UNDER the above heading there appears, in the April number of the Free Church of Scotland “Monthly Record,” what purports to be a criticism of a lecture which I delivered to my congregation on the first day of this year.
The Editor claims to use “plainness of speech,” but if his readers expected to find any part of my lecture refuted, they must have felt disappointed. He quoted a few sentences from the lecture, and immediately proceeded to vilify the writer, instead of giving a reasoned criticism. He took the only way possible for him in the circumstances, because there was nothing in the lecture but historical facts which cannot be denied. I may safely leave the inferences and comparisons* which are mine to the judgment of all unbiased readers. So far as the efforts of Mr. Stewart are concerned, not one sentence of it has been disproved. If the Free Church must call facts, which have become a part of the past history of the contendings for the faith in Scotland, “aspersions,” let them do so, but these facts will continue to be true. I have been charged by some in the Free Church with being moved by an evil spirit in my weak efforts to defend God’s truth, and integrity of practice in the great affairs of His Church, but the servant cannot expect better treatment than his Lord.
One of the reasons I had for delivering the lecture was that our young people should know why they were Free Presbyterians. If I have succeeded in helping them to understand the history of their Church and why they are separated from other Churches, especially from the Free Church, I count my labour amply rewarded. In doing this I am only fulfilling what I have vowed to do, and also what the Synod of our Church resolved should be done once a year by every minister in our Church in his own congregation.
The other reason was that my attention had been drawn to a statement made by the present Moderator of the Free Church last year at Portree. As he was reported, it reads as follows:—”The Free Presbyterian Church also was comparatively a new creation, and it would inevitably follow that it and the Free Church would have to become one, as in all respects they already were.” This statement demanded an answer. It occurred to me that the best way to show the fallacy underlying it was to deliver a lecture on the lines taken on New Year’s day:—
(1) In the first place, to give a history of the contendings within the Free Church prior to 1893.
This was done to refute the uncalled-for statement: “The Free Presbyterian Church also was comparatively a new creation.” In recording a narrative of the painful contentions of that period I stated facts known to myself, and not reports received from others. This was done to vindicate the position taken then by the Free Presbyterian Church, so as to enable the readers of our Magazine to decide for themselves which of the two bodies represented truly the Free Church of 1843. How far I succeeded in proving that the Free Presbyterian Church was not “a new creation,” but the only true representative of the Free Church, and that the present Free Church is a new creation, I may safely leave to the sober judgment of unbiased readers.
* Such as the comparison made between the conduct of the Moderate Party of 1843 and the Leaders of the Free Church of 1893 and 1900. Mr. Stewart makes a weak effort at camouflaging by presuming ignorance on my part of the Claim of Right and Protest of 1842; by an undignified attack on the F. P. Church, and by a charge of approximation to Voluntaryism on our part; but he failed absolutely to put a better face upon the conduct of his men.
(2) I resolved, to answer, in the second place, the statement: “And it would inevitably follow that it and the Free Church would have to become one, as in all respects they already were.”
This, of necessity, led me to deal with the practice of the two bodies since 1893. In doing this I stated truly my inward conviction when I said: “We regret sincerely that we are forced, by the words and actions of these men, to lay bare the truth, for our own self-preservation as a body.” Mr. Stewart interprets my words, “self-preservation,” as meaning that “I am apprehensive lest the people of the F.P. denomination should look with a too friendly eye on the Free Church.” This is part of his “plainness of speech,” but the falsity of the interpretation will appear to all, remembering that the last four Free Presbyterian ministers who seceded to the Free Church failed to bring any of their congregations with them. They had to be accepted without charges. The steadfastness of our people left no room for any such fear on my part. The true meaning of the statement was that I determined to show, from the past and present practice of the two bodies, that they are not one, and that it is not inevitably to follow that they will become one while the Free Church remains what it is. The manner in which it desired to become one with us was to swallow us up, after the example of Pharaoh’s lean kine; but be it observed that, notwithstanding eight of our ministers have been so absorbed, it remains as lean and ill-favoured as before. This was another reason why the word, “self-preservation,” was used by me in the lecture.
My critic charges me with not having the grace of the Gospel, and that “No intelligent reader of the New Testament can mistake such unworthy invective for faithfulness to truth.” The Apostle Paul, when he saw the Apostle Peter acting inconsistently with “the spirit of the Gospel,” said to him in public, “Why compeltest thou the Gentiles to live as the Jews?” Did this prove that he was graceless? Paul went much further when he said: “I would that they were cut off that trouble you.” Did even this prove that he had no grace? I would strongly advise Mr. Stewart to read more carefully the New Testament, for he will find in it very strong language used against unsoundness in the faith and in the practice of individuals and Churches.
Another false charge is: “We have carefully searched Mr. Cameron’s address for anything in the nature of an admission of sinfulness or shortcoming on the part of his own Church.” The readers of the lecture will have observed that I said: “The Lord helped us hitherto, because we, in much weakness and infirmities, have adhered to His Word,” etc. What did he make of weakness and infirmities? Is that not an acknowledgment of sin and shortcoming? But I said more than this. For, after repeating what that godly man, Mr. Crawford, Tighnabruaich, said to me about the Lord’s beginning to pump up “what was in our own bowels, and that will be more painful to you than all you have suffered in the past. Alas! how true I have found the godly man’s prediction.” Is that last sentence not a complaint against “his own Church?” How could it be otherwise, seeing all we have passed through since? Does it not reveal that I have found out by painful experience that the “pumping up” has proved that we had among us runagates who turned back when they found a convenient season? This is truly an admission of grievous shortcomings.
