SPEECHES OF MOVERS AND SECONDER OF MOTIONS.
IT may be sufficient to recall, by way of preface, that at the recent Synod Meeting the Clerk (Rev. J. S. Sinclair) read a communication which he had received last August from the Rev. Professor J. K. Cameron, M.A., as Clerk to the Free Church Commission, consisting of an Extract Minute, in which it was stated that the Commission had granted the petition of certain of its members to the effect that “the Commission initiate procedure with a view to negotiations being entered upon with the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland in order to secure, if possible, co-operation or union between that Church and the Free Church.” The Minute also recorded that one member (Mr. D. M. Smith, W.S.) dissented from this step for the reason “that it was not competent for the Commission to deal with the Petition in accordance with the terms of the Commission’s appointment.” The Minute further stated that the Commission agreed to “appoint a Committee to confer with any Committee which may be appointed by the Free Presbyterian Church on all matters that may at present be regarded as obstacles to co-operation or union between these Churches, and to report from time to time to the General Assembly or its Commission.” The conclusion of the Minute contained a list of the names of ministers and elders appointed to form the Committee (see June Free Presbyterian Magazine, page 43).
In view of the above, two motions were submitted to the Synod, the first by the Rev. Neil Cameron, Glasgow, and the second by the Rev. J. R. Mackay, M.A., Inverness. Rev. D. Macfarlane, Dingwall, seconded Mr. Cameron’s motion, and Rev. A. Macrae, Portree, Mr. Mackay’s. The speeches, as supplied in writing by the speakers, are given in the following pages:—
Rev. Neil Cameron, St. Jude’s, Glasgow, submitted the following motion:—
“The Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland respectfully acknowledges receipt of a communication from the Free Church Commission of August, 1916, intimating that a Committee had been appointed to confer with representatives of the Free Presbyterian Church as to the removal of obstacles which may stand in the way of union between the two Churches.
“The Synod, while not definitely committing itself to the opinion that the Free Church Commission acted wholly within its powers in originating this movement, desires to draw the attention of all concerned to the following statement of the Synod’s position and of some of the outstanding differences between the two bodies.
“The Synod, while recognising the obligation that lies on Christian denominations to seek union in the truth, considers that meanwhile it would be futile to appoint a Committee to meet with the Free Church Committee, and is of opinion that the interests of the case are best served by a statement of differences as follows:—
“(1) The Free Church has never explicitly condemned the views advocated by Dr. W. M. Alexander, one of her professors, in a book named ‘Demonic Possession,’ views destructive of the inspiration and inerrancy of the holy Scriptures, nor has she called upon Dr. Alexander to state publicly in distinct and unequivocal terms that he repudiates the book and sincerely regrets the anti-scriptural opinions expressed therein, and by her unfaithfulness in this respect, has called in question her own loyalty to the doctrine of the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God. (2) The Free Church, in an Act of 1905, rescinding the Declaratory Act of 1892, inserted a clause in the preamble of the said rescinding Act, namely, ‘as she has always adhered,’ which bears the construction that the Free Church in her corporate capacity had always adhered to the Confession of Faith and other subordinate standards as adopted by the Free Church in 1846, and which clause may be reasonably construed as a censure of the position of the Free Presbyterian Church relative to the Declaratory Act of 1892, the said Act having been the overt ground of its taking up a separate position in 1893. The representatives of the Free Presbyterian Church have always maintained that the adoption by the Free Church in 1892 of this Declaratory Act was a serious departure by said Church from the Confession of Faith and other subordinate standards. The present Free Church, by the clause referred to, has raised a standing barrier between her and the Free Presbyterian Church. (3) The Free Church, since 1900, has thrown open the door of admission to her ministry very indiscriminately to men out of a great variety of Churches, and this latitudinarianism has also raised a barrier between her and the Free Presbyterian Church. (4) The Free Church has been lax in her general discipline and practice, and differs from the Free Presbyterian Church in such matters as Church Bazaars and Sales of Work, Church Soirees and Social Meetings, Prayers at the Grave, and to mention a particular case of discipline the failure on the part of her Assembly to remove a Popish symbol from one of her Church buildings.
“The Synod, in adopting this statement, declares that it does so with a sincere desire for the glory of Christ the Head of the Church, the integrity of His Word both in profession and practice, a clear testimony for the truth as embodied in the Confession of Faith and other subordinate standards, and the general welfare of Christ’s cause in Scotland and throughout the world.
“The Synod instructs its Clerk to forward a copy of this statement to the Clerk of the General Assembly of the Free Church.”
In moving the adoption of his motion, Mr. Cameron spoke to the following effect:—”Had the Free Church removed the obstacles which she knows to have existed during so many years, as a matter of conscience and out of love to truth and principles, she would have exalted herself in the estimation of the people of Scotland and of the Free Presbyterian Church among the rest. But such has not been the case. On the contrary she has invited this Synod to appoint a Committee to assist her in the removal of these obstacles. The moving cause, it plainly appears, is not a disinterested desire for purity and truth, but a desire for union with this Church. Union in the truth, and in purity as regards doctrine and practice, is both desirable and obligatory, but union at the expense of these cannot be a blessing to individuals or Churches. To compromise truth and principles for the sake of union would be a calamity, not only to this Church, but to the cause of Christ in Scotland. Our motto has been and continues to be, ‘No compromise, no surrender.’
