ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
ONE of the first events of this Assembly was the celebration of the Lord’s Supper on the morning of the second day (Wednesday, 19th May), in St. Giles’ Cathedral. This celebration is a modern innovation at the Established and United Free Assemblies. Pastor Jacob Primmer took occasion to deliver his protest, as usual, before the commencement of the service, in the following terms: “I, Jacob Primmer, an ordained minister of the Church of Scotland, in loyalty to Christ and obedience to my ordination vows, protest against the use of a printed liturgy in this service because it is illegal, being a deliberate violation of the Act of Union, 1707, and contrary to the constitution and usage of this Church, and because, in addition, it is both unscriptural and Popish. So help me God.”
A service in commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the birth of the great Reformer, John Calvin, was held in St. Giles’ on Friday the 21st. Representatives of the Established and U.F. Assemblies were present. The United Free Moderator (Dr. Henderson) presided. The praise consisted of Psalms, but the prayers were read. The first prayer was said to have been one that was composed by Calvin, but Dr. Mitford Mitchell (Established Church), who read it, is reported to have omitted the words, “born in corruption.” Dr. M’Crie, Ayr (U.F.C.), read the second prayer. Professor Stalker (Aberdeen) and Professor Paterson (Edinburgh) delivered addresses on the life and theology of Calvin. It appears to us only a solemn mockery for men who are throwing aside the distinctive doctrines of John Calvin to be garnishing his sepulchre with their half-hearted and inconsistent compliments.
On this day the report of the Committee on “Marriage with a Deceased Wife’s Sister” was tabled. A majority of the Committee recommended liberty, but a minority, consisting of Lord Balfour, Professor Cooper, Dr. Milligan, and Dr. Niven,
ook the opposite view. The Procurator, in harmony with the view of the majority, moved the transmission of an overture to the effect that the Assembly declare that such marriages shall not be visited by any ecclesiastical censure or disability upon the minister intimating the banns, or officiating, or the parties contracting. Professor Herkless seconded. Lord Balfour moved that no circumstances were disclosed which called for any action on the part of the Church. He spoke strongly against these marriages. Dr. Niven seconded. Professor Cooper presented a stronger motion, which recommended that the Assembly affirm the existing law of the Confession of Faith, as founded upon God’s Word, against marriage with a deceased wife’s sister, and enforce obedience thereto throughout the Church. Rev. W. S. Provand seconded. This very commendable motion was lost, the Procurator’s being carried by a large majority.
On Wednesday the 26th, the Rev. Dr. M’Clymont submitted the report of the Committee on the subject of “Individual Communion Cups.” He moved that the matter be left with the ministers of the several congregations, and that they have full liberty to use these cups while making provision for those who desire to adhere to the common cup. Dr. W. Wemyss, elder, seconded. Professor Cooper moved a deliverance, in harmony with the mind of a minority of the Committee, to the effect that the Assembly saw no necessity on the ground of health for the individual cup, that it was contrary to Christ’s institution, unprecedented in the history and contrary to the practice, of the Church of Scotland, and declined to sanction its use. Dr. Cooper spoke very strongly on the subject—it seems a pity that as a Ritualist he is not right in other more important matters—and said that he would never enter a Church where the individual cup was used. His motion was seconded by Mr. James Clark, K.C., Chairman of the Edinburgh School Board, who said that it was absolute nonsense to say that the common cup was dangerous to health. On the same principle of contact, they should never go to Church at all. Dr. Norman Macleod moved a motion, the substance of which discouraged, but did not forbid, the individual cup. Dr. Mair seconded. Rev. A. J. Campbell, Lerwick, moved, that it be forbidden as contrary to law, and the Rev. Mr. Watt, Evie, seconded. Dr. Macleod’s motion was carried by 240 to 145 for Professor Cooper’s.
