THE August number of the Free Church Record contained a letter by “W. M.” in answer to the article in our April issue on “The Constitution of the Free Presbyterian Church,” which dealt with a former letter by the same party. At first sight, we were disposed to take no notice of this answer, for, while it seemed not destitute of some ability, it appeared to us to be marked by such a confusion of ideas as to contain within itself its own refutation. On reflection, however, we have thought it better to take it in hand for the sake of the important points under discussion, and lest the very confusion of ideas referred to may prove misleading to many in regard to the real nature of these points.
In his first letter, “W. M.” did not hesitate to express the opinion that the Free Presbyterian Church, “in separating from the Free Church, 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.” Now, in answer to this statement, we gave distinct quotations from representative documents of the F. P. Church which showed most explicitly that this “power” to alter the constitution was the very thing which the Free Presbyterians maintained did not exist as a matter of constitutional right, a power, indeed, which they expressly protested against. Our very existence as a distinct body is based upon disagreement with “the majority” on this very point on which “W. M.” has the unwarrantable confidence to assert that we “seem to have agreed” with them. The Bond of Union was drawn up at the very start of the F. P. Church, and one of the first statements in the Bond is, “We protest against the power assumed by the Courts of the Church which has ceased to represent the creed and principles of the Free Church of Scotland, by passing the Declaratory Act, etc.” Then, in the “Reasons for Separation,” drawn up at the same time, it was objected that “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.” In face of these unmistakeable words, “W. M.” with no little self-confidence repeats in his last letter the opinion that “the separation was in itself an acknowledgment of the Church’s power to pass the Declaratory Act,” and that as the Free Presbyterians held that the Declaratory Act had made “drastic changes,” “they (the F. P’s) must surely have been convinced that there was sufficient power in the Church to produce them.” Now, we can only describe these sentences as a combination of subtlety and silliness—a description that will well apply to almost the whole letter. In one sense, the Free Presbyterians acknowledged that the Church exercised “power” in doing what it did, but in the sense in which “W. M.” here uses the word, they acknowledged the very opposite. The word “power” is susceptible of two meanings—that of mere ability to accomplish any end apart from right, and that of right only. Now, when the Free Presbyterians protested against “the power assumed by the Courts of the Church” in passing such an erroneous Act as that of 1892, they protested against the power or right that the majority assumed was existing in the constitution to pass such an Act, as well as against the practical exercise of this assumed right in adopting the said Act as a “binding law and constitution.” Their separation was certainly an acknowledgment that the majority exercised a power and did pass the Declaratory Act into law, according to the usual procedure, but it was no acknowledgment of, but the strongest possible protest against, the idea that the Church had sufficient power or right already in its constitution to pass an Act of this particular description which touched fundamental principles and doctrines. It would have been, however, the greatest folly if they had shut their eyes, as “W. M.” seems to do his, to the actual fact that the Declaratory Act was passed, and that serious changes were made with disastrous results to the cause of truth. Nothing less, indeed, than “separation” could uphold the moral and spiritual interests that were at stake; a mere “dissent,” such as the so-called Constitutionalists made, was tantamount to submission to the majority and their evil work. It was the Free Presbyterians who were the real Constitutionalists, for they abode by the Constitution of the Free Church, entire and unmodified by the Declaratory Act of 1892 (either de jure or de facto), and allowed the Declaratory Act Church, with the mere dissenters inside, to pursue its own way carrying its much-loved property with it.
“W. M.” endeavours to cast ridicule on the statement in our former article, that “the constitution was altered by the majority” in the exercise of a power which was “assumed and not inherent.” He makes out that we ascribed to the then Free Church “two kinds of power, one inherent and the other assumed,” as if it were suggested that both these powers were lodged in the constitution—a patent absurdity. The very word “assumed” was employed to show that a power was exercised by the majority, which they had no inherent or constitutional right to exercise. Let not “W. M.” mock at “assumed power” as if it were an imaginary nothing. In doing so he only proclaims his own ignorance. All the evil that has ever been done in the world has been accomplished in virtue of an “assumed,” as distinguished from an “inherent,” right or power. For example, no man has any inherent right in his conscience or elsewhere, to break the commandments of God, but multitudes of fallen men assume the right and exercise the power to break these commandments without compunction. All the immorality, all the heresy, and all the persecution of which men have been guilty, have been carried on in virtue of “assumed power.” It was the exercise of “assumed power” on the part of Popes and prelates that caused Luther, Knox, Calvin, and thousands of witnesses to leave the Church of Rome in the days of the Reformation, and it was the exercise of “assumed power” by the State and Moderates that made the representatives of the Free Church, as a matter of conscience, leave the Establishment in 1843. But “W. M.” recommends sitting still under a Declaratory Act containing heresies worse than anything that was pressed in 1843—until at least there is some prospect of getting a civil decision in your favour and a hold of property and funds. Then is “the proper time for action.” Could there be anything more Erastian, or time-serving, than this? This is putting the Church’s constitution at the feet of the civil Courts—in other words, putting Christ at the feet of Caesar.
