AS we believe there still exists, in many quarters, much ignorance as to the exact nature of the doctrinal views embodied in the Free Church Declaratory Act of 1892, we purpose to give, in part at least, in this article, an explanatory criticism of the Act, clause by clause, in as brief a manner as the extent and importance of the subject will allow. Before doing so, we make a few observations in regard to the affirmed necessity for a Declaratory Act. We find that it has been widely proclaimed by speech and pen that a Declaratory Act was necessary for the good of the Church, as many persons had difficulty in taking office, because of certain expressions of doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith. It is very apparent, however, to all observers that the present age is distinguished for great laxity of opinion on religious subjects in general, and that men, from lack of reverence to any authority in heaven or earth, but their own narrow reason, are ready to kick against all fixed doctrinal standards even though these should be clearly supported by the unerring Word of God. We, therefore, maintain that if ever there was a time in which it was necessary to hold forth in clear and uncompromising terms the great unchanging and unchangeable doctrines of the Word of God as embodied in the Confession, the time is now. Instead of this, the Free Church, in order to please the fickle tastes of carnal men has traitorously lowered the standard of accepted truth, and weakened down the saving doctrines of the Gospel, so that they shall be powerless for any spiritual good to this or future generations. Instead of a Declaratory Act in favour of the weak and erroneous doctrines of Arminianism, we as a generation stood much more in need of an Act that would give forth a bold and unflinching testimony for the strong and life-giving doctrines of Calvinism. When the enemy comes in like a flood, it is not to adopt his standard that the Spirit of the Lord leads the true Church, but to raise a standard against him. At the Disruption of 1843, great popular interest was aroused in the doctrine of Christ’s headship over His Church. The rights of the Christian people to choose their own pastors were interfered with by the State. The whole body of the people rose as one man to shake off the fetter of patronage. But what has happened now? We have fallen into such a low condition that the greatest apathy prevails even when the very life-blood of the Church—those doctrines with which are bound up the salvation of immortal souls—is being filched away. People complain they do not understand the doctrines of the Declaratory Act; but if they were truly exercised as to the foundation of their hope for eternity, they would know the difference between a false and a true doctrinal foundation.
We now proceed to consider the Declaratory Act of 1892 in its various sections. The Act opens as follows:—”Whereas it is expedient to remove difficulties and scruples which have been felt by some in reference to the declaration of belief required from persons who receive licence or are admitted to office in this Church, the General Assembly, with consent of Presbyteries, declare as follows:—I. That, in holding and teaching, according to the Confession, the divine purpose of grace toward those who are saved, and the execution of that purpose in time, (a) this Church most earnestly proclaims, as standing in the forefront of the revelation of grace, the love of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to sinners of mankind, manifested especially in the Father’s gift of the Son to be the Saviour of the world, in the coming of the Son to offer Himself a propitiation for sin, and in the striving of the Holy Spirit with men to bring them to repentance.”
The preamble of the Act sets forth that it was framed to “remove difficulties and scruples which have been felt by some in reference to the declaration of belief required” from candidates for office in the Church. The Confession of Faith is a document of almost unparalleled merit for lucidity and fulness of doctrinal statement, and there is not the slightest doubt that the difficulties and scruples referred to have arisen, not from any ambiguity or obscurity in the Confession, but from the natural opposition of the human heart to the gospel truths therein contained. In this assertion we are borne out by the kind of objections that have been raised during recent years to the Confession and also by the character of the remedy provided in this Act to remove these objections.
The Act, instead of casting light upon the doctrines of the Confession, does its best to shroud them in obscure and ambiguous language. The language, however, while tending to obscure the Calvinism of the Confession, is a fit vehicle for expressing the doctrines of Arminianism. The remedy that has thus been provided for difficulties and scruples is more dangerous than the disease. Truth is the only cure for difficulties. If error becomes the cure the individual is in a worse case than ever. That this is the nature of the remedy provided in the Declaratory Act will appear in the course of our exposition. After the preamble, the first topics treated of are the sovereignty and love of God. These are included under the first three paragraphs of the Act, one of which we have given above. In this paragraph the framers have divorced “the purpose” from “the love” of God. They announce that in holding and teaching the purpose of grace “this Church most earnestly proclaims, as standing in the forefront of the revelation of grace, the love of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to sinners of mankind.” The love of God to sinners of mankind is represented as something distinct from, and something more prominent than the purpose of grace. Now we find that no such distinction is observed in Scripture. The purpose of grace and the love of God have reference to the same objects. It is they whom God the Father “predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son that He might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. viii. 29) whom, in the language of the Apostle John, He also loved. “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God.”—(1 John iii. 1). The purpose of grace in predestination and the love of God have reference to the same blessings to be conferred and the same objects for whom these blessings are destined. The intention of the framers of the Act was evidently to hide the decree of predestination as much as possible out of view, and to bring to the front the love of God as something more attractive in the eyes of men.
