THE subject of Union was under discussion at the General Assembly of the Free Church in 1870. As a result, the Assembly sent down an overture to the Presbyteries asking their opinion on the subject. In the Dingwall Free Presbytery the late Dr. Kennedy led against union on the ground of principle, and the late Rev. Mr. Macgregor, Ferintosh, on that of expediency. Dr. Kennedy moved a resolution, and delivered an able speech which we have pleasure in submitting to our readers. The motion was as follows:—
“The Presbytery having considered the two reports of the union committee, sent down by last Assembly, and observing that the Assembly specially requires the opinion of the Presbyteries on the question of principle, as distinguished from that of expediency, find that the reports do not evince the existence on the part of the Churches represented in the joint union committee of such unity in principle as would warrant the incorporating union of these Churches on the basis of the Westminster Confession, as accepted by the negotiating Churches.”
Dr. Kennedy had to express his regret at his utter inability to make due preparation for supporting this motion as he would like, and he hoped he might be able to be brief and intelligible. He believed they would all be agreed on these points—that it was not only desirable but right to attempt a corporate union, as well as a spiritual union, of all who are one in Christ, and who reside in the same province; that corporate unity is only desirable in so far as it is expressive of spiritual unity, of a common agreement in the truth; that there ought not to be an incorporating union of Churches unless it be distinctly ascertained previous to that union that on all important questions these Churches are thoroughly agreed; also, that if there be an ascertained difference of importance between the negotiating Churches, either in reference to matters comprehended under the first head of the programme, or in reference to the doctrines of grace, or in reference to the mode of supporting a gospel ministry, they would not be prepared to say that a union should be consummated. He thought they would further agree that if they as a Church abandoned the position which they now occupied, which they occupied at the outset on a clear call from God, they ought to abandon that distinctive position only when they had been as clearly called to abandon it as they were at first to occupy it. And yet, after agreeing on all these points, there still was abundant room for difference. According to his motion, the Presbytery were asked to find that there is not such an amount of agreement ascertained between the negotiating Churches as to warrant an incorporating union. In the motion that would hereafter be submitted on the other side, there were these three propositions—first, that they had sufficient evidence already before them—evidence sufficient as to the measure of the light it furnishes, and as to the authority which it carries with it; second, that they had, in the light of that evidence, warrant to conclude that the Churches are so agreed in principle that it would be wrong to remain in a state of separation; and thirdly, that, notwithstanding of that sufficient evidence, and of that fully ascertained agreement, and the consequent propriety of consummating the union, it was not expedient that that union should take place. To the first two propositions he answered no; as for the third, the question of expediency was not before them, and therefore it was not reasonable; and, of course, if they found that there was a barring principle to the formation of this union they were precluded from considering the question of expediency at all. If he were able to speak according to the evidence he had gathered, and the conclusions at which he had arrived, he would not find it difficult to prove, first, that in reference to the doctrine of the civil magistrate that there was a very marked and decided want of harmony between the negotiating Churches. They had, indeed, no authoritative evidence as to what the views of some of the negotiating Churches were, but taking the evidence at the value that some were disposed to attach to it, there was a most important difference in principle.
On the preliminary point, however, he would ask this—accepting the statements in the joint report, of what value were they further than that they expressed the opinions of the men who happened to be on the committee? The United Presbyterian Church had not homologated their views; the Presbyteries of that Church by a majority had refused to commit themselves to the opinions expressed in the report; indeed, they had even gone further, and had distinctly expressed their disapprobation of some views there embodied. Why, a partnership in any commercial business would not be entered on without the most distinct and explicit understanding previously on the part of those who were to unite in that partnership. (Hear, hear.) And surely in a case like this, when two Churches were to be incorporated in one body, when the interests of truth were at stake, and the position which the Lord had called each of them to occupy, and the honour of the Church’s Head, and the welfare of immortal souls were involved, there should be all the more careful scrutiny of the terms of their agreement. But taking the evidence as it stood, notwithstanding all the seeming concessions the two parties had made to one another, notwithstanding how much common ground they seemed to occupy, this was very manifest—that there was one thing which one of these Churches declared to be a duty on the part of the civil magistrate, and that same thing was declared by the other Church to be a sin. That was surely a very decided difference of opinion. It was very commonly said, however, that the matter was unimportant—that so much being conceded as to the subjection of the civil magistrate to Christ, and his duty to regulate his conduct by the word of God, the points of difference as to the province of the civil magistrate might safely be left an open question.
