SYNOD MEETING, 22ND MAY, 1918.
AS stated in our general report of the Meeting of Synod, given elsewhere, the Clerk read at the third sederunt the Reply which was sent by the Free Church Commission of November 1917, to the Free Presbyterian Statement of Differences forwarded in May of the same year. The Free Church Reply was printed in full in this Magazine two months ago (May, 1918). In view of said Reply, two motions were submitted to the Synod, the first, advocating conference with a view to union, by the Rev John R. Mackay, M.A., Inverness; and the second, resolving that “the correspondence take end,” by the Rev. Neil Cameron, St. Jude’s, Glasgow. The Rev. A. Macrae, Portree, seconded Mr. Mackay’s motion, and the Rev. D. Macfarlane, Dingwall, Mr. Cameron’s motion. Mr. Cameron’s motion was carried by a majority of twenty to four members. Summaries of the speeches of the movers and seconders, and of the Rev. D. Mackenzie, Gairloch, who did not vote for either motion—summaries supplied by the speakers themselves, along with the motions—are given in the following pages:—
Rev. John R. Mackay, Inverness, submitted the following motion:—
“The Synod acknowledge receipt of the Free Church’s Deliverance relative to union, being a reply to a statement, relative to the same subject matter which the Clerk of this Synod forwarded in May, 1917, to the Clerk of the General Assembly of the Free Church, and cordially acknowledge the kindly mind which this reply manifests towards the Free Presbyterian Church. Further, the Synod, considering; (1) the obligation that lies upon the denominations living in the same district and making the same identical confession as to doctrine, worship, and government, to strive to obtain visible unity; and (2) the nature of the Free Church’s reply now received; in which (a) they express themselves as willing to form with the Free Presbyterian Church one Presbyterian body with it on the basis of the standards of the Free Church as held and understood in 1843; in which (b) they reiterate their own unequivocal repudiation of everything inconsistent with the inerrancy of the Scriptures; in which (c) they in substance declare that it was under the notion of a man who fully understood that it was the Free Church’s intention to abide by this high doctrine of Holy Scripture that they took on Dr. Alexander as a teacher of their students in 1904; that it was on that understanding he accepted office, and that his practice as a teacher of their students has all the time been as good as his promise; in which (d) they acknowledge that Dr. Alexander’s withdrawn book, ‘Demonic Possession,’ did contain views that constituted a departure from the teaching of the Confession of Faith, and from the publicly professed doctrine of the Free Church herself, relative to the infallibility of the Scriptures, a departure so serious as would have called for the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline had those views been persisted in; in which (e) Dr. Alexander in particular and the Free Church as a whole express regret, not only for whatever hurt was, through this departure from the teaching of the Confession, done to the beliefs and feelings of God’s people, but also for whatever hurt was in this way done to truth; and in which (f) they express their willingness to draw out with us, and to act upon, rules relative to social meetings, sales of work, and burials, that will be in harmony with our common standards: Resolve (1) that a committee, representative of the whole Synod, be appointed to confer with the Committee of the Free Church on Union concerning these matters; (2) that the Synod’s Committee, after conferring with the other Committee, give in a report of their impressions of this conference to the Synod; and (3) that until this Synod has had time to consider that report, no further steps, ‘pro’ or ‘con,’ be taken by the Free Presbyterian Church in this matter of Union with the Free Church.”
Mr. Mackay said he thought his motion extremely reasonable, and yet he was painfully conscious of the opposition with which it would be met on the part of some of his brethren. He would be inclined to drop the subject altogether did he not think there was a danger of the Free Presbyterian Church herself not acting relative to this question quite in accord with her own standards. It was conceded that the profession of the Free Church as to doctrine, government, and worship, was satisfactory. That being so, he would endeavour to show that there was made out a case for a conference with a view to union, and that anything that could be said against Free Church practice did not make that case null and void. The nature of the only visibly organised Church of God in this world, on their standards, is that it consists of a people professing faith in Christ and obedience to Him, according to the rule of His word. He appealed to the Leyden Professors, to Rutherford, and to Dickson, to show that he was in this interpreting their Confession correctly. It would be a serious thing for persons holding their Confession to treat lightly the invitation of brethren of a neighbouring denomination, whose profession of faith was entire. Some of his brethren who agreed with him on the nature of the visible church questioned the imperiousness of the obligation to strive after one government for neighbours whose profession was satisfactory. He maintained there was an obligation (1) because the Church, whose profession was entire, is never found save under one government in the Bible; (2) because Christ’s prayer “that they all may be one that the world may believe” has an eye to His people as visibly organised, as practically all our Presbyterian forefathers thought; and (3) because they had promised on oath to assert that saints by profession were bound to have fellowship in worship. The fact that their own Confession was the only Confession in all Christendom that had devoted an entire chapter to the subject of the communion of saints and that that communion was mainly treated as the communion of saints by profession, ought to appeal to them. There ought to be a conference.
