A STATEMENT AND AN ADDRESS BY MR. GEORGE FORREST, BRUCEFIELD.
THE following are “A Statement” and “An Address” by our well-known and esteemed friend, Mr. George Forrest, bearing upon his relations with the Congregation of the late Rev. John Ross, Brucefield, which first adhered to Mr. Ross and the Rev. Lachlan MacPherson in their protest against the Union of 1875 in Canada, but which latterly—some time after Mr. Ross’s death—went over in a body to the Union Church, with the exception of five or six persons who continued to meet in a hall. It appears that after Mr. Ross’s death, in 1887, developments took place in his Congregation which compelled Mr. Forrest to cease his connection, the reasons of which step he gives in the following Statement. The Address was delivered shortly before the chief body of the Congregation joined the Union Church in 1895. These able deliverances by Mr. Forrest will be of interest to the people of our Canadian Mission, as well as fitted to inform our people in the home country as to the nature of some of the past faithful contendings of Mr. Forrest and others who now form the present Free Presbyterian Mission in Canada.
A STATEMENT BY MR. GEORGE FORREST, Giving Reasons why he ceased his connection with the Congregation at Brucefield after the death of the Rev. John Ross in 1887.
IN the summer of 1874 I was regularly elected and regularly ordained an elder in the Brucefield Congregation, and in 1875 I was appointed Representative Elder by the Session, and in that capacity I went with Rev. Mr. Ross to the Meeting of Synod at London, and also to the General Assembly at Montreal at the time that the Union of the Presbyterian Churches was consummated, but from which Union we dissented. I may state the reason by and bye. Then a few weeks after returning from Montreal I accompanied Mr. Ross to East Williams to the Communion there. Then at the close of the Communion season, Revs. L. MacPherson, J. Ross, and D. Allen, ministers, and D. Fraser and G. Forrest, elders, organised as a Presbytery in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Afterwards we were joined by two more elders from the north. I would remark here that this organising took place at least two months before any action was taken by the Congregation in the matter, and they were in no way committed to it or compromised by it. They were free to enter the Union if they saw fit. But when the time came to take action the majority of the Congregation showed their approval of Mr. Ross’s conduct by remaining out of the Union and taking part with us in endeavouring to maintain the integrity and interest of the truth of God and the purity of His worship. I may state here that when the question was raised, What formula shall we use? and What questions shall be used in case of an ordination? it was agreed unanimously to use the questions and the formula of the “Free Church.” Every individual member of the Presbytery had originally been members of that Church, and still held the principles that Church held in its best days. Thus for a time the ordinances of God’s worship were maintained among us with a good degree of regularity. But by and bye God, in His all-wise providence, saw fit to remove the members of our Presbytery one by one by the hand of death, and as we lost these good men our difficulties increased. But what affected us most was the death of our own lamented pastor, Mr. Ross, for with his removal our trouble began.
At the first meeting of the Congregation after Mr. Ross’s death I proposed that we would call a meeting of the elders and leading men of the several Congregations with whom we were holding communion and intercourse, that we might consult together how we would do in our altered circumstances. But Mr. Walker at once repudiated all connection with them, saying that he never had anything to do with that Presbytery; and the Congregation agreed with him rather than with me. And so, in my opinion, they cut off all connection with the little company with whom we had been identified for about twelve years, and in so doing they cut their connection with me.
And now, in looking back on that time, I often think that it might have been better for all parties if I had withdrawn then. It might have saved us some uncomfortable feelings, but I felt very unwilling to give up the work that Providence seemed to have put into my hands, and shut myself up in my house. I still hoped against hope that things would come right, but instead of that I was all the time feeling myself drawn in a direction that my conscience forbade me to go. Yet I cannot admit that I left the Congregation until they left me, although, in one sense, it may be said that I left them, inasmuch as I have not been attending their meetings. Then I may be asked, Why have you withdrawn from a Congregation of which you have been a member for nearly forty years and an elder for almost fifteen years?
My object in writing these lines is to answer that question, and in order to a clear understanding in the matter I will refer to the Union of the Presbyterian Church that took place in the year 1875. From that Union Rev. J. Ross, Rev. L. MacPherson, Mr. Fraser, and myself dissented, and the majority of our Congregations agreed with us in so dissenting. Well, in the dissent that was given in by us and engrossed in the Minutes of the Assembly there is, among others, this reason: “And whereas there are found in said Basis and Resolutions matters which cannot, in our view, be sanctioned by this Church without betraying the integrity and interests of the truth of God and the purity of His worship, we therefore crave leave to enter our dissent in our own name,” etc.
