ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
THE chief event in this Assembly, which may be noted here, was the discussion on the Confession of Faith, which took place on Wednesday, 27th May.
The Presbytery of Greenock overtured the Assembly with reference to the formula of subscription to the Westminster Confession, and asked the Assembly to take the matter into its serious consideration, and to draw up and append to the formula of subscription a note declaratory of the sense which the Church attaches to such subscription.
The Rev. James Murray, Kilmalcolm, in submitting the overture, spoke of the present position of the Church in reference to the Confession of Faith. It was no longer necessary, he said, to argue that there were statements in the Confession which were not in strict accord with modern thought. When a minister in probation was called upon to sign the formula, and when it was asserted that the Confession of Faith was the confession of his faith, he was not held to accept every statement in the Confession; and when he went further and asserted that to that Confession he would constantly adhere, it was not considered that he shut himself out from the benefit of any further light which might be cast on the matters with which it dealt. That existing liberty, which made it possible for many to maintain their position in the Church, had been asserted without challenge. He declared that the resolution came to in 1901 was the strongest confirmation of the liberty enjoyed by ministers in subscribing the Confession, but it was too indefinite, and had no authority. He therefore craved that the Church should formulate and declare that liberty which the General Assembly asserted that they possessed.
Principal Story, Glasgow, said that the appearance of this overture was only a renewed indication of what must have struck any one knowing the history of the Church and the movement of opinion in the Church for some years—an indication of the steady, the growing dissatisfaction with the formula which required
of every entrant on the ministry an unqualified adherence to the Confession of Faith. Dr. Story then launched into a one-sided criticism and profane condemnation of the doctrines embodied in the Confession. In insulting language he condemned the Confessional statements on predestination, perseverance of the saints, the atonement, the laws of the Sabbath and marriage, and future punishment. On the latter point he gave vent to the unsubdued unbelief of his heart when he described the statement of the Confession thereon as a “monstrous travesty of divinity.” His reproaches are in reality cast on the truths of God’s infallible word, and it is to be feared that, unless he gets saving repentance before he dies, he will yet taste the bitterness of that just punishment for sin which he now so proudly contemns. He concluded by proposing the following motion:—”In requiring subscription to the formula legalised by Act of the Scots Parliament, 1693, the General Assembly does now expressly declare that the Confession of Faith is to be regarded, not as an infallible creed imposed on the consciences of men, but as a system of doctrine valid only in so far as it accords with Holy Scripture interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.” Professor Herkless, St. Andrews, seconded the motion.
The Rev. Dr. Scott said he did not mean to answer the speeches of Dr. Story or Dr. Herkless further than to say that he disputed their criticism of the Confession. The Confession never set itself up as an infallible canon. It was based on a higher standard—the standard of Holy Scripture, interpreted through the working of the Holy Spirit. He would be very sorry if the sentiments expressed by Dr. Story were largely shared by the ministers and members of the Church. If he (Dr. Story) held these sentiments he never should have subscribed to the Confession when he was appointed Professor of Church History in Glasgow University. He held that, as the Confession of Faith was accepted by the State as the Church’s Confession and embodied in an Act of Parliament, it was not in the power of the Church to abridge, extend, or modify a national statute without the consent of the nation as expressed in Parliament. The Church was free to put its own interpretation on points where the Confession was ambiguous or silent, but they had no power to set up a Declaratory Act for abridgment or modification without the consent of the State. He did not think it was ambiguous on the points to which Dr. Story and Dr. Herkless referred; but if all they wanted was a declaration that the Confession was not an infallible canon, which indeed the Confession and formula already gave them, he would give them that declaration if it would end the discussion for a time, and give them a little quiet and peace in the Church, when the minds of so many people were unsettled, and when their own people were beginning to distrust them, as if they thought they had a Bible in which they could not believe, and which, in spite of what Dr. Herkless had said, had been marvellously preserved throughout
the centuries in regard to its purity and text. If there was a grievance, the only possible redress was the manly way of going to the State, and of saying to the State—”We don’t like our Confession—we detest our Confession; free us from it, and let us be disestablished.” There could not be a more insane proposal than to go to the State and ask a modification of the Confession at the present time. He concluded by proposing the following amendment:—”Finding that ambiguity exists as to the authority of the Confession of Faith, to which all office-bearers in the Church are required to subscribe according to the formula prescribed by Act of Parliament in 1693, the General Assembly, considering that the said Confession is based upon Holy Scripture, and having specially in view chapter i., sections 9 and 10, chapter xx., section 2, and also chapter xxxi., section 4, wherein it is expressly set forth ‘that God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to His Word, or beside it, in matters of faith and worship,’ ‘that the Supreme Judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentences we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures,’ hereby declare that the Confession of Faith is to be regarded as an infallible rule of faith and worship only in so far as it accords with the Holy Scripture, interpreted by the Holy Spirit. The General Assembly reaffirm their declaration in Act 11, 1889, and their deliverance upon the report of the Committee on the powers of the Church contained in proceedings of session six of Assembly, 1901, and instructs that these be read, along with this declaration, to all office-bearers in the Church when called to sign the formula ‘legalised by Act of Parliament, 1693.'”