The practice of the Free Church to-day does not make that conclusion null and void. A difficulty was made of what was called the “always adhered” clause. But if a union took place the united body would have no responsibility for that clause. Besides, they could not say the Declaratory Act had been law de jure without going against Mr. Macfarlane’s Protest in 1893, and against the judgment of the House of Lords, and without making the nature of their own Church in the matter of power to change the constitution the same as that of the United Free Church to-day. On the other hand the Free Church allowed that the Declaratory Act was law de forma et de facto.
He held that their position required the maintenance of the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Scripture as essential, but that there should be a readiness to forgive when an aberration, even from that doctrine, was acknowledged, and the truth again owned. The Free Church and Dr. Alexander owned that there were views expressed in “Demonic Possession” which, if they had been pertinaciously adhered to, would have called for ecclesiastical discipline. No one among them had more strongly denounced the errors in “Demonic Possession” than he (Mr. Mackay) himself, but that was only a stronger reason why he should now be foremost in urging his Church to show a forgiving spirit when the man who had fallen into those errors now owned the truth. He had personally got ample satisfaction that Dr. Alexander was now one who asserted and did not deny the Danielic authorship. It was right to declare the severity of God’s justice against those who erred from His truth, but it was also right to declare more loudly still the mercy of God, and the merits of His Son towards those who owned their departure from the truth, and now asserted the truth. Besides those two main difficulties there were other minor difficulties, but in view of the obligations under which they themselves were to strive after visible unity with those holding their own creed, and in view of the nature of the Free Church’s reply anent the difficulties now under consideration, these difficulties did not make the duty of holding a conference void. The Assembly of the Province of London, than which no Presbyterian body had asserted the claims of purity of practice more strongly in their “Vindication” (1650) warned their people against “the doctrine that cried up purity to the ruin of unity as contrary to the Gospel.” Their Confession taught them that they were primarily ministers of the Church universal, and he thought they at the moment owed a duty to that Church in the form of putting forth an effort to heal one of the breaches that had been made upon Christ’s Church in Scotland.
Rev. Alexander Macrae, Portree, seconded Mr. Mackay’s motion. The following is his summary of his speech:—
Moderator,—In my judgment the path of present duty lies in the adoption of the course recommended in Mr. Mackay’s motion, and I have much pleasure in seconding it. I am persuaded that this course is in entire accord with the Word of God, with our professed standards, and with the position taken up at the outset by our Church. It is in accord with the Directory for Public Worship of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, in which they recommend prayer for the healing of rents and divisions. The motion only goes the length of asking for a Conference. A Conference commits us to nothing final. It is merely tentative. It is for the purpose of putting forth an honest effort to know whether or not there can be an agreement on points calling for adjustment. This course has been the universal practice of the Church in the past, and it ought to commend itself as reasonable to any unprejudiced mind.
The present Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church, both representing the Constitutionalist party in the former Free Church, unquestionably hold the same public creed—the creed of the Free Church as agreed to, and held at the Disruption of 1843. I always understood the creed of the Free Presbyterian Church not to differ one iota from that of the Free Church as settled in 1843. The two bodies profess acceptance of the Westminster Confession of Faith without the slightest modification of its doctrines or terms. They agree in their solemn avowal of the verbal and plenary inspiration, absolute infallibility, inerrancy, and entire perfection of the Old and New Testaments, as the Word of God, and the only rule of faith and manners. They disown all doctrines, tenets, and opinions whatsoever that are contrary to, and inconsistent with, the Confession of Faith. They both require of their office-bearers, in the most emphatic and unmistakable terms, unqualified subscription to the whole doctrine of the Confession. In common with ourselves, the present Free Church solemnly declares that, in accepting the Confession of Faith, “her office-bearers are individually taken bound to assert, maintain, and defend these truths, and that no known departure from their obligation to do so, in profession or in practice, is, or will be, tolerated.” In consistency with this declaration, she repealed the Act of 1884, passed by the former Free Church to relieve deacons of subscription to the Confession of Faith. She thus reverted to the practice of the Disruption Church in requiring the unqualified subscription of all office-bearers to the Confession.
