The opening services of this Assembly were conducted, on Tuesday, the 21st May, by the Rev. Colin A. Bannatyne, Colter, the retiring Moderator, who preached from 1 Cor. iv. 4, “He that judgeth me is the Lord.” At the close of the sermon the Assembly was duly constituted by prayer. The roll of the Court was then read. Afterwards the Assembly proceeded to the election of a moderator. Rev. Mr. Bannatyne moved that the Rev. James D. MacCulloch, Glasgow, be appointed moderator. Major Greig seconded the nomination. Mr. MacCulloch was then escorted to the chair by the leading ministers and elders of the Church, and was welcomed by the retiring Moderator. He then delivered an able address in which he answered the charge that had been made against them by their opponents of the United Free body, namely, of “playing at the Free Church,” and set forth their claim to be the genuine representatives of the Church of the “Disruption.” Towards the close of his address he referred to the questions of numbers and property, and said “What had numbers and what had money and prospects to do in the matter? Were they commanded to follow only where the multitude led, or devote their service where it secured the handling of money? Numbers, wealth, property had their advantages, and they might be very great, but alas for them, if the time should ever come when they should say of numbers, or of riches, or of property, “These be thy Gods, O Israel!” (Applause.)
On the 22nd, the Rev. John K. Cameron, Assembly Clerk, submitted the report of the Committee on Bills. It contained, among other things, a petition from the office-bearers, members, and adherents in the Congregation of Tongue, pointing out that they had been deprived of the regular ministrations of a pastor since their former minister entered the United Free Church. They petitioned that Mr. John Macdonald, who had acted as missionary of the Church with great acceptance, should be settled as Free Church minister there. The petition was signed by 334 persons, and was backed up by a strong recommendation from the Presbytery of Dornoch. The Rev. John Noble, Lairg, on behalf of the Presbytery, said that he had found the whole population practically unanimous in the matter of the petition, and not only unanimous but enthusiastic.
Mr. Archibald Macneilage, Glasgow (elder), moved an overture anent the appointment of a committee on public questions. In his speech he dealt with the matters of Sabbath observance, Romanism, and Ritualism, and Disestablishment. In regard to Ritualism, he referred to the deputation of Presbyterian ministers who waited on the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church, the successors of Laude and Sharpe, asking them to ordain a day of prayer for re-union. Rev. J. Macleod, Glasgow, seconded the approval of the overture, which was agreed to.
The general treasurer submitted the report on finance and membership. As to finance, the total receipts were £3,901, and the disbursements, £2,414, leaving a balance of £148 in hand. The sustentation fund amounted to £2,830, out of which 25 ministers had received for the half-year, £1,950. As to statistics, the number of congregations he had received contributions from was 81. There were, according to the incomplete statistics returned to him, 260 elders, 139 deacons, 4,008 members, 27,000 adherents, 251 Sabbath school teachers, and 2,110 scholars. Mr. Macneilage moved the adoption of the report, which was seconded by the Rev. N. Campbell, Creich, supported by Mr. Hay Thorburn, and adopted.
A report on home missions was also submitted.
At a later diet Mr. W. R. Brown submitted a special report on the sustentation fund. He showed that each of the ministers had received on 1st November, 1900, £75, and on 1st May, there was paid to each of them the balance of £85, required to make up a dividend for the year of £160, but from this the committee deducted as usual the premium of £7 to the widows’ and orphans’ fund. An amendment to the deliverance was moved by Mr. Macneilage, and seconded by Mr. Hay Thorburn, to the effect that there be paid to each minister an additional £7 as a contribution to the widows’ and orphans’ fund. This was agreed to, and the deliverance was adopted.
Mr. W. R. Brown submitted the report of the committee on foreign missions. The Church, he said, had found itself for the moment not in actual touch with any mission. All the foreign missionaries had preferred to attach themselves to the larger denomination. The Assembly’s deliverance included a proposal to grant the sum of £90 as a contribution to the mission of the United Original Secession Church at Seoni, India, and the sum of £21 as a contribution to the Zenana missions at the same place. In regard to Jewish missions, it authorised the committee to consider the propriety of still devoting the money at its command to the same fields, or should the committee so resolve, to some other work among the Jews. The Assembly rejoiced that new circumstances did not necessitate any change of attitude towards the Livingstonia mission, and they urged upon the committee to do its utmost to continue and to increase the Church’s support of the work which is under the care of Dr. Laws. Rev. N. Campbell seconded the deliverance, and the Assembly was addressed on the Seoni missions by the Rev. Thomas Matthews, Kilwinning, a deputy from the O.S. Church, and on the Jewish missions by the Rev. D. Maclean, Moy.
