DECLARATION BY FORMER FREE PRESBYTERIAN MINISTERS.
(Continued from page 276.)
WE have already criticised to some extent the preamble to the Declaration, drawn up by the Revs. J. R. Mackay, A. Macrae, and A. Sutherland, and accepted by the Free Church Commission at their admission in November. In this preamble, these brethren declared that the standards of the Free Church were “identical” with those of the Free Presbyterian, that the testimony of the present Free Church for “the Crown Rights of the Redeemer” was “one with that of the Church of Christ in this country in her purest days,” and that they (who make the Declaration) “being convinced” that their “brethren of the Free Presbyterian Synod, by the attitude of extreme aloofness” which they persisted in manifesting towards the Free Church were acting in a manner that was “not in keeping with the teaching of our Confession relative to the fundamental doctrine of the Communion of Saints,” considered it to be their duty to ally themselves with the said Free Church, provided it concurred in the following “affirmations,” etc.
Before considering these “affirmations,” we may make one or
two more remarks on the preamble. We deny that the attitude of the F.P. Synod was one of “extreme aloofness” towards the Free Church. The Synod sent a “Statement of Differences” to the Free Church in response to a union overture of theirs, which they (the Synod) might have refrained from doing, if they were disposed to be “extreme.” The Free Church sent a Reply to this Statement which was considered at last meeting of Synod. The court, with ample reason, pronounced the Reply “evasive and compromising,” and decided that the correspondence should take end. Some time before the Synod met, a pamphlet had been issued by the Rev. J. R. Mackay, M.A., on the subject of union between the Free Church and the F.P. Church. This pamphlet had complicated matters; it was extremely favourable to the Free Church and extremely severe upon his own Church, and so had caused considerable agitation in the F.P. Church. The Synod, wisely considering that a continuance of the correspondence, in view of all the circumstances, would only do greater harm, decided that it should “take end.” The Synod was not guilty of “extreme aloofness,” but some of its then members were guilty of extreme precipitancy. We strongly maintain that the present division has nothing to do with any fundamental doctrine of the Communion of Saints. Such doctrine has never been discussed by our Synod, and no deliverance, bearing upon the Confession of Faith and Communion, has been passed. No new element in belief or practice has been added to our Constitution. We stand exactly where we were in 1893. The whole business is a practical question whether or not we should seek to unite with the present Free Church; and our decision is “No,” until a vastly better state of things arrives. We therefore strongly repudiate the charge of a departure from fundamental doctrine. And even if there were some departure in practice of the kind hinted at (which we do not grant), we hold that such departure—apart from anything else of an erroneous nature—was entirely insufficient to warrant the separation of which these brethren have been guilty. The sin of schism, which they have charged against us, is now at their own door. We now pass on to notice the other part of their “Declaration.”
Secondly, the Affirmations. These were presented to the Free Church Union Committee as conditions upon which the F.P. brethren would “ally” themselves with the Free Church. The F.C. Committee, and afterwards, the F.C. Commission, accepted these conditions.
(1) The first affirmation is “that, in entering into the Free Church, we are carrying with us our entire testimony with unfettered liberty to contend for it in all its parts.” These brethren had good ground to fear that they could not maintain their entire testimony with unfettered liberty, otherwise they would not propose such a condition. And yet, strange to say, in the preamble they declare themselves as if the Free Church, in standards and testimony, was
all that could be desired. There is a lack of consistency here. They appear to be like men who, forsaking their present freedom, wish to enter into prison on the absurd condition that they will continue to enjoy unfettered liberty. If the Free Church was in a proper state to unite with, there would be no need for such an affirmation.
(2) The second is, “That it is the genuine opinion and judgment of the Free Church that the absolute truthfulness of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the principle upon which, as upon a basis, all her teaching is built; and that she would regard any deviation from this principle, or any such equivocal or hesitating utterance as would cast doubts on an ex animo in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, in the teaching of any of her professors or ministers, as wholly inconsistent with the Church’s standards and declared testimony, and, accordingly, not to be suffered or tolerated. Further, that not only has the work, entitled ‘Demonic Possession’ been by its author withdrawn from circulation, but that it was and is regretfully acknowledged by the Church, and not least by its author, to have given expression to views that are not in keeping with this fundamental principle of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture.” While this statement, so far as it goes, might pass without criticism, it may be justly described as defective. No regretful acknowledgment is included as to the slipshod and blameworthy manner in which Professor Alexander was received into the Church, while his book was in circulation. The whole business is touched upon in too mild a manner. But no matter how strongly or clearly things could be expressed in this connection, the statement is vitiated for us, so far as the Free Church acceptance is concerned, from the circumstance that policy, apart from principle, will account for that acceptance. The Free Church Commission had the prospect of receiving three ministers of some value from the Free Presbyterian Church, and that prospect was sufficient to make them ready to adopt the various conditions without much difficulty.