The public testimony and practice of the two bodies with respect to purity of worship are the same. They both prohibit the use of uninspired hymns and instrumental music in divine worship. The present Free Church passed an Act recalling Resolutions passed by the former Free Church that authorised and sanctioned the use of the uninspired hymns of dates, 3rd June, 1872; 27th May, 1881; 26th May, 1896; and 24th May, 1897. She also repealed the Act of Assembly of date, 31st May, 1883, anent the use of instrumental music in divine worship. At the same time, she “re-affirms the Disruption position of 1843 in respect of doctrine, worship, discipline, and government;” and she enjoins all her congregations “to adhere to purity of worship, as that was understood and practised at that period, and so secure that the present practice of the Church be in accord with the terms of the formula of 1846—’presently practised in this Church.'” To safeguard, further, the Church’s testimony for purity of worship, she passed in 1910 an Act, in which she embodied the Act XV. of Assembly of 1707, entitled “Act against Innovations in the worship of God.”
The call to this conference is, therefore, on a basis entirely different from that proposed by the Free Church in 1863, when negotiations for union with the United Presbyterian Church were entered upon. The latter held Voluntaryism as one of her fundamental principles, and Amyraldism was rapidly gaining ground within her pale. The circumstances of the then Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church cannot, in the view of any intelligent person, be regarded as parallel to, or identical with, the present circumstances. In the former case, the negotiating bodies held and acknowledged principles that were diametrically opposed. They afterwards united on a common basis that was not in keeping with the Disruption standards. In the present case, we have two bodies holding the same scriptural creed, and maintaining the same scriptural principles—the principles and doctrines of the Disruption Church in their entirety.
Dr. Alexander’s book, “Demonic Possession,” published in 1902, contained views that cannot be too strongly condemned. We do not know how many, or how few, in the Free Church knew of the existence of this book on his admission as a minister in 1903, or, on his appointment to a Professorship in 1904. On both these occasions, he is said to have “avowed his whole-hearted endorsement of the Church’s unequivocal repudiation of anything and everything inconsistent with the confessional doctrine of the infallibility of the Scripture.” I agree that, at the same time, he should have spontaneously repudiated certain views expressed in his book, and voluntarily withdrawn it from circulation. We are officially informed that, when in 1905 the Training of the Ministry Committee, whose duty it was primarily to investigate into the case, drew his attention to certain views in his book that were complained of as a departure from the confessional doctrine of the Scripture, he frankly expressed regret, repudiated every deviation in the book from orthodoxy, and withdrew it from circulation. He discarded in their entirety, what he calls his “immature speculations,” in a letter to the Press. In the official statement now before us, the Church herself acknowledges that some of the views set forth in “Demonic Possession” are a departure from the confessional doctrine of the Church on the infallibility of the Scripture—that is, that they are heretical—which, if they had been maintained, would have to be dealt with as a departure from that doctrine. The Church also expresses regret for whatever hurt was done to truth by certain views expressed in the book. Besides, Dr. Alexander is singled out by name in this statement, in consequence of which he, as a member of the Commission, anew asserts, in common with the Church herself, his personal belief in the doctrine of Inspiration in as high a form as ever the Church of Christ confessed; he acknowledges that certain views expressed in his book were material heresy; and he expresses regret for whatever hurt was done to truth and the religious beliefs and feelings of God’s people, within and without the Church, by these views. The Church further solemnly affirms that, ever since Dr. Alexander’s entrance into the work of his Chair, his teaching was found to bear unimpeachable testimony to the sincerity of his personal belief in the absolute infallibility of the Scriptures. They thus hold him answerable to God for the sincerity or insincerity of his professions, leaving him to stand or fall to his own Master, as each of us must. But, in view of the solemn affirmation officially made by the Free Church and Dr. Alexander alike of their loyalty to the doctrine of the Scripture as the infallible Word of God, I should be afraid of bearing false witness against my neighbour if I still persisted in deliberately calling in question the sincerity of their profession. The process in Dr. Alexander’s case was probably in strict accordance with the procedure of the Free Church since the Disruption in cases of discipline. But, if there be need of further explanation, why object to meet in conference to obtain it?