“Some have misrepresented our Church as being against union in any shape. The resolution passed by this Synod in November, 1905, disproves fully that false charge. It was then declared that the meaning of that resolution was that should a Church appear in Scotland seeking union and ‘holding the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith both in her profession and practice, we would be quite willing to consider a motion for union with that Church.’ What has the Free Church done since then to bring her practice into line with her profession? Her leaders make ample profession, but their practice is very much at fault. Why did they not remove the obstacles, which have been repeatedly pointed at as barriers, and which many in that Church deplore and desire to see removed, and then, when they had done this, take steps to confer with this Church anent union? If they desire union with us, that was the only reasonable course for them to follow in the face of our last finding on this matter.
“In this motion, which I desire to submit to the consideration of the Synod, the manner in which the Free Church dealt with Dr. W. M. Alexander’s book, ‘Demonic Possession,’ is taken notice of as a very serious obstacle. Dr. Alexander’s book is to the core anti-scriptural. The Free Church knew that he had written this book before they appointed him to a Professor’s chair in their College. When his book was constitutionally brought before their General Assembly by responsible Courts of their Church, instead of strongly condemning it as heretical, as they should have done, they practically praised both the book and its author. We do not charge these men with ignorance or with intellectual incompetence, but we do charge them with having brought themselves under suspicion as regards their fidelity towards the fundamental doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. They have not to this day taken any steps to deal satisfactorily with Dr. Alexander and his book. We remember well the anguish of spirit caused by Higher Criticism in the Free Church prior to 1893, and the great relief felt by the many godly men and women who followed us when we separated from that Rationalistic Church that year. We left that body, not because we were not Free Churchmen, but because we were, and were determined to uphold that Church in her original purity. Are we now to betray our trust by joining in fellowship with any Church which does not hold the infallibility of the Bible in her practice as well as in her creed? No, verily. We claim that we are the only true representatives of the Free Church in Scotland, and we invite all the true followers of that Church to join with us in our honest endeavour, by the grace of God, to uphold her Creed and Principles.
“The second part of my motion deals with a statement which the present Free Church inserted in the preamble of the Rescinding Act in 1905. The words are, ‘As she has always adhered,’ viz., to the Confession of Faith and other subordinate standards, as adopted by the Free Church in 1846. I submit that we did not separate from the Free Church until it became impossible for us to assert, maintain, and defend the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith, as some of us had previously vowed to do. (I claim for those of us, who have become office-bearers in the F.P. Church since, the credit of holding faithfully the same opinion.) If we, after very seriously and prayerfully considering this matter, found that the only way to hold by the Confession of Faith was to separate from a Church which set her imprimatur on the Declaratory Act as her future creed, how can we grant that others adhered to the Confession of Faith while they remained under that heretical creed? By doing so, we would be admitting that we should have not separated at all. Is this possible for us? Certainly it is not; for we hold now, as we did in 1893, that it was the only course left open to us in an endeavour to adhere to the Confession. And, besides, the present Free Church remained four years under that false creed after she refused to enter into the union in 1900. Why did she not take steps immediately to have the Declaratory Act repealed? Was it not because she desired to make sure of money and property? We do not press this matter either from prejudice or pride, but because it stands as a barrier between the relative positions of the two Churches. From our position we can not, and desire not, to resile. So far as the Free Presbyterian Church is concerned, we hope she will steadfastly adhere to her position, and that she will not allow any man to change it. She has had many tokens of the Lord’s approval of her action in 1893 and since, so we should be very careful that we will not sell our birthright.
“The third thing in my motion is the extraordinary latitudinarianism practised by the Free Church in throwing open the door of admission into her ministry to ministers out of almost every professedly Protestant Church. I said to one of her ministers recently, when talking about these matters, that should this conglomerate body of men be gathered into a hall, and should the Revs. Drs. Begg and Kennedy and Mr. MacColl arise from the dead, and come into that hall and ask, ‘Who are these ministers?’ one would say, ‘These are the ministers of the Free Church.’ They would shake their heads and say, ‘Whoever they are, they are not the Free Church which we loved and upheld in our day.’ Seventeen of their ministers have gone away already to other Churches, and more seem to be following. I am strongly of the opinion that this sudden impulsive offer made to our Church is merely a matter of policy. Are we prepared to leave our own well-defined position and to go to form a combination of diametrically opposed elements? If we are, they express willingness to receive us; for they tell us that the door of the Free Church is open to us. While we are content where we are, we would respectfully refuse the invitation.
“The last matter taken up in my motion is the practice and discipline of that Church. It is described as lax in the motion, and I think their practice justifies the term used. If Bazaars, Sales of Work, Church Soirees, Social Meetings, and Prayers at the Grave practised in the Free Church of Scotland be not lax, terms have lost their meaning. Does any one believe that the Free Church of Scotland would have tolerated such practices at her beginning or for many years thereafter? We cannot believe it. What has the Church of Christ to do with vain songs and other carnal gatherings? Does not her duty lie in the opposite direction? Certainly it does. ‘Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season,’ is God’s advice to His ministers to the end of the world. Let us abide by this advice, and let us have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. We would strongly advise the Free Church to do the same.
“We take notice of a case of great laxity as to the discipline of the Free Church—a Popish window in a church in the island of Arran. This window was set up there during the ministry of a man who joined the Church of Rome some years since. The matter of its inconsistency has been often before their Assembly, but it is still there, a reproach to the Church of the Reformation in Scotland and to the Free Church. I am surprised that the congregation does not make short work of it, seeing the fathers in the courts of that Church are too weak or timid to make the attempt. I sincerely hope that the Free Church will take immediate steps to have all these obstacles and barriers removed, as nothing could give us more joy than to see purity and peace reigning supremely within her borders.”