(3) The third affirmation runs, “That the Free Church abides by her offer to the Free Presbyterian Church to form with her one Presbyterian body, in which the constitution of the united body shall be so enunciated, as that it will be evident that no one in the united body which, please the Lord, may yet be, will have any direct responsibility for the clause in the Act rescinding the Declaratory Act—’as she has always adhered’—a clause which has given an offence (which it was not intended to convey)—to brethren of the Free Presbyterian Church.” Our seceding brethren declare themselves as anxious for a future union between the Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church; they seem blind to the fact that their own procedure is only making the gap wider and wider between the two bodies. The provision they lay down here is worthless. “No one in the united body . . . will have any direct responsibility for the clause in the Act rescinding the
Declaratory Act—‘as she has always adhered’—a clause which has given an offence (which it was not intended to convey)—to brethren of the Free Presbyterian Church.” Let our readers notice the word “direct.” If any one in the supposed united body will have responsibility at all for the said objectionable clause, whether it is direct or indirect, the responsibility will be practically the same. This “affirmation” is destitute of any safeguard, and the framers of it should see this. Then, as to the point of offence, this is really not the question at issue at all. Offence, apart from just ground for the same, is too childish to be considered. The question is, “Is the said clause a correct statement of facts?” We hold that it is not, and that it condemns the Free Presbyterian position.
We may explain that the body of Free Churchmen, who refused to enter the large Union of 1900, did not formally repeal the Declaratory Act of 1892 till 1906, and when they did so, they affirmed in the preamble of the rescinding Act that the Church had “always adhered” to her subordinate standards. This was contradictory on the face of it. They were rescinding, in the name of the Church, an Act which they allowed had been a departure from the standards, and at the same time, they were declaring that the Church had always adhered to the standards. The Free Presbyterians, on the other hand, had maintained in 1893 that as the main body calling itself the Free Church had adopted the said Declaratory Act, that body had ceased to adhere to her subordinate standards, and that therefore as loyal and consistent Free Churchmen, they (the Free Presbyterians) could not remain in association with it. The representatives of the present Free Church remained in that connection as dissenters. They maintain now that when they refer to “the Church” as having “always adhered,” they refer to themselves. We dispute this form of expression from various points of view. First, they were not, from 1893 to 1900, a Church; they were only a dissenting party within a religious body. Secondly, that body had ceased to adhere to her original subordinate standards. It is utterly absurd, then, from any viewpoint to affirm that “this Church” always adhered to her subordinate standards. There was no “Church” under the name of Free Church from 1893 to 1906 adhering to the standards, except the Free Presbyterian Church, and there is no “Church” still that adheres (by God’s grace) so fully and consistently to them as the Free Presbyterian. We hold, therefore, that the obnoxious clause is entirely objectionable.
(4) The fourth and last affirmation is “that the Free Church resolves to oppose everything that is either idolatrous or superstitious, mercenary or frivolous, in the Church of God, and she is prepared to denounce any practice which, after a full and free discussion, will be shown to be either unscriptural or unconstitutional.”
The F.C. Commission has accepted this last condition; we shall see, if well, what the F.C. Assembly will say about it. Elements of the kind described have been found in the present Free Church, and their courts have dealt with them in a very halting manner. As for bazaars, sales of work, and social entertainments, they still proceed apace without condemnation. Our former F.P. brethren are to be satisfied with the denouncing of certain practices, not the renouncing. They are not taking their “entire testimony” with them; they are giving up part of it on the threshold.
We do not profess to have given an exhaustive criticism of this “Declaration,” or of the general position taken up by our friends who have left us. The above may suffice meantime. J. S. S.
The late George MacLeod, Stornoway.
WE regret to have to record the death of Mr. George MacLeod, Craigleor, Stornoway, who was well known to many in our Church, and especially to the ministers who were accustomed to visit the island at Communion seasons. His genial smile and warm welcome will be greatly missed by them. Mr. MacLeod passed away on 6th June, 1918, at the age of 77 years. We have to apologise for this late and short tribute to his memory, and our only excuse for the delay is pressure of work and absence from home.
