ADMISSION OF FREE PRESBYTERIAN MINISTERS.
LAST month we were under the painful necessity of reporting the fact that three of our ministers, the Revs. John R. Mackay, M.A., Alex. Macrae, and Andrew Sutherland, had severed their connection with our Church, and had joined the Free Church. We now take from the Free Church Record of December a few of the principal details given in the report of their “admission,” which took place at the meeting of the Free Church Commission, held on the 20th November. The F.C. Record states that “the Rev. D. Maclean reported on the question of relations with the Free Presbyterian Church, and narrated what had been done by the Free Church in this matter, and particularly what had transpired at the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church, which met in May last. The ministerial minority of that Synod had communicated with the Free Church, and negotiations had been entered into between them and the Free Church Committee. The result was that these brethren had drawn up a Declaration, the acceptance of which by the Commission, would put them in the position of asking admission to the Free Church that day. The Declaration is as follows:—
“We, the undersigned ministers of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, being convinced that our brethren of the Free Presbyterian Synod, by the attitude of extreme aloofness which they persist in manifesting towards the Free Church—a Church whose Christian people live in the same districts as our own, whose standards are identical with our own, and whose testimony for the Crown Rights of the Redeemer is one with that of the Church of Christ in this country in her purest days—are acting in a manner that is not in keeping with the teaching of our Confession relative to the fundamental doctrine of the Communion of Saints, consider it to be our duty to ally ourselves with the said Free Church, provided it concurs with the following affirmations:—
(1) That in entering the Free Church we are carrying with us our entire testimony with unfettered liberty to contend for it in all its parts.
(2) That it is the genuine opinion and judgment of the Free Church that the absolute truthfulness of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the principle upon which, as upon a basis, all her teaching is built; and that she would regard any deviation from this principle, or any such equivocal or hesitating utterance as would cast doubt on an ex animo belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, in the teaching of any of her professors or ministers, as wholly inconsistent with the Church’s standards and declared testimony, and, accordingly, not to be suffered or tolerated. Further, that not only has the work, entitled ‘Demonic Possession’ been by its author withdrawn from circulation, but that it was and is regretfully acknowledged by the Church, and not least by its author, to have given expression to views that are not in keeping with this fundamental principle of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture.
(3) That the Free Church abides by her offer to the Free Presbyterian Church to form with her one Presbyterian body, in which the constitution of the united body shall be so enunciated as that it will be evident that no one in the united body which, please the Lord, may yet be, will have any direct responsibility for the clause in the Act rescinding the Declaratory Act—‘as she has always adhered’—a clause which has given an offence (which it was not intended to convey)—to brethren of the Free Presbyterian Church.
(4) That the Free Church resolves to oppose everything that is either idolatrous or superstitious, mercenary or frivolous, in the Church of God, and she is prepared to denounce any practice which, after a full and free discussion, will be shown to be either unscriptural or unconstitutional.”
After Mr. Maclean reviewed the negotiations between these ministers and their Committee, and the situation now presented—alluding by the way to “critics within” as well as “without the Church”—he moved that “the Commission receive the Declaration submitted by brethren of the Free Presbyterian Church, and assure them that it expresses the mind and attitude of this Church on the subjects dealt with.” Rev. Finlay Macrae, Plockton, seconded this motion, which was supported by Mr. A. Macneilage, Glasgow, and unanimously agreed to. Professor Cameron then moved that the Commission admit Messrs. Mackay, Macrae, and Sutherland as ministers without charges. Major Greig seconded the motion, which was supported by the Rev. A. Stewart. (The report does not state that there was unanimous agreement.) The moderator (Rev. D. Munro, Ferintosh) extended to the three brethren a cordial welcome to the Free Church. Rev. John R. Mackay, speaking for himself and his brethren, thanked the Commission for the very cordial reception that had been given them. Among other things, he remarked that “they had no thought that their coming among them would tend to any division.”
Remarks.—We make no attempt at reproducing all the contents of the above speeches. Space, not to speak of other considerations, forbids. We only give what we consider is necessary for this Magazine. If we may read between the lines, we must conclude that, while the F.P. brethren were received with great cordiality by the majority of the Commission, there were some present who were not of the same mind. The F.P. brethren had “no thought” or anticipation of “division,” it appears. Not likely; but they may be disillusioned on other points as well as this in the Free Church, if they live long enough. Disillusionment, we are sorry to say, is the thing they are greatly in need of.
As to “the Declaration” quoted, it is impossible for us to enter into a complete criticism of the same in the present article, but we shall notice some things in it.
First, the preamble.
These brethren (up till now) of the Free Presbyterian Church declare that “the standards” of the present Free Church are “identical” with ours. Is this a correct statement? Is not the Deed of Separation drawn up in 1893 a standard of our Church of the most distinctive kind? That standard does not exist in the present Free Church. How is it possible for them to assert that the standards of the Free Church are “identical” with ours? Though the Confession of Faith and Catechisms are to be regarded as the chief subordinate standards under the Holy Scriptures, yet the principal differentiating standard of the Free Presbyterian Church as distinguished from the present Free Church is the Deed of Separation, a document the said Church has never endorsed. It will suit these brethren very well to ignore the Deed of Separation at the present moment, when they are turning their backs upon the Free Presbyterian Church, but is it just or honourable to do so? Again, they affirm that the present Free Church’s “testimony for the Crown Rights of the Redeemer is one with that of the Church of Christ in this country in her purest days.” We do not know exactly what period they mean by “the purest days.” Possibly the testimony for Christ’s Crown Rights, on paper, is the same as it was at the Disruption of 1843, but we entirely demur to the implication that the representatives of the present Free Church have stood for that testimony in all its parts with the consistency and zeal of their ancestors. It is here that they have seriously and culpably failed. Still again, our former Free Presbyterian brethren give as their reason for separating from us and “allying themselves with the said Free Church” that they are convinced that their “brethren of the Free Presbyterian Synod, by the attitude of extreme aloofness which they persist in manifesting towards the Free Church, . . . are acting in a manner that is not in keeping with the teaching of our Confession relative to the fundamental doctrine of the Communion of Saints.” Such may be the conviction of the Rev. Messrs. Mackay, Macrae, and Sutherland, whose convictions at present seem to be unsettled, but we deny that there is any proper ground for such a conviction. The attitude of the Free Presbyterian Synod was in nowise out of harmony with the Confession of Faith on the Communion of Saints. The article in the Confession (chapter 26) refers to the case of saints as united to Christ and to one another in Him, apart from any serious question of discipline or controversy, and it prescribes no method whatsoever for healing divisions. If this chapter is to be made the exclusive basis for action in the matter of ecclesiastical union, then we ought to proceed towards corporate union with all without distinction whom we may credibly regard as saints, no matter what errors they may entertain. There is another chapter of the Confession on “Church Censures” (chap. 30) which has a message for the present situation, but it is comfortably ignored by our friends.
“Church censures are necessary,” for, among other things, “vindicating the honour of Christ and the holy profession of the Gospel,” and the representatives of the present Free Church have been under these censures, so far as our body is concerned. They have done nothing, in our judgment, to secure the removal of these censures, and so, though they should be saints of the first magnitude, we cannot consistently enter into any corporate union with them.
We shall (D.V.) resume our criticism in next issue. We need hardly add that nothing has given us greater pain, since ever we took up the pen, than to be under the necessity of writing in criticism of these brethren, but, at the same time, we must state that we have no dubiety as to the rightness of our position, and shall therefore endeavour to do our duty faithfully in the matter.
J. S. S.