Rev. D. Macfarlane, Dingwall (who left the chair, which was occupied pro tem. by the Rev. A. Mackay, Oban), seconded the motion. He spoke in substance as follows:—
“I second Mr. Cameron’s motion. In doing so I shall, in the few remarks I intend to make, point out the following things:—(1) That the proposed removal of obstacles, standing in the way of union, suggested by the Free Church, is not a matter of principle, but of expediency. These obstacles are to be removed on condition that we unite with the Free Church, and not because they are errors which should have been removed many years ago. It reminds one of a woman who showed little or no disposition to make her house clean and tidy, except when she expected friends to visit her. (2) That it is likely that self-interest is at the bottom of the proposal for union. Many of her ministers have left the Free Church and joined the Established Church and other Churches, and we are now asked to unite with the Free Church in order that the vacancies may be filled up by our ministers. (3) That if we were to unite with the Free Church, I believe it would cause a split in our own Church. Although all the ministers would go over to that Church, the people would not. It would be a calamity to break up our Church now after standing firm and united for the last twenty-four years. (4) That the Lord owned and blessed our Church as an instrument in the conversion of sinners and edification of saints, since we took up a separate position in defence of His truth in 1893, so that, by changing from that position now, I am of opinion we would incur His displeasure, grieve His Spirit, and He would leave us to our own devices, and we would become withered branches in His vineyard. (5) That, although all the objectionable things mentioned in our Resolution were removed, I hold that we should not join the Free Church till we saw that she was, by the outpouring of the Spirit, brought to repentance.”
Rev. John R. Mackay, Inverness, regretted that he could not adopt Mr. Cameron’s motion as his own, and that because the motion did not seem to state conditions upon which we might confer with the Free Church, or if it was meant in that sense, what was said in it about the personnel of the Free Church ministry appeared as an impossible condition, and as something which he thought was now uncalled for. He therefore submitted the following motion:—
“The Synod acknowledge receipt of Resolution of the Free Church Commission of General Assembly, intimating the appointment of a Committee by said Commission to confer with any Committee which may be appointed by the Free Presbyterian Church on all matters that may at present be regarded as obstacles to co-operation or union between the two Churches.
“The Synod, while recognising the obligation that lies on Christian denominations, occupying the same field, and owning the same scriptural creed, to endeavour to walk in the utmost Christian amity, conclude, in no spirit of prejudice and in no opposition to the end desiderated in the said Resolution on a clearly defined scriptural basis, that meanwhile it would be futile to appoint a Committee to meet, with the Free Church Committee, until:
“(1) The Free Church owns that Dr. Alexander’s book, ‘Demonic Possession,’ is heretical, and calls upon Dr. Alexander to state in distinct and unequivocal terms that he both repudiates the book, and genuinely regrets the unscriptural sentiments expressed therein. (2) The Free Church acknowledges that the Declaratory Act of 1892 was de facto law in 1893, and deletes the words, ‘as she has always adhered,’ occurring in the preamble to the Act rescinding the Declaratory Act, for the reason that the said words are open to an indefinite interpretation, and they are capable of being construed as a censure of the position of this Church, relative to said Act; or otherwise take means to perfectly neutralise the effect of the said words by what may be accepted as the equivalent of their deletion, in so far as the words in question may constructively amount to a condemnation of the Free Presbyterian action in 1893. (3) The Free Church expresses her willingness to homologate Deliverances passed by this Synod on such matters as, The Bible and the Higher Criticism; Creed Subscription; Prayers at the Grave; Church Bazaars; and Church Soirees, copies of which are herewith supplied.
“The Synod, in agreeing to the terms of the foregoing Reply, supremely view the glory of the ever-living Head of the Church, the integrity of His Word, both in profession and practice, the necessity of maintaining a clear testimony for the truth as embodied in the Confession of Faith, and other subordinate standards, and the general welfare of Christ’s cause at home and abroad; and they forward it in the most respectful and courteous spirit.”
Continuing, Mr. Mackay said*: “Moderator, if I could construe the cause of Christ in Scotland, or in the Highlands of Scotland, exclusively in terms of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, I hope I should be among the first to give the cold shoulder to any overture such as the Free Church has sent us. But that I cannot, with a good conscience, do, forasmuch as in the case of the Free Church itself we have a religious body occupying the same districts with ourselves, acknowledging the same godly creed with ourselves, the same form of Church government and worship with ourselves, and among whom I feel bound, according to the judgment of charity, to reckon that the Lord has a goodly number of His blood-bought people.
“I am in entire sympathy with every brother among ourselves who would disdain to be a party to setting the Free Presbyterian Church on a basis that could fairly be construed as a condemnation of the position which we took up in 1893, although I am bound to add that, inasmuch as the Declaratory Act was tyrannical and revolutionary, this affirmation—’the de forma and de facto law * This is a summary of Mr. Mackay’s speech, supplied by himself.—ED. of the Declaratory Act (1892) was not de jure law’—does not seem to antagonise the Free Presbyterian position.
“I am at one with those who demand that the Free Presbyterian Church should not come into a closer relationship than at present exists with the Free Church, until Dr. Alexander, one of the Theological Professors of the Free Church, shall make it quite plain that he now regards his own book, ‘Demonic Possession,’ as heretical, and that he regrets his having written it.
