ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
THE idea of Church union is a very popular one at present in Scotland, and some of the leaders in the Established Church are doing their utmost to foster it. The subject, in relation to other Presbyterian Churches, formed a prominent topic in the Assembly now closed. Dr. Scott, Edinburgh, moved a deliverance, which was seconded by Dr. Norman Macleod, to the effect that the Assembly remit the overtures on union to a special Committee, to consider what steps may be taken to remove the difficulties that stand in the way of reaching the end that they propose. Special mention was made of the United Free and Free Churches, but the Assembly refrain, until present questions are settled between these Churches, from communicating officially with their General Assemblies, but express their readiness, at the first suitable opportunity, to confer with them as to the removal of existing differences, “consistently with the continued recognition of the principle of national religion.” The Assembly recommend meantime a spirit of brotherly helpfulness, in order to remove misunderstanding and to promote Christian unity. Professor Cooper, Glasgow, moved a counter motion to include in the efforts for union all the various communions of the Reformed Church in the land, referring thereby to the Episcopal as well as Presbyterian Churches. Professor Cooper, as our readers may know, is the leader of the strongly Ritualistic party, and would not have much difficulty in seeking union with the Church of Rome. Rev. A. Warr, Roseneath, moved that a Committee on Union with other Churches be authorised to approach these Churches at a convenient opportunity, and that the Assembly invite the General Assemblies of the Free and United Free Churches to consider the premises, and to appoint Committees to confer with their Committee, with a view to building “a satisfactory structure of comprehensive Presbyterian re-union.” There were two other motions of a more cautious nature than any of those mentioned, but the motion of Dr. Scott was carried by an overwhelming majority.
The most serious discussion that took place in this Assembly was that on the report of the Committee on the Formula of Subscription to the Confession of Faith. A movement has been on foot for some years to get the present formula altered in the interests of wider latitude of belief. The Confession of Faith has, to all intents and purposes, ceased to be the confession of the great majority of the ministers of the Established Church, and so there has been a strong desire for a relaxation of the formula which at present binds them to the Confession. Until lately the contract with the State stood in the way, but when Parliament passed the Churches Act—settling the property between the Free and the United Free Churches—the opportunity was snatched to get a section of the Act devoted to the Established Church, and the consent of Parliament was given in this section to the Church’s altering the Formula of Subscription to the Confession as it might see fit. The Committee on this subject reported to the Assembly that they had considered sixty-three specimens of a Formula, and that these were reduced to the following two forms, which were transmitted to the Assembly:—(1) “I hereby subscribe the Confession of Faith, the public and avowed Confession of this Church, approved by former General Assemblies as most agreeable to the Word of God, and ratified by Parliament in the year 1690, declaring that I believe the Reformed Faith therein set forth.” (2) “I hereby subscribe the Confession of Faith,” etc.—the same wording as the previous form, but with the concluding clause as follows—declaring that I believe the substance of the doctrine contained therein.” On the motion of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the first form, with the addition of the words, “to which I will adhere,” was approved by a large majority, and it was decided to translate it “as an overture to Presbyteries for their consent, in terms of the Barrier Act.” There were many motions before the Assembly, recommending various forms of formula, that did not meet with acceptance. One of these was by the Rev. Allan Mackenzie, Uig, Lewis, who moved that, in the event of a new formula being sent down to Presbyteries, it should be in these terms: “I hereby subscribe the Confession of Faith approved by former General Assemblies of this Church, and ratified by Parliament in 1690, as agreeable to the Word of God, to which I will adhere.” But Mr. Mackenzie recommended that they should agree not to send down any formula at all, but leave the old formula as it stood. His motion was seconded by the Rev. John Haggart, Lochcarron.
The case of Ritualistic practices in St. Columba’s Church, Elgin, was also taken up. It appears that there are two Established Churches in Elgin—the Parish Church as well as this which was described by the Procurator of Assembly as “the little Church.” The office-bearers and members of the Parish Church have rights in St. Columba’s also. The petition against the innovations was supported by 590 communicants and 980 adherents. The Assembly, on the principle of “quiet and peace,” granted the petition, and instructed that “the service of St. Columba’s Church should, in the meantime, be conducted in the same manner as the service in the Parish Church of Elgin.”
Our old friend, Pastor Jacob Primmer, appeared on the last day of the Assembly in an appeal against Popish innovations in St. Columba’s, Edinburgh. The Assembly dismissed the complaint as having been properly dealt with by the Presbytery, while it found that the Presbytery and Synod erred in their procedure in not receiving Mr. Primmer’s appeals from one court to another. We may remark that we believe Mr. Primmer’s witness is on high, and if his appeals be sustained there, he need not care, for there is a day coming when there will be a final judgment of all cases, and when Ritualistic formalists and their idols will have to lie very low.
The Assembly was closed with an eloquent address by the Moderator (Dr. Mitford Mitchell), who appears to admire all Episcopal innovations in worship, and is under the sad delusion that the Church was never in a more spiritually prosperous condition.
UNITED FREE CHURCH.
