THIS able and interesting paper was written by Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Kennedy, in 1872, in answer to a Statement and Appeal issued by ten leading men in the Free Church who were in favour of union with the U.P. Church, and advocated a Mutual Eligibility Scheme between the two Churches. The paper contains several points that are of value on the general subject of Church unions:—
REV. AND DEAR SIRS,—Though you did not address your Statement and Appeal to me while it remained a private document, it has now reached me through the public prints, and I feel entitled to reply.
I am not quite sure why you refrained from trying its effect on me; nor can I determine whether those who have, or those who have not, been selected by you, have less reason to be satisfied. Am I right in thinking that you judged me to be an unreasonable man, quite beyond the effective range of your Appeal, and that it was on that account you sent to me no copy of your letter? I can conjecture no other reason why you passed me over. And why did you send it to others who were quite as much committed by their antecedents? Did you think that they were less honest and resolved? Did you forget that, instead of any symptoms of wavering in our ranks, a larger proportion of the members of Assembly voted against you this year than on any former occasion? You have no right to act towards some as if they were not open to conviction, and towards others as if you suspected them of holding their opinions loosely. It will give no relief from the painful impression which you have produced upon the minds of the latter, to be told that you only intended to dissuade them from joining in a popular agitation against the Assembly’s overture; for you express a hope that “some of them would regard with favour” the overture itself.
Were you quite sure that you had a right to assume the position from which you issued your Appeal? Does it well become ten Presbyterians to constitute themselves into an episcopal synod? And how can you justify your representing some of your brethren, in a letter addressed to others of them, as men who ought to be “controlled and checked” and “repudiated?” Are you entitled thus to write regarding conduct which you dare not deal with as rendering the actors liable to the censure of the Church?
Is it your place to act the part of peacemakers? By whom has the element of disorder been introduced into our Church? Was it not by you, who proposed to alter the constitution of the Free Church, not because you disapproved of it, but in order to prepare your Church for coalition with another that regarded as unscriptural one of her distinctive principles? You chose to break up the peace of a Church of whose constitution you approved, and whose unity you have vowed to defend, for the sake of incorporation with a Church holding views which you dare not homologate. Your first duty, surely, was to maintain entire the testimony of your own Church, and to preserve unbroken her ranks around the banner which her King had given her. This was “the great and sacred cause of Union” to which you were pledged by solemn vows. Discharge your obligations, and you and we are at peace. Cease to do so, and you become disunionists—not we, who merely insist that you shall not injure that of which you approve, and which you have promised at all hazards to defend. Both you and we are under vow to follow no divisive courses from the doctrine, but that vow does not bind us to follow the majority, of our Church. Your being the larger section does not make your course less divisive, but all the more lamentable, than if you were a minority of the elders of the Church. We have not promised to follow you, or to unite with those who may seek our fellowship; but we are under vow to sacrifice nought of all our testimony so long as we believe it to be scriptural; and if our adherence to that engagement requires us to differ from you, and to remain apart from others, these results are due to our following the directions of Him who cannot err. It would be convenient for you that all agitation against your scheme should cease; and one cannot be surprised that, bent as you are on carrying it through, you are displeased because your path is roughened. But is it becoming to ask men of strong convictions to be silent merely because they are opposed to you? They regard you as the disturbers of the Church’s peace; and because they protest against your conduct, you ask them to be quiet that they may not disturb yours. There is as little fairness as modesty in such a proposal.
And you claim to have made a concession for the sake of peace, because you did not propose, in the last Assembly, to consummate the Union of the Churches. You refrained from doing so, you say, because of the opposition of the minority, and on that ground you think you should be regarded as peacemakers. You did not unite with another Church at the cost of rending your own, and because of this you claim the merit of having made a great concession for the sake of peace! And you, at the same time, declare that you have only postponed an incorporating Union of the Churches. You did not unite yesterday, but you intend to do so to-morrow, whether the opposition shall continue or shall cease! And what is your present substitute for Union? A measure which the minority regard as involving as thorough a sacrifice of principle as that for which it was substituted. You were told this before you proposed it. It was more strongly opposed in the Assembly than any step you previously took in the direction of Union, and yet you say it was put forward in the interests of peace. And even this, you declare, was reluctantly done. And for this sham concession, scarcely yielded, you claim a right to utter, ex cathedra, words of peace!
