by Rev. John Colquhoun, Glendale, Skye
The Constitutional Party appeared in the Free Church during the Union controversy (1863-1873) and was revived when the Declaratory Act of 1892 was brought forward. They warned their congregations of what this Act meant, and had protests inserted in the Minutes of several of the inferior Courts. These protests were brought up to the Assembly by way of dissent and complaint, as was also the action of the Synod of Glenelg in allowing these protests. While we have no copies of these protests at our disposal, the statement of Principal Rainy, in speaking against them, gives an idea as to their nature, when he says, “But to protest against this Act was a protest that denied it all force and all validity in any sense whatever. It was a claim to suspend the operation of the Act in all respects. It sought to avoid the effect it was intended to have, namely, that of relief. The Act was not to claim any regard from them in any of the operations it was intended to have, and for the sake of which it was passed . . . It was quite a new thing for an inferior court to place upon its records a protest which really claimed to suspend and annul, so far as that Presbytery was concerned, the Act the Assembly had passed, with the consent of Presbyteries.” Proceedings of the Assembly of 1893, p. 63. Assuming that Principal Rainy had given a correct description of these protests, and there is no reason to suspect the contrary, the only course open to the Presbyteries concerned, and to the Synod of Glenelg which allowed them, was to remain outside the Church which passed the Declaratory Act, and to take up the position of the Free Church of 1843. Such an action would confirm their words in recording these protests.
We now come to consider the words of the men who supported these protests. The Rev. Angus Galbraith, in supporting these protests at the bar of the Assembly, said that they could very well see the distinction between the Free Church of 1843 and the Declaratory Act Church of 1893. They were quite willing to admit that their course was unusual, but at the same time they had scruples and difficulties, and, as they were not unfaithful to their ordination vows, they ought to have some consideration at the hands of the Assembly in this Jubilee year. They knew very well that the law was not likely to be altered by quiet submission to it. They regretted it as a bad law and did not intend to submit to it. Proceeding of the Assembly of 1893, p. 61.
Rev. Murdo MacAskill, Dingwall, a Constitutionalist, still more vehement than Mr Galbraith, said, in opposing the Declaratory Act, that there seemed to be a tendency just simply to trample upon their convictions and disregard them because they seemed a small and insignificant party, but if one or two of them were to raise the fiery cross in the Highlands, insignificant as they were, the Free Church would have cause to regret that they trampled upon them, and gave so little regard to their convictions. Free Church Assembly Proceedings, 1893, p. 175. These were goodly words indeed, coming from one who, by friend and foe, was the acknowledged leader of those who refused to depart from the Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland.
Of the same nature is the language of Rev. William Fraser, Sleat, Skye, in supporting the protest of the Presbytery of Skye, as read from the Assembly papers by Principal Rainy, that he would not in any capacity acknowledge any terms of office in the Free Church but those on which I have been admitted, viz., adherence to the Confession of Faith, simpliciter, and my firm determination to adopt all lawful steps for the repeal of said Act, and, further, for himself and his brethren, “their firm resolution to continue, in humble dependence of Divine Grace, to discharge their solemn duties in accordance with the doctrines, principles, constitution and standards of the Free Church, as heretofore understood, from the Disruption until the passing of the Declaratory Act of last Assembly.” There was here an express repudiation of what the Assembly had done, and the carrying out of it to its logical conclusion could only be effected outside the jurisdiction of that Assembly. That this seemed to be the view of the Constitutionals on the day the Declaratory Act was passed in May 1892 is evident from a report of a meeting held by some of them in the New College, Edinburgh, on the evening of that day. Dr William Balfour acted as Chairman, and in his opening remarks he made
the following statement:— “It has come to this pass now in the Free Church that only two alternatives are left us. (1) We must separate from those who were responsible for passing the Declaratory Act immediately and declare ourselves the Free Church as this Church was settled in 1843; or (2) if we remain in this Church, and, if we continue to fight for the Creed and Constitution of the original Free Church we shall be kicked out one by one.” Evidently Dr Balfour and others, at this time, were contemplating separation from the Declaratory Act Free Church.
We now come to consider the actions of the Constitutional Party and see how inconsistent they were with their brave words. After the close of the Assembly a meeting was held by them in Edinburgh, at which Rev. D. Macfarlane was present. On being asked what he intended to do, he replied that he intended to form a Presbytery, and proceed to licence those students who adhered to them when they would complete their theological course. Rev. Murdo MacKenzie, Inverness, who asked the question, replied, “You will compromise us.” That Mr Macfarlane’s action in separating from the Declaratory Act Church and forming a Presbytery, was countenanced by the Lord is abundantly clear, but these matters do not come within the scope of this paper. Our business is to consider the subsequent actions of the Constitutional Party, which actions were the opposite of being friendly to the Free Presbyterian movement.
