By Rev. John Colquhoun, Glendale, Skye
(Continued from page 372)
Declaratory Act not a Dead Letter.—The truth, however, is that the Declaratory Act was, by no means, a dead letter. That was clearly revealed by what has been referred to already in the deletion by the Assembly of 1893 of the Protests against the Declaratory Act on the Records of inferior courts, and passing from overtures craving that it should be rescinded. Further proof may be brought forward that the Declaratory Act was not a dead letter from the very men who held out to their people that it was so. In Condescendence 20 on page 11 of the published Report of the Appeal to the House of Lords it is said, “that those who were licensed or ordained to office in the Church should thereby be entitled to accept the questions and formula of the Free Church in view of the said Declaratory Act, that is, to accept and subscribe the same under reservation.” What, it may be asked, can be thought of men who would state to their congregations, and to the Free Presbyterian Church when seeking Union with it, that the Declaratory Act was not operative because the questions and formula were not changed, and who, through their representatives, would state the very opposite to the highest legal tribunal in the land? Mr Salvesen, the Free Church Counsel,
in arguing against the Declaratory Act, says, “The old formula made the whole doctrine of the Confession the substance of the Reformed faith, and in this Declaratory Act, we contend, and it is the view of those who left the Church at the time, that the Free Church had substituted an absolutely elastic creed for the rigid creed that formerly they made their office-bearers subscribe to.” Appeal to the House of Lords, p. 325. We find here, from an unexpected source, an unqualified testimony, to the soundness of the Free Presbyterian position, and an outstanding contradiction of what has been said, in season and out of season, by Free Church protagonists down through the years, about the inoperativeness of the Declaratory Act, and the claims of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland to have preserved without a break the continuity of the Free Church of 1843. We find the same testimony to the operativeness of the Declaratory Act in a statement of the other Free Church Counsel, Mr Johnston, when he said, “The Declaratory Act of 1892 with a sequel of 1894, we maintain were Acts which really abolish the authority of the Westminster Confession.” Appeal to House of Lords, p. 180.
Minority under the Declaratory Act.—The minority, who remained under the Declaratory Act, cannot, truthfully, claim that, during that period, they preserved the continuity of the Free Church of 1843, because that, whatever their profession may have been, their practice was inconsistent with their profession. The majority had accepted the Declaratory Act, rejoiced in the relief it afforded, and in all their deliberations bearing on doctrine, they understood the Confession of Faith in the light of that Act, and the minority were part of that Church. They had no separate Church Courts, their Supreme and Subordinate Courts were Courts of a Church which had adopted the Declaratory Act, and the minority were members of these Courts, bound by their ruling in all matters, and, therefore, as far as the minority were concerned, in common with the majority, Christ had not a Church of Scotland which maintained His truth in purity. Truly, they vowed in accepting office, that they would “assert, maintain, and defend” His truth, but inasmuch as they were part of the whole which forsook that truth, how could they do it? They might, as individuals, preach the doctrines of the Confession of Faith, but as members of Church Courts they were ruled by the Declaratory Act, which sheltered those who preached heresy. Therefore there was no way in which they could preserve the truths of the Bible to coming generations, but by separation from a Church that had an unsound creed, as was done by the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. This is brought out clearly by
Dr. Kennedy, Dingwall, in a speech delivered at an anti-union meeting in Inverness, when he said, in referring to the position of the civil magistrate and spiritual independence, “That, to my mind, is as clear as the light of noon-day, and I am now persuaded that if the Free Church drops her testimony in behalf of Christ as King of nations, and ceases to tell the civil magistrate that it is his duty to recognise and sanction the Church of Christ in the land, she will have dropped her whole testimony. I am so persuaded of this now that I am free from all hesitation as to what the path of duty is. I know that it hath been said that while this is made an open question, there is no pressure brought to bear on my conscience, or on the consciences of any other in the United Church, but I must be careful not only about my own consistency, my own peace of conscience, my own good name and usefulness, I must be careful also about the testimony of my Church, and I cannot in my Church position emit any testimony to any truth which my Church has abandoned.” Inverness Courier, 6th October, 1870. These weighty words of Dr. Kennedy ought to have been considered by the minority who remained under the Declaratory Act as they were acted upon by those who separated.
Another matter which shows up the inconsistency of the present Free Church is to be found in what took place in her Assembly some years ago. In 1935 an Act, known as Act IV, was passed by the General Assembly, by which the supervision of students was taken out of the hands of the Presbyteries and given to the Training of the Ministry Committee. We take nothing to do with the case which caused such an Act to be passed, but it was a binding law and constitution of the Free Church till it was rescinded two years afterwards. The questions and formula, however, were not changed. Those who took shelter in the position that the questions and formula were not changed in 1892 were loud in their cries that Act IV of 1935 was contrary to the Constitution but never said a word about the questions and formula. Surely what holds good in the one case should hold good in the other.
