WE regret to observe that any opinion that has been elicited as yet from Free Church sources does not encourage the hope that the case of Professor Alexander and his book will be satisfactorily dealt with.
The subject was taken up at the Free Presbytery of Inverness on March 7th. The Rev. Murdo Mackenzie thought the book should be withdrawn. Rev. D. Maclean, Moy, stated that he had read the book, but that “there was not a word, except, perhaps, a slight expression used in one place, which went to show that Dr. Alexander in any way doubted the infallibility of the Bible.” Rev. T. Ellis, Grantown, and Rev. R. Finlayson, Daviot, were satisfied with Dr. Alexander’s disclaimer. So the discussion ended.
We ask any unbiased person to study carefully the quotations from Dr. Alexander’s book, and his apology, already commented on in these columns, and we shall wonder if such will think that the majority of these ministers have properly grasped the situation. It appears to us that Mr. Maclean, Moy, plainly convicts himself of either intellectual incapacity or wilful blindness by the remarks he makes. He would require to read the book a second time. There are many passages in it that imply a disbelief in the infallibility of the Bible. More than that; it is absolutely clear that one of the main underlying and regulating principles of the whole work is a disbelief in such infallibility. For example, in his preface, Dr. Alexander states that “there is a criterion of genuine possession to be discovered and applied.” This most emphatically implies that some cases stated in the New Testament to be possession by evil spirits are not genuine, and that a test must be found whereby to distinguish between those that are genuine and those that are not. Does not this tell us at the very outset that the author enters upon his enquiry with a settled disbelief in the infallibility of the Bible record? Much of his work, as a necessary consequence, is an attempt to prove that it is not demons but mental diseases which afflicted many persons who are said in the New Testament to be possessed with evil spirits. Medical science is all very good in its own place, but there are things in the spirit sphere that are entirely beyond its philosophy. We refuse, in fact, to tear the Word of God in shreds for the sake of any human science whatsoever. The New Testament distinguishes between purely physical diseases and cases of demonic possession, and it is our most sacred duty to take our stand upon the distinctions there made, and not to yield for an hour to the theories of modern scientists, which violate these distinctions. In regard to Dr. Alexander’s disclaimer, we pointed out in our former article on the subject that he does not discard all the unsound statements of his book, and that those opinions he does withdraw are only discarded “as unnecessary and immature speculations,” a description which in nowise admits the radical erroneousness of the views referred to. The soundest divine may entertain sometimes “unnecessary and immature speculations,” which do not overthrow any doctrine of God’s Word whatsoever, far less undermine that Word itself. There are speculations and speculations; but Dr. Alexander’s are such as affect the very foundations of Christianity. We affirm, then, that if Free Churchmen are satisfied with his disclaimer, they are much too easily satisfied, and practically proclaim themselves incapable of being guardians of “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” In the speeches noticed above, much is made of the circumstance that, according to the testimony of students, Dr. Alexander has taught nothing unsound since he joined the Free Church, but this is not sufficient to vindicate his position. His book, which is still in circulation, is the formal expression of his views to the world at large, and by it alone will he be judged before the general tribunal of the Christian Church. No mere partial apology can obviate this result.
