Remarks by the late Mr. DUNCAN CRAWFORD, Elder, Oban, and
the late Mr. JOHN HAMILTON, Student, Oban.
TO our own loss we are too prone to forget our past history. Extracts from speeches delivered prior to and after the formation of our Church may help to remind us of the subjects then under discussion. The testimony of the Free Presbyterian Church is one that must be maintained in its entirety in the love of the Spirit, if we are to enjoy the favour of heaven. The early years of the Free Presbyterian Church were years of spiritual fervour and love—seasons of close fellowship with the Triune Jehovah—times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord. “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.”
The following remarks by the late Mr. Duncan Crawford, a much-respected and talented elder of the Oban congregation, and the late Mr. John Hamilton, student, Oban, show clearly our duty as custodiers of the oracles of God. The remarks were made at a meeting of the congregation of Oban when steps were being taken to secure the site upon which the present church buildings are erected.
D. M’K.
(I) MR. DUNCAN CRAWFORD.
I was a little hopeful that something might have been done by either of the parties in the Free Church which would remove the cause of our separation. The decision of last Assembly (1894) has settled that matter as far as I am concerned. It has been said that had the Assembly of 1892 done what the Assembly of 1894 did, there would have been no separation. This is a misrepresentation. Although the Assembly of 1892 had done what the
Assembly of 1894 did, that would not have affected our relation to the position we took up. It is said the Church has not gone further than she did at the time of the passing of the Declaratory Act—the questions and formula not having been altered. Well, there is no great advantage in that. The mere fact of the questions and formula not having been altered removes no difficulty; it only intensifies the immorality of men who answer the questions and sign the formula. The questions have reference to a well-defined system of doctrine agreeable to the Word of God. These questions every minister and elder must answer in the affirmative; but the Declaratory Act is said to be a relieving Act. The Assembly says the Act is not binding upon me, but they allow others to believe and teach the doctrines covered by said Act. The declaration and promises by every office-bearer are definite—no ambiguity about them—and are subscribed to as in the sight of Jehovah. But here comes one forward for licence or ordination: he has not to sign a different formula or answer different questions, but he is entitled “to answer the questions and sign the formula in view of the Declaratory Act,” which relieves him from holding and teaching the whole system of doctrine to which he has subscribed. Could anything be more immoral? Men vowing to God to uphold, teach, maintain, and defend the whole doctrines of the Word of God as laid down in the Confession, and at the same time relieved by the law of the Church from fulfilling that to which they have subscribed! If I am a party to such proceedings, I involve myself in an immoral deed. For the sake of illustration, say that a man promises to pay £20: according to the principles of the Declaratory Act he is justified in paying only £10. The Declaratory Act does not bind me to pay £10 instead of £20, but it gives liberty to those who are disposed to do so. Dr. Rainy at last Assembly said the Act was imposing in this way—that the relief which it gave must be recognised in the Courts of the Church. It is no great relief to me that I am not bound myself to swallow the Act when I must allow others to do it. Suppose one teaches views contrary to those to which he subscribed, I am bound to recognise the relief which the Act gives him. That is done in the Free Church.
In view of that I feel fully convinced that our position as a congregation—maintaining and defending Free Church principles—justifies us in going forward to build a place of worship. I am afraid this generation will see no improvement in the Free Church which will justify us in returning to her. The Free Church has now two doors of admission into her communion. She has two classes of signatories—one believing one set of doctrines, the other believing doctrines vastly different. I, therefore, remain where I am. Year after year the Free Church has been conceding doctrine, principle, and worship. Protesting and dissenting against these concessions had little effect. She has at last crowned all her declensions by an Act which has entered into her statute
book as a binding law and constitution. Faithfulness to our own solemn vows demanded of us that we should go no farther along the course of declension. It is said that men of unsound views entered the Church before the passing of the Declaratory Act. True; but these were men who crept in unawares and on their own responsibility. Now the case is different, for the Church freely admits such men into her communion, and she is therefore responsible for the errors taught within her pale.
We did not separate from our former congregation on account of any personal feeling towards them; not because of any animus or quarrel with the office-bearers; no personal matter entered into it. It was entirely done in the interests of the truth of God.
In going forward to build, our object is not a rival church or body. It is and should be—first, God’s glory connected with the maintenance of this truth and the full, free, and faithful testimony which He gave to the Free Church 50 years ago; and second, the salvation of immortal souls. If these be what animate our whole being, and what we value most, we need have no fear as to our undertaking. We do not mean to compromise a single iota of God’s truth for the sake of company, however dear such company may be to us.
(2) MR. JOHN HAMILTON.
I could not possibly remain in office in the Free Church under the Declaratory Act. To remain in a Church which has minimised the doctrines of the word of God to such an extent as the Free Church has done, is something for which I was not prepared. The great doctrines, which cost our forefathers their heart’s blood, are now lightly treated. In the providence of God we have a standard raised in defence of His truth. I have no hesitation in saying that my conscience is at ease as to the step taken by the few in our land in defence of the word of God, and as to the testimony that they have raised. The cause is the Lord’s. If we are not faithful to it, the fault is ours. If we are faithful, the Lord will yet acknowledge His own word, and make the little one a thousand. A godly man, once speaking to the “question,” said—”I would rather part with all I have in the world, friends and relations, than part with the Bible.” What else is the Free Church doing but parting with some portions of the Bible, as if there were some refuse in it to be thrown away. We must have a whole gospel or none at all. “The Scriptures cannot be broken.” Some say to us—”You think yourselves better than other people.” We think nothing of the kind. Others say—”You think none faithful but yourselves.” Well, we say that we are ashamed of our unfaithfulness; we desire to be even more faithful.
It is said by many that the Declaratory Act is not binding on them, and that for all the time they are to be here, it is hardly worth their while severing their connection with the Free Church. We might all say the same; but, if all acted in like manner, what
would be left to rising generations? Are we to leave such doctrines as are covered by the Declaratory Act and cherished within the walls of the Free Church? If so, we leave a legacy brimful of error, for which coming generations will condemn us.
Monuments are raised in memory of noble men. If we are desirous of leaving a monument of lasting benefit behind us, let it be nothing short of the whole doctrines of the word of God. It is the only monument which will be of real benefit to our children and children’s children.