IN our July issue, we took occasion to make some critical remarks on the glowing report of a Free Church deputy to Australia, who visited the small Churches there that adhere in creed to the position of 1843. Our remarks with regard to these Churches were as follows: “The limited size of these bodies is not a wholly unfavourable mark in these backsliding times, but we have reason to know that, while there are some very worthy people amongst them, they are in a decayed and divided state. They adhere to the Psalms in public worship, but some of their congregations are ready to adopt modern methods in church work, bazaars and such like.” These comments have elicited the following letter from the Rev. John Sinclair, Geelong, a minister of the Free Presbyterian Church in Australia, and editor of a magazine known as the Free Church Quarterly there:—
“SIR,—In your issue of July last, page 89, occurs a serious misrepresentation of the Free Presbyterian Churches of New South Wales and Victoria. A similar untrue charge was made in a previous issue by the Rev. Walter Scott. The charge is that ‘some of their congregations are ready to adopt modern methods in church work, bazaars, and such like.’ This, indeed, does not actually declare that such methods have been used. But, if I remember rightly, Mr. Scott, in your previous issue alluded to, asserted that they had been. I now challenge him to prove it. I have failed to find, after enquiry, any evidence of this; but have had indignant denial of it. My information, however, may supply the explanation. Yet if this be the foundation of Mr. Scott’s opprobrious complaint, I do not envy his evidently keen desire to prejudice the Australian Free Churches in the minds of your readers. Let me state this case: Several ladies of the congregation at Maclean voluntarily agreed to meet, and make up materials received from storekeepers, and apply the money thus earned by payment made to them, by the storekeepers, to the maintenance of students. This, I am informed, Mr. Scott denounced as a sale of gifts, before he left Brushgrove. Yet he had no compunction in receiving the proceeds of the sale of a property bequeathed for church purposes, which was the sale of a gift, whilst miscalling the giving by ladies of their earnings for work done, ‘a bazaar, or such like.’
The unkind reference to Australian Churches as being ‘in a decayed and divided state,’ is no doubt attributable to the same source, and has a specially ill look to those who know that no congregation in New South Wales was more like a wreck than his when he hastily left it, except that of a former ex-presbyter of his own who left the State before him. These two, by their departure, nearly ended the division which they had tried hard to maintain.
—I am, Sir, yours sincerely,
FREE PRESBYTERIAN MANSE,
GEELONG, VICTORIA, 10th August, 1911.”JOHN SINCLAIR.
It will be seen that our correspondent directs his remarks chiefly against the Rev. Walter Scott, our informant concerning the Australian Churches. In view of this, we thought it right to submit his letter to Mr. Scott, as one who perfectly understood the whole situation, and was able to give a satisfactory reply. Of course, we are personally responsible for the remarks condemned, and adhere to them in substance. The only concession we can grant our correspondent is that the expression “sales of work” would have been perhaps more strictly accurate than “bazaars.” It is found, however, in Scotland that the tendency to adopt “sales of work” of any kind is a tendency that seldom stops short of the full-fledged “bazaar,” and the society organised in Australia appears to us to be a laying the foundation for the same unscriptural system of making money as obtains in several congregations of the Free Church at home, and almost universally throughout the larger Presbyterian Churches. The following is Mr. Scott’s reply, which supplies a complete answer:—
“DEAR MR. EDITOR,—You have kindly given me opportunity to make any observations called for by the foregoing letter from Geelong. A word of explanation seems necessary first.
For the writer of the letter I can have little respect. We were indeed in intimate fellowship. This, and such service as I had rendered him, he was good enough to acknowledge, and refer to, even in his periodical, as what he could hardly repay. It is otherwise now, however. And why? He has alleged no fault against me, except it be that I could not resile from the distinctive position to which I had become pledged at my latest induction in 1895. He himself chose to transfer his ecclesiastical sympathy to a separatist party, as, till then, he had regarded it, but with whom, from the first, I had declined to be in fellowship; and against whose backslidings and unconstitutional actings he, along with his Synod, had most solemnly protested. In this inconsistency on his part I could not follow him. And failing to induce or compel me, his attitude to me and my congregation thenceforward savoured of the hostility of Haman towards Mordecai and his people. This will account to your readers for the tone of his letter. Free Presbyterians at home, from their experience of brethren among themselves transferring their sympathies to the present Free Church, may understand the situation in Australia. It was practically the same. So much so that, when we were together in fellowship, your correspondent was with me in heartiest sympathy with Free Presbyterians in Scotland. When, however, he changed to the side of the stronger party in Australia he, along with them, became all for the Free Church. Yet they will tell us, as the writer of the above letter is so ready to do, that they have not changed!
Now for his letter. Although the remarks in your July issue complained of were not from me, I am made the object of attack. The writer quotes nothing to justify this, and gives nothing save a vague reference to permit of the public judging in the matter.
