THERE was consummated on the 24th July, 1901, an extensive union of Presbyterian bodies in Australia. The United Church there embraces the Presbyterian Church of New South Wales, the Presbyterian Church of Victoria, the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, the Presbyterian Church of South Australia, and the Presbyterian Church of Tasmania. The Free Presbyterian Church of Victoria, and Free Presbyterians in other parts of the colony were invited to enter the union, but as might be expected, they declined to accede to the invitation. We need hardly tell our readers that the larger bodies of Presbyterians in Australia are as degenerate in their views and practices as similar bodies in this country. There is little or no difference between them and the new United Free Church at home.
We purpose in this article to give a notice of some of the points that enter into their Basis of Union, but before doing so, we shall give the “Reasons for Declining Union” recorded by the Free Presbyterian Synod of Victoria, and published in the Free Church Quarterly for September:—
“The Free Presbyterian Synod of Victoria, whilst acknowledging the courteous tone of the communication received from the Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria anent union (dated 4th February, 1901), are restrained from accepting the proposal contained in it by the following reasons, viz.:—
“1. The basis of union of the Federal Presbyterian Assembly represents ‘purity of worship’ as being quite compatible with the introduction of matter and practices connected with the worship of God which have no authority in the New Testament, and do not consist with the declaration of the Confession of Faith, viz., that ‘God may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men . . . or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.’
“2. The Declaratory Act of the Federal Assembly so modifies the Confession as to accommodate those who do not accept the teaching of the said Confession regarding a considerable portion of the whole counsel of God revealed in His Word; to relax discipline; and to be not in accord with the inspired declaration—that ‘ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.’
“3. In the basis of union provision is made for further alteration of the Church’s creed by a stated majority, whilst a dissenting congregation may have to suffer the loss of their property as a penalty for their faithfulness to their principles. And
“4. The basis aforesaid condones and covers serious laxity and wide divergence, within the Church, in matters of faith and practice contrary to the purpose of true Presbyterianism, which viewed Scripturally and historically, is to promote and maintain uniformity in doctrine, worship, government, and discipline, agreeably to the Word of God, the supreme and only infallible standard.
“The Synod, in sending this reply, appreciate the friendly spirit of the Assembly’s communication, and very much regret that there should be such reasons as given above to preclude alliance with the Assembly under one Australian Presbyterian Assembly, whilst they prayerfully seek such an outpouring of God’s Holy Spirit in all branches of the Church of Christ that they may yet ‘see eye to eye,’ as His people shall, when the Lord shall bring again Zion, that ‘in all things he might have the pre-eminence.'”
We now proceed to criticise briefly some of the paragraphs in the Basis of Union:—
“I. The Supreme Standard of the United Church shall be the Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.”
This statement, if made once upon a time, might be considered as thoroughly orthodox and satisfactory, but when one is aware of modern theological ideas, it does not count for nearly so much as it seems. The reader will observe that, while it speaks of the Word as “the Supreme Standard” it says nothing of its infallibility, while further, the expression “the Word of God contained in the Scriptures” is construed by modern teachers as implying no more than that the Word is somewhere within the Scriptures, but not that the Scriptures from beginning to end are the Word of God. The Church, in Popish fashion, is set up as the final arbiter as to what within the Bible is to be taken as the Word of God, and as to what is to be considered a merely human and fallible element. This is one of the most subtle and dangerous errors of the present day, and an error that holds among religious leaders in Australia. There is nothing in this statement to contradict it, there is rather abundant scope provided for its maintenance.
“II. The Subordinate Standard of the United Church shall be the Westminster Confession of Faith, read in the light of the following Declaratory Statement:—
“1. That in regard to the doctrine of redemption as taught in the Subordinate Standard, and in consistency therewith, the love of God to all mankind, His gift of His Son to be the propitiation of the sins of the whole world, and the free offer of salvation to men without distinction on the ground of Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice, are regarded by this Church as vital to the Christian faith. And inasmuch as the Christian faith rests upon, and the Christian consciousness takes hold of, certain objective supernatural historic facts, especially the incarnation, the atoning life and death, and the resurrection and ascension of our Lord, and His bestowment of the Holy Spirit, this Church regards those whom it admits to the office of the Holy ministry as pledged to give a chief place in their teaching to these cardinal facts, and to the message of redemption and reconciliation implied and manifested in them.”
