BY THE REV. NEIL CAMERON, GLASGOW.
A BOOK on Scottish Church Union, by the Rev. Professor J. K. Cameron, has been sent us. The learned Professor wrote the book for the young of the Free Church. His aim was to let them know how faithful he and those associated with him were in upholding the creed and constitution of the Free Church. An honest and fair statement of the facts of their contentions might help the young in coming to a conclusion as regards the value of these struggles. To give the young light upon matters which are necessary for their proper guidance in future is always commendable. Let us consider a little how he has acquitted himself in this laudable work.
The Professor at the very beginning gives a kick or two to the Free Presbyterian Church. He chooses the revered father of the Free Presbyterian Church, Rev. Donald Macfarlane, Dingwall, as the first object of attack. The reply of Mr Macfarlane has appeared in the Magazine, and our readers are the judges as to whether the Professor has proved his charge.
Professor Kennedy Cameron suppresses the fact that the day the Declaratory Act was passed, in leaving the Assembly Hall, he told the writer that they were to hold a meeting that evening to take steps to separate immediately from the Rainy party. That at that meeting, when the property and funds of the Free Church were thrown across their path, they immediately changed their course. He should have told this explicitly to the young of the Free Church. This would give them at the start a key to the rest of the book. He should have told the young that one of their number said in the Assembly of 1894 that after what they heard on a previous day no one could doubt but that the Declaratory Act regulated the Creed and Constitution of the Free Church, and that their people were quite able to discern the difference between the Free Church of 1843 and the Declaratory Act Church of 1893. Still, he remained in that Declaratory Act Church till 1900. During these seven years not a word was said by him or any of his associates in the Assembly against the drastic changes made on the Free Church’s constitution, while they did their utmost to raise prejudices in the minds of their people, old and young, against the Free Presbyterian Church. Surely he should have told all these facts to the young, for by so doing he would have established his own character as a faithful historian. He should have also told the young that he and his associates were prepared to enter into the Union Church had they got a statement inserted into the basis of the Union that they were carrying their principles with them, and that seven of their number applied for the insertion of this clause. He vaguely acknowledges this (vide p. 24). Had he told the young these facts he would have done his duty to them, even at the risk of lowering his own high claims to faithfulness. In spite of this, his care for the young should have moved him to make the sacrifice, so that they should not suffer in the least through suppression of important facts. Had he done this, the young could form an intelligent opinion of the real merit of the contentions of the Professor and his associates.
He should have told the young that the first Professor appointed to a Chair in the Free Church was a Higher Critic. That the fact that he had published a book denying the infallibility and absolute inerrancy of the Bible, was known to those who had appointed him, and when inferior Courts of the Free Church appealed to the Assembly to deal with this Professor, they praised the book and its writer, forgetting that others had and read the book, and could form their own unbiased judgment of the book, of the Professor, and of the Assembly. The book was withdrawn from publication, not, be it noted, because of the glaring heresies it contained, but on account of the bad use the Free Presbyterians would make of the case among Highlanders. This Professor has never yet expressed grief or repentance for the statements contained in “Demonie Possession,” so far as the Free Church has made known. So, on account of the above statements, they have brought very serious doubts into the minds of others as to the soundness in the faith of the whole of the members of that Assembly. Professor Cameron leaves himself open to a very serious charge in not having told the young the whole truth, without suppressing one word, even were it to save his own skin, about that most extraordinary procedure on the part of those who appointed the man and on the part of the Assembly. Undoubtedly he was bound to believe that the young would place a higher value upon faithfulness in maintaining the Bible in its integrity than upon gaining a case dealing entirely with property and money in the House of Lords.
He should have informed the young that after they gained the case in the House of Lords, they admitted into the Free Church ministers out of a great number of denominations. That they called this heterogeneous conglomerate body the Free Church of Scotland; that they audaciously demanded of the Free Presbyterian Church to accept this formation as the real Free Church, and that, because they could not as men of conscience and intelligence do it, they have called them schismatics and the like. Surely this was a very vital point for the young to know, so that, understanding it, they would have no sinful grudge in their minds about the matter. It would be unpardonable even to think that he suppressed the above facts in order to deceive the young, but the writer failed to find any other explanation to fit into the context.