On Thursday the 27th, the Assembly took up the replies that were received from the Free Church and the United Free Church to their communication on the subject of “Conference, with a view to Co-operation.” Dr. Norman Macleod stated that the Free Church had not been able to see their way to any Conference at all, though they expressed their willingness for Christian brotherhood and fellowship with all branches of the Reformed Church. He then went on to speak of the reply of the United Free Church in terms of high appreciation, and expressed the prayer that the
day might not be far distant when the evil of division would be banished from their midst. “Union” (he added) “may not come as soon as we hope and pray, but it may come sooner than we think.” A large Committee from the various Synods of the Church was appointed to confer on the causes of separation with representatives of the United Free Church.
The Procurator submitted the report of the Special Committee on the Formula of Subscription, and moved that the following new Formula be sent down to the Presbyteries for their acceptance:—”I hereby subscribe the Confession of Faith, declaring that I accept it as the Confession of this Church, and that I believe the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith contained therein.” Professor Herkless seconded the motion. Rev. P. Anton, Kilsyth, moved disapproval of the draft Formula. Mr. Stewart Lindsay (elder), Kirriemuir, seconded. Rev. A. J. Campbell, Lerwick, moved that the Assembly, in view of the present condition of religious thought, resolve to make no change in the present Formula. He held that any mere revision of the Formula would give no liberty worth speaking about, and hoped to see the day when the Church of Scotland would be free from the Confession of Faith. After a number of members spoke, the vote was taken and the Procurator’s motion was carried by a large majority.
The Assembly was closed with addresses by the Moderator, Dr. Robertson of Whittinghame, and Lord Kinnaird, the Lord High Commissioner.
The most serious matter of an ecclesiastical nature before this Court was the new Formula, designed to meet the case of those who desire to let go important doctrines of the Confession, which, we firmly believe, are founded upon and agreeable to God’s Word. Once this Formula is adopted, the Confession is no longer the Confession of the personal faith of the candidate—he only acknowledges it as “the Confession of this Church”—and he is also at liberty to decide for himself what are the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith and what are not, for there is no attempt by the Church to define them. We believe that the doctrinal opinions of Established Church ministers are already, in general, sadly defective and erroneous, and the new Formula will give more and more false liberty. The goal to which things are proceeding may be learned from the statement of one minister already quoted, who did not hesitate to say that he hoped the Church would soon be free of the Confession altogether.
UNITED FREE CHURCH.
One of the chief matters before this Assembly was the communication from the Established Church on the subject of Co-operation. The report of a Committee dealing with the communication was taken up on Thursday, 20th May. The Moderator (Dr. Henderson of Crieff) having left the chair, said he had the honour of laying this report on the table. He then
delivered an address of considerable length, in which he advocated a cautious approach of the Established Church on the outstanding differences between them, with a view, if possible, to ultimate union, which he regarded as an object highly desirable, and fraught with good to the whole country. He concluded with moving the adoption of the report, which recommended unrestricted conference on the existing ecclesiastical situation, and on the main causes which keep the Churches apart. The motion was seconded by the Rev. Dr. Robson, and unanimously agreed to. A large Committee was appointed for conference.
On Tuesday, 25th May, the Assembly proceeded to elect a Professor of New Testament Literature in the New College, Edinburgh, in room of the late Dr. Dods. Several names were brought forward, but the majority of votes fell to Professor H. A. A. Kennedy, D.D., Toronto, son of the late Rev. George Kennedy, Dornoch. His appointment was then acquiesced in by all parties. At a later stage a reply cable was received from Professor Kennedy accepting the office.
We cannot pass from this event without noting a speech that fell from one of the elderly members of this Assembly in advocating the merits of a particular name proposed. Rev. P. C. Simpson, Glasgow, said that if the Church appointed Professor Kennedy, it would do a thing as safe as it would be brilliant. Sir Alexander Simpson, who seconded a motion by Dr. W. M. Macgregor, in favour of Dr. James Moffat, Broughty-Ferry, observed that Mr. Carnegie Simpson explained the importance of “safety” in the selection. He thought it was time that the Church should know that it was absolutely safe in all its sons (applause). If they had to fall back on the “safe” people, they might fall back altogether. It was all very well for Anglican Lords to deal with the Church as if it were a mercantile trust; they of the Church were convinced that the Church was an organically living and growing institution. Where there was life, there was stir, disturbance, and progress, and what the Assembly had to do was to find among the men nominated the man who was furthest in the light, and who could help others on. If Dr. Moffat was placed in the New College, the students would from the first respect him, and soon learn to love him. (Applause.)
