AT the May Assemblies of the Established and United Free Churches, union between these bodies was the principal subject of discussion. At both Assemblies motions strongly in favour of union were carried. There were, however, small minorities in opposition, and while these did not make an exceedingly strong appearance, so far as newspaper reports revealed, yet the opposition, we believe, is very decided. The probabilities also are that the people are not so enthusiastic for union as the ministers, and the latter may find this to be true yet, to their painful cost. At the same time it cannot be doubted that things have gone very far towards union, and it wont be surprising if the object is ultimately accomplished, though not without dissent.
Personally, we are not in favour of the union movement. Not that we think that the Established and United Free Churches are so very different from one another in respect of the general doctrine preached from their pulpits, or the general modes of worship observed in their Church services, as that they might warrantably keep apart on account of these things. In regard to worship, both have adopted almost universally uninspired hymns and instrumental music, while the doctrine preached in both Churches is, in the majority of cases, Arminianism, if not worse. Adherents to the old paths in doctrine and worship are chiefly to be found here and there in the Highlands. In the matter of any divergences between the bodies—and there are certainly some—we should say that the Established Church is more ritualistic in its tendency, and the United Free Church more rationalistic. Many of the clergy in the Established Church, while they are sounder, say, on the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ, are more distinctly “High Church” and even Romish in their views and practices, while, on the other hand, United Free Churchmen, though more definitely Protestant, have imbibed to a greater extent the poisonous errors of the infidel, Higher Criticism, and Socinianism, Christ being frequently spoken of as if He were a mere man. Perhaps it is right to add that there is probably a greater degree of sound evangelical belief among the people of the U.F. Church than among those of the Established, owing to their hereditary connection with the original Free Church of Scotland. Then, there is—or rather has been—a great divergence between the two bodies on the questions of Church and State. The majority of United Free Churchmen were, until very recently, strong Voluntaryists, and agitated for years in favour of Disestablishment, many of them maintaining that Church and State connection was un-Scriptural. The change of attitude is extraordinary, and we regret to say that the only adequate solution of the problem seems to be a very material one, namely, the adversity which overtook them by the decision of the House of Lords in 1906. Established Churchmen, if true to their own traditions as descendants of those who refused to “come out” in 1843, are Erastians, and it seems remarkable that they and the Voluntaryists can now cordially join hands. We have certainly no objections to see the one party giving up its Erastianism and the other its Voluntaryism, but we would like clear evidence of the sincerity of the change. United Free Churchmen, on their part, supply none.
Now, we are not in favour of this union movement, for one thing, because we see no real advantage to the cause of Christ in it. We can only observe confusion worse confounded. The mingling together of the two bodies will naturally tend to strengthen the dangerous elements, and weaken any fairly good elements that remain. The tendency will be more and more to still the voice of conscience, and surrender distinctive views and principles—a grave moral loss and injury to any denomination.
Still, again, we are opposed to this union in view of future possibilities in the way of departure from “the faith.” Our readers are aware that the representatives of the Established Church have drawn up Articles of Union, and that those are of a very latitudinarian description. The new constitution will be of the most elastic kind, and the future united body is to have a great degree of what is misnamed spiritual liberty. There is nothing to prevent its giving up Presbyterianism and adopting Episcopacy or even Romanism. The Established Church has presented these Articles of Union to His Majesty’s Government for their approval, as the sanction of the State is necessary, and, should this be granted, another grave evil will be perpetrated. The State will set its seal to what can only be described as an apostacy, and will recognise this new and degenerate organisation as the Church of Scotland.
Still, further, there is a grave accompaniment of this step which cannot be overlooked, namely, the transference of the ancient Church buildings and endowments of the Church of Scotland to a new body that will have forfeited all right to represent that Church. This will be a further serious evil, the vast dimensions of which we cannot fully grasp. If His Majesty’s Government agree to this unwarrantable transference, they will be guilty of a gross act of injustice both from the legal and the moral view point, and it would be unfaithfulness on our part not to raise our protest against it. The real heirs and owners of the property and endowments are those who hold by the true principles and doctrines of the Church of Scotland, and they are, for the most part, outside these larger bodies. A grave wrong will be inflicted if their righteous claims are disregarded. The fewness of their number is altogether beside the point. Wrong is wrong, though there be millions in its favour; and right is right, though there be only a dozen on its side. We are living in an evil time, and it is to be feared that few are remembering to any satisfactory purpose the truth expressed by the inspired Solomon: “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”
So much for Church Union in Scotland. As for England, the idea of Church Union seems to be gaining strength there also. Recently a large Conference of Bishops of the Church of England met at Lambeth. They were 252 in number, gathered from various parts of the world. One outcome of their deliberations was a lengthy appeal to Nonconformists for close co-operation, if not actual union. The appeal abounded, to a degree not hitherto seen, in expressions of recognition and goodwill. They recognised the Nonconformists as brethren in Christ, and expressed the belief that God had blessed their labours and services in the cause of Christianity. They declared their willingness to accept official recognition for service from the Nonconformists, and offered the latter, in turn, episcopal ordination, manifestly implying that their present ordination was defective. Some of the Nonconformists, in commenting on the Bishops’ appeal, show undue elation and delight. Others, again, handle the matter more cautiously, and do not hesitate to say that it is absorption, not union, that is wanted by the Bishops—a thing, indeed, that is frequently denied by the promoters of supposed union schemes. The English Churchman, which represents the evangelical section of the Church of England, criticises the appeal severely, and expresses doubts as to its sincerity.
There are two things we desire to say on the subject. The first is, that diocesan Episcopacy has no warrant from the New Testament, and so episcopal ordination possesses no special authority or virtue. The eminent Bishop Lightfoot, and other distinguished scholars of the English Church, have admitted that diocesan Episcopacy is not in the New Testament, and that it is a subsequent development. Bishops are mentioned in the Apostolic Epistles, but these were “overseers,” as the word means, having no higher rank than our Presbyters, ministers, or elders. The Lord Jesus instructed His Apostles and other servants to teach the nations to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded, and promised His presence to accompany them in this work (Matt. xxviii.). It is will-worship to go beyond the bounds of His commission, and we cannot expect His presence or blessing in indulging in such. We do not deny that some excellent men have occupied the office of bishop, in the episcopal sense, but this Prelatic element is a part of the wood, hay, and stubble that will be burnt up at last.
The second thing we wish to point out is, that the Church of England is at present a hotbed of Ritualism and Popery, that the most of her Bishops are High Church Ritualists, not adhering to the original doctrines and practices of the Church of England at all, and that, therefore, this is no time for union with her. Many of the truly faithful men within her pale are afraid that they will be compelled to leave her altogether. It is the Popish idea of union that is gaining ground in England and elsewhere—the making up of a large outward Church organisation, without any union in the Spirit or in the truth. Many, however, are being ensnared by it; it has such a nice appearance to the eye of sense. Let “Union only in the Truth” be our motto.