I think, continued Dr. Kennedy, if my memory does not fail me, and if my mind does not become confused, I shall give you six reasons why it is not legitimate for our Church to make that matter an open question. In the first place, that doctrine of Establishments is unmistakably and prominently a part of our Church’s testimony. I am not going to stay to prove this; I refer to a pamphlet which I have in my hand, in which I think that is thoroughly proved, and I rather wonder that an attempt should be made to show that it is not part of our Church’s testimony. If that be part of our Church’s testimony, of course we cannot abandon it without some good reason for so doing; and I cannot conceive what the case shall be in which our Church shall legitimately abandon a portion of her testimony, which she was called to hold forth in the face of all the world. Such a case may arise, but certainly it has not arisen yet; and surely if we are to abandon that part of our testimony, without it being altogether certain that the Lord calls upon us so to do, the very uncertainty makes it a sin. “He that doubteth is condemned if he eat.” If I have no doubt that the Lord called me to the place I fill, I must abide there till I am just as free of doubt as to the propriety of abandoning it. In the next place, it has always been the characteristic of the Church of Scotland that she was a patriotic Church. There was a nationalism, a Christian patriotism, ever characterising the Church of Christ in Scotland. (Hear, hear.) The Church aimed at two things—at getting the rulers of the country to acknowledge the government of Christ as ruler of the nations, and to acknowledge that government in the form of recognising, sanctioning, and establishing the Church of Christ in the land; and besides that it aimed at the evangelisation of the whole people of the country, and tried to bring all under the sound and influence of the glorious gospel. And I think it is abundantly manifest that if we enter into this union on the basis now proposed, we quit hold of both these elements of our Christian patriotism. We do what we can not only to sever this our land in the authority of its government from the crown of Christ, but we cast out of our hands the means with which God furnished us for evangelising the country throughout the whole of the poorest districts. In the third place, I cannot think of dropping this part of our Church’s testimony without so far dishonouring the Lord Jesus Christ. I would not like to speak too strongly, but I cannot speak less strongly with the views I hold of the bearing of this question on the honour of Christ. He is governor of the nations because He is the Head of the Church; and I cannot conceive of how it consists with the due recognition of Christ’s position as Governor of the nations to affirm that in the exercise of His authority as the Church’s Head He delegates a power to civil magistrates which they are to use without reference to His blood-bought Church, and which they are to exercise while ignoring that Church, and refraining in any way from stretching forth to it a helping hand. You may speak of this doctrine as a most impractical thing; but if it is a manifestation of the honour of Christ to any extent I would like to know what warrant in the whole book of God a Church can have for stinting her testimony to the glory of Christ, her Head. My fourth reason is this—and I would like to be explicit in stating it—I cannot conceive how a Church dropping her testimony in reference to the propriety of the State establishing the Church, can consistently present a claim for spiritual independence. On what ground does the Church claim spiritual independence? On this ground—not of its being a religious sect, not of its being one of a thousand religious denominations in the country, but on the ground that she is a Church of Christ; that in the hands of her office-bearers Christ has appointed a government distinct from that of the civil magistrate; and that to her, as a Church of Christ, from the civil magistrate as subject to Christ, it is due that freedom of action be acknowledged, and acknowledged on the ground of her being recognised as a Church of Christ, and therefore entitled to her spiritual independence. I ask how that claim can rightly be pleaded except on that ground, or how that claim to spiritual independence can be conceded, except on the ground of the Church being recognised and sanctioned as a Church of Christ by the civil magistrate. I wonder how little this is realised and seen. I am not to go out of my way, I hope, not now or at any time, to notice misrepresentations that have been given of previous statements of mine in reference to this. What I state now I stated before, and I repeat it, that the Church cannot, if she abandon her right to establishment, consistently plead her right to spiritual independence, and I insist again that no State can concede the right to spiritual independence without having virtually conceded the right to establishment. My fourth reason is that, instead of this question being a mere matter of theory, a thing that must remain in the misty region of impracticabilities, I do not know any question at this moment of more practical importance. The question of the day to Scotland is the question of education, and surely on that subject this matter of the civil ruler’s relation to religion and to the Church bears most directly and powerfully. Suppose we were now in the United Church, and that this doctrine were an open question, so far as Church action was concerned, we would be precluded from claiming at the hands of Government that religion in any form, and to any extent, should be taught in our schools. I will be told that the Voluntaries must not be charged with wishing to keep the Bible out of the national schools. I am not charging them with that, but I charge them with this—that they will not allow the Government of this country by direct action, or through the intervention of School Boards, to introduce the Word of God into the national