Well, those “matters” that were objected to were sanctioned by the Church, and so the United Church did, “in our view, betray the integrity and interests of the truth of God and the purity of His worship.” So in the summer of 1888, when it was proposed to apply to some of the Union ministers not only for supply of preaching but also for sealing ordinances, I refused to take any part with them, because I considered that it would be inconsistent with our avowed position, and not only that, but by so doing we would be aiding and countenancing them in the betrayal of which our “dissent” accuses them. But although I had these objections myself I did not obtrude them upon others, only in so far as was necessary to show my own position, nor did I try to prevent any one from using any liberty in this matter that they thought proper. I looked upon it as a matter between God and their own conscience, and I had neither the right nor wish to interfere.
But although I dissented from the action of the Congregation in this matter, I did not sever my connection with it, but went on in the performance of my other duties to the best of my ability. Although coming far short in everything, yet I still considered myself a member of the Congregation and an office-bearer in it, and I believed that the Congregation looked upon me in the same light. But they went on in their own way without me, and so things went on again as usual until the summer of 1889, when it was proposed to have the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper dispensed in the same way that it had been the year before. Mr. Walker came and told me what they were intending to do, and asked if I had still the same objections that I had as to taking part with them. I told him that I had still the same objections that I had at first, with some additional ones, viz., the irregular way in which they went about it before; and I pointed out to him how he took it upon himself to give the people admission to the Lord’s Table when he had no authority to do so, and I tried to explain to him what I meant by showing him, as plainly as I could, the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, as I understood it. There are two classes of elders in it, viz., the minister or teaching elder, who is also a ruling elder, and whose duty is to preach the Word, to administer ordinances, and to take a general oversight of the Congregation; and there are the ruling elders, whose duty it is to assist the minister in the examination of candidates for the ordinances, to assist him in maintaining discipline, and to assist in Church Courts—but they have no authority to administer ordinances. Then I tried to point out to him the manner in which the Supper is observed in the Presbyterian Church.
And, first of all, the minister, with his elders, constitute the Session in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; and when this is done, the intending communicants come forward, and the minister, in Christ’s name, and by His authority, and in the presence of the elders, proceeds to give tokens of admission to the Lord’s Table. Now, let it be observed that everything is done in the name, and by the authority, of the Lord. The question, therefore, is, who has authority to thus act in Christ’s name? I answer that the minister, by his ordination, receives this authority. But a ruling elder is not ordained for that kind of work, and by putting his hand to it he is usurping a place and a sacred office that he has neither the right nor the authority to occupy; and, in my opinion, he is committing the same kind of a sin for which Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and Nadah, and Abihu, and Uzzah, and others lost their lives. But it may be said that ruling elders do, in fact, give tokens of admission to the Lord’s Table—and have they no authority for doing so? I say, Yes; in the same sense that they have authority to hand the Bread and the Wine to the Communicants when they are seated at the Lord’s Table; that is, to assist the minister, who is acting in the name, and by the authority of, the Lord Jesus Christ. But a ruling elder has no more authority to give tokens of admission to the Lord’s Table than he has to stand at the head of it and dispense the Sacrament. In both cases they are assisting the minister, who is the constituted head of the Session. But we would all do well to remember that it is the same Lord, that so punished those men, that we have to do with, and He is the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever; and he whose name is Jealous is a jealous God, and is jealous regarding the ordinances of His house and worship. This was abundantly shown when He instituted the Tabernacle Service in the wilderness. Certain men were set apart for certain offices, and if any others intruded themselves into these offices they were to be put to death. And how far this law was actually carried out we learn from the instances already referred to.
Now, can we for a moment think that the ordinances of the New Testament Church are any less sacred than the ordinances of the Old Testament Church were? Surely not. For these were (many of them) carnal ordinances imposed upon them until the time of reformation. Christ having come an High Priest of good things to come, the ordinances of worship are now more spiritual.
(To be Continued.)
Opening of Holyrood Palace on the Sabbath.
According to the Glasgow Herald the King has sanctioned the opening of Holyrood Palace to visitors on the Lord’s Day. This fresh sign of our King’s disregard for the sanctity is discouraging. And whether it has come through his counsellors, or directly through himself, it cannot but be viewed with grief and concern by all true lovers of the Lord’s Day.