The Significance of the Declaratory Act of 1892.—Much has been written of the Declaratory Act of 1892 and that of 1894 as “relieving” Acts, and the Constitutionalists who remained under both Acts have taken refuge in this, especially in the Declaratory Act of 1894. This raises a very important question, that is, in what sense was the Declaratory Act of 1892 a relieving Act? It was a relieving Act to suit the ultra-tender consciences of men who could not accept the Confession of Faith as the confession
of their faith. As the Confession of Faith is based four-square on the Bible, and the Word of God clearly points out the path of duty with respect to such. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” II John, verses 9-11. The change of doctrine which was introduced by the Declaratory Act of 1892 was a casting away of “the doctrine of Christ” and according to the passage just quoted, those who loved the Cause of Christ ought to have no further fellowship with those who accepted relief from these doctrines. It was on this that the Free Presbyterian Church acted, a matter which was acknowledged by Mr Salvesen, the Free Church Counsel before the Law Lords, in referring to the passing of the Declaratory Act: “I may say that so strongly was this felt at the time that there was a disruption from the Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church, which exists to this day, and which was the only Church, I think, that has separated on doctrinal grounds, was formed, and it was formed because it said, ‘We can never allow ministers to be ordained and to preach to us if they are to be entitled to preach anything they please, or that the Church may declare to be the substance of the faith’ . . . In 1892 (1893) the Free Presbyterian Church was formed immediately after this Act was passed, and as a Protest against it; they went out and formed their own congregations, but the patrimonial rights had not been affected, and to a certain extent, so far as the Free Church was concerned, this Declaratory Act of 1892—a new Declaratory Act was passed to save the consciences of those who remained . . . “Free Church Appeal, p. 327-328. Mr Salvesen here gives the position substantially as it was except that he gave the wrong year for the formation of the Free Presbyterian Church.
This other Act to which Mr Salvesen referred was the Declaratory Act of 1894, but the question may be asked, If the Declaratory Act of 1892 did not affect the Constitution because the questions and formula were not changed, what was the necessity of passing the relieving Declaratory Act of 1894? From what did it afford relief? Surely not from the Declaratory Act of 1892 if it was not operative? The truth seems to be that the Act of 1894 was passed only to keep quiet those pseudo-Constitutionalists who remained under the Act of 1892. It served its purpose well but those who accepted it found, in practice, that the Act of 1892 was
binding on them in the same way as those who had “difficulties and scruples” about the Confession of Faith. They found that they were part of a Church which had unfurled a banner not for truth but for error, and they had to open a door of admission to the ministry to men of unsound views, thus proving to the world, that as far as any power they had to conserve the truth was concerned, that power had ceased to exist.
Such would do well to consider the solemn and serious words of C. H. Spurgeon uttered in a sermon delivered about 1889. “I am responsible as a member of a Church for all that is taught and all that is done by that Church in its Church capacity, and if I am protesting in my heart, and yet in my proper person continue part and parcel of that Church, I am not acting truthfully to God. We want, in this century, a class of men who are endowed with a double portion of conscience to what is generally exhibited by professors: for there are many of them who have got enough conscience to make them miserable and disagreeable but not enough to make them honestly quit their positions. They have enough conscience to make them uncomfortable, but not enough to force them to act bravely for what they believe. Who wants to have a conscience that will only be quiet by being drugged? Trifling with conscience, though common enough, is one of the most deadly sins against a man’s self, of which he can be guilty.” The pseudo-Constitutionalists remained in a Church which, in a Church capacity, by making the Declaratory Act of 1892 part of its Constitution, ceased to believe in the doctrines of the Confession of Faith, and anyone who cares can ask, What had become of their consciences? Were they drugged by their anxiety about the funds and property, and their want of faith in the God who was able to give them all these temporalities along with a good conscience as He had done to those who for the sake of conscience forsook all, and were turned out of their churches and manses by the combined efforts of Voluntaries and pseudo-Constitutionalists. To those who were thus turned out the Lord gave, along with a good conscience, churches and manses, and the people who cast in their lot with the Free Presbyterian Church could never say that they were poorer than their neighbours. The Lord fulfilled to them His word: “And every one who hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundred-fold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” Matt. xix, 29. It was, however, humiliating, as an illustration of the depth to which fallen human nature can go, to see men who spoke so strongly against the Declaratory Act joining with those who were
out and out in favour of it, in depriving the men who took practical action against it, of their churches and manses, and turning congregations on to the hill-side who adhered wholly to the Confession of Faith. In the Presbyteries which had been affected by the Free Presbyterian stand, and which had Protests against the Declaratory Act on their Records, References were sent to the Commission of Assembly asking for directions. The result was that the Commission of Assembly for November gave permission for an action to be raised in the civil Courts against Rev. D. Macfarlane and Rev. D. MacDonald. This action was undefended; these godly men taking joyfully to the spoiling of their goods, knowing that they had a better and a more durable inheritance.
