by the Rev. Dr John Kennedy of Dingwall
(From the Inverness Courier of October 6, 1870)
The Rev. Dr Kennedy, of Dingwall, said — I would find it much easier, so far as my own feelings are concerned, to refrain from saying anything on this occasion, and if I might be allowed I would give up the time to some of the strangers I expect to address us. I can scarcely be said to have taken finally and publicly my position on the Union Question up till now; but that was certainly not because I had not formed a very decided opinion on the subject. I was at the outset very strongly opposed to entering on negotiations with a view to Union. I was so on several grounds. I looked on the desire for an incorporating union of the Churches as another expression of the indiscriminating charity that found development in the formation of the Evangelical Alliance. I looked on that alliance as the expression of a sentiment produced by putting first what God put last — the love of one’s neighbour before love to God, expressed in a careful regard and faithful adherence to His truth. I was also suspicious on another ground. There were some hands busy in originating this movement that were not unused to laying snares for the Church of Christ in Scotland. I could not forget this, and remembering it, I could not but suspect what the result of a movement so originated would be. Besides this, I disliked the movement because it bore a dishonest aspect to me at the outset. Had there been such a previous growth of love between the Churches as found expression in frequent and hearty co-operation, I would have regarded the proposal to incorporate as something that was sincere; but I must freely say that to
me any such pronounced expression of feeling was utterly impalpable, and I looked on the progress of a movement towards incorporation as therefore a dishonest thing. I must also say that I could not contemplate the movement as one wearing either a spiritual or religious aspect. I considered it more of a political movement than anything else. These were my feelings at the outset; but I was afraid that my impressions might be prejudiced, and I resolved to give the question all due consideration, to admit light from all quarters as I studied it; and it was with that view I entered into the Union Committee. I certainly did so, not with the expectation of contributing anything to the final settlement of the question, but merely for the purpose of obtaining information for my own guidance as to the exact state of opinion and sentiment among the negotiating bodies. As the result of that light, and from watching the result of the movement, I have now come to the firm conviction that the impressions which I had at the outset were well founded.
Let me only indicate a few things that have emerged during the progress of the movement that have sufficed to convince me. In the first place, it has been the means of causing alienation among brethren equally entitled to our respect in point of piety and intelligence. You may tell me that no great object is gained without some agitation, but when the sifting truly comes from God, surely the end of it is to separate the wheat from the chaff. It is an enemy’s hand that sifts so as to scatter the wheat, and the result of this movement has hitherto been to separate those whom the Lord has united in his holy Providence. I have seen that to some extent it has had a most injurious influence on the minds of those who are leading it. We did not expect before 1863 that some of the leaders in the Union movement would have declared in our Assembly that the doctrine of Establishments was outside of the Confession, and that there is nothing in our Confession with which the doctrines of Amyraldism are not consistent. But yet they have said so; and if the Union movement has brought them this far, who can tell what it will do during its further development? Thirdly, I have observed that this Union movement has made men impatient of definite beliefs, that it has developed in the most remarkable way the revolt of proud intellect against authority in matters of religion, and that this is now as manifest, alas! in the Free Church as it is in the scientific world. I know of few more alarming symptoms of the state of feeling of the times in which we live. I have attained to the firm persuasion that the impression which I formed at the outset was the right one, and that my duty and the duty of all who love the truth, is to do what in them lies, by all lawful means, to
oppose the consummation of this Union.
I did not at first take a great interest in the discussion of the question of the doctrine of the civil magistrate. I was not trained as those who took part in the Voluntary controversy were in that important question, and I felt prepared to take my stand in opposition to this Union on the ground of the differences existing regarding the fundamental doctrine of the Atonement. I was persuaded then, and I am still more persuaded now, that Amyraldism does prevail in the United Presbyterian Church. I came very early into contact with that phase of doctrine, when I was searching with my eternal all at stake, before God, and in view of eternity. I leant upon it and it failed me; I was deceived and almost ruined by it; and I am under vow to God, from that day forth, to testify by all means against it; and I hope I am ready to die rather than to countenance such views as these. This is not the time to discuss it, and it would be unseemly and unseasonable that I should enter on a discussion of it at present, but I feel prepared to prove, first — that the doctrine of the double reference of the Atonement cannot be held without right views of the nature of the Atonement being endangered in every mind that holds it; and I am prepared also to prove that these doctrines cannot be preached without sinners being encouraged to have hope in the good-will of God, apart from a personal Saviour in whom alone the love of God to sinners can find expression, in whom alone a sinner can find an interest in that love, and apart from whom he can neither enjoy its provisions nor its embrace.
