CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
THE General Assembly of the Church of Scotland met on the 19th May, in Edinburgh under the moderatorship of Rev. Dr. C. W. G. Taylor, minister of St. George’s, Edinburgh. Much of the pre-war military ceremonial was dispensed with to advantage. The meetings were also curtailed—the Assembly lasted only for a week. The Duke of Montrose was the Lord High Commissioner. In welcoming him the Moderator said, they were proud to welcome him not only for his own sake but also because he bore “a name which still stirred the imagination of the Scottish race. . . . His Grace was eighth in direct descent from that noble Marquis whose memory abided as a synonym of honour, sacrifice and chivalry.” It is well-known that “the great Marquis” is one of the idols of the Scottish school of historians with strong Cavalier sentiments. The Marquis has had a “good press” in other days through the pages of Sir Walter Scott’s fiction and the stirring ballad of Aytoun, but one would not naturally look to a Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to eulogise the man who deserted his old friends and staked his life and his fame on the fortunes of the Royalist cause. In his fiery youth he was a member of the Glasgow Assembly, 1638, and he showed his zeal for the Covenant by forcing the Aberdeen authorities to take it at the point of the sword. This was the man to use the words of Dr. S. R. Gardiner “who was destined to dash himself to pieces in the royal cause, against the rocky strength of the Covenanting Scotland.” The less said of Montrose’s name being a synonym for ” honour, sacrifice, and chivalry” the better for these virtues. The gallant Montrose had some dark deeds to his credit, which with all the glamour of his military exploits had better be buried in oblivion.
Home Mission Report.—In presenting this Report, Dr. John White fell into the common blunder of speaking of “the ninety and nine within the fold.” This blunder is inexcusable on the part of a minister and especially of one who occupies such a place in the Church as Dr. White does. Nowhere in the New Testament will Dr. White or any other find that “the ninety and nine “were in the fold.” They were “in the wilderness”—a very different place—the place where the Pharisees were who were represented by “the ninety and nine.” It was Miss Clephane in her
affecting hymn who placed them “in the fold” and Mr. Sankey gave popularity to the false idea.
Jewish Missions.—The Convener, Rev. W. W. Gauld, Aberdeen, in presenting this Report warned of the danger of Anti-Semitism. “The rise of Anti-Semitism in any country,” he said, “meant that its spiritual temperature was going down.” In speaking of the report the Rev. T. B. Stewart Thomson, Old Govan said:—”I am afraid that Anti-Semitism is beginning in Scotland. In Glasgow in recent months, there had been a rather unwelcome growing spirit of Anti-Semitism. It had largely gathered round the ‘Black Market’ and people made a great deal of the fact that some of those concerned had Jewish names.”
Religious Instruction in the Schools.—In submitting the Report of the committee on Education a great advance had been made since 1939, said the Rev. J. M. Hunter, Kirkcaldy. Colonel Norman MacLeod, however, questioned the figures given in regard to the periods allowed for religious instruction. A master in a secondary school had said to him that it was “absolutely eye-wash.” Three-quarters of an hour was allowed for religious instruction, but sometimes the actual period amounted only to about five minutes.
Report on the Interpretation of God’s Will in the Present Crisis.—This Report was submitted by Prof. Baillie and was described by Dr. Hutchison Cockburn, last year’s Moderator, as a noble document. It was based, he said, fundamentally upon the faith which they had in God, a faith which had been challenged increasingly in the last hundred years by a materialistic philosophy, by the doctrine that man was on a road of inevitable progress, and that nothing could stop him from landing himself in a paradise on earth, that he had only to keep on keeping on and everything would be well and we have landed ourselves in a pretty fair imitation of hell.
Office of Superintendent.—The Rev. J. Strathearn M’Nab, Ayr, proposed an alteration in the deliverance in regard to the question Presbyteries were to be asked on the subject of the supervision of the ministry and the office of superintendent. He thought the matter required greater research and investigation by the Commission before it was sent to the Presbyteries. No matter what name they gave to such a man—Bishop or any other—he drew power to himself, and that was a danger. The Rev. Dr. J. T. Cox, Principal Clerk, said they were only inquiring from Presbyteries their opinion as to the introduction or otherwise of superintendents. The alteration in the wording proposed by Mr. M’Nab was rejected by a large majority.
Use of Films in the Church.—On the motion of the Rev. Dr. George Carstairs, Convener of the Committee on the use of films in the Church, the Assembly appointed a permanent committee to co-ordinate the work at present being done, to advise and guide those who were prepared to produce films of the kind the Church wanted, and in general to encourage the use of films in the Church. Replying to questions, Dr. Carstairs said none of the films would be of an inflammable type, and that the Committee were not proposing to spend a single penny on the production of films. The Church of Scotland evidently believes in taking the world’s methods to attract the people. It is a competition that bodes no good to the Church as all such movements have already proved.
Hate and Blood Lust Training.—When the report of the Committee on Church and Nation was submitted Dr. Hutchison Cockburn read General Paget’s letter to all his officers in the Home Forces. “I am writing to all the Army Commanders,” wrote the General, “about two points of our training, particularly the training at the battle schools, of which I have heard several severe criticisms both from officers and civilians. The first point is the use of strong and offensive language to urge students to greater efforts during training. This behaviour is the complete negation of leadership, and whilst troops will respond to a lead, they will not be driven on by abusive language. When such language is used by n.c.o.’s to officer students, I consider that it is most harmful to discipline. The second point is the attempt to produce a blood lust or hate during training. Such an attitude of hate is foreign to the British temperament and any attempt to produce it by artificial stimulus during training is bound to fail, as it did in the last war. Officers and n.c.o.’s must be made to realise the difference between the building up of this artificial hate and the building up of a true offensive spirit combined with the willpower which will not recognise defeat.” It is to be hoped the General’s order will be attended to not only in the matter of “blood lust” training but also in the “use of strong and offensive language” of which there is too much in the Army.