With respect to the second point in the Free Church reply, I am satisfied that the Declaratory Act, passed into law by the former Free Church in 1892, and rescinded by the present Free Church in 1906, could not have been an Act de jure. The Disruption Free Church adopted the old constitution of the Church of Scotland, agreed to by her General Assembly, and solemnly ratified by various Acts of Parliament, unalterably committing the Church to her Creed as contained in the Westminster Confession. It was not, therefore, in the power of any majority in the Rainyite Free Church, however large, to effect, through the operation of the Barrier Act of 1697, such legislative changes as could have lawfully affected the original constitution. The Barrier Act was not an Act of Parliament, but a mere Act of the Assembly itself. We held at the very outset of our separate existence the non de jure character of the Declaratory Act. The dissenting minority, who constitute the present Free Church, took up a similar position. The Church now emphatically maintains in the official statement before us that, in that sense only, she “always adhered to her subordinate standards in terms of the Act 1846, anent Questions and Formula.” Her successful vindication of the principles embodied in the original Free Church constitution was in itself a justification for the appeal made to the Civil Courts. It was a triumph for Disruption principles, unspeakably more valuable than any material advantage that resulted. The highest court of appeal in this land held that the Declaratory Act was not an Act de jure. This Synod expressed its sincere satisfaction with this decision as in agreement with the view that we always held. If there be at any time an inconsistency in our protestations with respect to the non de jure character of the Declaratory Act, I am bound to think it finds expression in the clause in the Synod’s deliverance of June, 1905, that refers to the terms of the preamble to the Free Church Rescinding Act. It is a clause that, on a review of the actual facts, is not quite in keeping with the Synod’s deliverance in the previous November.
The Free Church acknowledges that the Declaratory Act was an Act de facto. In other words, it affected the internal regulation or administration of the Church; it was operative for the time being in her courts; it rendered those, who tried in the administrative work of the Church to maintain an all-round testimony for the Confession, quite helpless beneath the feet of a temporarily, at least, triumphant majority, who, in view of the character of the original constitution, cannot be regarded in any other light than as a tyrannical party, exercising unconstitutional authority in courts, of which they had really no right to be members. The Free Church frankly acknowledges this condition of helplessness. Her very acknowledgment of it proves that the “always adhered to” clause in the preamble to the Rescinding Act is used, not in an administrative sense, but in the sense of the original status quo. Must we not concede that, in that sense, they are used with perfect legitimacy? I, therefore, maintain that the Free Church reply on this important matter agrees with the facts of the situation as held by our Church at the outset, at least, of her separate existence.
I adhere to all that I said in this court last year about the necessity of maintaining purity in practice. Although the Free Church did not formally pass the same identical Deliverances as we did on matters dealing with practice, as previously provided for in our standards, we have no evidence from her Reply that, consistently with these same standards, she is not wholeheartedly willing to place herself in line with this Church in this respect. The terms of her Reply under this head do not preclude us from meeting in conference with her representatives. On the contrary, we are encouraged to cherish the assured confidence that no practice will obtain anywhere within her jurisdiction that does not consist with her avowed standards.
I believe that the voice of God in His Word, in His witnessing Church in the past, and in His providence, now calls us to the duty of meeting in conference. If the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith—if, in fact, the most eminent witnesses for truth who ever flourished in pre-Reformation and post-Reformation times—were placed in the circumstances in which we are now placed in relation to the Reply before us from the Free Church, is it conceivable that, in view of the record we have of their words and actions, they would act otherwise than regard it their bounden duty to meet in conference on the footing of our common standards? Is it not our duty to follow closely in their footsteps? The evils of division are everywhere apparent. The shattered condition of the Highlands, ecclesiastically, presents an extremely sad spectacle. Have we not a sure evidence of the Lord’s righteous displeasure in the spiritual blight that prevails? Are there signs anywhere of any stirring among the dry bones? The Lord’s wrath is fiercely burning against us. To what extent do our unhappy divisions account for it? Is not the Holy Spirit of God grieved by all the bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and evil-speaking, in which all are too ready to indulge? Is He not grieved by the apparent absence of a spirit of mutual kindness, tender-heartedness, and forgiveness that He enjoins us, as those professing the same scriptural creed, to show to one another? Think of the worldliness, materialism, and agnosticism of the age, in presence of the most terrible calamities that ever had been. Can we shut our eyes to the bold encroachments of the Papacy? What about the probable amalgamation of the largest Scottish Churches, exercising, as it will, huge influence, which, in presence of our own divisions, may act as a powerful magnet to attract many from within our respective folds? Do not these existing and imminent evils loudly call for a conference? Finally, do not the bloody scenes enacted on the field of battle strongly appeal in this direction? I acknowledge that the desolating judgments and sad bereavements of these years have, in this way, potently influenced my mind. Our gallant young men suffer, bleed, and die together in defence of a common cause. They present a united front to the common foe. Surely, from amid these appalling desolations there goes forth a loud and solemn call to the Free and Free Presbyterian Churches to lay aside existing prejudices, and to fraternise, at least to the extent of meeting in conference, to see if it be possible for them to present a united front to the common foes of the spiritual and eternal welfare of men—to see if it be possible to secure for the rising and coming generations the inestimable privileges of the Gospel in a united body, a body that will (like Judah and Israel) be one stick in the hand of the Lord, and ever be associated with an untarnished testimony for purity of doctrine, worship, and practice. In comparison with the permanent preservation of this testimony, the preservation of the identity of either the Free Church or the Free Presbyterian Church, as external ecclesiastical organisations, is, to my mind, of little consequence. Our highest ambition is to preserve the truth in its integrity, to hand it down entire to coming generations, to do only the Lord’s will, to promote His cause, and to see the prosperity of His kingdom in the world, and especially in our beloved native land.