“I would insist on our setting our face against prayers at the grave, having in this attitude the goodly fellowship of the men of the first and second Reforms with us; and I scarcely think Dr. John Kennedy of Dingwall spoke too strongly when he affirmed that, in his own time, Church soirees—with which one might couple Church bazaars—had become an unmitigated nuisance. The Free Presbyterian Church’s attitude relative to these matters, and the conduct of the Free Church relative to the same matters, have constituted obstacles to greater friendliness between the two denominations; but I do think, when the Free Church seems to evince a desire to do justice to the facts in all those references, we ought to take up the matter sympathetically, and see to it that the blame for the scandalous divisions which are found in Presbyterian Scotland should not lie at our door. We should even plead with the Free Church to remove the obstacles to a closer co-operation which exist. I say so, because:
“(1) I am not aware of anything in our ordination vows that precludes our taking up the matter with this mind.
“(2) We are bound to witness for the unity of the Church. We are bound to witness for the whole mind of God, as revealed in His Word. We are bound to witness for mercy as well as for truth, for peace as well as for righteousness, for unity as well as for purity. Our Reformers, although rejecting with scorn that spurious unity according to which all, who do not acknowledge the bishop of Rome to be the head of the Church, are regarded as outside the covenanted mercies of God, yet laid great emphasis on the most precious doctrine of the Church’s unity, and that not only in the sense in which all true believers are one, but also in the sense of the unity of the visible Church, and although some of them made discipline to be a mark of the true visible Church, yet they were all most careful that discipline should not be extreme, so that the external unity of those professing the true faith should not be unnecessarily prejudiced.
“And what is more: Christ prayed for more than an exclusively mystical and invisible union of His Church in the 17th chapter of John, for although that wonderful prayer of His appears, in the main, to be occupied with the mystical union, yet when He goes on to pray for those who should believe upon Him, through the word of the Apostles, and asks for them that such a unity should manifest itself as would impress the world, the whole conveys to one the impression that the unity sought for ought, for one thing, to be external and visible. See, again, how Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, was pained, and found fault with Peter himself, for disturbing, by his conduct, the visible unity of Jews and Gentiles. In brief: the right view is that, as the Church of believers is manifestly, according to the Scriptures, one, the visible Church, which is bound to strive to have the characters of the Church of believers, ought to aim at visible unity. On any other supposition the argument of the Disruption Fathers for Christ’s headship over the Church of Scotland falls to the ground.
“(3) The history of the early Church serves as a warning to all time against exercising too great a severity towards even such as one might think had not acted with the faithfulness with which they ought to have acted in the past. Every now and again in the third and fourth centuries the question as to what should be done towards those who proved too little faithful during the persecution divided men, even, in many cases, good men;—the one class of these, in the interests of faithfulness, urging that those who had failed should not again be recognised as members or office-bearers in the true Church; the other class, desiring to maintain unity, willing to recognise even those that failed, if they again professed the true faith. Now what one finds is, that the Reformers, looking back upon those trying times, spoke with extraordinary severity against those who would exercise the severer discipline, whilst they took to their heart those who, like Cyprian and Augustine, followed the milder way. Indeed, the Reformers thought it a horrible thing that one should speak disparagingly of any Church that owned the true creed; and, upon the whole, endeavoured to teach in accordance with that faith, even if, in administration, there might be some room for improvement. ‘God,’ said John Knox, ‘is immutable, and doth no less abhor the sectaries of this age than he hath done those of the former times. If any think the Kirk after Christ’s death is of greater puritic and perfection than was the Kirk under the law, for it is called the halie and undefiled spouse of Christ, without spot and blemish, and therefore, where vices do reign, and be openly known, that these cannot be the true Kirk, let the same consider that the Holy Apostle, yea, the Holy Ghost speaking in Him, did salute and acknowledge the congregations of Corinthus, Galatia, and Thessalonica, for the treu Kirks of Christ Jesus, in the which not the less were crimes most greivous—fornication, adulterie, incest, stryfe, debait, contentions and envy, yea some had declinit and were bewitched by false apostles, some denied the resurrection, some were idle bellies, and some affirmit circumcision after Christ a thing necessary to salvation. True it is that the Apostle reprehended as well the wicked life as the erroneous opinions, affirming that such persons without repentance could not enter into the Kingdom of God. But in the meantime he did reverence and acknowledge the same congregations to be the true Kirks of Christ Jesus. . . . The substance of that doctrine and religion which is publicly preachit and universally receivit in any congregation, assembly, or company, doth witness and declare whether the Spirit of the Lord Jesus doth there rule the Kirk or not. Wheresoever God’s Word hath supreme authority, where Christ Jesus is affirmit, preachit, and receavit to be the only Saviour of the world, where His sacraments are truly ministered, and, finally, where His Word ruleth and not the vain phantasy of man, there is the true Kirk of Christ Jesus. From the society and ordinances whereof ought no man to separate himself, notwithstanding that in the same the dornel and cokell appear to surmount the wheat and good seed.’
“That John Calvin held with John Knox in these matters, every one conversant with the First Chapter of the Fourth Book of his ‘Institutes’ knows.
“(4) Let me now refer to some objections which one hears urged against the view I advocate:—
“(a) It is said that there is an impassable barrier between us and the Free Church because the latter in their Preamble have used the phrase: ‘As we have always adhered.’ But, if we concede that no legislation could save the Declaratory Act from being ‘burglar’ law, as I think we ought to do, and if all they mean by the phrase objected to is that in the deepest sense the Declaratory Act, although law de facto, was not law de jure, I do not see that there is in the phrase any insurmountable obstacle to union.