The Procurator (Sir John Cheyne), in seconding, pointed out that Dr. Scott’s motion went quite as far as Principal Story’s. The two motions were practically identical, but he very much preferred Dr. Scott’s, because it had a preamble explaining why the Assembly should take action, and it rested its conclusion upon the Confession itself. In referring to the Barrier Act, he expressed his agreement with Lord Trayner in the recent Court of Session case, that the State was no party to the Barrier Act, and the fact that the Church of Scotland had a State connection put that Church in an entirely different position from that of the Free Church. He said boldly, and with all the confidence which he could give to a legal proposition, that the Church of Scotland had no power, unless it was prepared to break its bargain with the State and give up State connection, to make such a Declaratory Act as their friends “over the way” had done some years ago.
Principal Stewart, St. Andrews, moved that the Assembly should remit the overture from Greenock to a committee to consider whether an approach should not be made to the Legislature in
connection with the Confession of Faith and formula, and what form such an appeal should take. They had, he said, all signed the Confession of Faith, and voluntarily signed it. If that were slavery, they had gone voluntarily into bondage. There were many ways of reconciling the Confession to their consciences, but, as Mr. Murray had said, the method of doing so was in many cases so subtle and so inappreciable by “the man in the street,” who said, “You have signed a thing you don’t believe; you are not an honest man.” The state of affairs was not satisfactory. He did not think there was any way in which they could consistently with full honesty sign the Confession of Faith as the confession of their faith unless they believed it to be so, and there was no other way of getting rid of the difficulty except on the lines he suggested in his motion. The point was this—the Church of Scotland had, as it were, a contract or agreement with the State on the one hand; it had, on the other hand, a contract with the individual ministers. The Church of Scotland said to the State—”Our ministers will be faithful to the Confession,” and the Church of Scotland required that the ministers should say—”We will be faithful to this Confession.” That was the difficulty, and no number of Declaratory Acts would do away with it. It was feared by some that the proposal might give new life to the agitation in favour of disestablishment. He was a minister of the Church of Scotland; he honoured that Church, and he would regret to see anything happen to it, but he feared it was impossible for many of them to live under the present ambiguous, suspicious circumstances in which they were carrying on their work in this country, and if he were offered disestablishment on one hand and dishonesty on the other, he would choose disestablishment.
Rev. A. Warr, Rosneath, seconded. He said he spoke principally for the younger men of the Church. The question was a burning one, and one which weighed heavily on the consciences of many.
Rev. Dr. Mair, Earlston, said that the effective and honourable thing they could do was to go to Parliament. The only present alternative was that they should support Dr. Scott.
After speeches by Principal Lang and Professor Paterson, Aberdeen, Principal Story replied in the discussion. He had no hesitation in saying that if he had known the doctrines of the Confession when he signed them as well as he knew them now, he for one would never have signed them, and he would never do so again. He concluded by withdrawing his motion in favour of Dr. Scott’s, because the kernel of Dr. Scott’s motion was the same as his own, and the preface he thought was valuable.
Dr. Scott’s motion was carried by a very large majority, less than a dozen supporting that of Dr. Stewart’s.