In giving an account to the Synod of the religious position in Australia, I indicated reasons why I could not there coalesce with the party now represented by your Geelong correspondent. That statement appeared in this Magazine. In a footnote the fact was instanced that, so far from becoming more evangelical, that party were learning the ways of surrounding churches ‘in such matters as sales of work, socials,’ etc. This remark (after nearly two years’ interval) he now apparently challenges me to prove. Yet he does not say that in the particular congregation he mentions such modern methods have since ceased. His letter seems to suggest that they may have been modified. But from his palliative explanations, one is left in the dark as to how far he approves or disapproves of the practice itself. That however is, comparatively, a matter of minor consequence. It is of far more importance to notice here that, whilst your correspondent writes from Australia to question a point mentioned merely incidentally, on the other hand, to the main charges of unfaithfulness so prominent in the body of the statement referred to, he takes no exception whatever. This should be sufficiently significant. If, like the Pharisees, your correspondent has no conscience as regards such graver evils affecting the ecclesiastical position of himself and his friends, then it almost seems, like them, ‘straining at a gnat,’ to appear so concerned about a lesser detail. It, indeed, reminds one of the present Free Church becoming so excited over flowers in the Church, whilst remaining quite apathetic over the doctrine of inspiration itself so compromised by their present Moderator. Your allusion to the small bodies, for whom your correspondent pleads, as being ‘in a decayed and divided state,’ he dismisses as due to prejudice. Has he forgotten the toning down of his Church’s testimony in relation to purity of worship, for instance, in deference to individual scruple? That can hardly be said to consist with being ‘stedfast and immovable.’ The resemblance is rather to ‘a reed shaken with the wind.’ Moreover, has he not insisted on allowing, in his editorial pages, the advocacy of views outside of the Confession of Faith or the recognised teaching and testimony of the Reformation Church? And did he not thereby alienate from his fellowship recognised friends of the truth? It is in grief that I thus write. Yet he compels me. And even these indications of decay and division are only illustrations by the way.
In these circumstances, and when the more serious charges involved are so indifferently regarded by your correspondent, I am the less concerned about his ‘indignant denial’ over the mention of sales of work. He acknowledges that while at Brushgrove I consistently exposed such evils on the spot, in the case of the neighbouring Maclean Congregation. That was the time to have repudiated my statement if such had been possible. That it was never publicly questioned, and that the present, years after, is the first attempted denial—a denial, moreover, that comes not directly, but indirectly, and from another State altogether—is sufficiently suggestive. Your correspondent says the charge is ‘untrue.’ Does he mean now, or when it was first made?
But your correspondent says he has ‘failed to find, after inquiry, any evidence of the evil’ alleged. Now, my information was not at second-hand as with him. I had the congregation’s published account of the movement. Their lady adherents were formally organised: office-bearers were duly elected—the object being the making and selling of clothing in the interest of a Church fund. I might go further. More is known locally. I am only here satisfying your readers that it was no ‘serious misrepresentation’ to credit your correspondent’s friends in this particular with a tendency towards ‘modern methods in Church work.’ But what of your correspondent’s own misstatements?
Let the public judge for themselves of the reliability of this witness by the following example of how unscrupulously he mis-states facts to serve his purpose. In his letter he accuses me as having ‘had no compunction in receiving the proceeds of the sale of a property bequeathed for Church purposes, which (he says) was the sale of a gift.’ Now, the fact is that, in the case in question, there was no ‘property bequeathed for Church purposes’; there was no gift of property, as alleged. The proceeds of a property when realised, the testator (a communicant) directed his executors to hand over to a congregational fund as a bequest or legacy. I am quoting from the will. With the property itself the congregation never had anything to do. Here also, therefore, your correspondent is far astray with his alleged facts. But your readers may learn with astonishment that not only were he and his friends willing without ‘compunction’ to ‘receive the proceeds,’ but they did all in their power to deprive the rightful recipients thereof, in order to appropriate the amount; an attempt providentially frustrated.
In closing his letter the writer sadly betrays his real motive in the personal animus he exhibits against myself. In stating, however, that ‘no congregation in N.S.W. was more like a wreck than his when he hastily left it,’ he speaks at random, and as one with whom the wish is father to the thought. Certainly, he and those he now acts with, have done what they could to destroy the congregation in question, and its special testimony. The fact, however, that our last year, even financially, had been one of our best, shews that, by the time I left Brushgrove, they had not quite succeeded. But in the nearly three years’ interval, no sermon has been preached to them; no ordinary supply has been available: only fellowship meetings have been possible. Yet these have been regularly held, Sabbath and weekday. It is well known that the normal strength of a congregation rarely appears in such circumstances; yet, during those trying years, at least several families have continued together; three elders and other praying men have been conducting the exercises; they have been sending home their annual Foreign Mission collection, and they have collected yearly a very considerable amount for the Trinitarian Bible Society, London. Be it remembered also that these devoted people are not just located around the church door, but come from distances of from three to nine miles each way. They have kept in communication with their wonted pastor in their trials; they may be faint, indeed, yet have they still been pursuing. In such circumstances, let your readers judge whether, what your correspondent has dared to write of them to Scotland, is not the doing of an enemy. Will it be believed that the man so writing has personally gone from end to end of the district sowing dissension to divide and scatter this pastorless flock? More than that, he has had them deprived of their most convenient Church building where they stedfastly congregated. Do your readers ask: In what way? By forcing an entrance in opposition to a united Session acting for the people. ‘He entereth not by the door into the sheep-fold, but climbeth up some other way.’ Let me here point out that, such expulsion methods notwithstanding, he has to confess to having so far failed to end what he terms ‘the division.’ A compassionate Saviour has said, ‘Fear not, little flock.’ What your correspondent says of a former co-presbyter of mine may receive attention otherwise.—I am, faithfully yours,
WALTER SCOTT.
