The Last Clause of the Declaratory Act

IN our criticism of the Declaratory Act we have now come to the last clause, which reads as follows:—“That while diversity of opinion is recognised in this Church on such points in the Confession as do not enter into the substance of the Reformed Faith therein set forth, the Church retains full authority to determine, in any case which may arise, what points fall within this description, and thus to guard against any abuse of this liberty to the detriment of sound doctrine, or to the injury of her unity and peace.” The liberty which this clause allows and the power assigned to the Church makes this clause one of the most dangerous, at least so far as administration is concerned, in the Act.

1. The liberty allowed is in connection with such points in the Confession as do not enter into the substance of the Reformed Faith. Conscious of the use that may be made of such liberty the framers of the Declaratory Act hasten to restrict it, and by so doing fall into another error. At first sight it seems almost incredible that men who had answered the following question in the affirmative at their ordination should have framed the above:—“Do you sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith . . . to be the truths of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; and do you own the whole doctrine therein contained as the confession of your faith?” and who signed the Formula containing these words:—“I . . . do hereby declare that I sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approved by former General Assemblies of this Church, to be the truths of God; and I do own the same as the confession of my faith.” And, further, every minister when he was licensed answered the following question in the affirmative:—”Are you persuaded that the said doctrine [i.e., of the Confession] is founded upon the Holy Scriptures and agreeable thereto? Do you promise that, through the grace of God, you will firmly and constantly adhere to, and in your station to the utmost of your power assert, maintain, and defend the said doctrine?” Doubly bound to the whole doctrine of the Confession as the confession of their faith, how is it possible that these men tried to palm off on the people of the Free Church that the Declaratory Act was only a relieving Act explanatory of the Confession and the relationship in which the office-bearers in the Free Church stood to that important document. There are points in the Confession which do not enter into the substance of the Reformed Faith on which diversity of opinion is allowed, they say, yet the very men who drew up this clause had solemnly averred that they had accepted the whole doctrine of the Confession as the confession of their faith. The only thing we can say of these theologians and ecclesiastics is that they either intended to dupe the people, and if this appears too harsh, then the other alternative is that they were themselves duped. The “whole doctrine of the Confession,” which the signatories of the Formula professed to receive as the confession of their faith means, as Principal Cunningham pointed out, “every detail and syllable” and not its “doctrine as a whole.” Such being the case, why should the Free Church, according to the Declaratory Act, allow diversity of opinion on such points in the Confession as do not enter into the substance of the Reformed Faith? That diversity of opinion should exist as to matters in a creed which, on their own written acknowledgment, had been “sincerely” accepted by all the office-bearers of a Church is rather a serious matter, and to put this down in black and white, as is done in the Declaratory Act, does not improve matters. Until the advent of the Declaratory Act it was always understood the Confession contained the substance of the Reformed Faith, but it was left to the framers of this Act to make the discovery that it contained some points that did not enter into the substance of this Faith. The authors of the Declaratory Act ought to have been familiar with the description of the Confession in the Act ratifying the Confession of Faith and settling the Presbyterian Church Government (Revolution Settlement), in which it is described as “the public and avowed Confession of this Church, containing the sum and substance of the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.” It is true, different interpretations have been given of this phrase “containing the sum and substance of the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.” The late Dr Mair, of the Established Church, a recognised authority on Church law, held that it meant the Confession. “If this sum and substance be not the Confession, then what is it? Where is it to be found?” he asks. Without discussing the other interpretations given, it may be here stated that none of them takes up the peculiar position of the Declaratory Act in asserting that there are points in the Confession that do not enter into the substance of the Reformed Faith. And in framing the concluding clause of the Act as they did the framers were introducing confusion where a nodding acquaintance with the leading legislation (civil and ecclesiastical) would have kept them right. Needless to say, the framers had a definite purpose in framing this section, though they were clumsy workmen dealing with delicate matters. There were, alas! too many points on which there was diversity of opinion in the Free Church, and which did not enter into the substance of the Reformed Faith. It was to throw a covering over these that moved all who knew the truth to oppose with all their might the subtle attempt to deceive the people. The downward drift of the section of the Free Church that received the Declaratory Act is abundant vindication of the attitude of those who determinedly opposed it.

2. In assigning to the Church the authority to determine what points fall within the substance of the Reformed Faith there is given to it an authority which it does not possess. The Church’s authority is not judicial but ministerial. It is its function to announce the doctrines of truth, and not to sit in judgment on them. It has no right to say what may enter into the substance of the Faith, for in so doing it is entering a province that does not belong to it.

3. The qualifying phrase restricting this liberty might impress one if one knew nothing of the doings of most of the men who framed the Declaratory Act, and the recent history of the Church which was supposed to guard against the abuse of this liberty of sound doctrine. Sound doctrine! Did the action of the leaders of the then Free Church give much indication of their concern for sound doctrine? Let the cases of Bruce, Dods, and Drummond be recalled, and we know what answer should be given. The Declaratory Act, as we have said, began badly and ends badly. It is a poor specimen of a modern attempt at creed-making—for it is an attempt in a way in that line. It reflects little honour on its framers as theologians, and betrays in them an inexcusable unacquaintance with the Reformed theology. As a disturber of the ecclesiastical peace of Scotland it was a mischievous meddler, and by-and-bye it broke the once noble Free Church into fragments. Not until the Great Day will it be known what it did to strengthen error and hasten the downward progress of the section of the Free Church which received it. We have thus endeavoured to set before our younger readers some of the serious doctrinal defects of an Act about which they have heard so much. Its ecclesiastical and legal significance as affecting the constitution of the Free Church will be dealt with later on.