“(b) It is objected that a plea of the kind here urged is apt to lessen men’s love to the Free Presbyterian Church. Now, I reckon that one cannot love the Free Presbyterian Church too much, but at the same time one may love it too exclusively; for we are bound by God’s Word to love the whole Church, whether that means the Church of the elect, or the Church of true believers, or the Visible Church, which, according to our own standards, means ‘all those who profess the true faith, together with their children.’
“(c) It is asked, Why did we leave those now in the main constituting the Free Church in 1893, if we wish to become one Church with them after these years? The answer is, that the only reason we had for parting with those who held the same views as ourselves regarding the creed and worship of the Church in 1893, was that those persons then formed part of a body which had made the Declaratory Act part of its creed, but when those same persons now constitute a Society repudiating that Declaratory Act, it is a wrong thing not to consider sympathetically whether or not we could again meet on some ground common to us both.
“(d) It is objected that the Lord was with us in 1893. I have no doubt of that, but if there is a time to cast down and a time to build up again, He might also be with us if, following the rule of His Word urging us as far as possible to live peaceably with all men, urging us to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace, we tried to heal the breaches of the Visible Church in Scotland; yea, and if I did not in my conscience, and as a matter of experience, believe that He would be with us, I would not be so persistent in my arguments.
“(e) It is objected that our own flocks should not be driven recklessly backward and forward. I should be very sorry if our flocks had the feeling of being so treated, but I think that we who in Providence are called to give public expression to our conception of duty hereanent ought to set forth that conception plainly, and let the people decide what they shall do as they are accountable to God. For my part, after giving the question as much attention as I almost ever gave to a public question, I have concluded that we should try to make an honourable end of our quarrel with the Free Church.
“(f) But would not that, it may be said, be equivalent to acknowledging that we did wrong in separating from the then Free Church in 1893? Not at all. The Germans, contrary to international law, have set up German law in Belgium. Some Belgians are under that law. The King of the Belgians and his army are not under it, because they wouldn’t be under it. But, when the Germans are expelled out of Belgium, the Belgians with the King and the Belgians remaining in Belgium will go together under Belgian rule again. Somewhat similarly, Dr. Rainy set up his law in the Free Church, thus separating ourselves and the now Free Church. When all the Rainy laws and rags have been thrown out of the Free Church, the Free Church and ourselves ought surely to find it possible to live honourably together as the Free Church was in pre-Rainy days.
“I frankly say, therefore, that I would like to see the obstacles to external unity removed. I believe it would be disconcerting to the Church of Rome to see the Calvinists of Scotland coming together again. Even patriotism, it seems to me, urges in that direction; for there can be, no doubt, that our ecclesiastical divisions weaken us politically. Some may think that consideration not worth mentioning, but, in any case, the authors of the Solemn League and Covenant were not ashamed to lay it down as one reason why Scotland and England should constitute one Church that it would help the nation politically. I would like, besides, to have one fine example to point to as showing that, if the Presbyterian form of Government is powerful as an instrument to pull down when men depart from the truth, it is marvellously powerful as an instrument to bring people together again from one end of the land to the other when the truth is again acknowledged.
“Of course, there is a prejudice against union, because what, upon the whole, seemed the most faithful of our ministers stood out against union in 1863-73. But I would like to put the matter thus:—The two great objections that those anti-unionists urged were that the United Presbyterians did not hold with the Free Church, (1) on the doctrine of the substitutionary death of Christ for His Church, and (2) on national establishments. But suppose the United Presbyterians, instead of seeking, as they did, to make these doctrines open questions, came to the Free Church and offered to give them every reasonable satisfaction that they held exactly with the Free Church on those matters, what do you think men like Drs. Begg and Kennedy would have done? I think it would be a slander on their memory to say that in that case they would have acted towards the United Presbyterians as they did in those years. Well, then, if it turns out at length that the only difference between the Free Church and ourselves is that they say it was in 1900 that fellowship with those who were responsible for the Declaratory Act should have been broken, and we say it was in 1893, will it not be a scandal if that difficulty concerning Church law cannot be adjusted?
“I have, Moderator, stated with fulness my views of the duties which those who confess the one creed, and live in the same districts, owe to one another. I conscientiously say that my views on Church unity are consistent with those of Cyprian and Augustine, of Calvin and Knox, of James Durham and Thomas Boston, and I believe those truly great men had in this matter the mind of Christ. It is one thing to denounce sin: that is a right and proper thing to do, whether it appear among ourselves or among others. It is another thing to go the length of breaking the unity, when the creed is sound and the discipline is not defiantly in opposition to that creed. And, looking at the obligation to unity in the light of the conditions under which the subject had to be discussed for centuries by the most eminent servants of God whom the sub-apostolic Church saw, it does not seem to make any difference, in principle, whether the question be about leaving a body to which one had for a time belonged, or about the coming together of two bodies which, in the course of providence, found themselves for the time externally separated.”
Rev. Alexander Macrae, Portree, seconded the motion, and delivered the following speech, which he read:—Moderator, Fathers, and Brethren,—With your permission, I shall briefly express my sentiments on the matter now before the Synod—the Resolution from the Commission of the General Assembly of the Free Church anent existing obstacles to co-operation or union between the two Churches. I prefer to commit myself to the surer ground of giving expression to my sentiments by reading from my manuscript to running the risk of speaking hazily without its aid.