Now, will our readers believe it that the said Dr. Moffat is one of the most advanced of the higher critics to be found in the U.F. Church, a man who has published the most pernicious and unsettling views with regard to the Scriptures, and has given occasion for alarm even in his own communion, where there is not too much sensitiveness on this fundamental subject? And will it also be believed that the said Sir A. Simpson is no juvenile ecclesiastic whose crude opinions might be regarded very lightly, but a gentleman of very mature years who has had long experience of Church Courts, and who saw something of the Church in better days? We have no hesitation in describing as absolutely
fallacious and unsound the idea that the United Free or any other Church under the sun has the right to think that it is “absolutely safe in all its sons.” We regard the sentiment as rank Popery from the lips of a man who inconsistently refers with scorn to “Anglican Lords.” And the Popery is still more fully developed in the sentiment that the Church is “an organically living and growing institution.” Here a supposed part of the visible Church is identified with the invisible mystical body of Christ. Did Sir Alexander Simpson never read Paul’s address to the elders of Ephesus, where the heaven-taught Apostle solemnly declares: “I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock; also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples among them?” He would do well to study, in addition, Paul’s inspired epistles to Timothy, for anything more inconsistent with the teaching of God’s Word about the Church and unscriptural opinions, we have never read than in the aforesaid speech. Dr. Moffat’s brilliant sparks of false criticism are, forsooth, signs of greater enlightenment in the things of God. When will men learn that the keenest intellect and the most varied literary accomplishments may co-exist with utter spiritual blindness to, and ignorance of, the real truth as it is in Jesus? Satan himself has abundance of light, and could make a very good critic of the Bible, but he has no holiness. “If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!”
After the business of the Professorship was finished, the Assembly proceeded to the election of a Principal to the New College, and on the motion of Dr. Bremner, Glasgow, seconded by Mr. Stuart Fraser, elder, Dr. Alexander Whyte of St. George’s, Edinburgh, was unanimously elected.
In the report of the Education Committee, which was submitted on Monday the 27th, it was stated that the Joint Committee of the Established Church and their own Church had prescribed the New Catechism instead of the Shorter Catechism in their Training Colleges. Thus we see the downgrade proceeds step by step! Mr. W. T. Forrester, Edinburgh, submitted the report on Romanism and Ritualism, which was adopted, after some discussion on the terms of the deliverance with regard to the proposed change in the King’s Protestant Declaration. One of the lamentable experiences of Protestants in their recent efforts to petition Parliament, was the refusal of the vast majority of United Free and Established Church ministers to sign the petitions. Such men we regard as friends in heart of Popery, whether they are conscious of it or not.
The Moderator left the chair, and moved the adoption of the report of the Committee, anent “Marriage with a Deceased Wife’s Sister.” The deliverance was to the effect that as such marriages were now legal, contracting parties would not forfeit their privileges as Church members, and “that while every minister is
entitled to refuse to solemnise such marriages, those taking part in solemnising them shall be regarded as at liberty to do so.” Dr. Henderson said that, for himself, he stood by the Confession of Faith in the matter. The report was adopted. Thus we observe that both the United Free and Established Churches now give liberty to their members to form these immoral unions which have hitherto been regarded as contrary to God’s Word, and which no false progress can make lawful.
This Assembly was closed with an address by the Moderator on “Church Union.”
FREE CHURCH.