The Town Clerk Minister Case.—The Rev. Thomas Osborne, minister of Cockenzie Old Parish Church had accepted the office of town Clerk in addition to his ministerial charge. His Presbytery asked him to resign the town clerkship within fourteen days. Mr. Osborne appealed against this decision and when the matter came up to the Assembly the Presbytery’s decision was supported by a majority vote. The Assembly instructed Mr. Osborne “to acknowledge and obey the injunction of the Presbytery.” In the course of the debate Sheriff Strachan, Procurator of the Church of Scotland referred to an Act of the Assembly which prohibits ministers of the Church of Scotland to act as Justices of Peace.
FREE CHURCH.
THE Free Church Assembly met under the Moderatorship of the Rev. John Calvin Mackay, M.A., Kincardine and Croick, on Tuesday, 19th May. His moderatorial address was on the “Threefold Secret of the Living Church.” In a note on this Assembly the following comment is made in the Monthly Record of the Free Church after saying that the atmosphere of the Assembly was kindly and that no scars were left behind it adds:—At the same time, we venture to think that at this last Assembly—as at many others before—there seemed an almost morbid preoccupation with procedure, a somewhat undignified insistence on rights without a corresponding flair for duties, a tendency to carry over grievances and hurt feelings from the past and spend time, that could be more profitably used, in settling old scores. “Ministers, after all, are human” is a fairly common expression these days, and we imagine the discovery was first made at a General Assembly!”
Publication Committee.—When the Report of the Welfare of Youth and Publications Committee was submitted the Rev. Kenneth A. Macrae,
Stornoway, raised the question of the power of Standing Committees. Behind this question it was made clear by Mr. Macrae that the Publications Committee had refused to give permission to a document to be published, signed by eight ministers and two elders. According to Rev. R. A. Finlayson, Mr. Macrae in sending the document to him as Editor made the request that, if possible, it should not be submitted to the Committee before publication. As Mr. Finlayson felt that there were serious allegations made in the document and reflections cast on the General Assembly and the Church as a whole he felt it his duty to submit it to the Committee for instructions. The Assembly rejected Mr. Macrae’s addendum. It was pointed out the matter had already been decided by the Assembly and the Committee did not feel warranted on opening it up again in the pages of The Monthly Record.
Welfare of Youth.—It was reported that there was an ever-growing decrease of the number of children attending the Sabbath Schools. The number of competitors for the Welfare of Youth Examination had been 2,375—a decrease of 780 on last year’s numbers.
Youth Organisations.—An overture from the Southern Synod bearing on the registration of young people from 16 to 18 under the National Registration Scheme came up for discussion. Mr. W. R. Brown appearing in support of the overture said that most boys he thought were certain to respond to the call to join some Youth Organisation. He singled out the Boys’ Brigade as a suitable organisation. While we heartily agree with the importance of this matter we disagree with the commendation of the Boys’ Brigade. The Assembly decided to remit the matter to the Welfare of Youth Committee for further consideration.
Religion and Morals Report.—This Report was presented by Prof. P. W. Miller and certainly did not mince matters. Its outspoken and severe criticism of many of the strange vagaries masquerading under a religious cloak evidently did not meet with approval of the official organ of the Church—The Monthly Record—judging from the following criticism in its Notes of the Assembly:—“The Welfare of Youth Committee are entrusted with the task of investigating the situation as regards youth organisations and devising, if deemed expedient, some way of meeting the challenge of the Government scheme for training the youth of the nation. This would seem the only positive reaction of the Assembly to the abnormal conditions of war-time Britain, and frankly it is not enough. In this respect the Report of the Public Questions Committee is disappointing. A splendidly written and discriminating survey of present-day conditions, it contents itself with exposure and condemnation. It scarcely ventures on any constructive or remedial policy. Condemnation and protest fall short of the full Christian way of life. In one respect, at least, it indulges in sweeping accusations of such a nature that if directed against an individual, instead of a company of individuals, proof would be asked for in the civil criminal courts. The fact that this cannot be done does not alter the moral responsibility of those involved.” This is a serious criticism and as we have not the full Report before us we will say no more.
Sustentation Fund Report.—During the year there had been an increase of £1134 in congregational givings. The Committee proposed that ministers be paid at the rate of £250.
Delegates from Other Churches.—As in former years the usual array of delegates from Churches some which are certainly out of line with the Free Church confessionally were present and delivered addresses, including Dr. Henrick Golsen, Confessional Church of Germany; Rev. Dr. Bohnmil Vancura, Moravian Church and a member of the Czechoslovakia Government in this country; Rev. Dr. Frank Christol, pastor of the French Protestant Church, London; Rev. Rudolph J. Berlis, minister of the Canadian Presbyterian Church and Chaplain to the Canadian Forces in this country.
Disruption Centenary Celebrations.—Prof. Maclean, D.D., reported on the Committee’s work which had been appointed by the Assembly for the above purpose. He intimated that it was proposed to have incorporated as one session of the 1943 Assembly a Public Meeting in which representatives from other Churches would, by invitation, take part. Mr. Macrae, Stornoway, who must be regarded as a thorn in the side of the anti-exclusivist party in the Free Church, strongly objected to the proposal to ask ministers of other denominations to join with the Free Church. Which of the Churches in Scotland, he asked, could conscientiously or logically take part in the celebrations of the Disruption? And in answer to his own question he said:—”Certainly not the Church of Scotland. The only denomination that could lay claim to an interest in the Disruption was the Free Presbyterian Church and it was waste of time asking them to take part.” It may not be out of place to say that in these days of a wide embracing charity it requires neither conscientious scruples nor logic to join in with seeming hearty approval of ecclesiastical anniversaries and centenaries where there is much speaking but little reality.