He should have told the young in the Highlands that they continue to hold to this day social gatherings at which vain songs, etc., are indulged in, and that sales of work are also held, thereby turning the house of God into a den of thieves; that at such gatherings they mix up with the United Free Church and other Churches; that, had elders or members attended such profanations of divine things in the original Free Church during the lifetime of the godly ministers and elders that ruled in her then, they would have been immediately suspended from Church privileges. The young should have been warned that what godliness was then, such will it be to the end, and that all this mixing up of “comic songs” and a form of godliness will leave such as are deceived by them like the foolish virgins in darkness and closed out of heaven at last. The writer feels so grieved that the Professor has not warned the young to flee from all such profanation of the name of Christ and of holy things, that he finds it hard to forgive him for keeping a report of these profanations out of his book. One would really think that his love of the never-dying souls of the young would overcome every other consideration, and, as it were, compel him to tell them the whole truth about these things, and also warn them to eschew them as being of the flesh only, and a cause why the Spirit of God ceased to a large extent to strive with men in this adulterous generation. Even should the Professor himself be guilty of attending and encouraging such carnal and worldly practices, one would think that his great care for the young would cause him to warn them, should he be at the same time condemning himself.
Had the learned Professor told all the facts above stated, in plain terms, as he should have done, seeing the book is meant for the young, they would be better able to judge for themselves whether the Free Presbyterian Church has incurred any guilt for not uniting with the present Free Church. The Word of God says—”He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” Should the Professor and his fellows do what God there admonishes one to do, a union between the two Churches would soon take place.
Further, he should have explained to the young, seeing he charges the Free Presbyterian Church with schism, why he does not demand of them first to undergo discipline for their sin before they could properly be received back to the Free Church. He should have also told them why it happened that they had already received from the Free Presbyterian Church several ministers without saying a word about this sin of schism of which he declares we are guilty. But is the Free Presbyterian Church guilty of schism? Is it schism to come out of a Church when she is guilty of denying that the Bible is inspired of the Holy Ghost, and when she throws away the fundamental doctrines of grace, and also departs from the scriptural order of worship? Is a man or Church guilty of this sin by separating from such as blaspheme the name of Christ, and speak evil of the gospel? If so, the Apostle Paul was guilty of it at Corinth and Ephesus. The Reformers were guilty of it in leaving the idolatrous Church of Rome. Schism is a separating in doctrines and practice from the true Church of God, and not in separating from any body of men who have forsaken these doctrines and practices. The Free Presbyterian Church did not commit schism by separating from the so-called Free Church in 1893; but I am not at all sure but the ministers who remained in it seven years were actually guilty of this sin. I am sure the Bible supports the above definitions of schism, and, if my memory does not fail me, Dr Hodge has stated the same thing in more appropriate terms. I do charge the present Free Church of being more guilty than other Churches in Scotland of the sin of breaking down discipline in the country. The learned Professor should have acknowledged these things to the young, but that would mar his real aim in writing it. But, as I said already, his love to their souls and to God’s truth should have caused him to place the truth in the hands of the young. The conduct of the Professor reminds the writer of a story related of a young man who proposed marriage to a young woman, when she refused him he smote her on the cheek with the palm of his hand, and demanded peremptorily of her to reconsider her refusal.
Concerning the rest of this book time and space will not allow the writer to say a word, save that it is absolutely incorrect to state that any Free Presbyterians known to him ever said that they were sorry the Free Church won the case in the House of Lords. The Professor should not cause the young to think that his charge was true. It is a good thing for him that he wrote his book for the young, who know very little or nothing about the painful trials through which the aged passed more than thirty years ago, and repeatedly since; but he should have remembered that some of them, by the mercy of God, are still spared, and that they do not yet forget the facts connected with these struggles.