On the opening day of this Assembly the Rev. W. Mackinnon, Gairloch, retiring Moderator, delivered an orthodox sermon on Jeremiah vi. 16—”Stand ye in the ways, and see and ask for the old paths.” In the course of his sermon he protested, among other things, against the craze for amusements, from which, he said, we were suffering to-day, when even ministers, with their golf-clubs, crowded to the golf links, and freely associated with the most careless and indifferent in the land. After the service was ended, Mr. Mackinnon nominated the Rev. James Henry, Burghead (who, by the way, is said to be a golfing minister), as his successor in the Moderator’s chair. Major Greig, Edinburgh, seconded, and the motion was adopted unanimously. Mr. Henry then took the Chair, and delivered an address on the doctrine, etc., of the Apostolic Church, with lessons for to-day. In the evening the Moderator and Mrs. Henry held a Reception, at which about eight hundred would be present. Mr. Mackenzie, Inverness, was one of the speakers. He advocated the maintenance of the Shorter Catechism in religious education, and condemned very strongly a golf match between teams of Established and United Free ministers that was to be held during the sittings of Assemblies. He said that it was a degradation to the ministerial profession that there should be such a thing. In the course of a speech during one of the later sittings of the Assembly, Mr. Mackenzie explained that he did not mean that to golf was a sin, but he did say that it was very unworthy behaviour for men who were sent up to the Assembly to do Christ’s work to spend their time at a golf match. We do not think, however, that this takes away the force of Mr. Mackinnon’s commendable remarks, which have reference to ministers frequenting golf courses at any time. A prayer-meeting was also held in the Presbytery Hall during this evening.
On Wednesday, 19th May, Rev. Professor Bannatyne submitted the report of the Claim of Rights Committee anent the communication from the Established Church regarding Conference with a view to Co-operation. The reply recommended by the Committee was unanimously adopted. Mr. Mackenzie, Inverness, was not quite at one with the reply which did not entertain Conference
meantime. He said that he thought they should send men to confer with the Established and United Free Churches. The Free Church was a small body and could not cover the land as they would wish. They deplored the state of the Highlands. They might be able to show their friends in conference the error of their ways.
Among the matters of engrossing interest at this Assembly were the reports of the Finance and Sustentation Fund Committees. A great deal of discussion took place on these reports. The Sustentation Fund Committee recommended that the salaries of ministers on the equal dividend for the year 1908 should be made up to £160, the sum of £145 only having been paid, and that £160 should also be maintained for the current year. Mr. A. M’Neillage moved an amendment to the effect that as there was a debit balance of £3,718 at the end of 1908 which still stood against the Fund, the past year should be allowed to remain as it was, and that an effort should be made to bring up the present year to £160. This amendment was carried by 30 votes to 18 for the deliverance.
On Monday the 24th, Professor Bannatyne moved the adoption of an overture on purity of worship, which embodied Act 15 of the year 1707, against innovations, to be sent down to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act. This overture, which will be practically a new Act, is designed to prevent innovations, and to suppress such where they may make appearance. The overture was approved, Mr. Deas Logie dissenting.
This Assembly was closed with an address by the Moderator on a topic similar to the opening, on Wednesday the 26th May.
John Knox and the Sabbath.—Recently the Scotsman had a leading article in its usual strain, advocating the cause of Sabbath-breaking in this country, and the writer went out of his way to introduce the name of Scotland’s great Reformer as a participator in certain forms of Sabbath-desecration repugnant to lovers of the Lord’s Day. The Scotsman, boldly daring, asserted that “Knox played bowls on Sunday,” and “gave a semi-official dinner to a Spanish Ambassador on the first day of the week.” Dr. Hay Fleming challenged the Scotsman writer to prove his assertions. The reply to the challenge is a puerile piece of journalistic quibbling, and betrays that the leader writer’s history was not quite up to date and that his ignorance had put him into a strait corner. It has been also asserted that Knox golfed on the Sabbath, and in reference to this story, Dr. Hay Fleming writes: “I knew the writer who invented it, with the object, as he owned to me, of relieving an article which was rather dry; since then the story had been repeated ad nauseam in various forms.” Such are the facts on which many an unjust charge has been brought against Knox.