IN the inspired account of the numbering of the children of Israel in the second year after their coming out of the land of Egypt instructions were given to the different tribes commanding them to pitch their tents every man by his own camp and every man by his own standard. The fact that the different tribes with the exception of Levi did so was not due to any spirit of exclusiveness nor, to use a phrase that has passed into our language, because of a superiority complex. The whole arrangement was due to a direct command from God—”And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying: Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their father’s house” (Numbs. ii. 1, 2). Many arguments might have been brought forward against this arrangement. But, however many, and however plausible these arguments might have been, there was one clear answer to them all which every God-fearing man in the camp of Israel could give, viz.: “We have God’s clear command to pitch by our own standard.” Every man in the various tribes would know what that standard was and one of the children of Dan who forsook his own standard and pitched by the standard of Reuben because he thought it better to be under Reuben’s standard than under his own clearly acted against the divine command. Neither would it be an allowable excuse for one of the children of Ephraim simply because he was next to the tribe of Manasseh to forsake his own standard and pitch under the standard of Manasseh. The whole arrangement it might be argued was not conducive to harmony in the camp of Israel. It seemed to destroy that unity which we are told gives strength to armies, communities, and churches. But this argument is founded on a false theory. The unity of the children of Israel was not affected in any way by this divine arrangement. There was the divine recognition of the various units but underlying the whole arrangement there was a unity which was not affected in any way by the recognition of the units composing it. If the leaders of the tribe of Naphtali, obsessed with the idea that the whole arrangement did not make for unity, set about making arrangements to pitch under the standard of the tribe of Benjamin would the plan, if carried out, realise the end which the princes of Naphtali had in view? Decidedly not. It would only cause confusion not only in the camp of Naphtali but in the camp of Benjamin as well.
In days when men have lost their heads through false views of the unity of Christ’s Church it may appear to many that one of the most monstrous heresies that could be vented in modern times is to assert openly and unrepentantly the truth that there is a call for denominations who witness for certain scriptural truths to pitch by their own standards. Denominationalism is not the ecclesiastical crime which the union-mongers of our day tell us it is. We admit it is a serious matter to break up a denomination and it should never be done unless conscience demands it in defence of the truth to take the step that severs one’s connection with it. We are not forgetful that there are many in these days of lukewarmness to whom loyalty to the denomination with which they are nominally connected is slenderer than the spider’s thread—the merest trifle can snap it asunder. But to those who counted the cost of the step they took, who believed that they were compelled in the interests of loyalty to God’s truth to take that step they will not allow every adverse circumstance to awaken thoughts in their minds of cutting all connection with the Church under whose standard they pitched. It is not a backward step to connect one’s self with a denomination that is purer in doctrine and discipline than the one we belong to but it is decidedly a retrograde step to join one which is less pure. If a denomination is teaching in its doctrine or acting in its practice contrary to God’s Word then one could understand the uneasiness of conscience that might say to one this is no longer a place for you under this standard. Loyalty to a denomination that is scriptural in its creed and practice is not inconsistent with acknowledgment to the full of the New Testament doctrine of Christian unity. Denominationalism of a scriptural kind is the expression of the necessity of witnessing for certain truths that are not held or as clearly stated as they ought to be. It was because of this the Free Presbyterian Church came into existence in 1893.
The testimony of the Free Presbyterian Church has not become obsolete during the forty years it has been in existence and there is no reason why we as Free Presbyterians should forsake the standard under which we pitched in 1893. We claim no perfection, though those who do not wish us well say we do, but we believe whole-heartedly that the truths and principles for which our Church stands are truths and principles which are in accordance with God’s Word and which no one in the Free Presbyterian Church need ever be ashamed of. The trend of things in the Church of Scotland cannot but fill every one that wishes well to our Sion with the deepest concern. The gulf between us and them is widening. The unscripturalness of books published by ministers of that Church and the manifest lack of discipline generally is ominous and forebodes evil for our well-beloved land. The differences between us and the smaller Presbyterian Churches justify us in pitching under our own standard. These differences have been set forth at length in a document approved by the Synod of the Church. It was reprinted in the History of the Free Presbyterian Church (p. 238) and we advise our young readers and all others interested to read it over carefully. It is the considered statement of the Synod on the subject.