I have spoken in support of what my judgment approves as the more excellent way. I have stated my mind consistently with principles embedded in the constitution of our Church and involved in the Headship of Christ over the Church—liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment within the limits prescribed by our standards. There I take my stand; and, in doing so, I maintain that I hold the truth in its entirety as unflinchingly as any member of this court; that I commit no breach of my ordination vows; that I follow no divisive course from the doctrine, worship, discipline, or government that I solemnly vowed to assert, maintain, and defend; nor am I a party to disturbing the peace of this Church by the least deviation from its professed creed—a creed that I purpose by grace to adhere to, in toto, to my last breath.
Rev. Neil Cameron, Glasgow, next rose and submitted the following motion:—
“The Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland reaffirms the deliverance adopted in 1905, to the effect that this court cannot consider a proposal for union with any Church which does not hold, without the least dubiety, both in profession and practice, the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith, including the most fundamental doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, along with the Form of Church Government and Form of Worship and Discipline of this Church. The Synod, having seriously considered the Reply of the Commission of Assembly of the present Free Church, drawn up in November, 1917, in reference to the ‘Statement of Differences’ sent by this Synod to said Assembly in the previous May, has come to the conclusion that, as that Reply is largely made up of evasive statements and suggestions of compromise, no useful purpose can be served by continuing this correspondence. The Synod, therefore, resolves that, in view of all the circumstances, the correspondence now take end.”
In support of his motion, Mr. Cameron drew attention to the inopportune time chosen for resuscitating a movement for union between the Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church. He said that surely the people of the two Churches had got enough harassment and heart-grief on account of the terrible war, in which many of their young men had fallen, without the introduction of this controversy. Since the date in August, 1914, at which our country entered into the war, we said nothing about our relation to other Churches in Scotland, until we were compelled to do so in defence of our position as a Church, by this unfortunate movement. At the same time, our mind did not change in the least as regards the duty of our Church as to the maintaining of her own position. So we can assure the people that this wrangling about a union that is quite impracticable causes us deep grief.
We hold that we are united in heart to all the true people of God throughout the whole world, but we deny that we are bound to unite in outward Church fellowship with them on that account. Our forefathers believed that there were many of the true children of God in the Episcopal Church of England in their day, but notwithstanding their love to them, they would not unite with them at the expense of giving away the Creed, principles, and practice of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. This was the mind of Rev. Messrs. Samuel Rutherford, Robert Baillie, George Gillespie, and all the other ministers holding office in the Church of Scotland then. They proved to the world that they would even wage war against their kings—Charles I. and Charles II.—sooner than allow the Church of Scotland to have Prelacy foisted upon its neck. The opinions they held of the unity of the visible Church did not cause them, on the other hand, to yield to the Congregationalists of England when they encountered them in the Westminster Assembly. They would not cease to hold their own Presbyterian form of Church government for the sake of unity wanting it. Their debates in that Assembly with these men prove this. Are we to believe that they would be ready to unite with Rationalists and men who have disgraced the cause of Christ by carnal practices in the name of religion? No; we cannot believe that they held such lax views of their duty to God and men. Our worthy brethren, Rev. J. R. Mackay and Rev. Alexander Macrae, must have misunderstood entirely the writings of these men; because their practice made it amply plain that the unity of the visible Church was held very differently by these men from the construction our brethren in this Court would put upon it. We have read the writings of these distinguished men of the past, and we say unhesitatingly that, in our opinion, they held God’s truth and the Creed and principles of their own Church too valuable to be bartered away in order to have visible unity among men. We hold the same opinion.
