(To the Editor of the F. P. Magazine.)
DEAR SIR,—Many of us have been attending with considerable interest to what has been going on in the General Assemblies that met in Edinburgh in the month of May. The times we live in move rapidly, and one does not need to live long to see many strange things.
In writing you at present, however, I do not mean to occupy time and space in dealing with these strange things. Some things have taken place that we might have looked forward to, and one of these is the movement of the Free Church in the direction of union with the United Presbyterians. Of course, you and our friends and readers know something of the negotiations that were being carried on from 1863 to 1873 between the two bodies. Some of us remember these things, and others of us have made ourselves acquainted with the facts by reading. When these negotiations were being carried on they were participated in by another Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and though nothing in the way of an incorporating union took place between the two large bodies—that, in fact, has not yet taken place—yet the result of these proceedings was the union of the majority of the R.P. Synod and the Free Church in 1876. A protesting minority of the Cameronians, as the R.P.’s are more frequently called, continued on their old ground, and refused to compromise their principles. The majority, however, of the body fell into rank with the Free Church. As far as their distinctive principles and position as Cameronians are concerned they have disappeared, and you would not distinguish one of their congregations from its F.C. neighbour by anything unless by the fact that once or twice a year its ministers, and possibly an elder too, attend a kind of tulchan Synod. This secures to them the possession of the churches and manses, but their principles are given to the wild winds to play with.
If, however, the Cameronians departed from their principles in their uniting with the Free Church, the Free Church in a sense shifted her position to accommodate them. Give and take is the favoured policy in modern church tactics, and this change of position enabled Dr. Rainy to hold in last Assembly of the Free Church that the Free Church is not now the Free Church of the Disruption. Should nothing else be presented in way of proof of this assertion, this of itself suffices that the R.P.’s are now united to them.
Of course, we have no difficulty in allowing that the F.C. is no longer the Church of Scotland Free. For why, it has forsaken its original position so patently, that only current use and common courtesy suffer us to call it by the name it gets. The occasion of our taking up a separate position was the passing of the Declaratory Act of 1892, by which the relation of the Church to its standards was vitally affected. The view we then took of the nature and aim of the Declaratory Act has been fully justified by the events of the past five years. We do not intend to review these events at present for proving this. It should be amply proved by the position now taken upon the matter of union with the U.P.’s: were no other proof forthcoming, this of itself should suffice for any unprejudiced mind.
We held that the Declaratory Act struck at the very constitution of our Church: that it altered that constitution in matters neither few nor unimportant, and that it laid the standard of doctrinal soundness at the feet of each successive General Assembly. For them it was to declare what did and what did not enter into the substance of the Reformed Faith as set forth in the Church’s symbols. Everything that the Assembly in its wisdom or unwisdom should decide to be a matter not affecting the substance of the Faith—and that itself is vague enough—was to be an open question. This Act was a masterstroke of policy. It laid the constitution of the Church at the feet of a majority determined to trample it under foot, and then all barriers were removed from effecting union with any body or bodies the Church chose.
But all this is well known to you, Mr. Editor, and your readers are quite aware of it too; only we should like to direct your attention to the connection between the hazy, dim constitution of the Free Church as it now is and union negotiations past and present.
When the Free Church and the U.P.’s were negotiating before 1873, it came out clearly that if a union was to be consummated between the two bodies various open questions must be allowed, and the standards lowered on more points than one. It was also evident that a solid minority, comprising many of the ablest and most honoured men in the Free Church, in the event of union, would refuse to become parties to it. The case, further, had a legal aspect, in event of any resolute Free Churchman adhering uncompromisingly to Free Church principles, and refusing all inducements to follow the majority of their brethren in uniting with the U.P.’s, a certain amount of property could be claimed by them, and not only claimed but kept.