Remarks.—It may seem strange to our readers that Dr. Scott’s motion should be of such a character as to be acceptable to Dr. Story, considering the opposite character of their respective
speeches. The reason is plain. Dr. Scott’s motion is ambiguous; it is capable of more than one construction. It may be understood both in an orthodox and a heterodox sense. It was drawn up solely to gratify the heterodox party; the other did not want any statement; and so the motion will be justly appreciated by the disbelievers in the Confession as a concession to their views. Notice its terms: “The Confession of Faith is to be regarded as an infallible standard of faith and worship only in so far as it accords with the Holy Scripture, interpreted by the Holy Spirit.” No one has ever affirmed that the Confession is an absolutely infallible standard; its most devoted upholders have always maintained that the Bible alone bears this character; but the very fact that they adopt the Confession as the confession of their faith intimates that as a subordinate standard, agreeable to the Word of God, it approaches infallibility as near as does any known human document of the kind. Now, the above motion, in view of the purpose for which it is designed, gives the impression that the Confession may contain much that is fallible and erroneous; and may only be accepted to a very partial extent. Every man will claim to have the Holy Spirit, and with the Spirit that he possesses decide what interpretation he prefers both of the Holy Scripture and the Confession. The whole subject is thus resolved into individual opinion. Every man can accept as much or little of the Confession, yea, as much or little of the Bible as he pleases. There is no doubt an implication that ‘the Scripture is infallible, but what Scripture is doubtful, as this is dependent upon the matter of interpretation. We think it is therefore very clear that Dr. Scott’s motion conserves nothing, but rather opens the door for the very errors he seems to disapprove of in his speech, and gives them legal freedom in the Church. Dr. Scott and others thunder very loudly against a Declaratory Act, but it is quite apparent that this new declaration approved by the Assembly and accepted by Dr. Story is just a Declaratory Act of a very dangerous character though it does not bear the name nor is sanctioned by the State. It is to be read to all office-bearers in the Church when called to sign the formula. In our opinion Principal Stewart’s motion was the most honest and worthy of respect.
UNITED FREE CHURCH.
At this Court very little transpired that was of special interest to our readers. Last year there was some attempt to bring Professor G. A. Smith to task for his most dangerous and heretical opinions in regard to the inspiration and composition of Holy Scripture, but the Assembly with its usual indifference to truth decided to let him alone, and placed no obstacle in the way of his further developing and disseminating his destructive ideas. This year Professor Smith and the rest of the Higher Critics are left
entirely undisturbed by all parties, and no doubt ministers and elders went home to their people with glowing accounts of the remarkable unity and peace that prevailed.
Dr. Ross Taylor gave in the usual report on the Sustentation and Augmentation Funds. In the Sustentation Fund there is the considerable decrease of £6563 19s. 8d., but by a special arrangement the salaries of ministers are maintained at the usual rate. It appears that the deficit is mainly due to 8 leading congregations in the south, 5 in Edinburgh, and 3 in Glasgow. Since the union three years ago, the Sustentation Fund has fallen off by several thousands of pounds, which clearly indicates that, even apart from those who form the Free Church, there is a considerable body of opinion in some quarters of the United Church out of sympathy with the union. Possibly some also have left and joined the Established Church. While decrease in temporal resources is not by any means an infallible proof of Divine displeasure—the Lord’s most faithful people are sometimes tried in this respect—yet we feel abundantly justified in looking on this loss of finance in the U.F. body as just retribution for its apostacy from the faith.
Principal Rainy presented the report on the Highlands and Islands, and in the course of his speech referred to the present divisions in that quarter. He said that he laid the blame somewhere else than on the natural proclivity of the Highland people to faction and disorder. For several years there was assiduously instilled into the minds of these people the impression that the Church which they loved was turning away from the principles for the sake of which they loved it; for years and years distrust and animosity and all sorts of unquiet impressions were instilled into the minds of a trustful and affectionate people. Those who had lapsed, while they included a number of people whom they would cordially see back again, if they chose to come—they had been separated in that way from some elements which offered no prospect if they continued with them, but a prospect of perpetual disappointment and difficulty. Many Highlanders, on the other hand, were profoundly thankful for what the United Free Church had done for them, and he expected that the Church would yet reap good results in the Highlands as the reward of patience and fidelity to the interests of religion.
Such is a brief summary of Principal Rainy’s views of the present state of things in the Highlands. He looks upon the men of God, who in the past faithfully warned the people of the slow but sure departure of the Free Church from her original principles, as the trouble of Israel, and those in recent times who have refused to submit to his leading as their successors in this capacity, while he appears to regard himself as a most innocent benefactor of the people in the subtle compromising policy and methods whereby in our opinion he has ruined the Church. Indeed, we cannot call that a church in any real sense that makes an open question of the Divine inspiration and infallible veracity of the Holy Scriptures,
and supports professors of theology who are daily inoculating the rising ministers with the most poisonous heresy. While we do not venture to determine the spiritual standing before God of individuals within her pale, we are compelled to regard this body in the main as a very powerful engine for deluding immortal souls.
FREE CHURCH.
