of the Presbytery meeting held on the fourth day of April. In this letter, wherein he announces his decision to sever his relation with the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, he describes, among other things, the original charges against him as “pernicious and unproved allegations,” and the Church’s procedure in his case as “unjust and tyrannical.”
-
The Presbytery’s Committee desire to point out, with regard to what are called “pernicious and unproved allegations,” (1) that, so far from these allegations being unreliable, they were made by responsible office-bearers, whose word was entitled to the highest credence; (2) that Mr. Chisholm himself admitted on examination more than enough to deserve the discipline that was exercised; and (3) that the Presbytery’s decision to stop him from preaching was chiefly based on the un-Christian disorderliness of his proceedings in making charges in the pulpit which he ought to have brought to the Church courts, and his refusal to express regret for the said disorder.
-
The Committee desire to repel the charge that the procedure against Mr. Chisholm has been “unjust and tyrannical.” They consider that the courts of the Church have dealt in a very moderate way with him, and that their decisions were all well within the powers given them by Church law. At the final stage he had three months in which he was at liberty to consider his
position and to confess the undeniable disorderliness of his conduct, but he did nothing in that direction. Near the end of the period, he wrote declaring his unbending adherence to the position he had already taken up. The only admission he has ever made is that he was in error in making a personal charge over the pulpit against an elder in St. Jude’s congregation. On the other hand, the Committee have no hesitation in saying that nothing could be more “unjust and tyrannical” than his own original proceedings in judging, condemning and pronouncing sentence upon the courts of the Church, without ever having given them the opportunity to consider his charges, and that before a general congregation which had no immediate responsibility in the matter. Such conduct in a young man, who was only at the earliest stage of his public career, was “unjust and tyrannical” in no ordinary degree.
(2) BRIEF NOTE OF POINTS IN CHURCH PRACTICE.
The Committee of Presbytery desire to call attention to the fact that Mr. Chisholm and his supporters evidently wish to introduce changes of a serious character into the constitution and practice of the Free Presbyterian Church—rules that have not hitherto been recognised among us, and that the Church is not prepared to approve of or accept. They want to set up what would be to a large extent a new Church, different from the Free Church of Scotland as settled in 1843, or its representative, the Free Presbyterian Church. Mr. Chisholm made it plain to some extent in his pulpit utterances what was wanted, and erroneously described the existing order of things as backsliding—a name entirely unsuitable to the case, inasmuch as there has been no departure in doctrine, worship, government, or discipline from our recognised constitution and practice. But the full extent of his views did not clearly appear until he and a few others signed certain petitions and forwarded same to the Synod. The members of Synod considered these petitions in private, and decided that the resolutions which the Court would adopt on some of the points taken up, would be regarded as a sufficient answer to these petitions. The Committee feel it necessary to notice briefly the distinctive opinions of Mr. Chisholm and his supporters, so that the divergence of these from the settled constitution and practice of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland may be clearly seen.
(1) They object to ruling elders speaking upon the Word at Church services, even when ministerial supply cannot be had. Now, while the distinction between the elder that rules and the elder that not only rules but labours in Word and doctrine—commonly called the minister—is clearly recognised in the Church’s Standards, still it has been held in the true Church of Scotland, both before and after the Disruption of 1843, that the ruling elder or other recognised layman, if he has the spiritual gift, may on occasion speak upon the Word to the people. Thus before and since the Disruption catechists and missionaries of this
class were appointed and employed by the Church. The great day alone will declare the incalculable amount of good that such Spirit-taught men were the means of accomplishing, by the blessing of God, among their fellows, both in conversion and edification. The history of the Highlands of Scotland bears outstanding testimony to the truth of what is here stated.
(2) They hold what amounts to the principle of Close Communion by maintaining that none but Free Presbyterians should be admitted in any circumstances to the Lord’s Supper. This is the substance of their petition to the Synod. Now, while this Church has been very careful as to who are admitted to the Lord’s Table, it is to be noted that the principle of Close Communion is not one of her principles. Such was not a principle of the Free Church as settled in 1843, and to introduce it now would be a change and an innovation upon the constitution and practice of the Church. At the same time, the Synod has made it plain in a recent resolution that none shall be admitted for occasional communion but such as are recognised as God-fearing persons, and are approved by a majority of the Kirk-Session.
(3) They desire that communicants, and persons who receive baptism for their children, should be prohibited by the Church from having musical instruments, and pictures of any kind in their private houses, on the ground that such things have found their way into the house of God. The members of Synod decided that it would be absurd to lay down such rules in regard to private houses, and refused to make any pronouncement on the subject.
(4) They also hold (the Committee are aware, though it was not expressed in these petitions) that none should be asked to pray in public but men who are already communicants. Now, while it is desirable that all truly praying men should seek to have their difficulties removed and to obey Christ’s command, “This do in remembrance of me,” yet it has not been the practice in this Church to abstain from asking such to pray in public. Not a few in the past who were eminent for personal godliness were asked to pray in public, and did so to much edification, before they became members in full communion.
In conclusion, the Presbyterian Committee would point out (1) that all these divergent opinions were evidently behind Mr. Chisholm’s pulpit denunciations; (2) that he was condemning the Free Presbyterian Church for practices which she has always recognised and still recognises as Scriptural and constitutional; (3) that the introduction of the changes proposed would (as already noticed) mean the constitution of a new Church—not the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland; and (4) that the separation of Mr. Chisholm and his few followers shows the schismatic extremes to which misguided zeal will lead people who ought to know better—in attempting to break up a Church that stands as a humble witness, in dependence upon the grace of God, for the whole counsel of God as stated in the Scriptures.