The Subordinate Standard of the new Church is the Confession of Faith, but the Confession read in the light of a certain erroneous Declaratory Act, the first paragraph of which we have now given. The Confession in many of its most important statements is brushed aside. The above paragraph is marked by a witnessing tone, as if forsooth the Church was greatly concerned as to the soundness of its ministers. But what do we find in the same place but a proclamation of the Arminian scheme of theology which is nowise in consistency with the Confession? Universal love and universal atonement are views insisted upon as vital to the faith; while the historic facts concerning the person and work of Christ are set forth as if “the Christian faith rests upon, and the Christian consciousness takes hold of” these facts almost exclusively, other parts of divine revelation not possessing the same authority and certainty. No one that knows anything of current theological teaching will consider for a moment that we are mis-stating the case.
“2. That the doctrine of God’s eternal decree, including the doctrine of election to eternal life, is held as defined in the Confession of Faith, chapter iii. section i., where it is expressly stated that according to this doctrine, ‘neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established,’ and further, that the said doctrine is held in connection and harmony with the truth—that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, that He has provided a salvation sufficient for all, and adapted to all, and offered to all in the Gospel, and that every hearer of the Gospel is responsible for his dealing with the free and unrestricted offer of eternal life.”
In this paragraph the United Church declares its belief in the doctrine of election as stated in one section of the Confession’s statement on the subject, but by direct implication it foregoes the other sin or seven sections in which the doctrine is more fully unfolded. “The will of the creature” is evidently a matter of more than ordinary importance here, and the inference is that the unchangeable predestination of the elect to eternal life is not a part of the new system of belief. We certainly hold that there are gracious overtures of mercy extended in the Gospel to sinners of every degree, and that salvation is freely offered unto all, but the unguarded way in which these truths are set forth above is fitted, in our opinion, to obscure the sovereignty of God and man’s total spiritual inability.
“3. That while none are saved except through the mediation of Christ, and by the grace of the Holy Spirit, who worketh when and where and how it pleaseth Him; while the duty of sending the Gospel to the heathen who are sunk in ignorance, sin, and misery is imperative; and while the outward and ordinary means of salvation for those capable of being called by the Word are the ordinances of the Gospel; in accepting the Subordinate Standard it is not required to be held that any who die in infancy are lost, or that God may not extend His grace to any who are without the pale of ordinary means, as it may seem good in His sight.”
It will be observed above that “the duty of sending the Gospel to the heathen” is affirmed to be “imperative,” but it is not said to be necessary. It is entirely superfluous to declare that the duty is imperative; every duty is so; but it may be clearly seen from the context why the word necessary is not used; the framers of this Act do not believe that the Gospel is absolutely necessary to salvation; they hold that the heathen may be saved without it. Of course they express their opinion in cautious terms, not so much, we believe, because they have doubts as to the soundness of it, but in order to make the poison go down more easily with the ordinary reader. As to the salvation of infants, we think it is by far the wiser course to leave the matter where the Confession leaves it. The Confession simply says, “Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;” it does not determine whether some or all infants dying in infancy are elect, but it describes the salvation of those who are saved, whether infants or adults, on sound Scriptural lines. There is a common but very erroneous idea that infants are without original sin; an idea that is with many persons the basis of belief in their universal salvation.
“4. That in holding and teaching, according to the Confession of Faith, the corruption of man’s nature as fallen, this Church also maintains that there remain tokens of man’s greatness as created in the image of God, that he possesses a knowledge of God and of duty—that he is responsible for compliance with the moral law and the call of the gospel, and although unable without the aid of the Holy Spirit to return to God unto salvation, he is yet capable of affections and actions which of themselves are virtuous and praiseworthy.”
