IT has certainly been matter of distinct surprise to many who understood the ecclesiastical situation in Scotland that the Established and United Free Churches should, within the last few years, show signs of drawing together, and forming one united Church. The relations which subsisted between the two bodies were by no means the most friendly hitherto, and yet it appears that a large majority in both Churches are now prepared for the momentous step of union.
Let us, first, review briefly the past relations between these bodies. As our readers in general are aware, the United Free Church is composed of two parties who joined one another in the year 1900—the majority of the body then known as the Free Church of Scotland, and the complete number of the body designated the United Presbyterian Church. The history of the Free Church section dates back to the Disruption of 1843. It was in that memorable year that a large number of the ministers and people of the Church of Scotland renounced connection with the State because of its interference with the rights of the Christian people in the election of their ministers, and formed themselves into the Church of Scotland Free. They believed that the crown rights of Christ as King of Zion were infringed upon, and they surrendered churches, manses, and emoluments for His sake—a surrender which involved a good deal of trial and suffering. At the same time, they still claimed to be the historic Church of Scotland, holding all her principles and doctrines without diminution, and declared that, while they had left “a vitiated Establishment,” they were quite prepared to return to “a pure one.” On the other hand, they regarded those who remained behind, and continued to occupy the pulpits and pews of the Establishment, as traitors to the ancient and Scriptural principles of the Church of Scotland, although the latter esteemed themselves the only loyal and steadfast upholders of that Church. It is a matter of history, therefore, that with the Disruption there arose a strong feeling of opposition between the Free Church and the Established. The best and most consistent people in the Free Church mingled sorrow with their opposition. They regretted that the step of separation should have been necessary. They valued the State connection as the State’s acknowledgment of Christ and His Church, and they were desirous of seeing the Church’s relation with the State reformed, and the Establishment otherwise purified. But a party grew up side by side with these in the Free Church who indulged quite a different feeling. They carried their opposition to the extent that they began to undervalue all Establishments of religion, and to advocate religious equality, condemning, as they maintained, the injustice of having one denomination of Christians recognised by the State to the exclusion of others. Led by Dr. Rainy, they organised a movement for Disestablishment. In this step, they were joined by representatives of the United Presbyterian Church to which reference has already been made: This body, consisting of degenerate ecclesiastical sons of the Original Secession Church, dates its distinctive beginning a little earlier than 1843. Its leaders were much opposed to all connection between Church and State, and their views, of course, largely permeated the body. They went so far as to maintain that such connection, no matter how well guarded, was sinful, and they were therefore the most thoroughgoing opponents of the Establishment. Here, then, leading men of the Free Church and of the United Presbyterian Church joined hands in a Disestablishment crusade. In the days of Gladstone’s dominance in Parliament, as they were supporters of his party, they thought that their project would succeed. Gladstone was defeated in the matter of Home Rule for Ireland, and with his downfall the Disestablishment movement received a crushing blow. The friendly relations, however, between the majority in the Free Church and the United Presbyterians continued. A strong and persistent effort had been made previous to this—in the sixties and early seventies of last century—to obtain corporate union between the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church, but these old union negotiations failed through the vigorous action of a powerful and honourable minority. The majority, however, grew in numbers, and their sympathy with the views of the United Presbyterians increased in strength. Both parties were becoming pronouncedly Arminian in their doctrinal tenets. A Declaratory Act was passed in the United Presbyterian Church in 1879, and a similar Act, at a later date (1892), in the Free Church, covering erroneous opinions of this stamp. At this crisis, some ministers and people broke off from and renounced fellowship with the Free Church majority as having ceased, by their own action, to be true Free Churchmen, and they perpetuated the original Free Church, under the distinctive name of the Free Presbyterian Church. Seven years later—in 1900—the Free
Church majority and the United Presbyterian Church, as has been already stated, joined together in one corporate union with the title of the United Free Church. A Free Church minority refused to enter the union, and declared themselves to be the remanent Free Church of Scotland. This brief historical outline seems necessary to make clear the original differences between the parties under consideration.
Let us, secondly, proceed to notice recent relations. Now, in 1900, we have the enemies of the Establishment marshalled together in one camp, and we might suppose that the war for Disestablishment would begin to be waged with greater vigour than ever, but it is not so. Still the Disestablishment Council holds its annual meeting, but the enthusiasm is not so great as it used to be, and the U.F. Assembly gives signs that there is a party in it unfavourable to the objects of the Council. In fact, as time has proceeded, there has been an approach of the Voluntaries (that is, the Disestablishment men) and the Established Churchmen towards one another, in a manner imperceptible to both. This approach is in their general views of doctrine and worship.