If I remember rightly, this is the third time an approach of this nature has been made to this Synod by the Free Church since 1900. As on the former occasions, it came without any previous knowledge of mine on this occasion also. I shall not, therefore, enter into the question of the origin of it, because I know nothing about it. In common with others, however, I took strong exception to words uttered on the floor of the Commission of the Assembly of the Free Church when this Resolution was proposed and agreed to, because it is not the case that the Free Presbyterian Church changed her mind with respect to her position, nor I am aware that any member of this Synod did. Words were uttered that seemed to purport so much; but they were afterwards modified, and the honour of every minister and office-bearer of our Church was satisfactorily vindicated. I shall not either enter into the question of the competency of the Commission of Assembly sending us this Resolution. I am willing to receive it at its face value, and to deal with it accordingly.
In every sphere of life we are having solemn warnings not to treat lightly anything that happens in the ruling of divine Providence. There is a design in everything that happens. As fallen and darkened human beings, it is both our duty and privilege to betake ourselves humbly to Him who is Light, and in whom is no darkness at all, that we may have from Him light upon, and an understanding of, what really is the meaning of such and such an event, an understanding of what is the lesson it is intended to impart to us, what is the divine will designed to be expressed by it, and how are we to act in relation to it. But with respect to this Resolution, it has come to us, unsolicited and unlooked for, in the ruling of divine Providence; and you all will agree with me in saying that it calls for our careful and prayerful consideration. How are we to dispose of it? What is our duty with regard to it? What is the will of the Head of the Church concerning it? And how does He expect us to act? It has come at a time that may be considered inopportune. It has come at a time when the sword is unsheathed—when its ravages are appalling—when our country throughout its length and breadth is flooded with sorrow—when the waters of affliction are not abating, but rather prevailing and increasing greatly. My own family circle experienced the bitterness of the abounding devastations—young men, brave and gallant, full of promise for the future, and an honour to their country, cut down in the flush and vigour of their manhood, whose loss I shall regret as long as life lasts. Notwithstanding that the prevailing circumstances are so distressing beyond any precedent in the history of our beloved land, I do not know if the time is inopportune to consider such a matter as this Resolution presents. It was during the stormy days of the Civil War in England the Westminster Assembly of Divines met and entered upon their great work. This is a matter that, in its own measure, equally affects what the Church ever esteems the highest of all causes—the cause of Christ in the world.
When this Resolution appeared in the public press last August, the adoption of a course virtually implying its summary rejection, without impartial and prayerful consideration, did not, and does not, commend itself to my judgment. My mind has been, and is, that we should receive it courteously, and return a respectful and carefully considered reply. My reason for that opinion arises from my ignorance of the motives that impelled the Free Church to adopt this course. Are their motives honest, or are they hypocritical? Can we credit them with genuine honesty, or are we prepared to accuse them of rank hypocrisy? At the present time, I do not credit them with the one, nor do I accuse them of the other; and I come to no conclusion with respect to either motive, until we shall have proved them as regards the one or the other by adopting the course of officially furnishing them with a statement of what we consider to be existing barriers on their side to co-operation and union. Their attitude towards a reply to them on these lines will determine for me what opinion I am entitled to hold regarding the character of this approach—whether there be an element of real honesty in it or not. Therefore, we can patiently wait to see what light Providence will throw upon the character of future developments; but, in present circumstances, I am not in favour of the appointment of a committee.
The two Churches are virtually occupying the same field, and no one will deny that, professedly, we now publicly own the same doctrinal standards, i.e., the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith without modification or qualification. The origin of our separate existence arose from the passing of the Declaratory Act into law in 1892. It was re-affirmed in 1893, and overtures demanding its repeal were summarily rejected. By its adoption, the then Free Church seriously modified the doctrines of the Westminster Confession, and invested a majority of her General Assembly with power to determine what was to enter into the substance of the Reformed faith. The then Free Church minority, who afterwards largely constituted the present Free Church, differed from us in the line of action that ought to be carried out with respect to the Declaratory Act. We took the view that, in order to maintain and to defend, as well as to assert the whole doctrine of the Confession, and to hold the distinctive position of the Free Church at the Disruption intact and entire, formal separation from the Church that adopted the Declaratory Act was necessary, and on that conviction we acted: whereas, the Free Church minority held that the proper course then was to remain still in formal connection with the Church under cover of a dissent, and on that conviction they acted. To remain under cover of a protest was not allowable. I do not care to be so uncharitable as to deny to them the credit of having acted in all conscientiousness in what appeared to them to be the path of duty at that time; but I, for one, am perfectly satisfied that we did then what the public maintenance and defence of truth demanded, and I have not yet resiled a hair’s-breadth, either in my inward affections or in my outward actions, from the position taken up by this Church in 1893. At the same time, I do not think that the performance of a particular Act, or the adoption of a particular course, is equivalent to truth itself. Truth stands forth majestically above all our acts and doings, and it alone ever claims the homage of our whole being. Particular actions date from the distant past, and may not be in keeping with the circumstances of future time; but truth is in keeping with, and applicable to, all time—past, present, and future. Above all else, we are to grasp it amidst every variety of change, and never to release our hold of it, from a loving regard to the honour and glory of the name of its divine Author.
I shall now state what I consider to be some of the existing barriers, the removal of which constitutes, in my view, an indispensable condition to having further official relations with the Free Church.