Mr. MacLeod was born in the parish of Lochbroom, and though he was taken, at the early age of three years, to stay in Dingwall by his father, who was road contractor, yet he always retained a warm and affectionate attachment to his native parish, and nothing gave him more pleasure in after life than to revisit the place of his birth, and meet with friends and relatives there. After passing through the usual course of education at Dingwall, he was appointed Assistant Warder in Dingwall prison, where he served for five years, at the end of which he was promoted Governor at Stornoway, which position he held with much satisfaction to all concerned, and especially to those who came under his charge. Indeed, Mr. MacLeod’s kindness and consideration to his prisoners was known far beyond the boundaries of Lewis, for it did not often tally with the strict rules of prison life.
While at Dingwall he had the great privilege of sitting under that faithful servant of Christ, Dr. Kennedy, whom he always regarded with the greatest veneration. By the way he afterwards spoke of the Doctor, we concluded that it was through him the first arrow of conviction and ray of hope penetrated his soul. After coming to Stornoway, he became a member in full communion of the Gaelic Free Church of which the late Mr. Greenfield was minister. Here he took an active interest in the affairs of the congregation and Christ’s cause, but after the passing of the Declaratory Act and the formation of the Free
Presbyterian Church, he cordially threw in his lot with the protesting minority and became a faithful and much attached member of the Free Presbyterian congregation of Stornoway. To give one instance of his concern about the affairs of the congregation, we may state that one of the last things he did in the world was to give a handsome donation for the manse which was then bought.
When the congregation set about building a church, Mr. MacLeod, who was no mean architect, planned and superintended the erection of the building free of charge. It is admitted by all parties that the Stornoway church is one of the neatest and most compact churches in the Highlands.
Mr. MacLeod was the first precentor of the congregation, and for many years acted as its treasurer. After the sad and lamented death of his only son, who fell in action in France, his health, which up till then was marvellous—for he seldom, if ever, had a day’s illness—began suddenly to give way, and, reluctantly, he had to give up these offices. As a Gaelic leader of praise in public, he was admired by all. His strong, melodious voice would command the largest audience, and his singing of the tune “Stornoway” on the evening of a Communion Sabbath will be long remembered. He was elected several times both to the office of deacon and elder, but no argument would induce him to accept either office. He was not endowed with great powers of expression, either in prayer or speaking to the “question,” and he would be the last man himself to make such a claim. Indeed, he often, when asked to engage in any public exercise, excused himself by taking shelter behind his inability to express himself. We, however, can truly say that we often heard him both in prayer, and on Friday, the “question” day, with pleasure, and, we hope, with profit. At the same time, few excelled him in witty and pert remarks. He often enlivened with his witticism the dull proceedings of the Sheriff Court, where, with conspicuous ability, he acted for many years as Gaelic interpreter.
To say that Mr. MacLeod is missed by the whole congregation is to use mild language. Especially is he missed by the sick and poor, not only of our own people, but of the whole town and surrounding townships, for, when bestowing his charitable gifts, he made no distinction between one denomination and another. In this matter he was no respecter of persons. How often, when visiting the sick and poor, have I come across parties, who would tell me, “Mr. George MacLeod from the prison was here, and he helped me.” It may also be truly said of him in this connection that there were no sounding of trumpets, for his left hand did not know what his right hand did. His kindness to the poor was one of his outstanding characteristics, and has the approbation of Scripture. “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”
Death has been making serious breaches in our midst of late, and when the trees of the forest are few, the removal, even of one, will cause a great blank. May the Lord in His infinite mercy plant in our midst trees of righteousness which would take the place of those removed!
To his sorrowing widow, who was an helpmeet to him in every sense of the term, and to his four daughters, we extend our sincere sympathy, and pray that the God of their father may be their God.
George Mackay, Garden Road.—At the close of this sketch, I may also refer to another sad breach in the congregation, which occurred on the same day as that on which Mr. MacLeod died. I refer to the death of Mr. George Mackay, Garden Road, who was accidentally killed at Lewis Castle. Mr. Mackay, while making no outward profession, was a gentle, unassuming, upright, young man, and we looked forward that some day he might be useful in the vineyard. His love to the means of grace, regard to the Sabbath, and respect for God’s people and all things connected with His cause, gave ground to hope that it was well with him in the end. May the God of the widow and the fatherless be the God of his widow and children, and may He grant them strength to bear their heavy stroke! We extend to them our deepest sympathies. N. M’I.