THIS subject has been discussed at great length in the press since the decision in favour of the Free Church. The supporters of the United Free Church have misrepresented the Lord Chancellor’s judgment about the Declaratory Act of 1892 in the most unwarrantable manner. They have declared that he has condemned the free offer the gospel as inconsistent with the Confession of Faith and that it is not possible for Free Churchmen, if they accept his judgment, to preach “a free gospel.” Now, this line of misrepresentation and falsehood strikes against the Free Presbyterian Church as well as against the Free, for the chief ground of our separation in 1893 was the passing of the Declaratory Act. We condemned its Arminianism, and yet we held at the same time that we were in nowise prevented from preaching the free offer of the gospel. It is now declared to all intents and purposes by United Frees that no one can condemn the doctrine of the Declaratory Act without at the same time renouncing a free gospel. True it is that the parties who thus argue know little of what true freedom is in any shape or form, but nevertheless they are capable of disseminating their errors in the most subtle and insinuating manner, and it would be flagrant disloyalty to truth if Free Presbyterians would hold their peace on such matters, matters that touch the testimony of their own church even more nearly than that of the church which is the main object of attack.
As we pointed out in a former article, the United Frees, in the most absurd and self-conceited fashion, take it for granted as something beyond all doubt that the Declaratory Act statement on the subject of the gospel call and foreordination is open to no exception whatsoever, and that to find fault with it is to disapprove of “a free gospel” in the most orthodox sense of the term. But what is this but a begging of the whole question? They have yet to prove that the Declaratory Act on this or other points is in harmony with “the faith once delivered to the saints.” We do not say but isolated words or even sentences in the Act may be construed in a sound sense; this might be done, indeed, with passages in almost any heretical document whatsoever; but what we and all other parties have to do with is the evident intention of the Act and the scope of the whole. It is quite apparent to any student that its main clauses were manifestly designed for the benefit of those who had adopted the Arminian system with its erroneous views of a universal love of God and a universal atonement, and who were disposed to rule out the decrees of God in connection with salvation, and to make the whole matter turn on the individual action of sinners themselves. The human will is made everything; the divine will, little or nothing. And is not this, indeed, the kind of Free Gospel that is preached in the United Free Church to-day, and that has been proclaimed for many years by most of the ministers who now figure within that body? This is not the Gospel of the Confession of Faith or of God’s most holy Word, both of which provide for a universal call to “repent and believe the gospel,” while at the same time they insist upon God’s eternal purposes and man’s utter inability of himself through sin to repent or believe. “Salvation is of the Lord.”
With these preliminary remarks I proceed at present to notice in detail the Lord Chancellor’s judgment about the Declaratory Act and its inconsistency with the Confession of Faith. He first gives a brief sketch of the “contemporaneous theological discussions at the time the Confession of Faith was compiled,” which it is not necessary for our present purpose to dwell much upon. Suffice it to say that he indicates how the doctrines of Calvinism and Arminianism were viewed at the time by their respective upholders. Of course, as a wise judge, he does not commit himself to either side, but acts according to his own words when he says at the beginning of his judgment that “a Court of law has nothing whatever to do with the soundness or unsoundness of a particular doctrine.” Thus it is that when he quotes unfavourable opinions of Calvinistic doctrine (in Greek and Latin) delivered by the Council of Constantinople in 1642 and the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672, he refers to these as “treating of what they describe as the Calvinistic doctrine,” not as satisfactory exhibitions of that doctrine. The fact that he adds, “I quote from the edition of the Councils of the Church, published by two Jesuit Fathers in 1728,” does not in any way imply that he takes his personal views of Calvinism from such men, but simply indicates that he quotes from original authorities in sympathy with Arminianism, and not at second-hand from extracts of these Councils given by opposing Calvinistic writers. It was clearly with a view to an impartial statement of the history of the subject that he pursued this line of quotation and remark. The Lord Chancellor then proceeds to say that “it was in this state of the controversy agitating the Christian Church throughout the world that the Confession of Faith was adopted by the Church of Scotland on the 27th of August, 1647, and the approval and adoption of it was made in a form which was intended to prevent cavil as to its being agreed upon without objection or doubt.”
I now quote in full the succeeding part of his judgment, in order that our readers may see for themselves, if they have not seen already, that there is no real foundation for the attacks that have been made against it.
