By the Rev. J. P. MACQUEEN.
IN taking notice of a pamphlet issued by a religious body calling itself “A Committee of the Free Presbyterian Congregation, 17 Blythswood Street, Glasgow,” it may not be out of place at this stage to offer criticism of its misleading statements. Without waiting, for instance, to consider what right a religious body has, without a stated pastor, kirk-session, or Presbytery, and, therefore, without authoritative Government or discipline, to the title “Presbyterian,” not to mention “Free Presbyterian,” let us examine some of the contents of this pamphlet.
In replying to Modernist Higher Critics of the Bible, the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon said, “If it were possible for one false statement to enter the covers of this book, what is to prevent it being a parcel of lies altogether?” Applying this principle to the pamphlet before us, we have an unreliable, unscrupulously partial and prejudiced, sophist, propagandist booklet, where an impartial statement of historic facts is, consequently, not to be looked for. Whatever, therefore, degree of earnestness and sincerity may have been in the hearts of the pamphleteers when they used the solemn words in the introduction: “Our sole object is to state facts of sobriety and truth as we know them, and to leave the matter in the hands of Him, who is the Disposer of the hearts of men,” must have been soon forgotten as they, apparently, allowed themselves to become the servile victims of emotional, prejudicial excitement and partiality. In this state of emotional partiality, one is not to expect a calm, cool, impartial statement of the case. We must, however, not content ourselves with mere assertion, but proceed at once to give instances.
Referring, for instance, to the late Rev. Donald MacFarlane’s historic Protest at the Free Church General Assembly of 1893, the authors of the pamphlet state on page 34: “Mr. MacFarlane did not declare himself separate at this stage,” whereas the late Rev. Neil Cameron, Glasgow, who knew the late Rev. Mr. MacFarlane’s mind better than any one on earth, states in his New Year’s Day Lecture, 1920:—”When the Assembly of 1893 refused by an overwhelming majority, to repeal that Act (the Declaratory Act) the Rev. Donald MacFarlane came forward, and read and tabled a protest against the drastic changes enacted, and declared that he, and such as would follow him, would adhere to the original Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland, and that he did now and then separate himself from the so-called Free Church, claiming all his rights, and that of them who might follow him, to all that belonged to them as loyal Free Churchmen.”
Six years afterwards in delivering his New Year’s Day Lecture, 1926, Rev. Neil Cameron stated:—”No alternative was left for any who loved purity, integrity of conscience, an infallible Bible, the whole doctrine of the Free Church of Scotland, as set forth in her standards, and a complete deliverance from all innovations then foisted on the Declaratory Act Church, but to separate at once from being any longer in her fellowship and under her jurisdiction. So, at that Assembly immediately after the result of the vote was declared, the Rev. Donald MacFarlane rose and read his protest, which he left on the table of the Assembly. Thus a separation was constitutionally made.” As all who heard him speak on this subject, and read his writings, can testify, this had always, uniformly and consistently, been the Rev. Neil Cameron’s view of the effect of Mr. MacFarlane’s protest, it is as evident as the mid-day sun that on this most important point, it is a case of Rev. R. Mackenzie versus (against) Rev. Neil Cameron, as the present writer has persistently and consistently said from the very beginning of this controversy. Let it be at once remembered that Rev. Neil Cameron had been faithfully thus expounding the meaning of Mr. MacFarlane’s protest to Free Presbyterians many years before Rev. R. Mackenzie, M.A., had appeared on the scene. This would be in itself quite sufficient as far as loyal Free Presbyterians are concerned, but we also have ample evidence that this was the view of the late Rev. Donald MacFarlane himself. When the late worthy Mr. Donald Mackenzie, missionary, who died at the Home of Rest, Inverness, was told that the Rev. R. Mackenzie did not believe that his historic protest separated the Rev. D. MacFarlane forthwith from the Declaratory Act Church, Donald Mackenzie immediately replied that then the Rev. R. Mackenzie was contradicting the Rev. Donald MacFarlane himself, as he (Donald Mackenzie) heard Mr. MacFarlane saying at the first meeting he addressed at Inverness after his protest at the Assembly of 1893:—”Some,” said Mr. MacFarlane, “say that I was myself under the Declaratory Act for a time, and others say I am under it yet. Let me assure you that I, by my protest, separated myself there and then from the Declaratory Act Church, and that I had no intention of ever returning to it, whether I would get anybody to follow me or not, or whatever would become of me.” There are plenty godly people in our church, including elders, who can testify to the veracity of the foregoing statement as they repeatedly and emphatically heard it from Donald Mackenzie himself. Is it, therefore, “the Synod, by crafty arguments,” that “endeavours to drive a wedge between Mr. Mackenzie’s views and Mr. MacFarlane’s action” (page 35 of the pamphlet) or is it the Rev. R. Mackenzie who is trying, with persistent obstinacy, to drive a wedge between the Free Presbyterian Church on the one hand, and Rev. Neil Cameron and the Rev. Donald MacFarlane on the other? We can safely leave the answer to the conscientious impartial judgment of the readers of our magazine.