schools. (Hear, hear.) In the one case, as well as in the other, they hold it to be unlawful. The United Presbyterian Education Committee declare very distinctly that the introduction in a roundabout sort of way by local boards of the Bible into schools was just as objectionable as its introduction by the direct action of Government; and are we in prospect of such a measure as that with such tremendous issues involved, to tie up our hands or prevent our voices being heard on behalf of the introduction of the Word of God into our national schools by the Government of the country? We ought to stand where we are, at any rate until that question is thoroughly settled; and I am persuaded of this, that if that question is once settled we will find another question on the back of that, and another question on the back of that again, of national importance, requiring that we should be free to tell to the rulers of our country what their duty is to the religion, and Word, and Church of Christ. Besides these reasons I have another, and in stating it I would like to refrain from saying anything personal. I think I have refrained from that hitherto. I do not like that sort of thing, and I am resolved to bear with great equanimity all the personal things that can be brought against myself. I don’t like them, but I bear them, and because I don’t like them myself I would not wish to inflict them upon another. This is what I was going to say—that Voluntaryism in its origin appears to me not a very likeable thing. I would not like to yield to any prejudice against that “ism,” or any ism whatever, and if I know myself I certainly do not think I am disposed ignorantly to cling to any ism of any kind. But I do not like Voluntaryism. Not only because of the dishonour I see involved in it to Christ, as King of nations, but because of what I know as to its origin. It is not a very old thing this Voluntaryism, but it is an ism to which every disestablished Church is liable, and our far sighted Chalmers saw this very early. I would like to read the passage, because what he then dreaded is, I fear, now in process of being realised. (Dr. Kennedy read the passage of which the following is a part):—”Beware of compromising another, of your doctrines or articles of faith, and in the defence of which the Church of Scotland did lately signalise herself—even the authority of Christ over the kings and governments of earth, and the counterpart duty of those governments to uphold religion in the world. Beware, we say, of making any compromise or surrender of this your other principle, and this, too, to gain countenance of those who may still be called men in power—that is, who, if they have not the power of authority and office, have at least the power of numbers on their side. This may be termed a less principle than the other—of inferior consideration in itself, and inferior consequence to the vital or spiritual well-being of Christ’s Church upon earth. But let us not forget what the Bible says of those who break even the least of the commandments—that they shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. The men who stand opposed to us on this second—or, as many choose to term it—this secondary question, might, with all the hay and stubble and wood of this, and, it may be of other errors, be reposing on the like precious foundation with ourselves. They might be men with whom we differ, and yet with whom we can agree to differ. They might be coadjutors in the great work of evangelising the people of our land—brethren with whom we can hold sweet and profitable counsel on the ‘Capita Fidei,’ or weightier matters of the law, having one faith, and one Lord, and one baptism. But we shall not, even for their friendship, violate the entireness of our principles, or make surrender of the very least of them.”
Now, Moderator, did time permit I think it would not be difficult to show that the union now proposed does involve a surrender of that principle. But we are all, as disestablished Churches, prone to hold this truth loosely. We look over much at the question of establishments under the golden aspect of endowments. We are very apt to look at everything in the most tangible and practical form, and if a Church is more compelled in conscience to surrender endowments, and at the same time sees these endowments enjoyed by others whom she regards as at least not very worthy of them, she is very apt, if I might so speak, to take a dislike to endowments altogether, and to run up from the existing form to the theory. I was just thinking that Voluntaryism crept in very much in the way that the fox discovered that the grapes on the top branches of the vine were sour. He tried to reach them again and again, and he failed, and though they were the best grapes on the vine, he comforted himself for his disappointment by giving them a bad name. (Laughter.) And he would have been all the more disposed to say so if he had seen a squirrel enjoying the feast which he himself had failed to reach. (Applause.) Now, I cannot but think that disestablished churches see endowments enjoyed by others in much the same way, and I believe that was the state of feeling in regard to the Church of this country when the wild wave of revolution passed over it, and found in that state of feeling a soil in which the political sentiment very easily took root, and I look on Voluntaryism as the ecclesiastical expression of the revolutionary feeling.
Dr. Kennedy then referred to the question of the Atonement, his views on which have repeatedly been published. He holds that the doctrine of the double reference leads practically to the doctrine of double substitution and universal grace, and that in uniting with the United Presbyterian Church, they would be taking a step towards Arminianism. Lastly he did not like to see the Sustentation Fund endangered, for he approved highly of its principle; it was the common stock of the Church’s one body, and out of it the ministers of that body drew share and share alike.
Mr. Campbell, Kiltarn, seconded the motion.