But I am prepared now to take my stand as well on the ground of the doctrine of the civil magistrate. I have been compelled to study it, and I am now thoroughly persuaded that if our Church abandons her position as called to testify both to the crown rights of Christ as King of nations and as King of Zion, she will be guilty of a grievous sin. It has been sometimes said that the important doctrine is the doctrine of the Church’s independence; that compared with this the doctrine of the duty of the civil magistrate is quite subordinate; and that, therefore, if the one is held — and it is maintained the Voluntaries hold it in common with us — the other may surely be left an open question. But the more I have studied the matter the more thoroughly am I persuaded that the two are inseparable — that it is impossible for the Church to maintain Scripturally her testimony on behalf of the Church’s independence, without at the same time holding fast to the truth as to the duty of the civil magistrate to the Church of Christ. These two things are joined by God in His Word; they were inscribed on the banner of our Church when it was
displayed in behalf of the truth, and they were held and pled together during the witness-bearing of our Church in the Ten Years’ Conflict. On what ground is it that the Church is entitled to spiritual independence — to be exempt from all control in managing the affairs of Christ’s house? On this ground — that the Lord Jesus hath appointed in the hands of the Church officers a government distinct from the province of the civil magistrate; on the ground of that appointment her right to spiritual independence rests, and she must claim her right from the civil magistrate as an act of allegiance on his part to Christ as King of nations — and only on the very ground on which she can claim to be recognised and sanctioned as a Church of Christ can she claim her right to spiritual independence in relation to the civil magistrate. 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 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 omit my testimony to any truth which my Church has abandoned. It has been said that this is not a practical question; that surely we don’t mean to say that there is any prospect of our claims to establishment and spiritual independence being acknowledged by the State. No, I have no such hope; but am I therefore to drop my testimony to the truth? Am I to cease to testify to the truth because I can reap no temporal gain thereby? Am I to cease to tell the civil magistrate his duty because he has ceased to feed me with his loaves and fishes? No: I feel all the more imperatively called to testify to that truth. I like the self-deniedness of the opportunity of this testifying for my Lord and Master, and no persuasion will drive me, I hope, from a position so honourable. I think that when the Lord gave us our position in 1843 he gave us a place of peculiar honour and eminence. I can conceive nothing nobler than the position which our Church occupied when she presented her claim of rights to the Government of this country, and at the same time expressed a resolution to receive no emoluments as the price of her liberty to serve
Christ alone. From that position let her not be moved until the Lord as distinctly call her to abandon, as He called her first to occupy it. That time has not yet come; that time shall never come. If she abandon that position, she has ceased to hold fast the truth which the Lord entrusted to her; and when she has ceased to do that, her crown shall be taken from her.
It has recently been said at a public meeting in this town that to make this matter an open question is no new thing; that there are open questions in our Church already; that there are allowed differences of opinion not a few; and that to make this matter an open question is only something to which we have been long accustomed. To this I answer, first — that the matters about which there is allowed difference of opinion among us now, are not to be compared in importance with that which it is proposed to make an open question. Second, that if there are differences of opinion among us it would be a more seemly work for the Church to be harmonising the views of her office-bearers and members, rather than adding to disagreement and differences. I answer, thirdly, that to allow differences of opinion, which casually arise among us, is a very different thing from constituting the Church on the basis of open questions. And what, friends, is to be the gain for making the sacrifice which we are asked to make? What is to be the benefit received for dropping our testimony in behalf of the crown rights of Christ as King of nations? The answer is — Union with other Churches. And what is the benefit of that Union? True, if it takes place the united Church will be greatly larger than the Free Church is now, and if bigness be a benefit then there will be some gain; but, for the life of me, I cannot see what other benefit than that will result. If we had not love enough among us to allow us to co-operate heartily in the work of the Lord before, is it likely when we are crowded together, bristling with open questions, that we shall get on better? If there are matters about which we differ, let these lie as open questions between us; do not bring them in among us to be sources of irritation and difference in years to come. We have more than enough of that already.
Instead of this being regarded as a desirable thing, I cannot refrain from stating it as my conviction that I fear our Church is too large already. I cannot but state my persuasion that we have more need of sifting than we have of heaping — and I would look on a movement that had a sifting effect as more likely in these times to be in accordance with the mind of God than a movement towards the agglomeration of Churches without unity in the truth. Is that army strong because its
wings have been thrown in upon its centre till all divisions, and distinctions of divisions, and regiments, have been blotted out, and you have a great united crowd? No; surely an enemy by skilful strategy has caused that union. He produces by fusion union, that by confusion he may bring weakness. That is the light in which I look upon the proposed Union of the Churches in the land in which we live. I see with alarm the continued progress of this movement. We are at this moment arrived at a most critical stage. The question sent down to Presbyteries is this — is there any objection in principle to the formation of this Union on the basis of the Standards as accepted by the Churches? Let us suppose that the majority of Presbyteries find that there is no objection, what will be the next step? I cannot tell; but I can tell what may be the next step. The Assembly of 1871 may form an overture based on this finding of the Presbyteries, and send it back to them in terms of the Barrier Act. Supposing the Presbyteries approve of that overture, the Assembly of 1872 may declare that there is no bar in principle to the formation of this incorporating Union. By doing so they will have settled the question of principle, and thereby altered and vitiated the constitution of our Church before the question of expediency is taken up at all.
We have thus arrived at a critical position, a time when we are required to count the cost wisely. I have for years been forecasting such a crisis, and I was afraid too that the skilful leadership on the other side would put us into the position of being subjected before the public to the odium of causing as well as to the pain of enduring a disruption. I know not what the result shall be, but I would just like to say, in conclusion, that when we speak of disruption, we speak of a most serious matter. I would be very far from taking any step that would seem to be courting such a calamity; but surely the leaders of our Church, by this time of day, and in the light that now shines on the question, must see that if they go on in the course they are pursuing, they must evidently cause a disruption. It is no justification of their conduct to say that they do not desire to separate from the brethren in the minority. We are not craving any innovation; we are not demanding anything which it is unconstitutional to grant us. We are continuing to occupy the good old ground. The change is on the other side; the pressure is brought to bear by them on us. And why this pressure? Is it because the new friends they are so anxious to get will prove so much better than the old friends they seem so anxious to lose? It may be so; but will it be said by any man that those who are constraining us to contemplate such a thing as a disruption, are any better than those they are constraining to leave them, in anything
that constitutes the true strength of a Church? And are they of opinion that they will get on far better without us, and that we never can get on without them? If they are, they are quite mistaken in both. Let them separate us from them, they will find no cause to rejoice in the work of their hands, and many names will haunt their memories and embitter their reflections, as they think of the men whom they have rudely severed from their communion. And we, if we be faithful to the truth, will find that a few, wielding the sword of the Lord, can be stronger than a multitude; and that, if our days of trial come, the God of truth and mercy will not leave nor forsake us.