At the meeting of Synod, last May, a Statement of Differences between our Church and the Free Church was agreed upon, by a large majority, and it was sent to the Free Church. How did the Free Church deal with that statement? After seriously considering their reply, we came to the conclusion that it was made up of evasive statements and suggestions of compromise. In the motion which we bring before the Synod, we have reiterated a part of the motion which became the finding of our Synod in 1905. We then held that the Free Presbyterian Church could not consider a union with any Church which did not hold the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible and the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith, both in profession and practice. It was the judgment of the Synod then that, notwithstanding the fact that the present Free Church made ample profession of holding both, she was very faulty in her practice. We see no improvement in the practice of the Free Church since, and consequently we hold the same opinion now as to the duty of this Synod which we held then. The obstacles are not of our making, but of theirs. The whole blame falls on them.
(1) Let us notice how they have dealt with the case of Dr. W. M. Alexander. In the Reply before us, they give an account of the manner in which their Assembly in 1905 dealt with that case. Are there not evasions in the way they have taken to relate their very faulty conduct in dealing with that case? There are. They state proceedings which they took in private with Dr. Alexander, but they say nothing about the manner in which they dealt with the case in their Assembly publicly. Did they not then practically praise Dr. Alexander and his book, “Demonic Possession,” in their Assembly? Did they not ask him to withdraw the book from publication, “in deference to Highland opinion?” Did not this conduct lay them open to grave doubts as to the soundness of that Assembly as regards the inspiration of the Bible? This, we hold, cannot be denied: for no one can approve of that book who holds sound views of the infallibility of the Bible. These things were pointed out to them in the statement sent last year. But they have evaded that most important point in their reply, and endeavoured to justify the proceedings of that Assembly. Shall we close our eyes upon such conduct? We cannot do so, and act justly towards God’s truth and the consciences of men. Further, we will not do so, the Lord continuing to us soundness of mind, and grace to keep us faithful to “the faith once delivered to the saints.” Even the confession made by them in their Reply ignores the great sin committed by them against God—the Holy Ghost—who is the author of the Bible. We trust that this Synod will show its strong disapproval of such conduct.
Let no one think that we harbour any animosity against Dr. Alexander. We do not know him at all. But we know his book—”Demonic Possession,” and we have no hesitation in affirming that he was, when he wrote that book, a Rationalist to the core. If he has truly repented of the destructive views contained in that book, why did he not publicly confess his great sin before all concerned? We have many examples both in the Bible and secular history of men who, when they saw their error, expressed their sincere repentance. Why does he not do so?
(2) We consider the manner in which they deal with the statement that the Free Church “always adhered” to the subordinate standards as adopted by the Church in 1846, as an insult to the intelligence of the members of this court. If the representatives of the present Free Church were able all along to adhere fully to these standards, according to their ordination engagements, we did a great wrong to the people who followed us in 1893 when we separated from the then Declaratory Act Free Church, and we were also guilty of schism; for we were bound to remain in that Church if what they have placed in their constitution be true. Besides, they stated in a leaflet issued by them in 1900 that the Declaratory Act was not binding on any up to that time, but that it would be binding on such as would enter into the union that was consummated that year, and that that would be an eye-opener to some. Who did they mean were to have their eyes opened? The Free Presbyterians; and they sent that leaflet to many in our Church. Furthermore, they were warned that this statement would raise a brazen wall between the Free Presbyterian and the Free Church should they place it in their constitution, but that did not deter them from doing so. They now say that when the two Churches will unite, it will be on the position taken up by the Free Church in 1843, and that that statement then will not be binding on either party. Is this not a suggestion of compromise? Should we not be cutting away the last sod from under our own feet as regards our stand in 1905, if we were to compromise this point? So far as we can see that would be the decided result.
