IN our February issue we made reference to a letter which appeared in the Free Church Record of January, in which the writer, “W. M.,” first criticised the affairs of his own Church, and thereafter gave three reasons why he chose to be a Free Churchman rather than a Free Presbyterian. We then quoted some of his remarks on bazaars, social meetings, and other things in the Free Church. We now proceed to answer his statements about the Free Presbyterian Church. These are contained in the first of his reasons why he prefers to be a Free Churchman, and we shall examine them in detail. The reason begins as follows: “The first is that I have doubts as to the constitution of the F.P. Church. In separating from the Free Church, she seems to have agreed with the majority of the then Free Church that by a majority of Assembly she had power to alter her constitution—as, for example, the Declaratory Act. Unless she took this view, she could not have held as she did—that the Constitutionalists, notwithstanding their dissent, which was properly recorded, were under the Declaratory Act as a binding law. If she holds that doctrine now, then, like the U.F. Church, she has power to alter her constitution whenever there happens to be a majority in her who wish it.”
In reply, we remark that it was about the last thing we expected to meet—a charge against the Free Presbyterian Church of a seeming agreement with the majority of the Free Church of 1892-93 in the view that a majority of Assembly had power to alter the constitution. Witness, first, the “Bond of Union,” the first formal document drawn up by the Free Presbyterians after their separation: “We protest against the power assumed by the Courts of the Church which has ceased to represent the creed and principles of the said Free Church of Scotland, by passing the Declaratory Act, inasmuch as by the said Act they have substituted for ‘the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith what they may regard as the substance of the Reformed Faith therein set forth,’ thus largely dispensing with most solemn vows.” Witness, secondly, the “Reasons for Separation” with regard to the said Act. “Under cover of a desire to maintain purity of doctrine and the peace and unity of the Church, this Act gives the Church—that is, in the last resort, the General Assembly—a power with respect to its standards that it by no means possessed in its original constitution.” Witness, thirdly, the “Deed of Separation,” and the latter part of the fourth ground or reason stated in it on the same subject, which runs: “The Church, through the majorities of the members of her Courts, being by said Declaratory Act made the sole judge of the particular points that are to be included under this category of doctrines—a provision which overthrows the fixed Doctrinal Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland, and lays its creed at the feet of an irresponsible majority to determine the same at its will.” The Deed of Separation is one of the standards of the Free Presbyterian Church, and these words are directly condemnatory of the view that the Free Church had “the power, by a majority of Assembly, to alter her constitution.” Let it be observed, however, that the constitution was altered by the majority de facto (in fact), but the power, by which this was done, was assumed, and not inherent. Let it be noticed also, that so far from the Free Presbyterians holding the opinion that the majority of Assembly had an inherent right to alter the constitution, that when they did so de facto by passing the Declaratory Act of 1892, the Free Presbyterians no longer regarded them as Free Churchmen in any proper sense, but described the body under the new conditions as “the present subsisting Church calling herself the Free Church of Scotland.” But “W. M.” appears to think that unless the F.P. Church took the other view, “she could not have held, as she did, that the Constitutionalists, notwithstanding their dissent which was properly recorded, were under the Declaratory Act as a binding law.” Free Presbyterians have certainly held that the Constitutionalists, who remained in association with the majority, were under the Declaratory Act as a binding law, but they did not hold this on the ground that the majority had right or power to pass such an Act as that of 1892, but on the ground that the Act was passed according to the recognised steps of procedure in Church law, whereby any Act became a binding law and constitution in the Church. There are good Acts as well as bad Acts, and if Church procedure is not to be respected, then there is an end to all law and order in any Church. We never maintained that the Constitutionalists who remained behind in 1893 were bound to believe the doctrines of the Declaratory Act for themselves. We never said they were “under” it in that sense, but we held that they were “under” the Act as a law as long as they continued to form a part of the body, seeing that the Act was passed in accordance with the usual terms of Church procedure. The Declaratory Act, though unconstitutional in its doctrinal contents, was carried through according to constitutional Church forms, and the Free Presbyterians saw that if they remained in association with the majority, though under a dissent, they would still be compelled to respect the Act as Church law, while, at the same time, they would be violating their solemn obligations to maintain the constitution of the Free Church intact, by submitting in any way to its operation in the Church, or by co-operating with those who had de facto violated the constitution. The dissenting Constitutionalists were under the Declaratory Act as a binding law in the sense we have explained, notwithstanding their dissent, and, if we mistake not, one of the best of them, now dead, acknowledged this at the time.