Some very brief notes of this Assembly will suffice. In the interests of the Union movement, there were various features. It was agreed that the United Free College in Calcutta, India, should be united with that of the Church of Scotland there. The last of three advantages of this union mentioned—the financial one—was not likely the least that had weight in this decision. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and several ministers of the Established Church, appeared on the floor of the Assembly in the interests of some common causes, and to exchange brotherly greetings. On one of the last days, Dr. Hutton delivered the report of the Disestablishment Committee, which was approved, but there was a minority who advocated a cessation of hostilities against the Established Church.
The event that aroused most general interest was the appointment of a Principal over the New College in succession to Dr. Rainy. Two names were chiefly before the Assembly, Dr. Whyte, of St. George’s, and Professor Dods. Dr. Whyte definitely withdrew his name, and Dr. Dods was appointed with acclamations. We daresay that Dr. Dods, from his learning and standing as a Professor, had the prior claim, but his appointment is a bad stroke of policy for the United Church—especially in the Highlands, where Dr. Dods’ name is associated, and that correctly, with erroneous opinions about the Bible, and what constitutes a true Christian. Dr. Ross Taylor, who moved his appointment, endeavoured to rebut charges that had been made against the Professor in regard to Unitarianism, by describing them as slander. But this will not do. When Dr. Dods laid down the position that a man may be a true Christian though he does not believe in the divinity of Christ, he made a distinct concession to Unitarianism, which, in fact, was hailed with delight by the upholders of that system. He said also, no doubt, that a belief in Christ’s divinity was necessary to a mature Christian, but this did not alter his first statement. And, again, his declared belief that there are errors, inaccuracies, and immoralities in the Bible also stands to this day. Dr. Taylor maintained that Dr. Dods was a steady conservative force in their Church. This is a bad sign. It means that there are many worse than he, such as Dr. George Adam Smith and Dr. Moffat, who entertain wild higher critical ideas, to which Dr. Dods does not quite subscribe. But it must not be forgotten that his views are the open door for theirs, whether he or others realise it or not. Possibly there is one advantage to the cause of truth in Dr. Dods’ appointment. He speaks out straight his opinions, be they bad or good, while, if Dr. Whyte had been appointed, he would have secured additional power and opportunity to make people, north and south, believe that the United Free Church is as sound in the faith as John Bunyan or Samuel Rutherford. The country has so far escaped this.
This Assembly was closed by an address from the Moderator, Dr. M’Crie, Ayr, on Church Unions. Dr. M’Crie is a grandson of the noble Secession divine and historian, Dr. Thomas M’Crie, author of “The Lives of Knox and Melville,” but he is not walking in the footsteps of his worthy ancestor, who would have died rather than be identified with a body of such downgrade opinions and tendencies as the present United Free Church.
FREE CHURCH.
This Assembly met in St. John’s Church, once the scene of the ministry of Dr. Thomas Guthrie, which has been allocated by the Commission to the Free Church, and which is now to be known as Free St. Columba’s. The meeting was opened with a sermon by Professor Bannatyne, retiring Moderator, and then the Rev. Murdo Mackenzie, Inverness, was called to the Moderator’s chair. Mr. Mackenzie, towards the close of his address, which dealt with the history of the Free Church, expressed the sorrow he had felt at parting with “beloved brethren” at the time of the Union in 1900, and paid a tribute to the late Principal Rainy, whom he eulogised as “the great man whom Scotland at large lamented,” and in regard to whom he said that “although they differed from and opposed his ecclesiastical policy, all were justly proud of his many noble qualities and great attainments.” We cannot refrain from remarking that it is to be feared that it was only “policy” that separated Mr. Mackenzie from Principal Rainy, as well as a good many more in the present Free Church. A real, consistent witnessing for the truth was not in the business.
The Free Assemblies, as now constituted, seem anxious to retain a good deal of the ways and fashions of Assemblies before the Union. The pulpit and Moderator’s table were decorated with palms and ferns, and “A Reception” was held on the evening of the opening day, at which about 500 ladies and gentlemen were present, the former, no doubt, showing off their best dresses—a description of some of which appeared in an evening newspaper. We have no doubt this sort of thing will gratify many in the Free Church who like to combine the world and orthodoxy, and whose attachment to the faith and example of their godly ancestors is a mere formality. At the Reception, of course, various denominations were represented. Several dignitaries of the Established Church spoke, and during “a Conversazione,” held after the Reception, the Moderator of the Established Church and his chaplain paid a visit. The addition of a little State grandeur even for a short time was, no doubt, very pleasing. “Quite a number of distinguished people looked in to see what like we were,” remarks the Free Church Record.