Let it be noted that at the Disruption of 1843, the Free Church ministers were staunch upholders of the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith, and vigorous preachers of the true Gospel of salvation by grace through faith “in Jesus Christ and him crucified.” They were in the main soundly and livingly evangelical. On the other hand, the ministers who adhered to the Establishment were for most part very legal in their preaching. A veneer of evangelical sentiment a number of them undoubtedly had, while possibly there was a man here or there, chiefly in obscure corners, who preached the truth in a satisfactory way. The great majority of them were in reality legalists, deeply tinged with Arminianism of one kind or another. Now, this type of doctrine has never lost ground in the Established Church. It has, in fact, spread more and more. Many years ago, some of their ablest and outstanding men scouted the idea of adhering strictly to the doctrines of the Confession of Faith. Very few indeed are there in the Established Church of to-day who preach sound evangelical doctrine. Alongside this departure in doctrine, there has also been a departure in worship. Uninspired hymns and instrumental music have had a large place in the Established Church for many years, as they have had, along with Arminian doctrine, a similar place in both sections of the United Free Church. It may be said, therefore, that at the time of the Union in 1900, there was very little difference in general doctrine and worship between the new United Free Church and the Church by law established. Almost the only difference was the question of Establishment and State connection. That the United Free Church had admirers in the Established Church was made clear by sympathetic action on the part of some of the chief men in the latter body.
Let it be distinctly observed, then, in the light of doctrine and worship, that both Churches are now practically one in heart, and that an Arminian one. It is a well-known fact, that when people are united in heart they possess the chief preparation for union in hand. It is not everything that will keep them at a distance from one another. They will overlap many obstacles in order that they may be actually united. Still, it must be allowed that the difference on the question of Establishment was not altogether a little one. The U.P. section of the U.F. Church were at a considerable distance from the Establishment on open principle for many years, though even among them some could be found who never voted for Disestablishment, while the F.C. section had aroused much bitterness of feeling between parties by their organised hostility to the maintenance of a State-endowed Church. How are these barriers to be removed? What will break down the antagonism to Establishment and Endowment? Will the experience of adversity on the part of the United Free Church do it? We shall see.
Our readers are aware that the House of Lords in August, 1904, decided that all the property of the Free Church belonged to the small party who refused to enter the Union, as the Union party by their action had forfeited all right and title to the same. Some of us considered that the Free Presbyterian Church was the proper heir, being the most consistent upholder of the constitution of the Free Church of 1843, but as its case was not in court, we must let that pass meantime. The U.F. Church made a great outcry against the decision of the Lords, and actually got Parliament to decide that, as the Free Church was unable to utilise all the property, a division should be made. This was some relief to the United Frees, but still the blow was a great one. The people in some parts of the country forsook the larger body and joined themselves to the party who gained the victory at law, while the loss of funds, though not so great as at first anticipated, was considerable. These were circumstances of adversity. Since that date, leading men in the United Free Church have welcomed, with remarkable readiness, overtures for union from the Established Church.
We desire to be very plain and outspoken in this matter. It is our firm conviction that it was pure envy of the emoluments of the Establishment that raised up a Disestablishment party in the original Free Church—the Disruption fathers were almost all strong believers in the Establishment principle—it was not any decided principle of belief that made their successors Voluntary such as may be conceded to the U.P. people. The efforts, however, of both sections for Disestablishment have failed; they are suffering to some extent the pinch of adversity; they are now one in general doctrine and worship with their former foes; the State Church has already procured the consent of Parliament to an alteration in her Formula, by which she has relaxed her hold of
the doctrines of the Confession of Faith, and her office-bearers may now practically believe as much or as little of the Confession as they please; the State Church possesses abundant emoluments, and is prepared to secure such a measure of spiritual freedom (so-called) from Parliament on the matter of the regulation of its faith and practice as will satisfy her new allies, the self-constituted apostles of a false liberty in things spiritual. All these things combine to make the majority in the United Free Church contemplate with favour a larger union. It spells gain in external advantages without the loss of their supposed spiritual freedom. There is a minority in both Churches who are opposed to the contemplated Union. It remains to be seen whether their efforts will be strong enough to frustrate its accomplishment.