We proceed now to notice the remaining part of W. M.’s first reason. “On the other hand,” he says, “we know the view held by the Constitutionalists now forming the Free Church. They said that the Free Church had no power to make any law which would alter her constitution, and that as the Declaratory Act was a breach of her constitution, it was not binding upon them—it in fact did not exist. Personally, I admit that at the time of the controversy I was not clear on the matter, and I sympathised with the F.P.’s. But now, as the law upon the point is pronounced, it would be folly to deny that the position taken up by the party now forming the Free Church has been entirely justified. I should be very sorry to say anything derogatory regarding the two respected ministers who led the F.P. movement. I believe they were sincere. At the same time, it must now be clear to all thinking people that, legally at any rate, it was an unnecessary movement.”
W. M. here expresses the view of the Constitutionalists who now form the Free Church, that “as the Declaratory Act was a breach of her constitution, it was not binding upon them—in fact did not exist.” We have already explained the sense in which we hold that the Declaratory Act was binding upon them, and need not here repeat. W. M. further maintains that they were entirely justified in treating it as non-existent. We strongly dissent from this opinion. Did it not exist, according to his own words, as a breach of the constitution? Did it not exist as operative throughout the length and breadth of the Church? Did not many office-bearers take advantage of it during the seven years the so-called Constitutionalists remained along with the majority until the Union of 1900? Had this evil state of things no existence for them? You might as well maintain that, since sin is an unlawful thing, you are at liberty to treat it as non-existent and to co-operate with evil doers in their work, under a dissent, as to accept the above view. Did not these Constitutionalists co-operate with the constitution-breakers at ordinations and inductions, and did not they recognise the Church with the broken constitution as the Free Church of Scotland throughout this period? It was their dissent, and not the Declaratory Act, that practically “did not exist.” The Free Presbyterians, on the other hand, came out and were separate, according to the divine command, and ceased to recognise the Declaratory Act Church as the Free Church of Scotland. It is the representatives of the present Free Church who acted as if they thought the majority of Assembly had power to alter the constitution, and not the Free Presbyterians.
The House of Lords, in the property decision of 1904, undoubtedly acknowledged their dissent as tantamount to decided opposition to changes that had been introduced, but it was mainly on the ground of adherence to one point, in some respects, of a subordinate nature, namely, the Establishment principle, which had been patently violated by the union of the majority with the United Presbyterian Church, that the Free Church minority obtained the property. Dissent alone was not sufficient to get them this; they had to protest and separate. At the same time, they made the most they could, through their counsel, of the serious nature of the Declaratory Act of 1892, and seemed at times to careful observers to be speaking more like Free Presbyterians than ordinary Free Churchmen. We are not sure with W. M. that even “legally” the Free Presbyterian was “an unnecessary movement.” Some people are of opinion that if it were not for the example and influence of the F.P. Church the present Free Church would not have been in existence at all.
The decision of the House of Lords was undoubtedly a victory for the constitution of the Free Church of Scotland as settled in 1843, but we cannot allow that it justified the position of the present Free Churchmen as against the Free Presbyterians. We believe the former were entirely wrong in remaining with the majority in 1893, and that they are suffering to the present day in most important ways from the compromising attitude then assumed. It was not so much because they had an eminently good case in their own personal history before the House of Lords that they gained the day, as that the U.F. Church had an eminently bad one. We believe the F.P.’s would have had a better case than either, if they had chosen to enter on a legal contest and had equally fair judges to deal with. It was reported that the Lord Chancellor said during the discussion of the present case, “These people ought to be here.” The decision of the House of Lords was very good in its own place; but we are fully convinced that the Free Presbyterian Church has received testimonies from a higher Court than the House of Lords in the consciences and hearts of many of her members, and has abundant reason for humble gratitude to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
We think we have now clearly shown that the view held by the Free Presbyterian Church of the original constitution of the Free Church, and of its own constitution which is essentially the same, is not what W. M. takes it to be. The constitution is not at the feet of a majority. There are some other points which have not been touched upon, but we may take them up in a future issue.