College Appointments.—In place of Principal John Macleod, D.D., resigned, Prof. Maclean was appointed Principal and to the Chair from which Principal Macleod resigned, the Rev. David Mackenzie, M.A., Nairn was appointed. Principal Macleod, as many of our readers will remember, had been Free Presbyterian minister at Ullapool and Kames before he joined the Free Church.
Lima College.—When the Foreign Mission Report was presented reference was made to the Church’s activities in Africa, India and South America. The Convener, Rev. D. Mackenzie, Nairn, reported that the Director of the Mission, Dr. Renwick, had appointed Dr. Luis H. Bouroncle as Vice-Headmaster to meet the requirements of a new law in Peru. The Committee did not know who this Dr. Bouroncle was. Rev. R. A. Finlayson moved, in regard to this appointment, that the Assembly received the news of the appointment with disquiet and among other reasons for this disquiet Mr. Finlayson said the appointment entailed the placing of a Roman Catholic in a position next to the Director of the School. He called upon the Assembly to express its disapproval of the appointment. Mr. Finlayson’s amendment was carried by a majority against the motion of the Convener.
Chaplains.—When the Report of the Committee on Chaplains was presented by the Convener, Prof. D. Maclean, Rev. Kenneth A. Macrae moved that the Committee be instructed by the Assembly that ministers of the Free Church should have the right to carry with them into their ministerial duties in the army the distinctive testimony of the Church to
which they belong and which they represent. He wished to get light on such matters as the following: was it possible for their chaplains to serve in the army and secure the purity of worship required of the ministers of the Church in respect to hymn singing and music. Was it possible, he asked, to carry on without being constrained to use hymns and to conduct worship at which instrumental music was used? Mr. Macrae’s amendment found no seconder but the Convener asked Rev. R. A. Finlayson, who is acting as Staff Chaplain, Scottish Command, to give Mr. Macrae answers to his questions. Mr. Finlayson asserted that a Free Church minister could carry the distinctive testimony of his Church into the army. He further said that he had congregations where the praise was throughout from the metrical Psalms led by a precentor, and it was unforgettable singing. But he also had congregations that had never sung a Psalm in the Scottish metrical version all their lives, and it was useless to expect them to do so at a parade service. When it was a choice between no singing and a hearty singing of Rock of Ages, Mr. Finlayson said he had no difficulty in making his choice. As to the chaplain’s responsibility, it was true that he was primarily responsible to the Chaplains’ Department, which exercised over-sight and attended to administration. But the Chaplains’ Department was itself responsible to the Interdenominational Advisory Board.
IRISH PRESBYTERIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
IN an earlier issue reference was made to the Tercentenary of the first Presbytery at Carrickfergus in 1642 and the message sent by the Unitarians to the General Assembly. We take the liberty of quoting the Comments of the Irish Evangelical on these proceedings:—
“The General Assembly of the Irish Presbyterian Church at its recent meetings celebrated the tercentenary of the formation of the first Presbytery at Carrickfergus on June 10th, 1642. The Unitarians had their meetings of commemoration too, and their Synod decided to send a message of greetings to the General Assembly “on the historic occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of Presbyterianism in Ireland, asking the blessing of God upon their labours and deliberations,” and stating that they treasured “all in our common heritage that serves to establish bonds of fellowship and community of interest between the two bodies.” The General Assembly of the Irish Presbyterian Church received this message of greeting and agreed to send “a reciprocal message.” This exchange of greetings and good wishes speaks for itself. What kind of men were these ministers of 300 years ago to whose memory lip-service has been so lavishly rendered of late? We mean those five ministers who formed the first Presbytery at Carrickfergus and their fellows such as John Livingstone who was absent at Antrim and Robert Blair who contributed more than any other in those early days to the revival of true religion in Ulster. Blair had returned to Scotland in 1637. What had these men in common with Unitarians and Modernists? Here is Prof. Witherow’s testimony:—’In Blair of Bangor or in Patrick Adair of Cairncastle, in John Livingstone or in Michael Bruce of Killinchy, one would have as much difficulty in finding a single speck of heresy as in
Andrew Melville or in George Gillespie, in John Calvin or in Martin Luther.’ Christ poured scorn on the Pharisees for ‘building the tombs of the prophets and garnishing the sepulchres of the righteous’ while being ‘the children of them that killed the prophets.’ The zeal of Unitarians and Modernists in commemorating these orthodox men of 300 years ago merits scathing indictment too. Prof. Davey told the Belfast Presbytery that there are literally hundreds of discrepancies and direct contradictions in Old and New Testaments. Both Presbytery and Assembly had this statement before them; and they expressed nothing but approval. They have now heaped fresh honour upon him. Now listen to Robert Blair on the Scriptures:—’We are to keep close to the will of God revealed in the Scriptures . . . if any creatures, be he angel or man, add anything to that perfect rule of faith and manners, or reveal anything contrary thereto, let him be accursed.’
The Irish Evangelical calls attention to the noble fight put up by Dr. Henry Cooke, the Athanasius of the Irish Presbyterian Church until he drove out the Arians.