You affirm that your present proposal avoids incorporation. You go further, and declare that it is only a preliminary to a scheme of co-operation. And yet it would place the ministers of all the negotiating Churches on an equal footing in relation to all their vacant charges. It would declare to all our congregations that they are at liberty to call a United Presbyterian, equally as a Free Church, minister; that there is nothing in the views of the former on account of which they should regard him with less favour than the latter; and that when they call a United Presbyterian minister, they must appear at the bar of his Presbytery, and conform to the rules, and submit to the decision, of that court. And yet you affirm that there is neither formal nor virtual incorporation proposed; yea, that this is merely laying the foundation of a scheme of co-operation! What more important result of thorough Union could there be than the placing of the ministers of the united Churches on the same footing in relation to vacant charges? You propose to adopt as your own, for the supply of your vacant pulpits, all the ministers of the other negotiating Churches. The service of the gospel is the most important function of the Church, and if, in relation to that service, the ministers of the three Churches are to be regarded with equal favour, what reason can be given for not fusing into one the whole organisation and work of these Churches? You propose, before incorporating them, what would be the most important result of their Union being consummated. The kind of relation you would form, by this new scheme, between the Free and the United Presbyterian Churches, never connected us before, except with Churches which, had they been beside us in Scotland, would have been thoroughly incorporated with us. You propose an inconsistency, therefore, when you would place all these Churches side by side in the Assembly’s Act. And it is nothing better than an imposition to declare that they are all on the same footing; for you will not venture to say, except in the impersonal form of an Assembly Act, that there is the same conformity to our Constitution in the case of all these together.
How could you represent the Mutual Eligibility Scheme as one which ought to be accepted by any who were opposed to an incorporating Union? Can you imagine that those who conscientiously objected to the one, could conscientiously agree to the other? Must you not see that this scheme, if it is aught else than a display of dishonest courtesy, must lead to a gradual fusion of the Churches? A walk is as objectionable as a leap of equal extent, if the terminus of both is the same and is bad. The boa does not swallow its rabbit at one gulp. It first licks it all over, and then begins the swallowing at one of the extremities; but it is with a view to the incorporation of the whole carcase the process has begun. In this case the licking all over has been most carefully done already; and you now propose to begin the swallowing.
What opinion of our intelligence do you form when you, as representing the Union Committee, tell us that, because a wholesale fusion of the Churches is not proposed, you have confined yourselves to the work given you to do when instructed to arrange a scheme of co-operation? Will there be no change of the constitution of the Free Church in effect, if not in form, when the overture sent down by the last Assembly is passed into a law? Will not that law declare that Free Church pulpits are open, equally as to your own, to ministers who are avowed Voluntaries, who hold views on the subject of the Atonement which some of you have most emphatically declared unsound, and who approve of the use of organs? And who, more loudly than yourselves, once proclaimed that this would be utterly inconsistent with the constitution of the Free Church? You remind us that the formula must be signed; but can you admit men to subscribe it without your declaring that there is not in all their views, before they sign, aught of any consequence to which you have objections? You must homologate all their known opinions and sentiments; for it is a signature without examination you propose. You do not allow your own trained students to subscribe the formula without subjecting them to trial, in order to ascertain whether their subscription is intelligent and honest. If the subscription required a change of views, you would not propose to resign your right to try those who offer it. No Church can, guiltless, ordinarily leave the power of trial in abeyance when dealing with applicants for admission either into its ministry or its membership. But you purpose to do so. And why? Because you are quite satisfied that the views of those whom you would admit are unobjectionable. Can this consist with adherence to the present constitution of the Free Church? If not, neither can your proposal be regarded as “a fundamental part of a scheme of co-operation.” Co-operation, as distinct from incorporation, requires that the distinctive positions of the Churches shall remain unaltered—it must be a co-operation of the Churches as at present constituted. You cannot but know that is not what you have proposed.
You insist that, because you leave the formula unaltered, you do not change the constitution of the Church. You feel that you require to preserve the identity, in order to retain the property, of the Free Church of Scotland. You therefore do not propose a new formula. But if this gives you a footing in the Court of Session, can it justify you in the court of conscience? You dare not say that no Voluntary can sign your formula. If you say so, then you must declare that you make an offer which no honest United Presbyterian minister can accept; that while professing to open your door to all the ministers of that Church, you have actually done so only to those who cannot be expected to act conscientiously. If you say that one may sign it and remain a Voluntary, of what avail is your formula as the fence of your Church’s constitution? If you say that you wish to receive only such as have changed their views, how can you propose to receive them without previous trial? Such cases are already met by our legislation in the only way that is at once righteous and wise.