(3) The manner in which they received into the present Free Church ministers out of almost all the Churches known in Christendom—the Roman Catholic Church excepted—has raised a very formidable barrier between us and them. They now say in their reply that they acted so under the Mutual Eligibility Act. That was an Act passed by the Free Church to enable ministers from the U.P. Church to enter the ministry of the Free Church. The men who stood faithful to the principles of the Free Church, such as Drs. Begg, Kennedy, and Mr. McColl, declared that they would have no hand in administering that Act, and they not only warned the people of its dangerous tendency, but also wrote against it. What subterfuges men will use in their own defence show face here! Many of these ministers and students so received, we observe, have taken wings and have fled to other Churches. Nothing better could be expected of them. How are we to know that they have all gone now? We are urged to take their word for it. One of the ministers of that Church told us in 1916 that they were all away then except four. How many have gone since then? I think more than four left them, and we expect from what we hear that still more will follow. These men acted like irresponsible persons in filling up vacant places in their Church both with ministers and students concerning whom they could have no real knowledge that they came to them for their love to, or faith in, the distinctive doctrines and principles of the Free Church of Scotland. We do not say this to cast doubts upon every one who has been so received, for we give as high a place to a few such as we give to any in that Church. But we do say that many were and are in the present Free Church who should never have been there. This is a serious matter, to which this Synod should give due attention at this stage.
(4) In their reply to our objections to social gatherings, bazaars, sales of work, prayers at the grave, etc., they desire these things to be taken up at a private conference. This is another evasion. I know that many of their people are quite antagonistic to these things. Many of their ministers would have them, but they know that their people would not endure such profanation to be carried on in the name of Christ. With these men and women we have sincere sympathy. But for a Church which indulges in such practices in the south and refrains from them in the north, we can have very little respect. These are practices which we have abhorred since the Lord opened our eyes to see that holiness becomes His house. What has the Church of God to do with vain songs and frivolous speeches to cause the giddy world laughter? Has it come to this, that we are to hold as godly such as participate in such profanation? “We have not so learned Christ.”
What has the Church of God to do with sales of work? I am of the opinion that this is one of the subtle ways in which the Church of Rome tries to undermine the Reformation. Christ did not tolerate buyers and sellers in the temple, but He scourged them all out. He would certainly do the same thing now. He would call such work by its proper name, a turning of the house of prayer into a den of thieves. They are willing to exclude raffling. Little thanks to them, because the law of the country will not tolerate that. Brethren, it is painful for us to have to expose these things again and again. Our worthy brethren, Mr. Mackay and Mr. Macrae, have read long speeches in which they hold that our duty now is to appoint a Committee to confer with the Free Church with a view to union. I think it will be apparent to all the members of this court that a real change has taken place in the minds of Mr. Mackay and Mr. Macrae, but not in the position of the Free Church.
We are not against union where and when it is practicable, but it is impracticable at present with the Free Church. We declared in 1905 that we would be quite prepared to unite with any Church which, in her Creed and practice, would be consistent with both the Supreme and Subordinate standards held by us. We are of the same mind now. We are convinced that the present movement for union will have the effect of arousing a good deal of animosity in the Free Church against our Church, and that it has put union farther away instead of bringing it nearer. We take no responsibility as to that result.
In conclusion, we declare that the Free Church, if she desires union upon honourable and upright terms, will have to clear away of her own accord the obstacles that stand in the way. We do not say so on account of any pride, or animosity towards that Church, but as a matter of duty towards God and men. If the shattered fragments of the Church of Christ in Scotland are to be gathered together again into one body, it will be by an outpouring of the spirit of grace and supplication, and then men will come to be of the same mind as regards doctrine, government, worship and practice. For such a day we pray and wait patiently. It will surely come whether we will see it or not. Meanwhile, let us cease to wrangle about a union that is impracticable and impossible.
Rev. D. Macfarlane, Dingwall, in seconding Mr. Cameron’s motion said that, while he was one in heart with Mr. Mackay and Mr. Macrae as ministers of the gospel, he disapproved entirely of their present movement.
He said he had not changed his mind with regard to the position which the Free Presbyterian Church took up in 1893, and he should continue of that mind until the end of his life. He would consider it a slur on his character as a minister of the gospel if he left behind anything like departing from that position. With regard to the Free Church, there was no change. The change had come over Mr. Mackay and Mr. Macrae—he did not say it in any bad spirit. With regard to the Free Church, why did they ask the Free Presbyterian Church to join them? They had heard that a large number of ministers had left the Free Church, and they took ministers from almost every Protestant denomination for the sake of getting a share of the property. The Free Church were now afraid that they would lose some of the property that the House of Lords gave them if they had not enough ministers to keep their share of the property, and they came to the Free Presbyterian Church and wanted union, so that the Free Presbyterian ministers would fill up the vacancies. He held it would be a calamity to have a split in their Church, and if union took place there would be a split. It would grieve him very much to see the Church split up. He did not believe the thing was of God but of the devil, as it had caused strife between brethren and division in the Church. The action of the ministers, who were for union, had even alienated considerably the minds of their own congregations from them. The most of the people throughout the Church were opposed to the present union movement. He was not against union in proper circumstances that would thoroughly uphold truth.