‘In view of the friendliness to the Unitarians,’ it says, ‘voiced by the General Assembly and the College Principal, it is interesting to compare the principles which animated Dr. Henry Cooke when he sought to arouse the Synod of Ulster to the menace of Unitarianism. In 1822 he addressed the Synod at Newry. To his amazement he stood almost alone. He confronted a frowning audience and murmurs of disapproval ran through the assembly. The very elements seemed against him. Though it was mid-day, a thick darkness gathered and a terrific thunderstorm burst over the town. But Cooke held on his way fearlessly and faithfully:—’I speak openly before the world, and I declare that the doctrines held and taught by the Arian ministers and professors in Belfast are in direct opposition to the Scriptures. Not creed nor catechism, but the Bible has taught me to approach my Redeemer as . . . ‘God over all, blessed for ever,’ and to regard the Holy Spirit not as an inferior created agent or a mere attribute. The Bible has taught me that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are one God; it has taught me that the carnal mind is enmity against God, and must remain so until quickened and renewed by the power of the Eternal Spirit; it has taught me that the Saviour offered a real vicarious sacrifice for sin, that ‘He was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.’ Thus I believe, therefore I speak. I cannot, I dare not be silent. Misrepresentation, obloquy, persecution, and if there be even one stroke beyond them all—yet through the grace of God our Saviour, I shall meet them all, endure them all, contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. . . . I do not stand here now, nor have I ever yet stood, as contending for petty doctrinal distinctions. The foundations of our faith are at stake. There are three doctrines peculiar and essential to the Christian system—the Trinity, the vicarious atonement of Christ, and the necessity of the work of the Spirit of God to originate faith and repentance in the heart of man. He that holds these principles, whatever be his name, I call a brother in Christ, and offer him the right hand of fellowship; but he who denies these or any of them, I look upon as fatally in error. In my opposition to the appointment of Arian professors, I seem this day to stand alone. Yet I am not alone. Men may draw back in fear, but God
and truth are with me.” Has the battle fought and won by Dr. Cooke against Arianism to be fought over again?
An Alarm to the People of Great Britain: A Sermon*
Preached at the Scots Church Crown Court, London, on 27th October, 1794,
by the Rev. JOHN LOVET, D.D.
But they rebelled and vexed His Holy Spirit: therefore He was turned to be their enemy, and He fought against them. (Isaiah, lxiii. 10).
MY brethren, we are placed in this world that we may be witnesses of the works of God. The powers of reason are not bestowed on us for trivial purposes. From all that is above us, or around us, or under our feet, from all that we ourselves are, this voice issues forth, “Stand still, O man! and consider the wondrous works of God” (Job, xxxvii. 14). And if regenerating grace, accompanying the Divine word, has aroused and illuminated our rational faculties, we can no longer with stupid indifference stalk up and down among the wonders of the Almighty. In the ordinary and tranquil state of the world, the objects and movements which appear will often fill us with astonishment, and draw forth our adoring acknowledgments and praises. But there are periods when the visible operations of the Divine government become peculiarly solemn and interesting—when, if I may allude to the prophetic emblem, “the wheels are lifted up from the earth, their wings appear dreadful in their height, and the noise of the wings of the spirited living creatures, among these wheels, is like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech as the noise of an host” (Ezek. i.). Then even the blind world begins to look aghast, and the slumbering reason and conscience of the multitude are awakened. And in such a period shall they remain asleep who profess to be the children of light, the possessors of supernatural wisdom? God forbid!
Yes, my brethren! it is time for us, in the present embroiled state of the European nations, turning away from inferior cause, to look up to Heaven, with that question warm upon our hearts, “What means the heat of this great anger?” For, if the state of things admits a remedy, if still it is possible to prevent or to suspend for a time the execution of deserved judgment, in this way alone must deliverance be obtained. The mighty hand of Him who created the world must be seen, acknowledged, and adored; and an enquiry must be made into the cause of that holy anger, which never can arise without a cause. And this must be done, not superficially, nor deceitfully. The fatal disasters of the ancient Jerusalem were precipitated by that spirit, which is thus marked in the prophecy of Jeremiah: “Who is the wise man that may understand this, and who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord hath spoken that he may declare it, for what the land perisheth?” (Jer. ix. 12). “They have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, peace, peace, when there is no peace” (Jer. vi. 14). And the silent ruins of the city gave
*This sermon preached by a faithful ambassador of Christ on the “radical cause of national calamity” is as suitable for our days as it was for his.—Editor.
to the complaint of the lamenting prophet unutterable energy, when, beholding them, he thus spake; “Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things for thee; and they have not discovered thine iniquity to turn away thy captivity, but have seen for thee false burdens, and causes of banishment (Lam. ii. 14).
I proceed, therefore, in the name of the Lord of hosts, whose messenger I am, however unworthy, to declare and testify, that the source of all our public calamities is the wickedness of the country; and that contempt of the Holy Spirit of God, in His peculiar operations on the souls of men, is the central point of that wickedness. This awful charge I mean to state as applicable to all the orders of society among us from the highest to the lowest. The great of the land are not before me: I wish they were. Called by Providence, and armed with heavenly strength, I should be glad to plead with them, on this subject, face to face. But though, as members of the community, we are only a handful of obscure individuals, our exercises will not be unimportant, or unregarded by the King of Glory, if our spirits are sincerely broken by views of our own sinfulness, and of general rebellion against the Majesty of Heaven around us. Contempt of the Holy Spirit of God, in His peculiar gracious operations on the souls of men—this, this is the great, the general crime of the British Islands. A heavy accusation exhibited against a great people! If it is groundless, I shall merit severe censure, as a false accuser of my country. Happy should I be, were it possible to prove the contrary of what I have stated, and to show that there does prevail, among the various classes of men, that humble esteem, veneration, and submission, which the person and operations of this blessed Agent demand. But I fear my proofs of guilt shall be irresistible, and by no means hard to be collected.
