(Continued from p. 139.)
IN the former article on this subject the legislation of Parliament and the General Assembly as to creed subscription in the Church of Scotland was traced up to 1711. From that date until 1889 no change was made, but in the latter year the movement for the relaxation of creed subscription bore fruit in the Act on Subscription of Office-bearers of the Church (Act 17, 1889). It was reported to the General Assembly that Overture I. on Subscription of Office-bearers had been approved by 64 presbyteries, while 16 disapproved, and 4 had suggested alterations. It was moved and seconded and agreed to that this Overture be now converted into a standing law of the Church. The preamble of the Act reads:—”Whereas it is expedient that the formulas presently in use in this Church should be so revised and amended that, while affording security on the part of all who subscribe them for their adherence to the ‘true Reformed religion heretofore received in this realm,’ and to ‘the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Church,’ they should at the same time be in accordance with statute law, and so expressed as not to present any unnecessary impediment to the acceptance of office by duly qualified persons: For these causes the General Assembly . . . enact and ordain, that ministers at their ordination, and licentiates when receiving licence, shall subscribe to the Confession of Faith as required by Act of Parliament, 1693, cap. 38. . . . And further . . . that all elders at the time of their ordination, in accordance with the Act of Assembly, 1690, shall subscribe their approbation of the Confession and Presbyterian government of the Church, in terms of the formula hereinafter prescribed for them. . . . The General Assembly, while desiring by these changes to enlarge rather than curtail any liberty heretofore enjoyed, and to relieve
subscribers from unnecessary burdens as to forms of expression and matters which do not enter into the substance of the faith, declare, at the same time, the adherence of the Church to the Confession of Faith, as its public and avowed confession, and containing the sum and substance of the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.” In the new questions put to Probationers before licence the first reads—“Do you believe the Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, to be the supreme rule of faith and morals?” instead of—“Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and the only rule of faith and manners” of the 1711 Act. The change is decidedly for the worse. “Contained in the Scriptures,” while quite correct if viewed from the Westminster Divines’ viewpoint, is very suspicious in the phraseology of modern divines, because of its meaning in the terminology of the Higher Critics. Then there is a great difference between “the only rule of faith and manners” and “the supreme rule of faith and morals.” “A supreme rule” is not necessarily an “only rule.” Question 2 reads—“Do you declare the Confession of Faith of this Church to be the Confession of your faith?” This is a great departure from the 1711 Question, which is—“Do you sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith . . . to be the truths of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments? And do you own the whole doctrine therein contained as the confession of your faith?” Between these two questions there is a world of difference. The 1889 Question omits “the whole doctrine” of the Confession as required to be believed. The 1711 stresses this “whole doctrine” to be “the truths of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.” This is omitted in the 1889 Act. In Question 3 of the latter Act acknowledgment of the Presbyterian Church government, as now settled by law, to be the only government of the Church of Scotland, is all that is required, while in the 1711 Question acknowledgment to this government being founded upon and agreeable to the Holy Scriptures was required. Questions 4 to 8 of the 1711 Act are omitted in the 1889 Questions. In the questions put to ministers at their ordination the following is omitted from the 1889 Questions:—“Do you disown all Popish, Arian, Socinian, Arminian, Bourignon, and other doctrines, tenets, and opinions whatsoever, contrary to and inconsistent with the foresaid Confession of Faith.” In the Formula to be subscribed
by ministers and probationers “whole doctrine” of the Confession is omitted in the 1889 Formula, and the “Presbyterian government and discipline” instead of being acknowledged as “founded upon the Word of God and agreeable thereto” is only acknowledged “as now and for long time settled by law.” The Questions put to elders and the Formula signed by them is sufficiently non-committal to account for the class of men one sees too often in the Established Church eldership. The only question put to them is—”Do you approve of the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Church, and promise never directly or indirectly to attempt the prejudice or subversion thereof?” The Act of 1889 at one step moved far from the Confession of Faith, and, it may be asked, how was it, in view of the Church of Scotland’s relation to the State, that such a change in relation to her creed was permissible? The answer is that the ecclesiastical leaders were very careful not to come into conflict with the Acts of Parliament of 1690 and 1693. It was their own Act of the General Assembly of 1711 they departed from. The next move from the old position required careful engineering, and an unexpected opportunity presented itself in 1905, which was at once taken advantage of by the astute ecclesiastical leaders who were at the head of affairs in the Church of Scotland. It may have been regarded as rather a clever move by those responsible for getting the fifth clause inserted in the “Act to provide for the Settlement of certain Questions between the Free Church and the United Free Church in Scotland, and to make certain amendments