“My Lords, I think it is only necessary to put in juxtaposition the language of the Confession of Faith itself and the statement of doctrine set forth by one component part of the supposed united body, united in one faith and doctrine.
“The Confession of Faith:—’Chap. III. Of God’s Eternal Decree. III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished!’
“Now, then, for the Act. Act declaratory anent Confession of Faith, made 26th May, 1892:—”That this Church also holds that all who hear the Gospel are warranted and required to believe to the saving of their souls; and that in the case of such as do not believe, but perish in their sins, the issue is due to their own rejection of the Gospel call. That this Church does not teach, and does not regard the Confession as teaching, the foreordination of man to death irrespective of their own sin.”
“It has been argued with great ingenuity, that, inasmuch as the doctrine of Predestination, as treated of in the Scriptures, is a mystery, and that various opinions have been held in respect of it, it cannot be made a test doctrine, since another doctrine may be held with it, not to human intelligence reconcileable with it, but equally derived from and established by Scriptural authority. If the Scottish Church, or the Westminster Confession, as one of its declarations of doctrine, had simply declared that Predestination was one of its doctrines, there might be something in the argument; but the argument ignores the fact that the Westminster Confession purports to explain, and does explain, in language which does not admit of doubt, what is meant. Each party well knew what they meant. It is not a question of metaphysical subtleties or ambiguous language. Each meant to exclude and denounce the other.”
So much for the Lord Chancellor. Now, let it be clearly observed that his point is Predestination—the difference between “the Calvinistic and Arminian doctrines of Predestination,” as he declares at the very start of his treatment of the second question in debate between the two bodies. His point is not so much the duty of all to believe the Gospel—not certainly at all the question of “a free Gospel”—his point is Predestination. And the question he puts himself is, “Do these statements of the Declaratory Act bearing upon Predestination agree with the doctrine of the Confession of Faith on the subject?” His answer is “No; ‘each meant to exclude and denounce the other.'” He enters into no details; his language is studiously general; he never discusses for a moment “the free offer of the Gospel,” and so passes no opinion about it. What does he really say? Well, the sum of it is just this—That it had been argued by the counsel of the U.F. Church that the doctrine of Predestination could “not be made a test doctrine,” inasmuch as it was a mystery subject to a variety of opinions, and since another doctrine might be held with it, not reconcileable therewith to human intelligence, but equally derived from Scripture. His answer is that the Westminster Confession does not leave the doctrine of Predestination in any uncertain or ambiguous form, in order that there may be scope for difference of opinion, but that it explains most clearly what it means by it, and that his judgment is that it excludes and denounces the doctrine of the Declaratory Act. In the same sentence he indicates his conviction that this action is reciprocal. The Declaratory Act meant to exclude and denounce the doctrine of the Confession of Faith. “Each meant to exclude and denounce the other.” In stating the matter thus, he does not, of course, mean anything so absurd as that the framers of the Confession in 1647 saw the Declaratory Act of 1892, but rather that they deliberately set aside and condemned the very Arminianism that is raised from the grave in the said Act. The conclusion of the whole matter, so far as it is thus viewed, is that the Lord Chancellor in nowise condemns the free offer of the Gospel as a doctrine inconsistent with the Confession of Faith, which is the United Free misrepresentation, but that he declares that the doctrine of the Declaratory Act and that of the Confession on Predestination are antagonistic to each other. In doing so, he simply sustains the just contention of the Free Church on this point of debate.
While satisfied with the opinion of the Lord Chancellor on the clause of the Declaratory Act quoted, perhaps the writer may be allowed to say that he does not think the eminent judge’s pronouncement entirely satisfactory from every point of view. For example, he would have enhanced its value if he had been a little more explicit on the points discussed, so as, if possible, to have obviated misconstruction. It was, further, somewhat unfortunate that he quoted only the two paragraphs in the Confession on predestination and foreordination, where no mention is made of sin at all, so that the conclusion is apt to be drawn by those who do not know better that the Confession teaches the unfounded notion of condemnation without sin. The opposite is the truth. It teaches in paragraph vii. of the same chapter that God ordains men “to dishonour and wrath for their sin.” But, no doubt, his lordship just quoted what was sufficient for his purpose. Again, I think that he might have got sections of the Act open even to greater objection than the one he selected. It may also be said that it would have highly gratified loyal believers in the doctrine of the Confession of Faith, if the whole Act in each section had been specifically condemned. For really, this Act was the most serious aspect of the whole case. Scope is given in it for the maintenance of most erroneous opinions that touch the vitals of the faith of the Gospel, and its adoption in 1892 by the Courts of the Church was even a more serious departure from the truth than the mere act of uniting with the U.P. Church. The Declaratory Act embodies statements that afford a safe covert for the elements of Arminianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Voluntaryism, Popery, and Rationalism.