On the second day, the reports on the Sustentation and other Funds were discussed. These reports bore that, while the liberality of the Church had doubled itself, the expenditure had more than correspondingly increased, and that “several of the Committees were very largely in debt,” the expenditure of the Sustentation Fund being “very much more than its income.” In answer to a question, Mr. Rounsfell Brown, the convener of the Finance Committee, said “that the suspense account, showing a debit of £25,834, was largely legal expenses—there had been an enormous amount spent on legal expenses.” Mr. Archibald MacNeilage criticised very severely the expenses of general management, and the almost wholesale transference of the sum collected for Foreign Missions during the year to meet the expenses of the Offices in Edinburgh. He said “that £3,112 19s. 9d. was an astounding sum to pay for general management, in respect of officials who were to be paid out of the general funds. The Sustentation Fund was made to appear to have a debit balance of £1,321, but as a matter of fact the Sustentation Fund on its merits had not a balance against it of close on £1,340. The balance against the Sustentation Fund had been brought about through the assessing of the Fund with the sum of £1,490 for general management. The congregations of the Free Church last year collected for Foreign Missions the sum of £259. That was what the Churches out of their poverty contributed for the support of Foreign Missions. Of the £259 subscribed by the Churches, £252 had been ‘collared’ for the support of establishment, for the expenses in the offices. He wished the General Assembly to understand that the finance report was one of the gravest possible description for the future of the Free Church. The Publications report was debited in the General Purposes Account with a sum, as balance transferred, of £176 2s. The Record was bound to lose £100 every year, as he knew.” Mr. James Coltart, Glasgow, said “he must dissent from the conclusion that the Record could not be made to pay.”
It may be appropriate here to remind our readers that a very bitter attack was made some months ago on the Free Presbyterian Synod by a prominent minister of the Free Church, signing “Observer,” for the transference of the small sum of £50 from the Foreign Mission Fund to the Organisation Fund. The transference was only a purely temporary one, and one that did no injury to the Foreign Mission Fund, facts that late Free Presbyterians now in the Free Church could easily have informed him of, being his immediate neighbours and brethren. They might have also been able to inform him that £20 of said sum had been already returned to the Foreign Mission Fund, and that the balance was soon to follow. It suited “Observer” very well to raise the cry of scandal over a nothing in order to damage the character of the Free Presbyterian Church, which has had at least a reputation for honesty in the past, but he is now very silent when his own Church management has been found transferring over £1,700 from one fund to another, and is charged by one of their own office-bearers with “astounding” extravagance. The scandal, if any, is somewhere else now.
We make these remarks without ill-feeling, but we feel bound to take notice of this and other matters in connection with the present Free Church, as so much has been said and done to mislead our people as to the relations of the two Churches. The great cry of Free Churchmen is that there is no difference now in principle or practice between us; but there are differences, and differences of an important nature, that should make our people thankful to the Lord that there is such a body as the Free Presbyterian Church in the country.
In the report on “General Interests,” the subject of a new Psalmody was taken up. A sub-committee has been entrusted with the compilation of “a suitable book of Psalms and tunes.” “Keen discussion took place on the question whether the new book was to contain the Paraphrases and five Hymns usually found bound up with Bibles published in Scotland.” Mr. J. Hay Thorburn advocated the Paraphrases and Hymns, and was supported by the Rev. James Watson, Leith, and others. On the principle of “quiet and peace,” Revs. J. Noble, Lairg, and W. Mackinnon, Garloch, wanted to give up the proposed Psalmody altogether. The Committee’s recommendation for a Psalmody with Psalms only was carried by a majority.
Rev. Mr. Campbell, Creich, convener, gave in the report on “The Training of the Ministry.” He appealed for the service of young men of zeal and piety, and said that “they need have no fear now of the quality of the teaching in the College. The Free Church had a Principal and Professors now in whom they had implicit confidence.” It may be that the Free Church has implicit confidence in all their Professors, but it is not so with those outside their pale. We have never seen any adequate guarantee that Professor Alexander has renounced his errors, as taught in the book Demonic Possession.
On the last day of the Assembly there was introduced, among other things, an “Act anent the Admission of Ministers and Probationers from other Churches,” which is certainly fitted to do good if—and the if is a pretty big one—it is thoroughly and consistently administered. On the subject of purity of worship, and other points, it should exclude men already in the Free Church. It was ordained that the Act be sent down to Presbyteries for their consideration as an Overture under the Barrier Act. It was also passed as an Interim Act—to be now in force. Rev. James Watson and Mr. Thorburn “dissented from this finding, on the ground that the Act should first have been submitted to the law agents for their opinion.” During the discussion on the subject, Mr. John Robertson, Wick, said he was surprised to find that there were about half-a-dozen ministers in the Church who were under the impression that they had a right to use hymns. After dissents were entered, he asked whether it was competent to receive dissents from the law of the Church. Professor Bannatyne said that they had been in the habit of allowing great freedom in the matter of dissent. Rev. D. Munro, Ferintosh, appeared in support of an overture from the Presbytery of Dingwall, asking the Assembly to take all the facts concerning the worship of the Church into consideration, and decide as might seem best in the matter. It was remitted to a Committee to consider, and report to next Assembly.
There is some ground for the suspicion that the apparent zeal and activity on behalf of purity of worship, etc., which are now seen in the Free Church, have sprung up more from the hope of gaining recruits from some other Churches than anything else.
The Assembly was closed with an address by the moderator, Mr. MacKenzie, in which he spoke of “A Minister’s Indispensable Qualifications,” and made a number of sound remarks. One of his remarks, however, may well have provoked a smile in his readers, if not in his hearers—“We think we have the purest Church in Christendom.” Christendom is not very pure, we are sorry to say, at present. But we shall add no more.