A BRIEF REVIEW.
* “The Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church: The Question of their Union Discussed. By Rev. John R. Mackay, M.A. Inverness: The Northern Counties Newspaper and Printing and Publishing Company, Ltd. Price, One Shilling nett.
IT will be remembered that the Rev. John R. Mackay, Inverness, spoke strongly at the last meeting of our Synod, in May, 1917, in favour of efforts being made towards union with the present Free Church, in response to an overture for conference that was sent by said body (see F.P. Magazine, July, 1917). The resolution which Mr. Mackay moved at the Synod meeting was not adopted, but the Synod agreed to forward a statement of some of the outstanding differences between the two bodies, with the following preamble: “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.” Since then the Free Church Commission has issued a reply statement, dealing with the differences in detail (see pages 17-20). So far as we can ascertain, the great majority of our office-bearers and people regard this reply as quite unsatisfactory, and we agree with them, but not so Mr. Mackay. He appears to be quite satisfied with the paragraphs bearing upon the most serious points at issue, such as the case of Professor Alexander and that of the “always-adhered” clause, and considers the reply, as a whole, as providing a sufficient basis for active measures towards conference and union. In fact, he appears in the character of an enthusiast for union with the present Free Church, and has launched a pamphlet upon the world that has caused a sensation in his own Church and perhaps outside it.
Now, it is not our intention here to enter into a minute discussion of the various chapters of Mr. Mackay’s pamphlet. Something of that nature we believe to be necessary, and it is presently in the course of preparation for issue in a separate form. Our intention at this moment is simply to delineate briefly the character of the pamphlet, and to make some general remarks thereanent. Mr. Mackay discusses mainly three things: first, the question of Church Unity in general, as stated in the writings of Presbyterian men of the First and Second Reformations, Calvin, Knox, Rutherford, Baillie, Durham, etc., and in the Confession of Faith, as distinct from the writings of men of Independent principles; secondly, the application of what he considers the doctrine of Church Unity taught therein to the present relation of the Free Presbyterian Church to the Free Church, and that as entirely favourable to the union of these bodies; and, thirdly, objections that may be made to said union.
Now, our readers will clearly understand that we have no quarrel with the distinguished men whom Mr. Mackay quotes in their general views of truth or of Church Unity, and certainly none whatever with the Confession of Faith, but we decidedly object to the application he makes of these ancient statements to the present case. The precise views of the men of the First and Second Reformations on the subject of Church Unity have never been formally discussed among us at all, and we feel that Mr. Mackay has made a decided mistake in mixing them up right away with the case of union with the present Free Church. If he had issued a pamphlet on the general subject of Church Unity apart from this application, such, if well stated, might have been instructive and done no harm. But we consider he has gone entirely beyond the mark in driving home his arguments for a certain present-day union by statements from honoured divines, that have never been fully weighed by the Church, and that have reference to circumstances and cases vastly different from those we are confronted with. We hold, therefore, that we are fully entitled in the present discussion to rule out the names of Calvin, Knox, Rutherford, Durham, and others, and the quotations given from their writings, as not pertinent to the immediate issue before us. If they were alive to-day, and in our circumstances, they might have something quite different to say from what Mr. Mackay suggests.
We are very much disappointed with Mr. Mackay’s statements as to the relative positions of the Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church. He appears to look at the Free Church through the most favourable spectacles he can find, and at his own Church through the most unfavourable ones. He reduces the difference in 1893 to almost a mere technicality of Church procedure. The Free Presbyterians acted “more correctly” than did the representatives of the present Free Church. We do think that Mr. Mackay’s memory here has suffered a grave lapse. He and others in 1893 regarded the matter of separation as of the most serious character—a matter, indeed, of life or death as to a good conscience and a public Church testimony for fundamental truths of God’s Word. As for the most of those who remained in the Declaratory Act Free Church in 1893, under a dissent (though it gained them the property latterly), we felt then, and we feel still, that temporal considerations weighed more with them than principle or conscience, and that they did not adhere to their full obligations to God and His truth as expressed in their ordination engagements. Then, as to the recent reply of the Free Church Commission, Mr. Mackay seems quite satisfied with the same relative to the Alexander case. He seems to think that the Free Church has done almost all that it possibly could to put matters right on that head, and among other statements he delivers himself of the following, which we consider most unwarrantable:—”I have no doubt that if any person in her pay (that is, the Free Church that now is), had the hardihood to treat the Scriptures as Dr. Alexander did in 1902, he would be as summarily dealt with in the Free Church as in the Free Presbyterian Church.” There is no proof for this conclusion, but for the contrary.
We have only touched the mere fringe of the matters taken up. Mr. Mackay makes many unwarrantable suggestions of schism and separatism if the Free Presbyterians will not move towards union with the present Free Church, but we cannot discuss these at present. It is a matter of much pain that any such controversy has arisen among us at this time, when anxiety and sorrow abound on every hand. We earnestly hope that our esteemed brother will reconsider his attitude on the present question. It will be a strange result, if his untimely and excessive zeal for unity will give a greater blow to the cause of unity than anything that has happened since 1893. J. S. S.
We regret that, owing to pressure on our space, we are compelled to leave out Calder’s Diary and the first instalment of a new series of Sketches of Noted Preachers of the Northern Highlands, by Rev. D. Beaton, Wick, as well as other Articles.