On the 22nd, the Rev. Colin A. Bannatyne, presented an overtur from the Synod of Lothian and Tweedale, on the subject of the Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill. He moved, “That whereas by the passing of the second reading of the Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill by the House of Lords a critical stage in this matter has been reached, and whereas the Church has for long protested against this assault upon the requirements of the divine law and the Confession of Faith, it is overtured by the Assembly that they take this whole matter into their serious consideration and devise such measures regarding it as may tend to promote the glory of God and the good of the Church.” The deliverance was agreed to, and the matter was remitted to the Committee.
The second overtur was also presented by the Rev. Mr. Bannatyne, and came from the same Synod. It related to the King’s Protestant Declaration. Mr. Hay Thorburn, seconded the adoption of the overture. Mr. W. R. Brown moved a resolution on the subject to the following effect:—”That the Assembly viewed with concern, though not with surprise, the recent outcry for an alteration of the terms of the Declaration of adherence to Protestant Reformed Religion required from the Sovereign on the accession to the Throne. The Assembly was persuaded that the object aimed at was the entire removal of that constitutional guarantee of the Protestant monarchy; and that the Assembly was of opinion that the Declaration should be left unaltered.” Mr. Brown’s resolution was agreed to.
At a later diet, Mr. Macneilage submitted a verbal report on the Monthly Record, which, he said, had up till last night no official connection with the Church. Rev. Angus Galbraith, Lochalsh, moved a deliverance declaring the Assembly’s appreciation of the manner in which the Record had been conducted, thanking the editor for his services, and deciding to take over the Record as a Church publication under the management of the following Committee:—Rev. Mr. Bannatyne, Rev. Mr. M’Culloch, Mr. Macneilage (convener), and Major Greig. Rev. Ewen Macleod, Oban, seconded, and the deliverance was agreed to.
The moderator, as convener, submitted the report of the Highlands and Islands Committee. The deliverance was approved.
On Friday, the 24th, the clerk (Rev. J. K. Cameron), intimated that four overtures had been transmitted to the Assembly from the Synod of Ross, the Presbytery of Dingwall, the Presbytery of Chanonry, and the Synod of Glenelg. These overtures related to the Declaratory Act of 1892, and other legislation of the past. They were all, he said, in somewhat similar terms, the following being the overture from the Synod of Ross:—”That whereas, the General Assembly had of late years passed Acts, of which the Declaratory Act of 1892 is one, against the wishes of a protesting minority, who now form the Free Church of Scotland; whereas these Acts, though regarded by the majority as merely relieving Acts, affected unfavourably the purity of worship in the Church and relaxed office bearers’ adherence to the standards of the Church, and whereas the tendency of the times demand that the Church’s testimony for the truth should be free from all ambiguity, it is overtured to the Assembly to take these premises into their serious consideration.”
The Rev. Angus Galbraith, Lochalsh, spoke in support of the overture from the Synod of Glenelg. They knew, he said, that some of their people had had difficulties, and it had been put in their ears that they were still under the Declaratory Act. He did not admit that. They had never yielded to it, and would never do so. (Applause.)
Mr. W. Rounsfell Brown, Glasgow, said he thought the Act was not altogether the out-and-out evil thing which some people said it was, but it was so indefinitely expressed that there was room for people to hold very conflicting opinions as to what it meant. He moved that they receive with sympathetic interest the four overtures, and, having regard to the rather indefinite range of the overtures, remit them to a Committee to consider, and to report to next Assembly what measures were best fitted to meet the purpose of the overtures; and meanwhile the Assembly recall Act XII., 1892, anent the Confession of Faith, which was passed by a former Assembly against certain distinct protests and dissents, the protection afforded by which protests and dissents being available to all who concur therein.