The case of Dr. Alexander arose from his having been appointed in due course a Professor in the Divinity Hall of the Free Church to teach young men aspiring to her ministry, and, at the same time, the author of a book entitled, “Demonic Possession”—a book strongly tainted with rationalistic tendencies and in sharp opposition to the doctrinal standards professed by the Church herself. The Church in dealing with this case, in which the integrity of divine truth was profoundly involved, showed, in our view, lamentable disloyalty to the divine author of truth and much unfaithfulness to the author of the book. The book has been withdrawn from publication; but this has been done, unfortunately, without a pronouncement, on the part of those who judicially dealt with it, that it was heretical, and without an expression of genuine repentance, on the part of its author, either for its publication or for its errors. The case presents an example of defective discipline; and, until the Church acknowledges the book to be heretical and its author states in distinct and unequivocal terms that he both repudiates it and genuinely regrets the unscriptural sentiments expressed therein, a standing barrier to closer relations, for which we can have no manner of responsibility, is bound to exist.
I am one of those who are not satisfied with the terms of the preamble to the Act of the Free Church rescinding the Declaratory Act. I do not enter into the question when this Act ought to have been rescinded; but when it was rescinded, it was accomplished in a manner that, in my view, has raised very grave difficulties. I do not concede to the faction led by the late Dr. Rainy the inherent legislative powers for which they unsuccessfully contended in the House of Lords; but, in any case, the Declaratory Act was an Act regulating the procedure and administration of the Church in all its judicatories. It was operative in all her Courts, effectually binding the hands of the minority, who, I never believed, accepted it as an expression of their own personal beliefs. They were under no compulsion to do that. But I believe it was so operative in the administration of the Church that the dissentients could neither maintain nor defend, in their official or corporate capacity as members of the Courts of the Church, the whole doctrine of the Confession. In fact, they were obliged to license and ordain men who held, taught, and preached the doctrines of the Declaratory Act. Even young probationers who professed opposition to the Act would not be allowed, at their ordination, to have anything placed on the records of Presbytery against it; otherwise, ordination would be denied to them. The Presbytery of Inverness, in the Dores’ case, afforded a concrete example. There was a cognate case in the Presbytery of Dornoch. Other Presbyteries, and, if I rightly remember, some Synods, as inferior Courts, were obliged to delete their protests from their records. In view of these facts, I am forced to cling still to the view that, in their official capacity they were helpless; and, however much they might wish it to be otherwise, the facts showed that they could not, in that respect—I mean officially—adhere to the whole doctrine contained in her subordinate standards in terms of the Act, 1846. I may be mistaken, but to my mind it is very regrettable that, when ultimately, in providence, the Free Church had it in their power to rescind the Declaratory Act, they did not do it simpliciter, or used in the preamble to the Rescinding Act only the words, “This Church adheres.” I do not say that in adopting the additional and unfortunate phrase, “as she has always adhered,” the Church meant criticism of our position relative to the Declaratory Act. The Commission of her Assembly already made a pronouncement denying the fact; but a mere pronouncement of the nature made does not meet the situation. Objectionable words are adopted, charged with all the power that legislation under the Barrier Act can give. They belie the Church’s previous record of helplessness under a regimé, likeable or unlikeable to her. But in view of the facts of past experience, to which we cannot possibly shut our eyes, no arrangement short of the formal deletion of the words in question, or, of what may be reckoned the equivalent of their deletion, can, in my view, give satisfaction. It is, even now, in the power of the Free Church to have this effected; and if this approach be of the character that I fondly hope it is, they will effect it. But until these words be effectively neutralised, they certainly constitute a barrier to closer relations.
I think I am as much opposed as any to practices that are not in keeping with the spirit of the Gospel. The Synod passed Deliverances on matters affecting discipline and purity in the general practice of the Church, and surely no one expects us to fall away from any of its findings. Whatever pertains to the sanctuary and to divine worship calls for due solemnity and for the avoidance of all levity. The tendency to assimilate popular fashions and customs amply justifies our adoption of Deliverances that are in conformity with our standards. The Scriptures draw a clear line of distinction between the Church of Christ and the world. We desire to imitate Christ in all our practice, the world in none of its unscriptural practices; and as another sine qua non to closer relations with the Free Church, I would require their acceptance of Deliverances of this Synod bearing on the points that I have mentioned. Shall we not be bound to consider their declining to homologate these Deliverances as amounting to a resolve, on their part, to maintain a dividing wall between us? But, are we now warranted in coming to that conclusion regarding them? In any case, purity in doctrine and purity in practice must go together; otherwise, a deadly canker must be at work.
We all agree that the Free Church displayed for several years after 1900 culpable latitudinarianism in throwing open the door of admission to her ministry to men from other Churches far too indiscriminately, her ministry, in consequence, assuming a dangerously heterogeneous character. I believe the mistake has been, to some extent, at least, recognised, and the recognition of it probably led to the adoption of a more stringent test of the orthodoxy of candidates for admission to her ministry than previously existed. I find that in 1907 a Deliverance was passed by her General Assembly requiring of all candidates, in addition to unqualified subscription to the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith, an expression of belief in the inerrancy of Holy Scripture; acceptance of the Calvinistic system of doctrine as against Arminianism and other false systems, and an avowal to teach the same; an expression of approval of the purity of worship at present authorised in the Church, whereby uninspired hymns and the use of instrumental music are disallowed; and an avowal to conform to, and maintain, said purity of worship. The withdrawal of so many from her Communion may possibly be largely due to this stringency. They should never have been admitted; their withdrawal has come none too soon; and, if there be still any of a similar character, the sooner they go the better for the Church herself. But, if it be possible to weed them well out, as tares from among wheat, it will be best accomplished by the application of such an instrument as this Synod’s Deliverance on Creed Subscription provides, without the acceptance of which, among others, by the Free Church, I mean to persist in maintaining my present attitude of aloofness.