In order to form just ideas of our conduct towards the Spirit of Grace, it is necessary that we look back, for a little, into the past ages. These countries, for a long period, were overwhelmed with the darkness, and polluted with the abominations, of the Popish superstition. Under that depraved system, the glories of the Spirit of Jesus Christ were dreadfully obscured. Instead of the beauty, power, and splendour, of His vital operations, the Christian Church held forth to the view of the world a multitude of deluded idolaters, whose veneration and hopes rested sacrilegiously on worldly pomp, human authority, uncommanded rites, fruitless austerities, and the imaginary powers of the idol Free-will.* At length, at the call of Heaven, first in this island, afterwards in other countries, the eye-lids of the morning were opened. Then the Spirit of Jehovah, who had all along in Heaven rested unclasped on the High Priest and Mediator of the church, burst forth in these darkened regions. In the Reformers themselves, and in multitudes who embraced their doctrine, the nature and excellency were displayed of that unaffected spiritual religion, which is produced by divine influence; and illustrative specimens were exhibited of what the Almighty Spirit of Grace can do, in renewing the souls of men. Great opposition, as might be expected, was made to this resurrection of true Christianity, and the fires of persecution were kindled. But amidst those flames, the perfumes of heavenly grace diffused their
* If any proof were required for this charge one has only to read Dr. Hay Fleming’s The Reformation in Scotland to find overwhelming evidence on Dr. Love’s side.
fragrancy, and rose accepted to the skies, as in the apostolic and purest following ages. And thus the world at large, and in a very special manner the inhabitants of these Islands, were summoned to behold the Majesty of the Holy Ghost, and to submit to His gracious operations.
Here I take up the complaint and accusation of my text: “But they rebelled, and vexed His Holy Spirit.” Ah! why were the progress of Reformation, and the conquests of the pure Gospel, interrupted by the grovelling schemes of this world’s policy? Why were dead forms and unwarranted ceremonies held fast, and exalted into the place of the power of godliness? Why was the sword of public justice drawn against the saints of the Most High? And why, when, after multiplied deliverances and provocations, the returning Spirit of the Lord in the present century lifted up His standard, and rose in awful majesty, to destroy the works of the devil, and to rescue myriads from Satan’s tyranny—why was His offered return not universally welcomed? Why was His sovereign procedure daringly reproached, and the memory of His wonders at length almost extinguished? When I remember those things, I pour out my soul in me (Psalm, xlii. 4). With deep regret, I attempt to form the idea of the glorious height of purity, to which, in these countries, religion might have been by this time advanced, had the early calls of infinite grace been humbly and uniformly obeyed. And I hear with awe the secret voice of the Holy One, thus complaining over an ungrateful people: “Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you.” “Will a man leave the snow of Lebanon which cometh from the rock of the field? or shall the cold flowing waters that come from another place be forsaken?” “O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! Then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea” (Jer. v. 25. xviii. 14; Isai. lxv. 18).
The schemes of divine Providence are the schemes of Him who is eternal. Before God, a thousand years are as one day. Therefore, the dispositions of God, towards different and distant ages, are mysteriously connected together. And sometimes, on one particular race of men a tempest of the judgments has fallen, which had been gathering for ages. See Gen. xv. 16; Matt. xxiii. 35, 36. Is this procedure unrighteous? No: for in such cases, the children who feel the stroke, have served themselves heirs to the crimes of their fathers, by inheriting their spirit, and by bringing to maturity the wickedness which their ancestors had begun to exemplify. Into a dark reckoning of this kind, I fear, the present race of men must enter. For we have imitated, we have gone beyond, the impiety of our fathers—”We have rebelled and vexed His Holy Spirit.”
“The shew of their countenance doth witness against them,” said the holy prophet, when about to pronounce the awful sentence in the ears of Jerusalem, “Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war” (Isai. iii. 9, 25). The prevailing spirit and dispositions of a people, from the general look, dress, and demeanour; and when the exterior appearance, which is fashionable and approved, is such as plainly indicates levity, haughtiness, and estrangement from the spiritual world, the evidence commences of the crime concerning which we now inquire. Look at the multitude among us, you who are capable of judging in this matter.
You need go no further to discover the existence, and wide dominion, of that spirit, which is in direct opposition to all heavenly influences. Nor shall these lesser marks of rebellion elude the notice of those divine eyes, which are as a flame of fire, or escape the blasting rebuke of Him who has said, “The eyes of the lofty shall be humbled” (Isai. v. 15). “Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed, and against whom hast thou lifted up thine eyes on high? even against the Holy One of Israel” (Isa. xxxvii. 23). “Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched-forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go; therefore the Lord will smite” (Isai. iii. 16). The breath of public opinion, the current of general sentiment and speech on the subject of divine influences, or the profound oblivion and silence in which that subject is buried, will soon convince an intelligent observer, that we are a people laden with this iniquity. But I must not linger at the threshold; I hasten to mark out decisive proofs of this wide wasting treason against the majesty of the Holy Spirit of the living God.
(To be continued).
Letter of the late Rev. Neil Cameron to Mr. John Macdonald, Gairloch.
216 West Regent Street, Glasgow, 11th March, 1929.
My Dear Friend,
You are often in my thoughts such as they are. I hope the Lord gives you much of the strong consolations that are in Christ Jesus in your soul. “The spirit of a man bears his infirmities, but a wounded spirit who can bear.” There are more than thirty-six years since we met first in Kerrysdale, and the bond which united me in my heart to you then has been getting stronger as the years passed away and I hope it will continue as long as eternity will last. There have been many trials and tests since then but I always found you faithful to God’s truth and the position in its defence taken up by the Free Presbyterian Church. “You have fought a good fight and kept the faith” hitherto, and so you will not be without the crown of righteousness at the end. May the Lord comfort you in your trouble and may He spare you for some years yet as a witness for Himself in this sinful and adulterous generation. I hope all your brethren in the Gairloch kirk-session are in health and comfort of the Holy Spirit, and that poor Osgood [Mackenzie] will get grace to bear his burden. With kindest regards, I am, dear friend, Yours sincerely, Neil Cameron.