40 SHANDWICK PLACE,
EDINBURGH, 22nd September, 1911.P.S.—A later mail from Australia brings the information that, having forcibly occupied Woodford Dale Church against the faithful remnant there congregating, the party of your correspondent are proceeding further to take Brushgrove Church also—their only remaining place of worship. The party led by Dr. Rainy at home never acted with a higher hand or with greater injustice to the suffering minority, than this small prevailing party in Australia is doing at this moment. The object, too, is the same—’to extinguish the impracticable elements’—the phrase used by Dr. Rainy in 1893. In this case your correspondent’s friends are endeavouring to simply appropriate what they have no shadow of claim to. The nations are, meantime, crying out against Italy’s seizure of territory not her own: that is being done in the light; this in the dark, and by a professing Church against weaker brethren. And, on this occasion, the delegate of the present Free Church in Scotland, Rev. James Henry, now in Australia, is, it seems, mixed up with such unscrupulous actions.
The late Rev. A. Paul wrote to me that he had warned the present Free Church against entering into relations with the party so acting. It seems they are not particular. It will be seen from the following letters of Mr. Paul that my own experience is nothing singular at the hand of that party. Other ministers fared similarly. They have recently been eulogising the memory of Mr. Paul in their periodical in Sydney. His letters, now appearing, will show how differently he estimated them. And, as they themselves allow, Mr. Paul was ‘a prince, and a great man in Israel.’ This might well lead the present Free Church to pause. W. S.”
From Rev. ARTHUR PAUL, St. Kilda Free Presbyterian Manse, Melbourne, to Rev. WALTER SCOTT, Brushgrove, N.S.W.
“ST. KILDA, 13th February, 1909.
MY DEAR SIR,—Your last letter greatly distresses me. I do not wonder that the pressures around you have become intolerable. Experience of the men you have to contend with renders it quite easy for me to understand what methods they are capable of pursuing. It is not easy, and for one’s own peace of mind, it is hardly advisable, to speak of them as they deserve. For you as well as me, it will be best to leave them, and their religious professions, in the hands of Him who judgeth righteously. I have no doubt but that your refusal to ‘join’ with the Sutherland party stung them and accounts for much—perhaps most, if not all—that you have endured at their hands. They have their fraternizers in this colony, also, as you know, and these would willingly have driven me out of Australia, as they have meanwhile driven you. But I am heartily sorry for your leaving, although far from blaming it. With your departure, as I think, departs the last shred of Alexander M’Intyre’s* good work on the Clarence River. I have ceased to feel surprised at the sudden changes which come over our professing Free Church people. A too general decay of spiritual life among them accounts for it.
Notwithstanding all this, I hope the voyage home and your visit to the old country will set you up in bodily health. If spared to your destination in safety, you will be refreshed by fellowship with ministers and people who are likeminded. You know it is the happiness of some that their youth is renewed as the eagle’s. There are sad situations in the old country also, and fears for Britain in the near future may not be out of place; but there is still a remnant and an organisation, and a banner appearing for the truth. You will be seeing Mr. Cameron. Will you please tell him how greatly I appreciated the long and very kind letter he sent me? And if you see my old friend, Mr. Robertson, colleague to Mr. Cameron, will you please convey to him my very kindest remembrances?
It will be a trial to Mrs. Scott to break up the home in which you have lived together for so many years. But I feel sure she will be content with even that rather than you should compromise your public consistency.—Yours very truly,
(Signed) ARTHUR PAUL.”
* This is the highly honoured Rev. Alexander M’Intyre, of Strontian, Argyllshire, who spent his last years in Australia. See Memoir of Rev. D. Macdonald, Shieldaig, pp. 6-8.—ED.
Farewell letter from Rev. ARTHUR PAUL to Rev. W. SCOTT.
“88 ALMA STREET,
ST. KILDA, 18th March, 1909.DEAR MR. SCOTT,—I write this hoping to bid you good-bye in person. But I wish to tell you in this way how deeply I grieve at the unworthy treatment which has been shown you by some who are nominally at least Free Church ministers. Your absence will be a distinct loss to the Free Presbyterian interest in Australia, and the spirit which has forced you out of the vineyard for a time is not one to be envied. For myself I hold such proceedings in abhorrence. No doubt all will be over-ruled to you for good, and I hope that the voyage back to the old country will result in a restoration of your health, and a reviving of your energies.—Yours very truly,
(Signed) ARTHUR PAUL.”