I, for one, would like to see the day when all the ministers and people of both Churches could see eye to eye on all matters affecting the glory and cause of Christ in our midst, and be of one mind and of one heart contending earnestly for the faith as well as for the practice of the Gospel. I dare not hope to see it without an outpouring of the Holy Spirit as the spirit of repentance, of faith, of power, of love, and of a sound mind. The exercise of personal repentance is needed constantly. But there can be no question about the abiding duty of maintaining unswervingly a testimony for the whole truth and against all corruptions; and yet, there never was, and never shall be in this world, a Church without corrupt members. The small company of the disciples were not all pure. The larger company of the Apostolic Church, were largely contaminated by the presence of corrupt members; but the scriptural standard speaks for all time, “The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are His, and let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” As long as the life and conduct of Christian professors are consistent with their profession and free from serious lapses, we are not so much concerned with our private opinion of particular individual members, or with the existence of what might bear the mark of local prejudice, as with the official position and public testimony of a Church for purity of doctrine and practice, adhesion to which the Church is expected to require of all within her jurisdiction, and to enforce, when needed, her power of exercising discipline. As far as I understand, that was the attitude assumed by the most enlightened of the Reformers, and of the noble band of witnesses for the truth that came after them, from John Calvin downwards—an attitude that guarded them against severe exclusiveness, on the one hand, and unwarrantable latitudinarianism on the other. As in the domain of sound evangelicalism, healthy ecclesiasticism avoids both these extremes. Its stream flows in a channel equidistant from them both, and I trust this Church may never deviate from that stream’s course.
I entertain, I hope, no feelings of groundless prejudice against the Free Church. In common, I fancy, with you all, I seek union only in the truth. Who among us would not rejoice to see a consummation, such as that, on a clearly-defined scriptural basis, and amid signal tokens of the Divine favour? Our townships, hamlets, and villages are largely desolated by the fury of the sword; and if the divided Presbyterianism that the survivors represent, at least as far as the Free and Free Presbyterian Churches are concerned, terminated in an amalgamation of both on the solid basis of eternal truth, would there not be ground to rejoice? But I believe that the anchor of the Free Presbyterian Church in relation to the Free Church is safely cast by having it firmly fixed in the words of the Lord, “Let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them;” in other words, the adjustment of the points at issue on the foundation of truth, I understand my ecclesiastical position to be that occupied by the Free Church at the Disruption of 1843 in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, involving the rejection of all departures from her distinctive position since then—a position effectively safeguarded by our present position, my judgment may be at fault. I do not wish to pit it unnecessarily against that of any whose judgment is entitled to every mark of respect. But I fail to see how we can adopt a more honourable and straightforward course with respect to the resolution before us than to receive it with respect; assure the Free Church that we are neither prejudiced nor opposed to what rests on a clearly-defined scriptural basis; frankly, pointedly, and concisely tell them to the face, that is, officially and authoritatively, what we all must regard as existing obstacles and barriers on their side to co-operation and union; and throw the whole burden of responsibility for the consequences upon the Free Church herself. If they still retain these barriers, they will only come to be more prominently recognised; and Free Church people as well as our own will be obliged to acknowledge all the more readily the existence of justifiable grounds for continued separation. Our position, in respect of our public testimony, both for purity of doctrine and for purity of practice, will, I expect, be all the more firmly rooted in their affections. I expect it will commend itself all the more heartily to the favourable recognition of the friends of truth everywhere, whose ranks, sad to relate, are being rapidly thinned; and we shall, besides, effectively free ourselves from all reasonable charges of being schismatics or of acting schismatically. If what falls within the limits of reasonableness for safeguarding both the faith and practice of the Gospel does not appeal to them, they may go their way; but we stand where we stand. If, however, they remove these barriers and take up a position in practice, as well as in profession, common to that held by our Church, we shall, in that case, have ground to think favourably of the honesty of the present approach; and only then will the consideration of further duties and responsibilities arise. We are concerned with present duty. I have stated my view of it, honestly, candidly, and as clearly as I can. I devoutly wish the will of the Lord only to be done. We humbly leave the issues with Him, who can and will over-rule all things for His own glory, for the good of His cause, and for the furtherance of His Kingdom in the world. I, accordingly, second the motion for the adoption of the reply to the Resolution from the Commission of the General Assembly of the Free Church now proposed by Mr. Mackay, and I do this for the following reasons:—
(1) The reply presents an attitude of honest, honourable, and straightforward dealing on our part, with the Church from which the Resolution has come;
(2) It presents in pointed and concise terms the outstanding barriers on the side of the Free Church herself to closer relations with her;
(3) It effectively binds the Free Church with the whole responsibility for the consequences; and
(4) It is in entire harmony with the position of this Church in its public testimony for purity of doctrine, worship, and practice, to which position I am unalterably bound.
The first motion, by the Rev. Neil Cameron, was carried by thirteen votes to four.
WE regret that, though we have added four pages to this number at some outlay, we have to hold over (D.V.) till next number upwards of sixteen pages of Synod matter—the Report of the Canadian Deputy, and the Tabular Statements of the Synod’s Collections, etc.