Let us now, briefly, consider the diametrically opposed effects of these two different viewpoints. If the Rev. Donald MacFarlane was not completely separated from the Declaratory Act Church he has been guilty of one of the most reprehensible acts of rebellion a minister of the Gospel can be guilty of—what is commonly called “ecclesiastical sheep-stealing,” while he formed a congregation in Millhouse (Kames), and another at Baasay, as well as being the means of breaking up other congregations. If Rev. Neil Cameron’s view is correct, and we are absolutely certain it is, then Mr. MacFarlane, in thus acting, engaged in the noblest work a Gospel minister can set his hand to—rescuing men and women from deception, hypocrisy and lies, for the Declaratory Act Church still labelled itself “The Free Church of Scotland,” when, in fact, it had ruined the doctrinal Scriptural constitution of the Free Church of Scotland.
If the Rev. D. Beaton was a student in 1897, it is not much more probable that his view of what took place is more likely to be correct than that of Rev. R. Mackenzie, who was then in his childhood in Lewis? In any case, the Rev. J. S. Sinclair, in his article on the Declaratory Act in the June, 1896, issue of the Free Presbyterian Magazine, writing of the Synod of Ross objecting to the word “protest” in the records of the Dingwall Presbytery, 1892, and the consequent deletion of “protest” from the records, comments:—”This shows that a protest is legally impossible, and had no standing ground in the Free Church.” This was also emphasised long after 1896 and 1897.
As to the statement that “there are many ministers, office-bearers and members” in the Free Presbyterian Church who think as the authors of the pamphlet, then these ministers, office-bearers, and members are hypocrites in view of the fact that the Synod gave them the opportunity of saying so within a certain period. They did not do so, hence we regard the opinion of the pamphlet as false in this connection as in other statements.
Another false statement in the pamphlet, among others too numerous to mention, in a short article, is the one on page 38, which states:—”Most of the trouble in the Free Presbyterian Church has arisen because things have been kept in the dark; just a select few know what is going on.” This is a brazen-faced false statement, which, if true, would involve a glaring breach of Presbyterian Church Government. It is, however, an utterly irresponsible statement, without a scintilla of truth in it. Any private meetings of Synod we had were obtained by majority vote, not because we had anything to hide, but because, as explained at the time, we wanted to keep out the unscrupulous reporters of newspapers, largely Jesuitically controlled, whose sole interest in the case was, not merit or demerit on one side or the other, but the desire to reduce the Free Presbyterian Church to fragments. If they were allowed to stay, as would be the case in a public Synod, they would write a garbled report full of prejudice against our church, with a few noble exceptions, but if they were put outside they would have to draw wholly on their imaginations. Otherwise, before God and men, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland had never anything to hide, and to say otherwise is to be guilty of as glaring a breach of the Ninth Commandment against honourable, honest, conscientious, God-fearing men, as ever issued from “the father of lies,” through human instrumentality.
As regards the number of vilifying anonymous letters from the supporters of the Rev. R. Mackenzie to our ministers, of which the present writer got his share, surely a good cause does not need such satanic methods to uphold it.
As for those of Mr. Mackenzie’s supporters who go home to the Highlands, and especially Skye, for their annual holidays, and use such language about our ministers, as the following, of which I have personal proof, it is satanically slanderous: “What a sad day has come upon the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland when there is not a minister in it on whom one can rely as honest and truthful.” While the satanic origin of such evil aspersions, meant to discredit our ministers and our church forever, is not in doubt, what are we to say of the psychology of the human agents who propagate such wicked falsehoods? My personal opinion and answer is that these people think this is the best way of bolstering up Rev. R. Mackenzie’s untenable position. When there is a group of God-fearing honest men, seeking by prayer to be guided by the Holy Spirit, and one of them differs from all the rest; then to get over this difficulty all the rest must be slandered as stated above, and the one differing from them raised up to a pedestal of almost, if not altogether, infallible judgment, integrity, and conscientiousness, resembling the unquestioning submission of the ancient superstitious Greek pagans to the infallible verdict or conclusion of the Oracle of Delphi, from whose judgment there was no appeal, or the modern Romanist who yields the same unquestioning homage to an ex-cathedra statement from the Roman Pontiff.
The display made by the writers of their apparent knowledge of ecclesiastical procedure in their ransacking of Secession ecclesiastical histories, may have deceived themselves, but we would not willingly charge them that they were intentionally deceiving the public. Rather would we prefer to put it down to their colossal ignorance. When did the Free Church of Scotland ever resort to the ecclesiastical procedure of the Secession Churches for authority in church procedure, or, for that matter, to the Reformed Presbyterian or Relief Churches?
The Free Presbyterian Church largely adopted Free Church procedure, which, in turn, was largely dependent on Church of Scotland procedure. Again, any one having the merest smattering of knowledge of ecclesiastical procedure would never dream of referring to the great Princeton divine, Dr. Charles Hodge. The procedure of the Church to which he belonged (The Northern Presbyterian Church of America) was not the procedure of the Church of Scotland, as any one with the book of procedure of that church in his hands would at once recognise.
If the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland is, as I personally believe it is, the purest and the most Scriptural branch of the visible church in this generation, then all who are trying to undermine and destroy it are at one, on this point at any rate, with the devil.