THE BASIS OF UNION.
WE now intend to examine the basis of union, proposed between the Free and U.P. Churches, and approved of by their supreme courts. This basis was sent down by the last Free Assembly to the Presbyteries for their consideration and approval, and will be discussed by these courts ere the Assembly meets next year. It is almost unnecessary to say that a very important matter stands to be weighed not only by church courts, but by every thinking individual within the pale of the Free Church. A momentous step is about to be taken, a step which will obliterate in this connection the Free Church of Scotland for ever. No doubt, as was said in a former article, she became a new body when the Declaratory Act was passed in 1892, a body akin to the U.P. in principles. She retained, however, the name, outward organisation, and, in a sense, the historical connection of the Church of 1843. Now all this is to pass away, and her identity is to be wholly lost in that of another Church whose distinctive principles are quite alien to hers. For the sake of a mere accession of numbers, she is to enter into a union that despoils her for ever of all connection with the name, the glory, the testimony, yea, the very being of the Church of Scotland Free.
The general principle which underlies the new basis of union is one of open questions. Every individual that accepts it makes an open question of fundamental doctrines of the faith, doctrines for which our covenanting forefathers shed their blood. The martyrs of Scotland exalted Christ as king of nations as well as king of Zion, and the fathers of the U.P. Church (who were not the Erskines), renounced the glorious testimony of the martyrs in this and other important points. It is announced in the new Uniting Act that members of each Church are at liberty to maintain their own views of truth. This may be so in appearance, but not in reality. All views that do not form the basis of union must be kept in the back ground, if there is to be any union at all. The Constitutionalists may hold in the privacy of his own heart, and may advocate from his own pulpit the Establishment principle, but that principle has been cast out of his Church’s creed, and, therefore, he cannot insist upon anybody holding it. In the church courts he is bound to administer to candidates for office certain new questions that commit these candidates to nothing more than the principles of Voluntaryism, and he has no power in this sphere to advocate the Establishment principle. He is thus, in fact, compelled to renounce it; he may not do so in words, but he most certainly does so by his acts. It is utterly vain, therefore, to say, as is said in the new Uniting Act, that “members and representatives of either of the two Churches” “shall have full right, as they see cause, to assert and maintain the views of truth and duty with which” these Churches “have been specially identified, and which have been expressed in their public documents.” This is only a subtle subterfuge to retain the presence and influence of some parties, especially of the Constitutional party in the Free Church. It is lamentable to observe that the latter seem to be quite ensnared by the Jesuitical provision above supplied for the retention of their views.
Let us now go on to notice the changes that are to be made in the questions put to office-bearers on taking office in the Church. The first thing we observe is the new preamble, to be printed at the head of the questions, and publicly read when they are put:—
It is hereby declared that the following questions are put in view of Act 1647 approving of the Confession of Faith; Act XII., 1846, of the Free Church of Scotland; Declaratory Act, 1879, of the United Presbyterian Church; and Act XII., 1892, with relative Act of 1894, of the Free Church.
It is also hereby declared that the documents referred to in question No. 4, and there named for brevity the Claim of Right of 1842, the Protest of 1843, and the Basis of Union of 1847, are respectively the “Claim, Declaration, and Protest adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1842,” and the “Protest of ministers and elders, commissioners from Presbyteries to the General Assembly, read in presence of the Royal Commissioner on 18th May, 1843,” and the “Basis of Union adopted by the Synod of the United Presbyterian Church on 13th May, 1847.”
In this preamble, we notice that the questions are to be put in view of the Declaratory Acts of the U.P. and Free Churches. The standards of the United Church are to be modified by these Acts, so that no one is asked to accept any views but such as are to be found in, or are consistent with, the erroneous Acts of 1879 and 1892. Again, the U.P. Basis of Union of 1847 is to be one of the Church’s subordinate standards. The U.P. Church is a collection of fragments that seceded from the Church of Scotland, and from the Original Secession Church, and united into one body in 1847. They were Voluntaryists that could not find rest for their feet in the Established Church or in the Church of the Erskines, and therefore had to form themselves into a new Church. Their Basis of Union is now to be accepted as a doctrinal standard by the Free Church.
The next thing to be examined is the Questions themselves in their changed form. All are not interfered with, but the greater number are. We select some:—
Old Question 1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and the only rule of faith and manners?
New Question 1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and the only rule of faith and life?
Here the changes are slight, and do not interfere with the sense. But we cannot help saying: what an awful mockery it is for many in the Free Church who do not believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God to answer this question in the affirmative! The leading theological professors treat the Scriptures as if they were nothing more than the fallible word of erring men, and the majority of the ministers follow the professors.
Old Question 2. Do you sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approved by former General Assemblies of this Church, to be founded upon the Word of God, and do you acknowledge the same as the confession of your faith; and will you firmly and constantly adhere thereto, and to the utmost of your power assert, maintain, and defend the same, and the purity of worship at present practised in this Church?
New Question 2. Do you sincerely own and believe the doctrine of this Church, set forth in the Confession of Faith, approved by Acts of General Synods and Assemblies; do you acknowledge the said doctrine as expressing the sense in which you understand the Holy Scriptures; and will you constantly maintain and defend the same, and the purity of worship in accordance therewith?
It is clearly manifest that this new question does not commit anyone to “the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith:” it only commits the person who answers to “the doctrine of this Church, set forth in the Confession.” Where is that doctrine to be found? Just in the recent Declaratory Acts of both Churches. It is well known that “this doctrine”—being of an Arminian, Popish, and Voluntary character—is quite opposed to that of the Confession, and so it is impossible to find it set forth in that document. The significance of this question is, however, that office-bearers are not committed to anything in the Confession inconsistent with the doctrine of both Churches, as already declared in their public Acts; this is but a very small portion of the Confession indeed. Again, it is to be observed that the Bible is to get a subordinate place in the United Church. The insinuation is made that there may be several senses put upon the Holy Scriptures. The United Churchman is asked to acknowledge the doctrine of his Church as “the sense” in which he understands the Scriptures. There appears here the Popish error that the Church is the judge of the Scriptures. Indeed, this is the view that has plain expression in the last clause of the Declaratory Act of 1892. None need be surprised to find it here. Lastly, the words anent purity of worship have been changed. It is not the purity of worship approved of at the Disruption that office-bearers are now asked to maintain, but that kind of worship that is in accordance with the present doctrine of the Church. This, of course, asks all to acknowledge hymns and instrumental music as proper elements in worship. The United Churchman, whether he be an adherent of the Constitutional party, the Rainy party, or the U.P. party, will have to acknowledge by his reply to this question all the latest innovations in the public worship of God.
We hope to resume the subject in next number.