In the Free Church Record for March a strange opinion is expressed on the subject of Church discipline as bearing upon the present case. The editor takes to task Dr. Howie, of the U.F. Church, for a reference in a letter of his to the views of the Free Church professor. Certainly Dr. Howie’s remarks come with very bad grace from a man in his position—that of a leader in a Church that is riddled through and through with the Higher Criticism. But the editor’s reply is constructed so as to answer criticisms that have come from other parties, Principal Donaldson, St. Andrews, and the rest. The editor states—(1) “That when Professor Alexander wrote and published the book he was in communion with the U.F. Church, subject to her judicatories, and teaching her students; (2) that no fault whatever was found with the book by anyone connected with the U.F. Church; on the contrary, it was favourably received by prominent men within its pale; (3) that if it be the bad book now represented, the guilt of its publication and allowing it free course rests on the U.F. Church and not on the Free Church, which can have no jurisdiction over an office-bearer for something done before he acknowledged her judicatories. Dr. Alexander did not become a member of the Free Church until after the publication of his book. He did so after stating to the writer that he adhered to the Confession of Faith and felt no need of the Declaratory Act. He taught and lectured to the students and lay preachers of the Free Church as an outside teacher, and delivered lectures in presence of others well qualified to judge of his soundness during the intervening period before he was admitted as a probationer of the Free Church. Since he answered the questions and signed the formula of 1846 in November, 1904, when he became subject to the authority of the judicatories of the Free Church, he has said or done nothing worthy of condemnation, but very much that is worthy of commendation. Even Dr. Howie might hesitate to take a man to task for something done when the man was not subject to his authority. There is such a thing as equity in ecclesiastical procedure, although Dr. Howie and his friends have abundantly shown that they do not believe in it.”
The sum of these statements is that because Dr. Alexander published his book before he joined the Free Church, and because he has said or done nothing worthy of condemnation since then, therefore it is not equity for the Free Church to deal with him by any process on account of his book. Now, this manner of reasoning appears to the writer utterly unsound. When did Dr. Alexander actually issue his book? Was it twenty years before he entered the Free Church, during which time he might possibly have changed his mind two or three times on many subjects? No; but only a very few months. Did he inform the Free Church that he had changed his views on the inspiration of the Bible? There is not the slightest evidence that he did. In fact, such is the gulph between these views and the sound doctrine of Holy Scripture that we cannot imagine a man passing from the one to the other without a very decided mental revolution, such as the world would have heard something about, and such as would have borne fruit in the public withdrawal of the book by the voluntary act of the author. Nothing of the kind has manifestly taken place. But we ask further, “Is it correct to affirm that ‘the Free Church can have no jurisdiction over an office-bearer for something done before he acknowledged her judicatories’?” The idea is quite absurd. Let us use an illustration. Suppose a man has committed some crime unknown to his fellows, and a few months after enters the communion of a Christian Church. A year or two elapse, and then the crime is discovered. Would it not be competent for that church then to deal with him, simply because he had done the evil deed before he entered its pale? Surely it would. Or has it come to this, that in the case of the Free Church, once a man has joined it, he is safe from discipline no matter what evil he may have committed before then? But let it be most carefully noted that the offence now discussed is not one merely past; it is absolutely present. The book continued to live after it was published, and as already pointed out, it is in circulation at the present moment. Dr. Alexander’s offence against truth still proceeds apace.
May we be allowed to say that what the Free Church requires at the present time is a few men who will take their stand with sincere and determined resolution upon the Word of God and the Confession of Faith, who will brook no worldly compromises in matters of doctrine, worship, or discipline, and who will see to it that it is only men of truth and principle that shall occupy office in the Church? Shilly-shallying and covering up in matters of the most vital moment to the Church of God on earth are contemptible in the extreme. What is a multitude of church buildings, etc., if the truth of God is not conserved? It is in the truth, and the truth alone, that the strength of a Church consists. Apart from this, no matter how big or how rich the organisation, all is sham and a snare. We do sincerely pray that the Free Church may yet be led to act in a way that shall be satisfying to all the demands of truth. Some people, we believe, are angry with us, because we have criticised Professor Alexander. We are sorry they should be so affected. As indicated in a former article, it is with no desire to gratify the United Free Church that we have taken up the pen in this connection. With that body we have never had any sympathy whatever. If Free Churchmen, however, by their action, or want of action, expose themselves to criticism, we are bound by every sacred obligation to condemn them as well as others. God is our judge, before whom all must soon appear, that, from first to last of all our comments on the career of this Church, we have been animated simply by a sincere (though no doubt imperfect) desire for the glory of God and the good of His cause!
J. S. S.