It is further evident that the love of God, of which the Act speaks, is not that love which actually stands in the forefront of the revelation of grace. The love of God, which stands in the forefront of the revelation of grace, is not His universal benevolence to His creatures, whereby He makes the sun to shine and the rain to fall upon the evil and the good. It is a love certainly to sinners, but it is a love to those who were “chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.” It is the electing love of God which stands on the forefront of divine revelation. This is a love which He bears to special objects, not in virtue of any merit in them—for they equally with all others have none—but solely of His free good pleasure. We are told in Eph. v. 25 that “Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it.” It was the same love which was in the Son that was in the Father, and this love had special reference to the Church for whom, and not for all men, He gave Himself. We regard it therefore a serious deviation, not only from the doctrine of the Confession, but also from that of the Word of God, to declare any love as standing in the forefront of the revelation of grace but the sovereign and electing love of God. It is quite evident, from further expressions in the Act, that it is a universal love to sinners of which it speaks, for the Act goes on to say that this love is “manifested especially in the Father’s gift of the Son to be the Saviour of the world.” The emphasis in this clause rests upon the word “especially,” which we have italicised. The use of this word clearly implies that the love spoken of is manifested in other ways besides in the Father’s gift of the Son. In a word, the gift of the Son, which the Scriptures as in Rom. viii. 32, 33 evidently declare as proceeding from the Father’s love to the elect, is set forth as proceeding from God’s general love or goodness to mankind. This latter is a doctrine which has no foundation in Scripture, but seriously affects the whole scheme of redemption as revealed. We further take strong exception to the use of the expression “the Saviour of the world.” This expression is quite scriptural in itself, but as it stands in the Act it lacks its context. The immediate context and the analogy of Scripture explain to what extent the expression “world” may be taken—namely, not to all men, but to men in every age and country of the world, irrespective of rank or moral character. Common sense further tells us that the Lord Jesus is not the actual Saviour of the whole world, for many who heard the Gospel will be found on the left hand at last. The use of the expression, however, as it appears in the Act clearly implies that we are to take the words literally, as no explanation is appended. This gives the false impression that the Father gave the Son, not to be the Saviour of the elect only, but of the world at large.
The next clause confirms our belief in the Arminian character of this section of the Act. The love of God the Father is said to be manifested “in the coming of the Son to offer Himself a propitiation for sin.” We have here again the use of the general word “sin,” which, being given without any explanation such as the context of Scripture affords, we are fully warranted in understanding as inclusive of all sin whatsoever. On the atonement of Christ, for the Church or the elect only, the Scriptures are very explicit. He “loved the Church and gave Himself for it.” “The Church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” “Who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity.”—(Titus ii. 14). The latter verse clearly proves that He gave Himself for special individuals, not to procure merely possibility of redemption, but actually to redeem them from all iniquity. Such passages set forth that Christ died only for the elect. The statement of the Act in the use of the word “sin,” sets aside these passages, and practically affirms a universal atonement. But the last clause of this section of the Act proves, as clear as noonday, that the love spoken of is universal in its character. The love of God the Holy Spirit is said to be especially manifested “in the striving of the Holy Spirit with men to bring them to repentance.” This is so plainly contradictory to the teaching of Scripture that it almost refutes itself. In Titus iii. 4-6 the love of God is declared to appear, not in striving, but “in the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” The goodness of the Spirit appears in His striving with sinners, but His love, beyond all contradiction, is manifested in the work of regeneration. He strives, and yet men perish for ever in their sins. But when He regenerates the soul He applies the redemption purchased by Christ, and the sinner is saved with an everlasting salvation. Herein verily is the love of the Spirit especially manifested. It is quite apparent that the love of the Holy Spirit, according to the Act, is a general and not a special love. If He loves all with whom He strives then He loves all who hear the Gospel, many of whom are lost for ever. But that He loves all men is plainly at variance with the Word of God and general experience, for if that were so He would regenerate and save all.
In concluding our observations in this section of the Act, we point out that the love of the Spirit as here spoken of sheds light upon the way in which we are to view the love of the Father and of the Son, as stated in the preceding clauses. The love of each person in the Godhead must necessarily be equal in strength, for the Three Persons are the same in substance equal in power and glory. The love revealed in Scripture is the love of one God, and, therefore, the same in each Person of the Godhead. If, therefore, the love of the Spirit amounts only to an ineffectual striving with men, and does not absolutely secure the salvation of any, then the love of the Father and of the Son is of the same character. The love of God, therefore, as stated in this Act is not a love unto salvation. It is simply a mere sentiment of goodwill that does not secure the salvation of any one in particular. The whole result depends upon some act on the part of the sinner, so that salvation, according to this theory, is of man and not of God. To show that the love of God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost is a love that infallibly secures the salvation of its objects, we need only point our readers to passages already quoted. The love of the Father is revealed in Eph. i. 4, as choosing sinners to Christ that “they should be holy and without blame before Him in love,” the love of the Son in Eph. v. 25, as giving Himself for the Church, “that He might sanctify and cleanse it,” and the love of the Spirit in Titus iii. 5, is spoken of as “the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” The soul that lays hold of any other love for salvation than this electing, redeeming, and renewing love embraces a delusion, and not the sure foundation laid in Zion. What serious consequences such delusive teaching as is contained in this Act has upon men’s minds we shall not at present enlarge upon.
THINK not because thou can’st not reach God with thy short stump, that He cannot reach thee with His long arm. Oh! the length of the saving arm of God.—Bunyan.
How long He knocks; the arm that has knocked for six thousand years aches not yet, nor will cease to knock till all be His, and the tribes in ones and twos be over Jordan and up with Him in the good land.—Rutherford.