The Rev. John Macdonald, Raasay, seconded.
Mr. A. Macneilage, Glasgow, thought it would do just as well if the resolution simply stated that, having regard to the questions raised, the Assembly should remit, &c. He had a good deal to do with the agitation against the Declaratory Act, and if any one thing more than another influenced him to remain with the minority in the Free Church in October last, it was the certainty that at no very remote date they would get rid of the Declaratory Act altogether. It ought to be distinctly understood that there were those amongst them who were not able to see where any good was to be found in the Declaratory Acts, even as regards their grammatical construction, for he did not think that any inspector of schools could devise a better exercise for a class in English grammar than just to take the Free Church Declaratory Act of 1892, and ask the children to be good enough to analyse it in accordance with the rules of correct syntax. There were, however, far worse difficulties than that. What they should make known very plainly was that all of them, as far as they knew, who constituted the Free Church of Scotland, were pledged by every principle of honour, and by their own desires, to be rid not only of the Declaratory Act of 1892, but of any legislation in the Free Church during the past twenty-five years, which impugned the simplicity of Presbyterian worship and the attachment of the Church to the doctrinal testimony concerning the infallibility of the divine word.
Mr. Macneilage’s suggestion was accepted, and Mr. Brown’s motion was agreed to.
Mr. Rounsfell Brown afterwards submitted the report of the Committee regarding the collections for schemes of the Church, and among the Sabbath collections suggested was one for the Livingstonia Mission, which, as Mr. Brown explained, was controlled by a Committee largely composed of members of the United Free Church. Mr. Brown spoke strongly in favour of the collection for Livingstonia, and pointed out that there would be no impropriety in giving their people an opportunity of subscribing. Mr. Macneilage expressed the opinion that while they would be able to contribute to the mission as individuals, it would be quite a different matter to do so as members of the Free Church, and he also pointed out that Mr. Brown had been struck off the Livingstonia Committee because he had not connected himself with the United Free Church. He hoped that the day might come when a more magnanimous view of the Free Church would take possession of the persons who led the United Free Church, but in the meantime he thought this Assembly should not acquiesce in the slight cast upon the testimony of the Church. He moved that the collection should be deleted from the list as a General Assembly collection, and after further discussion this was reluctantly agreed to by Mr. Brown.
The Commission of Assembly was appointed to meet on the second Wednesday of August, the fourth Wednesday of October, and the third Wednesday of March. The Act, which was read, gave power to that body to take all necessary steps to raise or defend legal actions in connection with the Church.
The Assembly was closed by an address from the Moderator. It will meet again on 20th May, 1902.
Remarks.
It is not our intention to say much in reference to this Assembly and its proceedings. At the same time we feel it necessary to say something in order that there may be no misunderstanding as to our views. In the first place, we may be permitted to remark that, while it affords us genuine satisfaction that so many ministers and such a large body of people have refused to enter into the United Free Church, and have disassociated themselves from the downgrade majority who went into the Union, yet we cannot, so far as matters have gone, recognise the present Free Church in its ecclesiastical position as representing the Free Church of 1843. Our anti-union friends have simply taken up the Free Church where Principal Rainy and his party left it. That position we think they themselves will admit is very different from what obtained in 1843. Before then they can consistently claim to be representatives of the Disruption fathers, they must at least make important changes in the way of renouncing certain past legislation of the Church. This some of them appear anxious to do, and time will reveal what will be done. As regards the Declaratory Act of 1892, they seem to be divided in their views about it. Mr. W. R. Brown’s utterances especially are far from satisfactory on this and other topics. It is vain however for them to speak of themselves as a protesting minority in relation to the Act. Every one of them knows very well that they had no liberty to protest in the real sense of the term, and that the protests that were recorded in several Presbyteries were deleted by the express orders of the General Assembly. If they were a protesting minority, then their standing ground in 1892 or 1893 ought to have been outside the nominal Free Church and not within it. However, we don’t intend to pursue the subject any further at present. Let us say in conclusion that we pen these remarks not with the slightest desire or intention to hurt our anti-unionist friends but simply to make our views clear to all parties. To have given a sketch of their proceedings in these columns, and not at the same time to have expressed our views of their ecclesiastical position would have been entirely misleading.—ED.