Self-loathing.—Self-loathing renders Jesus precious. The more we get out of self, the more we grow unto Him. Tired of our works and duties we learn to value His righteousness. Feeling we cannot keep ourselves, we know how to trust His faithfulness, who hath undertaken to keep His people unto the end. O what a friend is this! whose love is like Himself, the same yesterday, to-day and for ever.—W. Romaine.
Rev. D. Macfarlane’s Protest.
By Rev. JAMES MACLEOD, Greenock.
IN the year 1893 the late Rev. D. Macfarlane protested in the Free Church Assembly against the Declaratory Act. He left the Free Church because, by a large majority in the previous year, it passed into law the Declaratory Act which became binding on all who would remain under it. This new act, for all practical purposes, changed the former constitution of the Church. It was not only contrary to the Constitution of the Church, but in direct opposition to the Word of God. The Assembly of 1893 ratified this Act which was formally passed in the Assembly of 1892. Mr. Macfarlane was not a member of the 1892 Assembly. When informed of its proceedings and of the passing of the Declaratory Act, he at once informed his Kirk-Session of what had taken place, and recorded the fact in the Session Minutes of the Kilmallie Congregation. He afterwards brought the matter up at a meeting of the Presbytery of Abertarff, and at the Synod of Glenelg. Mr. Macfarlane’s opposition to the Declaratory Act was thus recorded in the Kirk-Session Minute-Book of his congregation at Kilmallie, in the minutes of the Presbytery of Abertarff, and in those of the Synod of Glenelg in the year 1892. He was a member of the Assembly of 1893. He attended this Assembly with the full intent and purpose of separating himself from that body if the Declaratory Act were not rescinded. The Constitutionalists in 1893 stated their objections to the Declaratory Act, which was a binding law of the Free Church. They endeavoured to have it repealed, but the Assembly refused to do so. The Assembly rather ratified what was done in 1892, and made it the chief corner-stone of their new constitution. The Word of God, the Confession of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Establishment Principle held by the Free Church came all to be viewed from the standpoint of this Act. The Word of God itself, from Genesis to Revelation came to be called in question. The Free Church Assembly of 1893 changed from her original position to a new form unknown to the fathers of the first and second Reforms in Scotland,—and unthought of by the fathers of the Disruption period of 1843. It retained the name “Free Church” of 1843 but not her constitution nor her scriptural standards.
We may here record what took place in the Assembly when Mr. Macfarlane tabled his Protest. Dr. Rainy read it and suggested to Mr. Macfarlane that if he would change the word “Protest” to “Dissent,” they would accept it, but, if not, that they would have to deal with him. Mr. Macfarlane took back his document, and changed it to read “I dissent and protest.” On this being done, Mr. Macfarlane again tabled his Protest. Again, Dr. Rainy read it, and said to Mr. Macfarlane;—”This is still a Protest and if you insist, we must deal with you.” Mr. Macfarlane said: “I can do nothing else.” He left his Protest on the table of the Free Church Assembly of 1893, and walked out, never to return. He was there and then separated from that Church, with its perverted constitution. He did his duty nobly, humbly, as a true servant of his Master, the Lord Jesus Christ. Some of those who dissented with regard to the Declaratory Act stated repeatedly that Mr. Macfarlane was under it for a year, but this is an erroneous view, as he was not under the infamous Act for
a day. On leaving the Assembly, after replying to Dr. Rainy as stated above, Mr. Macfarlane was met by Mr. MacIntyre, then a divinity Student, who enquired of Mr. Macfarlane where he expected to be on the Sabbath following. Mr. Macfarlane said that he did not know, that he was no longer a minister of the Free Church as then constituted. His separation was a complete one. He had made his stand alone, as far as any in the Assembly were concerned. But the Lord was with him. His adorable strength was made perfect in His servant’s weakness. Prophets had to stand alone. Christ stood alone. Apostles stood alone. Some of the greatest Reformers and divines of the Church had to stand alone in defence of the truth of God and of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It was a sore trial to separate from men with many of whom he had intimate fellowship for so many years. But the Word of God was greater than all men, than property, salary, or any earthly comfort to this man of God. He was, by divine grace, faithful to the Word of God, to his ordination vows, to the constitution of the Free Church, and to Reformation principles. It was reported in the press that he had tabled a protest, and withdrew it. No paper took notice that he returned to the table with it after Dr. Rainy spoke to him, as was already explained. Mr. N. MacIntyre was present throughout, witnessing all that occurred. When Mr. Macfarlane left the Assembly Mr. MacIntyre invited him to go to Glasgow with him, and this Mr. Macfarlane did. When they arrived in Glasgow, there were waiting for them there Messrs. N. Cameron, Alex. Macrae, D. Beaton, and others. Mr. Macfarlane informed them that he had tabled his protest and thereby had separated from the Declaratory Act Church and party for all time. This gave great relief and satisfaction to the above,—who were then Students,—and to others. It was arranged that Mr. Macfarlane would go to Tignabruaich, Kyles of Bute for the Sabbath. Mr. MacIntyre accompanied him. This was the first occasion on which he met the late saintly, Mr. Archibald Crawford. It was like two weary travellers meeting in a pleasant oasis with its cooling shades and refreshing fountains. Mr. A. Crawford had read an incorrect account in the press to the effect that Mr. Macfarlane had tabled a Protest, took it back, and resumed his seat. When Mr. Macfarlane explained the true position to Mr. Crawford, the latter asked Mr. Macfarlane; “Am I to understand that you tabled a Protest and left it on the table of the Assembly, and that you are separated from that body?” Mr. Macfarlane replied in the affirmative saying;—”If the Lord gives me strength, they will never see me in their company again.” Mr. Crawford uncovered his head, and, in an audible voice, thanked the Most High for the stand His servant made in defence of His truth, and prayed that Mr. Macfarlane might be strengthened by His grace for the solemn duties then confronting him. Mr. MacIntyre, who witnessed this, said on more than one occasion that the meeting of these two godly men was one of the most touching he was ever privileged to witness in this world. Oh! what must it be in heaven, if it is so solemn and sweet to meet those who remain faithful to the truth of God in this world! It was arranged that the congregation of Millhouse, Kames, should get an opportunity on the following Monday of hearing Mr. Macfarlane, and of knowing for themselves what transpired in Edinburgh. The congregation met, and Mr. Macfarlane addressed them, explaining to them what he did and where he stood. Mr. Crawford also addressed them