This section is almost word for word the same as the second section of the notorious Declaratory Act passed in 1892 in the Free Church at home. A full explanatory criticism of this and the other sections of that Act may be found in the first volume of this Magazine. Suffice it to say here that the above section represents fallen man as possessing by nature something spiritually good in him, yea, that he has considerable attainments such as a knowledge of God and duty, while the Bible and the Confession of Faith declare that he is dead in trespasses and sins, and knows not God. Moreover, we assert that he requires more than “the aid of the Holy Spirit to return to God unto salvation;” he requires His almighty quickening power for the implantation of a new spiritual life; “And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins.” As for virtuous affections and actions, they afford no proof of spiritual life, and multitudes that have them are still in a state of sin and misery and under God’s wrath and curse. There is at present a great effort being made at home and abroad to whitewash the sinner, and make him a Christian without the new birth, but the effort is a foolish and pernicious one, and will prove a disastrous failure at last.
“5. That liberty of opinion is allowed in matters in the Subordinate Standard not essential to the doctrine therein taught, the Church guarding against the abuse of this liberty to the injury of its unity and peace.”
The meaning of this sentence is very plain. The Church affirms that there are non-essential matters in the Confession which their members and office-bearers may safely differ about, and liberty of opinion is allowed; the Church, of course, reserving the power to define the bounds of this liberty as it may see fit. It is jealous of “its unity and peace”—not purity and peace. Once upon a time purity and peace were always conjoined; it is now unity and peace. How significant the change! Unity is esteemed more than purity. If a vast outward harmony can be secured, purity of doctrine and practice may be easily dispensed with. This is one of the characteristic features of the so-called Church of Rome, and the power here assumed by the United Church to cut and carve the faith as it pleases is another feature of the Papal Apostasy.
“6. That with regard to the doctrine of the civil magistrate and his authority and duty in the sphere of religion as taught in the Subordinate Standard, the Church holds that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only King and Head of the Church, ‘and Head over all things to the Church which is His body.’ It disclaims accordingly intolerant or persecuting principles, and does not consider its office-bearers, in subscribing the Confession, as committed to any principles inconsistent with the liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment, declaring in the words of the Confession that ‘God alone is Lord of the conscience.'”
It is well-nigh a truism that Christ is the only King and Head of the Church, and that He has dominion over all things for the benefit of His body; but it ought also to be affirmed that He is King of nations, and that nations as such are bound to recognise Him as their King. This most important truth is here excluded, and national atheism is condoned. No wonder that the Bible is shut out of the schools in Australia, when such is the sentiment of their grand United Church, in our opinion, a grand delusion and snare. Australia never saw in actual fact a Church and State united, but that is no reason why the doctrine of Christ’s kingship over the nation should not be boldly maintained there, and aggressive action taken to secure the State as well as the Church for Christ. Let it be distinctly laid to heart at home and abroad that the flood of secularism and atheism that is permitted to run without restraint over the confines of the State will also inundate, as indeed it is already doing, the domain of the Church. No individual can be a Christian in the Church and an atheist in the State, no more than he can serve God and mammon. If he attempts to realise these two things at once, he will find that his atheism will devour his Christianity. Christ claims the whole man in all his lawful activities, and it is wickedness and mockery to keep back a part. It is the duty therefore of the Christian to be a Christian everywhere, and to put forth all lawful effort to bring every institution into subjection to Christ. He is, therefore, to call upon the civil magistrate to recognise and support Christ and His Church and laws. But the principle of national religion is now regarded as an intolerant and persecuting one by degenerate ecclesiastics in Scotland and Australia. They know not the Scriptures, neither do they know what is for the real benefit of humanity. Not until the State as well as the Church will do its duty to Christ will that day dawn when “the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.”
We are now done with our criticism. A great deal has been made in this country of the Australian Union, and it may be useful for friends here to know what is taking place in the larger Presbyterian bodies in that far off yet closely related colony, where, we are sorry to say, multitudes are surrendering the faith they were taught at their parents’ fireside and in the public means of grace in the home country. The love of the world has wrought havoc with the love of the truth in Australia. The state of things there is even worse than at home, and surely that is bad enough. All the more should our sympathies go forth to the Free Presbyterians in Australia who are endeavouring to hold up the banner of truth amid many outward discouragements. J. S. S.