IN Professor Kennedy Cameron’s recently issued book, The Church in Arran, the following paragraph occurs:—”Her [i.e., the Free Church’s] position, however, and that of the Free Presbyterian Church, are so much one that their union is not only possible, but their remaining apart is without justification. There could, and there should be, thus a lessening of the Presbyterian denominations in Scotland, for unless a Church has a distinctive testimony to bear, she is guilty of schism by failing to unite with those with whom she bears a like testimony.” This paragraph resolves itself into a twofold charge (1) that the Free Presbyterian Church in remaining separate from the Free Church has no justifiable ground, and (2) therefore she is guilty of schism. This comes to us as a challenge to justify our attitude to the Free Church or to lie under the charge. Let it be borne distinctly in mind that in the case before us we are acting on the defensive, and have been called to do so in virtue of a charge which is regarded as very serious in its ecclesiastical connection.
Let us deal with the first count in the indictment, viz., that the Free Presbyterian Church has no justifiable ground for remaining separate from the Free Church. This charge is founded on the statement that Churches having a like testimony are bound to unite. This is stated as if it were an axiomatic truth, but it must be borne in mind that it is an ecclesiastical proposition which requires proof. It no more follows that, because two Churches have a like testimony, and by testimony we understand the same creed, that they should fulfil the New Testament idea of unity than that two pieces of cold iron similar to one another can become one piece on the anvil. There may be elements in the iron, as there may be in the Churches, notwithstanding their outward similarity, which renders unification impossible. That certain elements exist in the Free Church which render it impossible for us to unite with her has continually been affirmed by Free Presbyterians. And notwithstanding the risk of being charged with raking up old controversies, seeing we are thus challenged, we make bold to refer to some of these matters which, in our opinion, makes union an undesirable thing.
1. The attitude of the Free Church to Dr. Alexander from the beginning has been regarded by us as seriously defective.
No man that believes in the Bible and has read Demonic Possession would dare to say that its doctrine of Scripture recognises the infallibility of God’s Word. People that never read the book may wax furious at such a charge, but we challenge any man who has read the book and understood it, to say that it is Scriptural. The Free Church were left in no manner of doubt as to its nature, but no drastic action was taken. We are told that Dr. Alexander is a very pious man, and that his orthodoxy is a credit to the Free Church College; and, furthermore, that he made a confession acknowledging the integrity of the Word of God. To begin with the latter plea: this was only done when some of our ministers went over to the Free Church, presumably to satisfy their consciences; and in that confession which was made there was not a word of contrition for the dishonour done to God’s Word in Demonic Possession. To laud in season and out of season the orthodoxy of Dr. Alexander may be reckoned a good policy, but we wish something more definite. As for his piety, we refrain from making any comment on the relation between him and his God. The gravamen of our charge rests on the fact that Demonic Possession acknowledged a theory of Scripture that did not conserve its integrity and infallibility, that the Free Church knew this, that no specific repudiation of the teaching given in that book has ever been made publicly as far as we are aware, though, of course, we acknowledge that it was withdrawn from circulation, as it was stated at the time, to meet the wishes of the people in the Highlands; that the Free Church, instead of marking its disapproval in any way, went to the other extreme and elected Dr. Alexander to the highest office she had in her command. To turn round and say to us, “May not Dr. Alexander, like many another, get pardon?” is begging the question, and indicates the case of one confronted with stern facts that are not easily disputed. The whole case, in our estimation, shows a want of that fidelity to this great doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture which we are bound to expect from a Church with which we would enter into union.
2. The Synod of our Church passed a resolution condemning and prohibiting bazaars, sales of works, and, if I remember rightly, church social meetings.
That they acted wisely in doing so, no one who has seen the extraordinary lengths to which these things are carried will be ready to deny. These elements in connection with modern Church life are patent evidences of the world’s influence in the Church. And while the Free Presbyterians have been held up to ridicule in advancing these matters as a bar to union, language stronger than ever they have used has gone forth in some responsible quarters in the Free Church in condemnation of the very practices we disapprove of. It is all very well to ask, What is wrong in drinking a cup of tea? It’s not the drinking the cup of tea; it is the spirit which makes such meetings possible, and of which they are but one of the symptoms to which we object. Church meetings should not be prostituted to the secular practices of the world. No one, I suppose, will deny that some of these meetings held in some Free Churches are highly objectionable. Is the Free Church willing to bring in a motion to stamp out these worldly practices in all her congregations in connection with bazaars, sales of works, and social meetings? We believe the best of her people would hail such a motion with delight; but would the Assembly pass it? Is it fair to Free Presbyterians who conscientiously object to these matters to brand them as schismatics for refusing to join with a Church that tolerates them, and has never publicly repudiated them in her highest court? It would mean the giving up of what we regard as a truly Scriptural attitude, and would leave us open to the charge of breaking down that which we had already built.