Rev. D. Mackenzie, Gairloch, who did not vote for either motion, expressed agreement with Mr. Cameron’s motion, except as to the conclusion of it, which he wished to run to the effect that “the Free Presbyterian Church refuses to consider any communication from the Free Church, anent conference with a view to union, until the Free Church itself removes all the obstacles stated in the deliverance of the Free Presbyterian Synod of 1917.”
Mr. Mackenzie sends us the following report of the remainder of his speech (somewhat amplified) for publication:—
I shall chiefly confine my remarks to the relation of the Free Church to the Declaratory Act of 1893. About the time the Free Presbyterian Church was formed, the constitutional party in the late Free Church held a private conference in Inverness. Only ministers were admitted. One proposed that a deputation be sent throughout the country to explain the nature of the Declaratory Act. Another said they should not appoint such a deputation, because if such a deputation visited their congregations, these congregations would leave the Church. A proposal to distribute pamphlets became the finding of the conference. Was that an honourable position? Did their line of action spring from loyalty to the truth?
The constitutional party consulted English and Scotch counsel if in law, the passing of the Declaratory Act entitled them to the property. The opinion of counsel was not very pronounced. Thereafter the fulminations of the constitutionalists against the Declaratory Act ceased, and their mission for about seven years was to unsay all they had previously said against the Act. Was that consistent? Was it fidelity to truth? Was it not love to the material things of earth?
In 1900, when the present Free Church was formed, the Declaratory Act was denounced in the strongest possible language, yet, at the same time, the Free Church was so much in love with the Act that it kept it in its constitution for six years. Why was that? The Church consulted counsel anent the property. Ostensibly, a few were for at once repealing the Act, but the advice of counsel was not to repeal it in case it might imperil their case in the civil courts. The property and the invested funds grew so great in the eyes of the Church that it yielded to counsel. Here, then, the Free Church gave up to the law its Divine-gifted right. The Church bound itself hand and foot to the law until the law case should be settled. Can it be shown from the Word of God where any countenance is given, even for a season, to hand over the birthright of the Church to any power for the sake of any prospective material gain? The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, and no law but His should rule His Church. By this transaction the Free Church virtually said to the Head of the Church—”Stand you aside till we settle the law case, and we shall then call you back as Head of the Church.”
A great deal has been said about de facto, de forma, and de jure, but even assuming that the Act was not de jure till 1900, did not the Free Church itself, for the sake of property, make it so for a period of six years? Be that as it may, it is a fact that, for the sake of de s. d., the Act was well garrisoned by the legal powers for these six years.
In 1906 the Free Church repealed the Declaratory Act. How did it do it? With a preamble which states that the Church has always adhered to its creed and constitution. The fact that the Free Church had such an Act to repeal contradicts its own preamble. The Church put the preamble through the process of the Barrier Act, and has thus deliberately involved the whole Church in putting its seal upon statements which do not bear out exactly the true history of the Church. It is a well-known fact that in the late Free Church there were contentions for the truth, and that the Voluntaries ultimately got the upper hand. If you discuss this preamble with Free Churchmen, they will say that they do not mean by it what the words convey. The words bear a secret meaning. They mean a Church within a Church. To my mind, there is something very dubious about a statement that requires such an explanation. It savours too much of Rome. The English language is not so poor in vocabulary that the Free Church should have been at any loss to say plainly what they mean. This, then, is the manner in which the Free Church has dealt with the Declaratory Act, and it will form a barrier to union until the Act is repealed simpliciter. Since 1900 the Free Church has professed a desire to unite with the Free Presbyterian Church, but it was, at the same time, rearing obstacles to union. I said so to a number of Free Church ministers and elders.
Were it only the manner in which the Free Church has dealt with the Declaratory Act, it, in itself, without the case of Dr. Alexander, and other cases, forms a most formidable barrier to the union of the two Churches. The present Free Church reply does by no means warrant our appointing a deputation about union. Since 1900 I have been all along against union with the Free Church as presently constituted.