and said; “I saw this bastard child being formed in the womb of the Free Church when Drs. Dods and Bruce were made professors, but seeing that the constitution was not altered, I did not separate. But now that the bastard child is born in the Declaratory Act, and her constitution is broken, I am done with the Church, whatever others may do.” When the question was put to the congregation whether they would remain in the Declaratory Act Church, or not, all present but six declared their adherence to the stand made by Mr. Macfarlane. This was the first congregation which stood by the servant of God in defence of truth and righteousness. His own congregation in Raasay did likewise with the exception of one man. A few of those who at first stood went back. In spiritual matters, these were of little influence. They evidently followed men, and not the Word of God. The Free Church leaders had no conscientious difficulties in concluding,—and in acting accordingly,—that Mr. Macfarlane’s Protest separated him from the Free Church from the moment when he tabled it and left their Assembly. They did not even pay him the salary due to him before the meeting of the last Assembly which he attended. Mr. Macfarlane told us this. The records, if still extant, will show this to be true. Mr. Macfarlane always maintained and claimed that he was never under the Declaratory Act for one moment. We maintain that his contention was both scriptural and logical. He passed out of this life to his eternal rest, convinced of the fact that his connection with the Declaratory Act Free Church was severed for ever from the time of his tabling his Protest. The Synod of Glenelg, the Presbytery of Skye and Uist, were equally convinced that Mr. Macfarlane, by his Protest, was outwith their Church and jurisdiction, when they evicted him from his Manse in Raasay. The Free Presbyterian people also accepted Mr. Macfarlane’s action in separating from the Free Church as being complete and final from the moment that he left the Assembly. The F.P. Church was not officially formed until the first Presbytery was constituted on the 28th day of July, 1893. This however, does not imply that Mr. Macfarlane was in “no man’s land.” He conserved his rights and privileges, and carried with him the constitution of the Church intact and inviolate. He and his followers were not separated from the Church of God, although constrained to separate from a corrupt branch of the visible Church. He and Mr. Macdonald, Shieldaig, assisted by quite a number of Students and many office-bearers of ripe experience, had now to collect the scattered remnant and organise them into the visible body of Christians known as the “Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.” To maintain the continuity of the Church of Scotland as formed and established at the Revolution Settlement in 1690, it was not necessary for him and Rev. D. Macdonald to form a Presbytery at the door of the General Assembly in 1893, and name themselves as “Free Presbyterians.” Solomon says that there is a time for everything. The constitutionalist party of the Free Church held the view that Mr. Macfarlane could have safeguarded his position sufficiently, and kept his ordination vows inviolate by remaining in the Free Church after May, 1893, under a dissent—as they did,—until 1900. Mr. Macfarlane was thoroughly satisfied that, once the Declaratory Act became a binding law and constitution of the Free Church, no dissent could protect any Minister of that Church, in his conscience, from the operation and application of the Declaratory Act in the
courts of the Church after May, 1893. It was a binding law on every office-bearer under its jurisdiction. The Act virtually changed the constitution of the Free Church, and paved the way for further deterioration. This indeed was the view held by learned lawyers in deciding the case in favour of those who claimed adherence to the former Free Church constitution. The Act was not a matter of irregular procedure, but a binding law. He knew well that he could remain in the Free Church under a dissent, but this, in the deplorable circumstances, was quite insufficient. It was not only the constitution of the church which was in peril, as to its preservation, but also the Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation. The Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the mode of worship, Church discipline, and the Establishment principle, were all, in effect, set aside by the unfaithful majority in the Free Church. Mr. Macfarlane foresaw this, and by his Protest, held faithfully to the constitution of the Free Church. He did this in defence of the Word of God. He was not a man who sought publicity. He was naturally timid, but not so when protesting against error and defending the truth of God. His Divine Master strengthened him to “hold fast” the Bible. He was not influenced by the frowns nor favours of men. He kept his ordination vows, and was kept faithfully to the end. He, and others were seeing many things in the Free Church long before 1892 which led them to believe that she would make shipwreck of the faith once delivered to the saints. Many, both in pulpits and in the colleges, had departed from the Word of God. There was determined opposition in the Free Church, on a large scale, against both the Reformed position of the first and second Reforms, and also against the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Word of God itself. Calvinism became intolerable to the unbelieving majority of the Free Church. They came largely under the influence of Arminianism, and even of Arianism. The Pelagian heresy was resurrected and partly embodied in the Declaratory Act. The Darwinian theory was readily received by some of the Rev. Professors long before 1892, and many of the younger ministers accepted it, spurious as it was and is, and unprovable,—as a “relief to their consciences” from Calvinism. The present-day Modernists are their religious progeny. Yet Mr. Macfarlane did not feel that he could, with justification of conscience, leave the Free Church while her constitution was intact. Dr. Begg, Dr. Kennedy, Rev. A. MacColl, and others knew well what was happening within the bounds of the Free Church. They warned the people of what was coming.