Anyone who knows even a modicum of church history and church law knows very well that the Declaratory Act, having been passed in a constitutional manner through the Barrier Act of 1697, became a binding law of the Church, and, from its very nature, caused the Constitution of the Free Church to be understood in a manner which was vastly different from the manner in which it was understood from 1843 to 1892, or in other words, the Constitution was now to be understood in the light of the Declaratory Act. Thus if one was to adhere to the Constitution of the Free Church, as understood in 1843, he had no alternative but to go out from the jurisdiction of the Declaratory Act Free Church. Did the Constitutional Party act on this principle? They did not. In spite of their condemnation of the Declaratory Act, their resolutions never to submit to it, and Principal Rainy’s statement that “they were not going to admit the Declaratory Act had no effect at all, and that it was inoperative either in one Presbytery or in all the Presbyteries,” they remained in the Church which passed it, and had to submit to it in their Church courts. None of them could claim exemption to the authority of the Declaratory Act in any matter where a minister, a student, or even a member claimed its protection. If that was all that could be said, as to their actions, it was their own business, but they went further. They showed a bitter and hostile spirit toward those who formed the Free Presbyterian Church.
Many instances of this spirit could be cited but, in the interests of space, a few will suffice. Rev. Murdo MacAskill, who so vehemently denounced the Declaratory Act, characterised the Free Presbyterian movement “as the most mischievous movement of modern times and calculated only to do the most serious harm to the cause of truth and godliness in our beloved Highlands.” This was going even further than Principal Rainy himself when he expressed his thankfulness that one effect of the movement was to disembarass a number of Free Church congregations of impracticable elements — those elements which from conscientious conviction led men to set themselves against everything like the active and vigorous developments of Christian life in modern times. This language of Mr MacAskill was but an indication of subsequent steps he was to take on the down-grade, for he ended by joining the Union in 1900, and giving plenty of trouble to the Anti-Unionists. He was not alone, however, in his opposition to the Free Presbyterian movement. Ministers, elders, and adherents, who go into the School Boards, in some cases mainly through the Free Presbyterian vote, did their utmost to deprive them of the use of schools in which to conduct the public worship of God, when they had no alternative but to worship under the canopy of heaven, or take the sheltered side of a rock to protect them from the inclemency of the weather.
The Constitutionalists took their share, along with the Unionists, in seeing to it that they had no churches to worship in. After the stand made and the formation of the Free Presbytery of Scotland, as it was then called, the Free Church Presbytery of Skye and that of Lochcarron, asked advice of the Commission of Assembly as to how to deal with the situation. The answer to this was to take legal action to dispossess Mr Macfarlane and Mr MacDonald of their churches and manses, and to the shame of the Constitutionalists in these Presbyteries, who were so loud in their opposition to the Declaratory Act, not a word was said against this proposal, and, therefore, both Constitutionalists and Voluntaries must equally share the responsibility and the odium. An action was raised in the civil courts, but these ministers did not appear, and so they were dispossessed of the property, and, in many cases, in order to preach the gospel, they had to resort to the hillside or the sea shore.
One of the strangest actions on the part of the Constitutional Party after they took to themselves the name The Free Church, and one which shows a marked contrast between their words against the Higher Criticism of the Declaratory Act and their subsequent actions was their appointment of Dr W. M. Alexander,
as Professor of Theology and Principal of the New College in October 1904. A few months before he was received into the Free Church he published a book entitled Demonic Possession in the New Testament, which showed him to be unsound on the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, and in other ways it was clear that he belonged to the Higher Critical school. Was Dr Alexander disciplined because of this book? No. He continued at his post in the Free Church College. At the Free Church Presbytery of Inverness on 7th March 1905 the matter was taken up, and one member thought the book should be withdrawn. Another said that he read the book but “that there was not a word, except, perhaps, a slight expression used in one place, which went to show that Dr Alexander in any way doubted the infallibility of the Bible.” Others expressed themselves as satisfied with Dr Alexander’s disclaimer, and so the matter dropped. Dr Alexander sometime afterwards withdrew the book from circulation, not because of its Higher Critical views, but “in deference to Highland opinion.”
The decision of the House of Lords put the Constitutional Party in a dilemma. Their ministers being few they had recourse to receiving ministers from every Protestant denomination in the country, and in many cases these ministers were far from the orthodoxy publicly professed by the Free Church. They had no hesitation in answering the questions and signing the formula required of them, and nothing more was required of them except to conform to the outward form of worship practised in the Free Church. These, no doubt, did untold harm in congregations over which they were settled, and, in the case of many of them, when the opportunity offered, went to other spheres of labour where the remuneration was more tempting. It was done in order to retain as much of the property as possible. This evidently was of paramount importance, but it caused the Constitutional Party to forget their brave words against the Declaratory Act.