As regards my statement about the Professor’s chair, he says “that it is utterly devoid of truth.” What is devoid of truth? Is it that the chair was empty? Surely that is well known to both the people of the F.C. and the F.P. Church. Is it that they made no secret of the fact that they were keeping it so with a view to get the Rev. J. R. Mackay over to fill it? This cannot be denied, for it was also common knowledge in both Churches. Is it that they have captured their man? The facts, as stated in my lecture, are too well known to call for any comment.
My critic’s closing paragraph is no doubt intended to be “crushing.” He proceeds with “apparent earnestness” to address his brethren of the F.P. Church, reminding them of the “abundant need for a faithful and vigorous testimony for the truth in Scotland.” He adds: “We live in an age when there is a grievous departure from the evangelical faith, many of the great verities of our religion are being assailed—the authority of the Scriptures, the doctrine of the Lord’s Person and Redemptive work, the truth concerning the last things, our Protestant heritage. With respect to these fundamental doctrines, there is need for a witness which will combine the elements of fearless warning and positive exposition.” In the necessity for all this we heartily agree, but actions speak louder than words, and let the unbiased reader judge the consistency of the Free Church in this respect from the following (among other) incidents. In a daily “Scotsman” last year the following advertisement appeared:—”Free Buccleuch and Greyfriars—II, Rev. R. M. Knox. 2.30, Rev. A. Ross, B.D., Partick. 6 p.m., Speaker—Rev. Norman MacLean, D.D., St. Cuthberts.”
That the Rev. Norman MacLean has “grievously departed from the evangelical faith” will be evident from the following statements which appear in a recent publication from the combined pens of Dr. MacLean and Dr. Sclater, designated “God and the Soldier.” In this book the question is asked regarding the love of God—”And how are we to square that great teaching with a doctrine that banishes erring lads, struck down by a German bullet, eternally from the divine presence? The fact is, it is a circle that cannot be squared. Love does not shut doors; the gates of its city are open continually.” Again we quote—”The view of the Reformed Church does not square with the facts of human nature. It proceeds upon a hypothesis of black and white, whereas most of us are grey.” Again—”To consign the overwhelming majority of mankind to such a hell would only argue a malicious God. . . . They live in grime, how could they be but grimy? Are they to be damned for the grime they did not create? But no grime of man’s creation can hide the God-like in them.” “It is inconceivable, whatever infallible theologians may say, that hell can be the portion of these. . . . There is so much good in them that hell cannot be their portion; and so much evil that heaven cannot receive them. What, then, can be their lot? The revolution made by the war in the social organisation brings in its train a revolution in the realm of the soul. The Church must find a third category. It must propound not only a doctrine of heaven and hell, but also a doctrine of an intermediate state.” “If prayer be the mightiest weapon placed in our hands, we dare not restrict its power merely to the aid of the living. For the dead are on the great stream of life as we are, and they, too, need the shepherding and the shielding of God. Multitudes pray for their dead, and the Church must give expression to this yearning of their souls.”
These are the views of a man found preaching a Rededication (whatever that word may mean) Sermon in a Free Church pulpit, and so far we have failed to see one word of criticism from the Rev. A. Stewart or his brethren. It is such conduct that, in his own words, tends “to strip the Free Church of any character for uprightness or fidelity to truth.” Does this conduct give encouragement to “brethren of the Free Presbyterian Church” to join Mr. Stewart and his brethren in such open violation of their ordination vows? Did Mr. Stewart notice what is written: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed: for he that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” “Go thou and do likewise.”
Let us take another sentence in the paragraph referred to. It reads thus: “The danger to the common faith, judging at least from the distribution of emphasis in their public utterances, leave them comparatively unmoved; but if they find a record of a cup of tea having been served in a Free Church Hall some ten or fifteen years ago, they are roused to a white heat of righteous denunciation.” Such “philippic” might well be ignored, but lest any should infer that in practice the Free Church has put a stop to entertainments which she condemns by profession, we refer them to the “Oban Times” of 3rd April—(not ten or fifteen years ago, but last month). It contains a report of an Oban Free Church congregation meeting, when the entertainment included the singing of “Scots Wha Hae,” “Rule Britannia,” and solos; in addition, they had one minute’s silent prayer. What would congregations of the Free Church (say, in Gairloch, Aultbea, Ullapool, etc.) do if vain songs were sung at congregational meetings in their respective places of worship? It is high time for the Editor of the Free Church “Record” to use “plainness of speech.” The Declaration drawn up by the F.P. ministers who joined the Free Church last year, and which was agreed to by its Commission, as the ground of their acceptance, contains certain affirmations. In the fourth, the Free Church resolved to “oppose anything that is frivolous in the Church of God and denounce any practice shown to be unscriptural or unconstitutional.” Time will show how the Oban minister and congregation will be dealt with; also what support will be given to the young Free Church minister in the Glasgow Presbytery who has recently witnessed against such meetings in his congregation, but failed to prevent the latter from doing as they wished. We sympathise with him, and admire his efforts to act consistently.
“Moreover, all the chief of the priests and the people transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the Lord, which he had hallowed in Jerusalem, . . . until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy.”
N. C.