The case of Rev. Donald MacDonald, Shiel’daig, sheds a rather lurid light on the actings of the Constitutionalists who remained under the Act. We take the liberty of quoting from a Free Church source: “When he came to Shiel’daig there was neither church nor manse awaiting him; the sites had been refused. For five years he laboured amidst circumstances of peculiar difficulty, preaching on the hill-side in all kinds of weather, exposed to summer heat and winter cold within sound of the Atlantic breakers. Sometimes he had to brush the snow-flakes off his Bible before he could see his text. And after twenty-one years of faithful service this was his reward; he was turned adrift from church and home once more to face the rigours of that inhospitable climate. By far the greater number of his congregation adhered to him; but it was only to share his privations; the fact had no weight with the authorities in Edinburgh.” Free Church of Scotland, 1873-1910, p. 81. It must not be forgotten that it was the Presbytery of Lochcarron, composed almost wholly of Constitutionalists, and to which Mr MacDonald had been attached, that took the initiative and consummated the final act of depriving Mr MacDonald of church and manse. It may be asked, What had they for it? After 1905 the Royal Commission allocated the church and manse of which Mr MacDonald and his congregation were deprived to the United Free Church, and for want of a congregation it stood empty for years, except for its population of rats and birds, until the manse was sold as a boarding-house and the church became a work-shop. This was by no means an isolated example of Free Church charity to the Free Presbyterian Church. In 1905 the Free Presbyterian minister in Edinburgh, and joint author of the book above quoted, decided to join the Free Church with about half of his congregation, and took with him the church building through a flaw in the title-deeds. Those
who remained faithful to the Free Presbyterian Church and friends throughout the denomination had contributed handsomely to the church building, but, taking advantage of the flaw referred to, the Free Church took it over without a demur. Who can be blamed, in this connection, for repeating the words of Dr. Kennedy, “If this gives you a footing in the Court of Session, can it justify you in the court of conscience?” The spirit of hostility to the Free Presbyterian Church is not dead yet in the Free Church. It is not much more than ten years ago since a Free Church minister in Skye did his utmost to take from a Free Presbyterian congregation in the same parish a meeting-house to which neither he nor the Free Church had a shred of a title. It was a dwelling-house that had been bequeathed to the Free Presbyterian congregation shortly after 1893, and which, at their own expense, they converted into a meeting-house. That this attempt did not succeed reflects no credit on the minister concerned.
Training of Free Presbyterian Students.—The assertion made recently in the Free Church Monthly Record that the Free Presbyterian Church sends students to study in the Church of Scotland is without the slightest vestige of truth. As one who has taken a keen interest in the Free Presbyterian Church for over fifty years the present writer can say that not one such instance occurred. There are cases where individual students take classes to prepare them for the University, in the same way as Free Church students do, and the Colleges where they take these classes are no more under the auspices of the Church of Scotland than the Universities themselves, and surely such a matter requires a wonderful stretch of the imagination to fix it as a charge against the Church, and anyone doing it must be at his wits end for weapons to discredit a Church for which he has no love. The fact that the assertion is without the slightest foundation bears, on the face of it, the source of its origin. It, however, provokes the question, Where do the Free Church ministers study for the degree of B.D., seeing that the Free Church College has no power to confer it? If the answer is that it is in the Universities, then it must be in the Faculty of Divinity, which is under the supervision of the Church of Scotland. As far as the secular instruction given to Free Presbyterian students is concerned it is now under the control of the Church and the course is approved by the Education Department for Scotland, and is, at least, on a par with any system of education which the Free Church may have. With respect to the training of students in Divinity this has always been under the care of the Church, and
classes have been arranged for them under very competent tutors, except for the first year after the Church took up a separate stand, when our students studied under the justly renowned Prof. Watts in the Assembly’s College, Belfast. This ensures that no Higher Critical views are taught to our students as was the danger of being the case with Free Church students under Dr. Alexander, whose book, Demonic Possession, showed where he stood with regard to the Bible. It should not be forgotten that some exponents of conservative theology living to-day, whom the Free Church professes to think so highly of, received their first training under the theological tutors of the Free Presbyterian Church, but it may be hazarded as a safe guess that if they had continued in fellowship with that Church they would not be even mentioned in Free Church circles.
(To be continued)