3. Free Presbyterians have not been satisfied with the preamble in the Act passed by the Free Church, repealing the Declaratory Act.
That preamble, in their view justifying the Free Church party in remaining in the Church after 1893, by implication condemns the action of the Free Presbyterian Church in taking up a separate stand in that year. We have been assured that the Free Church had no such intention, which is so far satisfactory; but we have to deal with an ecclesiastical enactment, and its wording certainly lends itself to the interpretations which so many Free Presbyterians have put upon it. No true Free Presbyterian is willing, as far as we are aware, to regard the stand made in 1893 as a blunder, nor to join a Church which, in an important ecclesiastical document, lends itself to the interpretation that the Free Presbyterian movement was unnecessary.
4. Finally, is it the case or is it not, that hymns are used in public worship by the Free Church natives in South Africa?
As the source from which our information is derived is not quite satisfactory, we put this in the form of a question, and make no charge until it is confirmed. If it is true, it is only a further illustration of the impossibility of the Free Presbyterian Church uniting with a Church tolerating such a state of things. If it is not true, we shall be pleased to know that it is a misreport.
It is in no cantankerous spirit we state our case. We are fully aware that the best people in the Free Church are as opposed to these things as we are, but the question on which we have been challenged makes it necessary to restate these matters; and we are confident that impartial minds will recognise that it is not mere obstinacy and a spirit of exclusiveness that prompts the Free Presbyterians to remain apart. To charge some of the Free Presbyterian ministers as being actuated by matters of the merest triviality, scarcely worthy of being mentioned by serious-minded men, is the merest childishness.
We come now to the charge of schism. It is an ugly word, and to many good people it has an awful sound. But it is well to bear in mind that its New Testament meaning is quite distinct from its ecclesiastical. Schisma, with its cognate forms in the New Testament, means a division within, and not from, a body. Its ecclesiastical meaning has evidently been derived from the erroneous conception of union and unity as understood by the Church of Rome, which consists in outward organization. The whole conception underlying this idea is wrong. And her threat to brand all who separate from her communion as schismatics is meaningless. That Professor Cameron uses the term in its ecclesiastical sense is evident; but if the charge is to have any weight with us he must back it up with the New Testament. Of course, we are quite well aware that even Protestant writers in Church polity have used the word invariably in its ecclesiastical sense, but that does not justify them. The unity of the New Testament is quite realisable with the existence of denominationalism. “The Church is one,” says Dr. Warfield, “not by virtue of any effort of its own to make itself one, but by virtue of the divine life that binds it as his body to the one Head.” It is the breaking of such a unity as this which is a serious matter. To endeavour to yoke together discordant elements is one of the surest ways of accomplishing this purpose. In fact, separate denominations have, to quote Dr. Warfield again, something like the same right to exist as separate congregations have, and they may be justified on something like the same classes of grounds. Space forbids us dealing more fully with the question, but we cannot do better than conclude by a quotation from a very interesting article by Dr. Warfield on Christian Unity and Church Union, who cannot be charged with narrow-mindedness or selfish interests in such a matter:—”The tendency that is growing among us,” he says, “to conceive Christian unity in terms of the organised Church is sadly symptomatic of the decay of doctrinal consciousness, not to say of vital religion; and is possibly little more than an echo of the vigorous campaign for such a spurious Church unity that has been made by the Churches which are entombed in external conceptions of the nature of Christ’s Church. On the lips of Romanists or high Anglicans, however wrong it may be, such a propaganda is at least consistent. On the lips of Presbyterians it cannot but be deplorable. . . . We should institute no union the natural result of which would in any way or to any degree clog our performance of our functions as a Church of Christ with facility and success. We should form no union the natural effect of which would in any way or to any degree lower the clearness, or heartiness, or the completeness of our testimony to what we deem to be the truth of Christ. These things are infinitely more important—even for the realisation of Christian unity—than any unification of scattered bodies of Christians under one organisation can possibly be. And to let these things slip out of sight when a proposition for union is under consideration is to subordinate the heavenly to the earthly. A union consummated in their despite may indeed be a Church union; a Christian union never. D. B.