The Synod has been charged with acting unconstitutionally in not sending this legislation to the Presbyteries under the Barrier Act, and as considerable stress has been laid on this point it demands an answer. This is part of the Clerk’s speech at the Synod. See last Magazine, p. 94. The Ontario elders speak of the Synod as functioning with the powers of the Assembly. This is not quite correctly stated, as the Synod can only function with Assembly powers within its own constitution. For instance, the Synod would interfere with its own constitution if it were to pass legislation which made it a partially representative Court of the Church instead, as it is at present, a fully representative Court. In a similar way the first Presbytery of the Church functioned with the powers of the Assembly within its constitution, but no one ever dreamt that the Barrier Act was applicable to it or that the Free Presbyterian Church had set aside the Barrier Act because it did not apply the Act to a Court to which it was never intended it should apply. As there is evidently the greatest confusion as to the sphere in which the Barrier Act operates, let the matter engage our attention for a few minutes. The constitution of an Assembly and a Synod are not similar; in other words an Assembly is not a larger Synod including all the Synods embraced under it as a Synod is a larger Presbytery, including all the Presbyteries in its bounds. A few of the differences may be noticed:—
(1)
The General Assembly has no permanent existence. When it closes it ceases to exist, unless in cases where it adjourns. To carry on business an entirely new Assembly must be elected. It is not so with a Synod.
(2)
In the Assembly again, while the ministerial commissioners must be members of the Presbytery, this is not necessarily required of the ruling elder commissioners; they may be representatives of the Presbytery in the Assembly though not members of the Presbytery. It was quite a common practice in the Free Church for northern Presbyteries to nominate as their Commissioners to the Assembly elders residing in the south, though they were not members of the Presbytery nominating them.
(3)
Only a proportion of the members of Presbyteries are represented in the Assembly—in some cases only one-third. This held true of the Assemblies of the Free Church as well as those of the Church of Scotland. In the Act of 1694, which was in force when the Barrier Act was passed, the proportion allowed to each Presbytery was as follows:—Presbyteries of 12 parishes or under were allowed 2 ministers and one elder to the Assembly; Presbyteries of 18 or under that number but above 12 parishes were allowed 3 ministers and 2 ruling elders; Presbyteries of 24 parishes but above 18 were allowed 4 ministers and 2 ruling elders; and Presbyteries of more than 25 parishes were allowed 5 ministers and 2 elders. In view of this very partial representation of the Church, and especially of the eldership, it will be seen how necessary it was to have an Act such as the Barrier Act passed so that the mind of the whole Church through its representatives might be obtained.
(4)
Were all the members of Presbytery given a place in the Assembly there would be no need of the procedure of sending down to Presbyteries the kind of legislation contemplated under the Barrier Act; for all those who were to be consulted were already members of that Court. Hence, according to Forbes, in the first two Assemblies of the Free Church, held in May and October 1843, which had a full representation of the members of Presbyteries, the Barrier Act did not apply (“Procedure in the Inferior Courts of the Free Church of Scotland,” p. 96, foot-note i.)
(5)
The membership of our Synod consists of all the members of the Presbyteries, and has not as the Synods of the larger Presbyterian Churches commissioners from other Synods with voting powers, for the simple reason that other Synods do not exist in our Church, so that though our Synod were an Assembly with this full representation, the Barrier Act would not be necessary. Besides, it should be borne in mind that it is a well-known fact that there are more members of Presbyteries present at the Synod than there are at our ordinary meetings of Presbyteries.
(6)
To those who are making so much of the Barrier Act in its bearing on our Synod legislation, we would ask—”When was the procedure of the Barrier Act ever resorted to by the Free Presbyterian Church since its inception in 1893, either in the first Presbytery or the Synod? And what special reason exists for the singling out of this particular declaration as unconstitutional because it was not passed under the Barrier Act?”