of the law with respect to the Church of Scotland,” but outsiders will have quite a different opinion as to the propriety of the opportunism that fished in troubled waters, even though it was successful. The Clause referred to in the Act of 1905 is as follows:—”The formula of subscription to the Confession of Faith required from ministers and preachers of the Church of Scotland as by law established, and from persons appointed to Chairs of Theology in the Scottish Universities and the Principal of Saint Mary’s College, Saint Andrews, respectively, shall be such as may be prescribed by Act of the General Assembly of the said Church with the consent of the majority of the presbyteries thereof. The formula at present in use in any case shall be required until a formula in lieu thereof is so prescribed. This clause as stated in the Schedule (Second) to the Act repeals the words, “The same to be the Confession of his faith, and that he owns the doctrine therein con-tained to be the true doctrine which he will constantly adhere to” in the Act of 1693, and the words, “Do and shall acknowledge and profess” and “as the confession of their faith” in the Act of 1707. The Assembly of 1906 received the report dealing with the Formula of Subscription to the Confession of Faith “with deep satisfaction” and “expressed their gratitude to all those who contributed to the result.” They appointed a Special Committee “to consider the situation now presented, with power to submit to the next General Assembly, if so advised, a formula such as in their opinion is suitable for adoption by the Church.” The satisfaction expressed by the Assembly was very natural in view of the efforts that had been made in the Supreme Court towards the goal so unexpectedly reached through the troubles of others. The Act of 1889 had given relief to some tender (?) consciences, but to those with super-sensitive consciences the words, “I own the Confession of Faith . . . to be the confession of my faith” was more than they could bear, and instead of seeking pastures new and wider liberty in another fold, they pursued the course so dear to those troubled with so-called tender consciences by working within the Church to bend its creed, or at least subscription to it, to suit their views. Accordingly a Committee was appointed in 1899 “to consider the power which the Church possesses of modifying the terms of the ministers’ Formula of Adherence to the Confession of Faith.” The Committee was authorised to consult counsel, and the opinion given by Messrs Asher, Rankine, and Constable, was to the effect that “the provisions of the Act of 1693, c. 38, with regard to the subscription of the Confession of Faith and the relative declaration were still in force, had not been abrogated, and were still binding on the Church.” These learned counsel also gave as their opinion that the Formula of 1711 was more stringent than the statute of 1693 warranted, and that it “could not lawfully be revived.” The Special Committee accordingly reported to the Assembly of 1901 that the Church could by a Declaratory Act explain or define doctrinal points as to which the Confession was silent or ambiguous, “but so long as the Act of 1690 remains in force, the Church has no power by a Declaratory Act or otherwise to modify, abridge, or extend any article of the Confession.” A motion resolving to proceed no further meantime was carried by a majority of 178 to 146. This, however, did not stop the agitation, and in 1903 the matter came up again to the Assembly. Three motions came be-
fore the Assembly. The second, which was carried, asked the Assembly “to declare that the Confession of Faith is to be regarded as an infallible rule of faith and worship only in so far as it accords with Holy Scripture interpreted by the Holy Spirit.” Much dissatisfaction was afterwards found with this finding, inasmuch as it was said to be based on a very doubtful interpretation of the Confession which it professed to follow, and because it apparently made the assent of the individual the criterion of truth. Dr Mair said of it—”The Resolution quite plainly puts Scripture in place of the Confession as the document to be signed, and therefore violates an Act of Parliament.” The hope of getting rid of this Declaration was soon realised. The House of Lords gave their famous decision in 1904, shattering the well-planned schemes of astute ecclesiastics and the Church Interests Committee, seeing that an appeal was likely to be made to Parliament in connection with the Lords’ Decision, presented a draft bill to the General Assembly. Their report was given in by Lord Balfour on 26th May 1905, and in speaking to it he said: “Whatever we ask from Parliament should be asked for by a vote that represents a very large majority of the Church, and makes it perfectly clear that as a Church we remain loyally bound to the Reformation faith.” The motion was carried unanimously. The General Assembly asked Parliament that in subscribing the Confession their ministers and professors of theology should “declare their faith in the sum and substance of the doctrine of the Reformed Churches contained in the Confession”; what they got in the Act was only “such as may be prescribed by Act of the General Assembly” with the consent of the majority of presbyteries. The new Formula caused some trouble in framing, but it is not necessary to go into the history of it here. In 1909 a draft Formula came before the Assembly, in which the subscriber declared that he accepted the Confession as the Confession of the Church, and that he “believed the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith contained therein.” Dr Wotherspoon says in his “Memoirs of Dr Cooper”: “This may or may not be a formula of subscription to the Confession.” It certainly does not look like it. When the draft Formula came before the Assembly of 1910 the words “contained therein” were omitted. The Formula as thus revised became the recognised Formula of the Church.