“W. M.” denies that the Declaratory Act was a breach of the Constitution of the Free Church. As we cannot enlarge the present article unduly, we shall meantime leave him to fight out the point with his counsel in the House of Lords, Mr. (now Lord) Johnstone, who said in reference to this Act: “I am complaining of a step which, in breach of the Constitution of the Free Church, was taken in order to lead up to the objectionable Union.”—(Free Church of Scotland Appeals, page 256.)
“W. M.” maintains that in our former article we gave “no proof” that the Constitution of the Free Presbyterian Church “is not at the feet of a majority,” but “rather the opposite,” and he goes on to say: “I should like to know what the Free Presbyterian Church would do if a crisis took place in it similar to the one which took place in the Free Church in 1892. Would she repeat what she did in 1893? If so, would she not again find herself ‘at the feet of a majority’? In the Free Church, however, it is different. The leaders of that Church had their views of what the constitution was, and their views were held to be right by the highest Court in the realm, so that at the present moment she has the advantage of being more firmly established than any other Church in the country. In fact, at the present time that constitution is invulnerable.” “W. M.” seems very anxious to inspire distrust of the Constitution of the Free Presbyterian Church. We have to say in reply that that Constitution is no more “at the feet of a majority” than was the Constitution of the Free Church of 1843, for the Constitutions are practically the same—possibly not so much, for the Deed of Separation and other documents are additional safeguards. “W. M.” is supposing a crisis similar to that in 1892. That is no doubt very near his thoughts, not from anything he sees in the F. P. Church, but from what he has seen in his own Church of late. Should, however, a crisis of such a serious kind ever arise at any time in the F. P. Church, we can assure “W. M.” there would only be one thing, by any possibility, at the feet of a majority, namely, the property, and it is exceedingly doubtful if even that, for there is nothing precluding a minority from appealing to the law of the land, in the Constitution of this Church. It is also perfectly open to any party to adhere to the Constitution at all costs. “W. M.” seems to be very materialistic in his ideas, for he appears to identify the Church of Christ with property. He seems also to be very confident as to the supposed superiority of the Constitution of his own Church, which he declares to be “invulnerable,” in virtue of the decision of the highest Court of the land. Let it be observed very particularly that the decision of the House of Lords in the Free Church case only covered at most the Establishment principle and the doctrine of Predestination. On other points, there was no specific deliverance—such, for example, as the infallible inspiration and supreme authority of the Scriptures, purity of worship, etc., etc. On these and similar points, the Free Church has no more protection from the House of Lords than any other Presbyterian Church. Its Constitution in this respect is very vulnerable on points of the most fundamental importance. “W. M.” looks down with pity on the F. P. Church “at the feet of a majority,” as he supposes. But it is not so easy for him to get away from majorities as he thinks. Was not that very decision of the House of Lords, with which he seems to be unduly elated, just the decision of the very thing which he presents as a bugbear to the poor F. P. Church—”a majority”—a majority of lawyers? Can it be that the remarkable Free Church of the present is at “the feet of a majority” after all, and that its invulnerable Constitution, wherein it excels all others, according to “W. M.,” is established upon the work of “a majority”?
Let us not be misunderstood as undervaluing the decision of the House of Lords. We have always maintained in these pages that it was a good thing in itself, and that the victory fell in the right direction, though not on the nearest heirs to the titles and properties of the Free Church, namely, the Free Presbyterians—they were not “in” the case. But there is a great danger of overvaluing this decision, and that is the snare that “W. M.” has fallen into. The House of Lords is a precarious foundation to rest upon. Consider how it decided matters in 1843, and left the property of the Church of Scotland in the hands of an Erastian Establishment. And what guarantee is there, that the House of Lords, on a future occasion, may not give a decision directly in the teeth of what it gave in the recent Free Church case? Moreover, we maintain that if there is any advantage in the recent decision to the Constitution of the Free Church, the Free Presbyterian Church shares in that advantage, albeit not with the will of Free Churchmen. The Barrier Act was a prominent part of the discussion, and it is the very view of that Act which pervades the representative documents of the Free Presbyterian Church that the majority of the Lords confirmed and the minority could not gainsay, namely, that it was only an Act regulating Church procedure, and not giving new power to alter the constitution. This Act was misused.
“W. M.,” at the close of his letter, complains that the Free Presbyterian movement in 1893 “occasioned hard things to be said against eminent servants of Christ,” and that “congregations and even families were divided with much bitterness.” As to the latter circumstance, if it is any just ground of objection at all—which it is not—was there ever more of it than what took place as the result of the great decision of the House of Lords in 1904? The Free Presbyterian movement was noted for its comparative quietness, seriousness, and orderliness. As to “hard things” being said, “W. M.” forgets the much harder things that were done against worthy servants of Christ of the Free Presbyterian Church at Raasay and Shieldaig, by the “assumed powers” of the Voluntaries and so-called Constitutionalists combined, in driving them from their churches and manses, for their steadfast adherence to the original Constitution of the Free Church and to their own ordination vows. These took joyfully the spoiling of their goods for the sake of Christ and His truth, and they have been acknowledged by their very enemies as the only logical and consistent representatives of the Free Church of 1843. Their Church, and theirs alone, is the Free Church of Scotland in direct, unbroken, historical continuity.
We have omitted to handle several points pertaining to the subject, but these may be taken up in a future issue.