(7)
It is likewise argued that the term, “the whole Church,” implies not only all the ministers and representative elders, but all the ruling elders of the Church. But why limit “the whole Church” to all the ruling elders with the ministers; why not bring in the communicants? The plain fact of the matter is that the term, “whole Church” simply means the whole Church as represented in the presbyteries, for it is to them, and not to kirk-sessions or congregations, that overtures under the Barrier Act are sent down. Sir Henry Moncrieff is appealed to and quoted as saying—”Inasmuch as all ministers and ruling elders are entitled and called upon to judge for themselves as to the mind of the Great Head of the Church.” There is nothing inconsistent with that statement and the well-recognised procedure under the Barrier Act. Sir Henry does not say every ruling elder should have the overture submitted to him, nor that he should be consulted; he knew the law of the Church too well to make such a blunder. We ask, where in the whole “Practice of the Free Church of Scotland” is there the slightest indication that all ruling elders should have the overtures sent down under the Barrier Act submitted to them? The Barrier Act never laid down such a rule, neither are we aware that any Assembly ever acted on it. Yet Mr Matheson says—”Only some of the ruling elders can be presbyteries elders. I, therefore, submit humbly but most earnestly, that the principles of the Barrier Act are vital to the constitution of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.” As to the relation of the Free Presbyterian Church to the Barrier Act, this point will be touched upon later on, but, meantime, let there be no misunderstanding that the well-recognised procedure under the Barrier Act was that the overtures were sent to the Presbyteries and not to the kirk-sessions, and to entertain the idea that the contemplated legislation sent down as an overture should be sent to all elders seems unaccountable, in view of the plain statements of Sir Henry Moncrieff in his “Practice of the Free Church of Scotland.” The most charitable view that can be taken of the statements of the Ontario elders is that they must have relied for their information on the Barrier Act on some other source than Sir Henry.
But even though the Barrier Act were applicable to the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church, it is only the representative elders to whom the overtures would come, and in the particular Declaration (1923) was that not carried out as effectively as under the Barrier Act? We have dwelt on this matter at some length, because so much has been made of it, both by Mr Matheson and the Ontario elders. Let us now notice one or two extraordinary statements made on the subject under discussion. Here is one made by Mr Matheson:—”I would say that after pondering the attempt of Rev. N. Macintyre to deny that the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland is under the Barrier Act of 1697, I see the very gravest danger to the peace and unity and even to the very identity of the Church looming up by the raising of this question.” To this it may be answered that Mr Macintyre never said that the Free Presbyterian Church is not under the Barrier Act. What he said, and said correctly, is that the Barrier Act does not apply to the Synod—which is not quite the same thing. Should, in the providence of God, the Free Presbyterian Church have an Assembly in which the whole Church is not represented, then the Barrier Act would come into operation. Mr Matheson says, in approving of the Deed of Separation at ordination, “We solemnly declare that we adhere to the whole principles embodied in the “Acts of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland prior to 1843,” among which Acts is the Barrier Act of 1697.” In answer to this it may be said it has already been shown that the Barrier Act has not been rejected by the Free Presbyterian Church, though it is inoperative as far as the Synod is concerned. Another statement of Mr Matheson reads as follows:—”I, therefore, submit humbly but most earnestly, that the principles of the Barrier Act are vital to the constitution of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, as otherwise her historic testimony is irretrievably damaged.” That testimony must have been irretrievably damaged indeed before and after Mr Matheson became a minister of the Free Presbyterian Church, and by this time almost hopelessly beyond repair, for the Barrier Act has never been operative in the Free Presbyterian Synod since its beginning.
It is quite within the Synod’s legislative rights to pass an Act stipulating that all legislation affecting the whole Church should undergo the same process as that adopted in the framing and passing of the 1923 Declaration in question, and that it should be submitted to kirk-sessions and even congregations if need be, but that is a very different thing from passing it under the Barrier Act. In the past the Synod has consulted the Presbyteries, but it has never sent down any overture to them under the Barrier Act. And were any member of Synod, as it is presently constituted, to move in this direction, it would be the duty of the Moderator to refuse the motion as unconstitutional, being inapplicable to the Synod, and if he failed in his duty it would fall on the Synod to see to it that its legislative functions were not tampered with.