One of the first things in this Assembly which has caught our attention was a slight discussion between Mr. Archd. MacNeilage and the Rev. Murdo Macqueen, Kiltearn, on the subject of Principal Rainy. Mr. MacNeilage introduced the subject in the course of a speech on the Home Mission Report by remarking that though he had been and still was a personal friend of Principal Rainy and held him in high esteem, he strongly depreciated the action of the Principal in sneering, as he did in the General Assembly last year, at the Free Church congregation in Elgin. The Rev. Mr. Macqueen took exception to Mr. MacNeilage’s laudation of the Principal, and we have much pleasure in recording his pointed reply, as it was one of the most straightforward utterances that we have observed in connection with this Church. He said he dissented from Mr. MacNeilage’s praise of Dr. Rainy. In his opinion they had very little cause to praise Dr. Rainy, and there was very little cause why the Free Church of Scotland should hold any high opinion of him. He (the speaker) had not a tittle or an atom of respect for Dr. Rainy—(laughter)—not one. What had he been doing; what had been the history of his life for the last thirty years? He had put the shield of his protection on every innovation. He had taken the United Presbyterians to his bosom, and had dealt otherwise with the Free Church of Scotland. Where then, he asked, was there any ground why they should respect Dr. Rainy? He held that Dr. Rainy had done more damage to the cause of Christ in Scotland than any man alive to-day—(applause)—and more than that, he held that he had done more harm to the cause of Christ in Scotland than any man since the days of Archbishop Sharp. He had no sympathy whatever with any man who held him up as an object of esteem and admiration, and it ill became him (Dr. Rainy) to go and sneer at the congregation of Elgin or any Free Church congregation on the ground of the smallness of its numbers, for were there not many United Free congregations in the Highlands in the same position? They could put these congregations into the kitchen of the manse, and they found there ministers clinging, not to the principles of the Free Church of Scotland and the people who stood up for these principles, but to the buildings, the church, and the manse and the half-dozen or dozen of people who might fill the church. (Hear, hear and applause.)
Rev. William Mackinnon, Gairloch, disassociated himself from Mr. Macqueen’s remarks on Dr. Rainy, who was not only a man of high position in the Church, but had been the Principal of the Free Church (we trust Mr. Mackinnon is misreported in this latter clause, but we fear it is the truth after all), while he differed totally from the views of Dr. Rainy in regard to Church matters.
We are very much surprised that when this incident is recorded in the Free Church Record for June no mention is made of the fact that Mr. MacNeilage was the first to introduce the name of Dr. Rainy with laudatory remarks, while, on the other hand, Mr. Macqueen is simply advised as an earnest worker in the service of the Church that it would not mar the excellence of his work if he were to leave Principal Rainy’s doings severely alone. We think the advice is much more needed by Mr. MacNeilage in respect of his publicly complimenting this and other subverters of the true Church of Christ in the land for their personal amiabilities, which are a trap and a snare to multitudes.
The Assembly took up the overture that had been sent down to Presbyteries dealing with the repeal of the Declaratory Act. It was found that the overture had been disapproved of by seven and approved of by two Presbyteries. The majority were of opinion that it was not sufficiently unqualified in its terms. Mr. MacNeilage then moved a deliverance to the effect that the Assembly renew its resolution to annul or repeal the Declaratory Act of 1892, and remit the overtures in reference thereto from Presbyteries to a committee with instructions to frame an overture for the repeal of the Declaratory Act, and submit the same to next General Assembly. The Rev. John Macleod, Glasgow, seconded the motion, which was agreed to. In reference to the subject of the use of Instrumental Music and Uninspired Hymns in public worship, Mr. MacNeilage also moved that the Assembly receive with sympathetic interest the overtures from the Presbyteries of Dingwall and Dornoch and the Synods of Ross, Moray, and Glenelg bearing on previous legislation or resolutions of the Assembly affecting the use of instrumental music and uninspired hymns in public worship and, the formula for deacons, and remits these overtures to a committee with instructions to consider and report upon them to next General Assembly. The motion was agreed to.
It is clear, we think, from these deliverances that this Assembly cannot now finally dispose of the matters pertaining to the Declaratory Act and Hymns and Instrumental Music, &c., for two years, as the overtures they bring up next year will require to go down to Presbyteries and be finally dealt with by the succeeding Assembly.
The Court also dealt with the reply from the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church to the overture of this Church. The report of the business under this head in the Free Church Record states that the reply was quite emphatic and respectful; that their friends (the Free Presbyterians) regarded the proposal as pre-
mature, and directed attention to the statement of the grounds on which they took their stand in 1893. Rev. Ewen Macleod, Oban, and the Rev. John Macleod, Glasgow, would have liked to see the Committee on Union continued, but the Rev. Messrs. Mac-Culloch and Kennedy Cameron and Mr. Thorburn did not see how that could be done in face of the reply received. Eventually, a deliverance, moved by Mr. Rounsfell Brown and seconded by Mr. MacNeilage, was agreed to, discharging the Committee, but expressing the hope that it might be possible for the two Churches to co-operate with each other.