We cannot at present discuss the Act at large—though something of the kind seems to be needed at the present crisis—but it is proper to point out in a few words what is actually objectionable in the section condemned by the Lord Chancellor.
The first section of the Act, which precedes the one under notice, affords scope for the maintenance of the Arminian scheme of universal love and universal atonement, and the duty to believe the Gospel is expressed in this, the second section, in a way that fits in with this scheme. The duty of all to believe the Gospel is practically insisted upon as the outcome of a provision for all. The obligation to believe is set upon an Arminian basis. But the wording of this section is also open to objection. The first clause of it may certainly be understood in a sound sense, though the impression is given that believing is an easy matter, and no word of caution is supplied to show that faith is the gift of God—a much-needed requirement at the present time. The second clause is open to positive objection: “in the case of such as do not believe, but perish in their sins, the issue is due to their own rejection of the Gospel call.” Here no place is given to the truth that through sin men are, in an important sense, lost already, while the decrees of God in reference to the future destiny of sinners are entirely brushed aside, as if they had nothing to do with the matter; the whole is made to turn on the action of the creature. The last clause runs: “That this Church does not teach, and does not regard the Confession as teaching, the foreordination of men to death irrespective of their own sin.” It is perfectly true that men are foreordained to death solely on account of sin—this the Confession itself emphasises, but the wording is fitted to obscure the absolute aspect of God’s holy though mysterious sovereignty, whereby, for His own glory, He determined to save some of the human race and to pass by others.
The most patent objection, however, in our opinion, which may be brought against this clause is the insertion of the word “own” before sin. A little word sometimes makes a great difference in the meaning of a sentence; and every word, however apparently insignificant, is of importance in a document of this nature. The word “own” here undoubtedly refers to individual sin, as distinguished from Adam’s first sin, and the meaning is that none are “foreordained to death” irrespective of their own individual personal transgression. This is clearly contrary to the teaching of God’s Word. Notice the fifth chapter of the Romans:—”Through the offence of one, many be dead” (v. 1-5); “The judgment was by one to condemnation” (v. 16); “By one man’s offence death reigned by one” (v. 17); “By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation” (v. 18). Again, see 1 Cor. xv. 22, “In Adam all die.” These passages clearly teach that all men are “foreordained to death” on account of the sin of “one man.” But, of course, they do not imply that in God’s complete or final reckoning with sinners, He does not take into account all their individual transgressions.
Some have suggested that the Declaratory Act means foreordination to everlasting death only, but this is a mere evasion. The word “everlasting” is deliberately omitted, and the Act practically affirms that none are foreordained to death in any sense “irrespective of their own sin.” Let us take the case of spiritual death. All the descendants of Adam by ordinary generation are conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity; every soul is spiritually dead from the beginning of its history. Is this death the consequence of its own individual sin? No; but of Adam’s first sin. Adam was the representative of the race in the covenant of works, and all mankind are heirs of spiritual death, and made liable to temporal and eternal death in virtue of his first transgression. It may be affirmed that Adam’s first sin is “their own sin,” and such it may be said to be, seeing it was the sin of their representative; but this view of matters was far from the minds of the framers of the Declaratory Act. On the contrary, their declaration implies that men did not incur the penalty of death in Adam, and that his sin was not a sufficient ground of condemnation or punishment to any one of his posterity.
Men in all ages have kicked against the doctrine of representation, especially in connection with the first Adam and the race, but in doing so they have also kicked against the doctrine of representation in connection with Christ and His people. It is on the principle of representation that the Son of God became the surety and substitute of sinners, and that His everlasting righteousness is imputed to His people as the ground of their justification before God. Thus the men who would overthrow the doctrine of the First Adam must inevitably destroy the doctrine of the Second Adam. In getting rid of the Scriptural doctrine of the Fall, they get rid of the Scriptural doctrine of salvation, and land their followers in error and destruction. Be it ours to cordially submit to the wisdom of God and the truth of God as unfolded in His Word, for in this submission will be our wisdom, safety, and happiness for an endless eternity. J. S. S.