The present Free Church based its case, and justified its remaining under the Declaratory Act, on its dissent. This dissent freed them from complicity as regards the actual passing of the Act, but did not free them from its binding authority on them to see that it was carried out. The basis of the decision of the Law Lords in the House of Lords was that the property and monies of the Free Church from 1843 to 1893 (or 1892) were held and owned under the constitution of the Free Church prior to the passing of the Declaratory Act. The minority, who claimed adherence to the constitution,—under their Dissent,—were recognised as the legal heirs of the property. The Law Lords did not take to do with the fact that the Declaratory Act assailed the Word of God, and the Confession of Faith, or that from 1892, it made the Free Church constitution, in a
practical way, null and void. They were not concerned with the spiritual aspects of the case,—rather with the legal side.
Mr. Macfarlane took up his cross and followed Christ without money or Manse. It was indeed some of those who dissented who took part in evicting him and the saintly Mr. Macdonald from their Manses. This was unchristian, callous conduct on the part of men professing to be followers of the Lamb of God. They knew well that Mr. Macfarlane and Mr. Macdonald were godly men, contending for the truth of the Word of God and for the crown rights of Jesus Christ. They, however, got houses to live in after their eviction, and friends, and in due course Manses and Churches, with sufficient daily bread. They died without a penny of debt to their charge to mar their memory. The Lord blessed their labours. Their memory is fresh and precious in the Free Presbyterian Church and will continue so while men remain faithful to the cause of Christ in Scotland. May the Lord make our young people faithful to the Word of God, to the Confession of Faith, and to the claims of true godliness, and keep them so!
The F. P. Church is not against union with bodies of Christians in this land, nor in any other land, who own and acknowledge the supreme standard and those which are subordinate. This Church must, by the grace of God, adhere faithfully to these standards until He, in infinite mercy, turns the tide of Rationalistic doctrine which deluges our land and other lands also.
The F.P. Church is not a perfect Church. Far from it. But they seek to hold fast by the Word of God which they love. They dare not go beyond the Word,—add to, nor take from it. This is the position taken up by the fathers of the Church. Narrow minded persons and bigots add man-made ritualistic services, as can be seen in many nominally-Protestant Churches all over the world. They narrow down the Word of God to suit the carnal minds of ungodly men, and will have to answer for their deeds before the Judgment seat of Christ. We leave this issue calmly in the hands of the Judge of all the earth. Let the youth of the Church adhere to the Bible, to their Church, and support, as the Lord enables them, the cause of Christ at home and abroad.
Our concluding advice to them is to endeavour to understand intelligently why the Rev. D. Macfarlane separated from the Free Church in 1893, and how he was never under the Declaratory Act at all. This is clearly set forth in the “Deed of Separation” which we commend to the youth to read carefully,—and to the rest of our people also,—although they may have read it frequently already.
Some Remarks on Sabbath Observance.*
II.
WE are even tempted ourselves to curtail the sabbath rest because of some clamouring weekday work. I am told that there are offices in this town (Dunedin, New Zealand)—if you go down-town now you will find men in these offices working—stealing His Day from God and their fellows. Rest assured that that is not the way to save time—it is the
way to waste it, and to waste yourself into the bargain. It is the way to poverty and not to wealth. Lord Macaulay once told the British House of Commons on this subject. He said: “We are not poorer but richer, because we have, through many ages, rested from our labours one day in seven† That day is not lost, while industry is suspended—while the plough lies in the furrows, while the Exchange is silent, while no smoke ascends from the factory—a process is going on quite as important to the wealth of nations as any process which is performed on business days. Man—the machine of machines—the machine compared to which all the contrivances of workmen are worthless—man is repairing and winding up, so that he returns to his labours on Monday with clear intellect, with livelier spirits, with renewed corporal vigour. Never will I believe that what makes a nation stronger, healthier, and wiser, and better can ultimately make it poorer….And so the old-fashioned verse has a deep and profound significance—a significance which it behoves us well to ponder:
“A Sabbath well spent brings a week of content
And strength for the cares of to-morrow;
But a Sabbath profaned, whatsoever be gained,
Is a certain forerunner of sorrow.”
* See Vol. XLVI., page, 258.
† What does one day in seven mean in 50 years? It means about 7 years of rest.
“I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound.”
THERE are a great many men that know a little how to be abased, that do not know at all how to abound. When they are put down into the pit with Joseph, they look up and see the starry promise, and they hope for an escape. When, however, they are put on the top of a pinnacle, their heads grow dizzy, and they are ready to fall. When they were poor they used to battle it, but mark the same men after success has crowned their struggles. Their troubles are over; they are rich and increased with goods. And have you not often seen a man who has sprung up from nothing to wealth, how purse-proud he becomes, how vain, how intolerant? Nobody would have thought that man ever kept a shop; you would not believe that that man at any time ever used to sell a pound of candles, would you? He is so great in his own eyes that one would have thought the blood of all the Caesars must flow in his veins. He does not know his old acquaintances. The familiar friend of other days he now passes by with scarce a nod of recognition. The man does not know how to abound; he has grown proud; he is exalted above measure. There have been men who have been lifted up for a season to popularity in the Church. They have preached successfully, and done some mighty work. For this the people have honoured them, and rightly so. But then they become tyrants; they have lusted after authority, they have looked down contemptuously upon everybody else as if other men were small pigmies, and they were huge giants. Their conduct has been intolerable, and they have soon been cast down from their high places, because they did not know how to abound.—C. H. Spurgeon.