Can you wonder that we, who are firmly persuaded that you are altering the constitution of our Church, should agitate in opposition to your movement? We love our Church, because we believe her constitution was moulded according to the will of Christ. We believe that He so formed it as to exclude from her communion all who are avowed Voluntaries, all whose views indicate a deviation from the Calvinistic doctrine of the Atonement, and all who would impair the simplicity of Presbyterian worship. If we are overborne in our Assembly by the mere strength of numbers—if we cannot, in the ordinary course of ecclesiastical procedure, succeed in laying an arrest on your revolutionary movement—can you be surprised that we raise our appeal to the people? Have they no interest in the maintenance of our Church’s constitution? Ought you not ere now to have consulted them? If you were removing an error from your creed, or remedying a mistake in your laws, you might think yourselves entitled to do so without appealing to the people for their consent. But this is not what you are now doing. You are changing the constitution of your Church while declaring that it is right. If you have come to think it wrong, and if you regard yourselves as having acted ill in adhering to it in the past, proclaim your repentance, and call your people to join you in confession of sin, and in an orderly revolution of your Church. But do not revolutionise your Church while declaring her constitution to be good, and without reference to the feelings of the people. They have a right to be heard in such a case; and if you will only evoke an expression of their feelings, I am firmly persuaded that the voice of the people will cry, “Let well alone.”
Must you not see that our only resource, in present circumstances, is to bring a protest from the people to bear on the Assembly? If you will not appeal to them, we will ask them to appeal to you. The Assembly’s overture may be approved by a majority of the Presbyteries. Some of them have been in great haste to utter their “yea”—what they did, they did quickly; but neither wisely, nor seemly, nor well. Others may follow till the majority have expressed their approval; and if the people call not loudly for a pause, the next Assembly may pass the overture into a standing law.
We owe it to you, as well as to our Church, to make this last attempt against the revolution you propose. Some of you have hitherto occupied an outstanding and most responsible position; and be assured that your appeal would have been somewhat more respected, if only these had signed it. You were leaders in a Church which received a glorious testimony from the Lord her King. You succeeded to a foremost place in the Scottish Zion, distinguished throughout her history in days of faithful testifying, for her nationalism, her Calvinism, her Christian patriotism, and her zeal for simplicity of worship. You were trained to contend for these in pre-Disruption days. You fought the battle bravely against Voluntaryism then. You remained firm in your adherence to Calvinistic doctrine, when in a Church beside you there were most marked symptoms of decline. You could have sympathised then with Mr. Stewart of Cromarty, who, after reading the report of the trial of Brown, exclaimed with tears, “Have the sons of the Erskines come to this!” You took an active part in the Church extension movement, for you could not endure to think that any, within your beloved land, should lack the preaching of the Gospel. You came out in ’43 with the Confession of Faith in your hearts and in your hands. In the name of the Free Church you proclaimed yourselves—how often and how loudly!—as no Voluntaries, and as less disposed than ever to unite with those who were. You gloried in your Sustentation Fund, as giving security for the maintenance of gospel ordinances throughout the land. You spoke and wrote against the sensuousness that begets a craving for instrumental music in the house of God. Forget not, in these unsettled days, your antecedents and engagements. Unworthy of being your son or brother as I am, yet let me thus counsel you; for I do so in the name of many whose hearts are trembling for the ark of God in your hands, and I know I do it in the Lord’s name. To our Church, and specially to each of you, His call is, “Hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” Would that the honour which the Lord hath put upon you continued to shed its halo around your heads till death shall lay them low, and around your memories after you are gone! Be assured that not a few, because of how much they honoured you, are grieved to think that you have begun to waver, and that your course of faithful service to your Church and Master may have an inconsistent close.
You have been wont to justify your change of sentiment and action by a reference to the character of the times we live in. You say that the hosts of the enemy are mustering for a decisive conflict with the Church, and you justify your Union movement as the way of becoming strong to meet the shock of battle. But would it not be wiser to seek the strength which the truth and the presence of the Lord alone can give? The Lord, who called you to your post, knew what was coming. His eye is over all the field of battle, and He knoweth all the issues of the conflict. It is His to watch and to direct the combined movements of all the divisions of the army which He commands. He requires you to do the work of the position in which he has placed you; and you may rest assured that you will best serve Him by doing so, even though your Church should seem to be cramped into a sect. A strong tide is, in these days, bearing men’s views and ways one knows not whither. Men are becoming impatient of authority in matters of belief, and of all definiteness and steadfastness of faith. If ever there was a time when the Church should prove itself to be “the pillar and ground of the truth,” ’tis in the midst of the seething tide of unguided progress that is so fast gaining strength. A passion for progress is prevalent and urgent, and you are in danger of being caught in the current it creates; and becoming impatient of the restraints imposed by the testimony and antecedents of the past, you may cast loose your Church, that by drifting with, she may not seem behind, the age. The drifting has, alas! begun, and whither are we moving? Vessels cast adrift on the sea tend to each other, and are apt to be broken by coming into contact. Their mutual attraction may end in a damaging collision. This is our Church’s danger, drawn to a Union which, if it is ever effected, will be the result of waning love to the truth, rather than of growing love to the brethren. Bind her to her mooring, if you would not see her wrecked.—I am, &c., JOHN KENNEDY.
12th September, 1872.