THE next section of the Declaratory Act which calls for consideration is that which asserts—”That this Church disclaims intolerant or persecuting principles, and does not consider her office-bearers, in subscribing the Confession, committed to any principles inconsistent with liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment. On the face of it this appears to be a very admirable statement, but further examination may reveal that it has a background not quite so admirable as its face view. In 1846 the Free Church passed an Act Anent Questions and Formula which was deemed necessary in view “of the late change in the outward condition of the Church.” In this Act the following significant passage occurs:—”The General Assembly, in passing this Act, think it right to declare that, while the Church firmly maintains the same scriptural principles as to the duties of nations and their rulers in reference to true religion and the Church of Christ, for which she has hitherto contended, she disclaims intolerant or persecuting principles, and does not regard her Confession of Faith, or any portion thereof, when fairly interpreted, as flavouring intolerance or persecution, or consider that her office-bearers, by subscribing it, profess any principles inconsistent with liberty of conscience and right of private judgment.” The section of the Confession against which the charge of advocating persecuting principles was chiefly aimed by the opponents of the principle of the national recognition of religion is chap. xxiii. 3—”The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and Sacra-
ments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.” This section has been charged as being sheer Erastianism, but Dr Cunningham’s powerful exposure of this charge in his pamphlet, “Remarks on the Twenty Third Chapter of the Confession of Faith as bearing on Existing Controversies,” which was reprinted in his “Discussions on Church Principles” under the title, “The Westminster Confession on the Relation between Church and State,” is so overwhelmingly convincing that it completely demolished the charge. The main offence of the section is that it so clearly asserts the principle of the national recognition of religion, so tenaciously held by the Free Church in the days of her early love. Dr Moody Stuart, in his excellent pamphlet, “Is the Establishment Principle Outside the Confession?” has brought forward abundant proof that this section asserts this principle, and this must be regarded as its chief offence in the eyes of Voluntaries. Hence we find Dr Marshall, Kirkintilloch, a thorough-going Voluntary, in days when Voluntaryism had not lain peacefully down in the inside of the Establishment Principle lion, writing a whole book on the subject, “Principles of the Westminster Standards Persecuting.” Less able men have engaged in the same attack, but when it is remembered that they are reading into the Confession what it does not really contain, their charges are not worth serious consideration. It was with the full knowledge of all that the section had recently passed through in controversy that the Free Church framed the section of Act xii., 1846, already quoted. Then came the framers of the Declaratory Act, reiterating part of what had been so well said before, but carefully leaving out a very essential part of it. In the Act of 1846 it is asserted that the Church maintains the scriptural principles as to the duties of nations and their rulers in reference to true religion and the Church of Christ. It will be observed that no such assertion appears in the Declaratory Act, and the reason of it is not a mystery, for by this time
the leaders of the Free Church had become unblushingly Voluntary in their views. They had drifted far from the original moorings. In furtherance of their policy they set about the Disestablishment Campaign, and after all their strenuous efforts they only succeeded in disestablishing themselves. It is one of the ironies of history that the very men who were so busy seeking to disestablish a sister Church because of its connection with the State, should have been the very men when the day of disaster so crushingly fell on them in 1904, should have meekly gone to the officers of the State, asking them to restore part of the spoil which the highest legal authority had pronounced was legally not theirs. But to crown all the strange happenings in connection with the ecclesiastical events in recent years in Scotland there is none so worthy of serious study to the student of history as to how it has come about that thoroughgoing Voluntaries and Establishment Principle men should be falling on each other’s neck and hailing each other as brothers. For our part, while not sympathising with the Voluntaries who are offering opposition to the Union, we cannot help feeling that they have decidedly the best of the argument as opposed to their less consistent brethren who are meekly to be led into the rich land of the Church of Scotland emoluments.
The duty of nations to the Church of Christ has so often been brought before our readers in these pages and within comparatively recent times that we do not intend to devote much space to it at present. Our main purpose is to emphasise the point that the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, in line with the Free Church of 1843, and the Church of Scotland in her best days, holds that it is the duty of the civil magistrate to recognise the Church of Christ as supreme in her own sphere and independent of the State. Readers who wish to study this question at greater length are recommended to study Gillespie’s “Aaron’s Rod Blossoming” and Dr MacCrie’s “Statement.”
A Christian’s graces are but Christ’s picture, Christ’s image; and therefore do not you worship His image, and in the meanwhile neglect His person. Make much of His picture, but make more of Himself; let His picture have your eye, but let Himself have your heart.—Brooks.