The union did not come off. Which of these hindrances kept it back, or whether all together blocked the way, we need not determine. The fact is, the union negotiations were dropped in 1873. The union party, however, did not rest satisfied with this result, and some of its leaders felt, as they said, that this was the great disappointment of their lives. They were resolute men, and were not to be baulked by trifles. A disestablishment crusade soon gave vent to their energy, and various projects were carried on with the end of securing as much property as possible under the Model Trust Deed. Such property, we suppose, they would count on as safely their own, and in no danger of slipping out of their grasp. The standard bearers of Free Church principles in their purity meanwhile passed away one after another. A puny race of weaklings succeeded them. Is union now any nearer? Why, yes, two of the considerations that stood in its way before have now, in whole or in part, been removed, and is the third to be left unremoved? Can no way be devised to get over the matter of open questions?
Let us see how the stream of tendencies in the Church helps the matter. Laxness in creed subscription is fast becoming the order of the day, yet there is a sense of the incongruity of this lurking in the breast of those who practise it. So a movement is originated, and kept going, to consider how far this incongruity may be removed. A committee is appointed to see to the Church’s relation to its Confession. The committee sits and deliberates, and produces a Declaratory Act. This Act is passed into Church law under the Barrier Act, and it secures that there shall be open questions recognised.
The way is now paved for union. The differences have been toned down. They have been smoothed away. When this took place the distinctive position of the Free Church was forsaken. That was the testing time for Free Church principles. Those who could continue with the majority now, with the remodelled constitution, could have no consistent objections to union with a church occupying the same position with themselves. In fact, the question for them to consider now is, What cause can be shown why union should not be proceeded with immediately? Why should we not unite? Suppose the Churches now continue separate, is there no schism, or spirit of schism, shown? Undoubtedly there is, and union as soon as possible is the only justification of the present position of both Churches. Let it be granted that there are some points in which one of the two Churches may outrun the other. Yet when they combine, their joint tradition, will stretch back on the one side to 1879, on the other to 1892. Certainly, on these terms, the burden of church tradition to be borne by the members of the Union Church will not be heavy.
But a certain number of anti-unionists have remained in the Free Church, and what of their position? It is inconsistent out and out. If they tolerate willingly or unwillingly open questions within their own borders nothing more will be the case if they and the U.P.’s are one body. The U.P.’s will not ask the number of open questions to be increased; it is sufficiently large already.
Now, in bringing forward his union motion, Dr. Rainy deprecated the idea that it was a step in the direction of disestablishment. With what measure of sincerity this was done by him we need not enquire. His account of the matter is that years will pass after the union before the united Church will be sufficiently one to present a united front to the Established Church. His hope, however, is that such a front will eventually be shown, and thus the union will contribute to the solidarity of the liberation movement.
This explanation of his, however, is very flimsy. Both parties are agreed in the matter of disestablishment, and why should they be less at one on the matter after union than they are now? Will not their union show that on a new established basis it is possible to have a united Church of Scotland? This they will employ as an argument in favour of disestablishment, that after the Established Church is done away with it may quietly fall into rank with the voluntary organisations that did its best to secure its fall. Possibly, however, Dr. Rainy meant that the ministers of the united Church will be so engrossed with internal questions for some years that an outward agitation led by them on a national scale in favour of disestablishment cannot be conducted. Even though this could be conducted, we fail to see how it would impress the people of the country, or help to secure the result aimed at. People generally resent clerical interference in politics, and the disestablishment crusade is very generally regarded as only a move prompted by jealousy, and some similar inferior motives.
In writing you at present, Mr. Editor, I purposed to touch on some things that were neither strange nor unexpected, and before concluding I may refer to one other. Some ex-champions of constitutionalism, we need not name any names, have been following the swine downhill. Their downward progress began sometime ago, and once a stone starts properly on a downhill journey it gathers force as it goes. The swine of old went down till the waters of the lake received them. Let us hope that this will not be the course of some of our old friends. There are various other points I should like to direct your attention to, and possibly I may have an opportunity at an early date of discussing the manoeuvre by which Mr. Macaskill fell into Dr. Rainy’s arms, Mr Macaskill’s use of Dr. Begg’s name, and some other things. In the meantime, and with sincere desire that our own body will be kept faithful to our testimony, to our principles, to our Lord.— I am, yours, &c. J. M.