Report of Synod Meeting.\

THE Synod met this year in Glasgow, on Tuesday, 22nd May. There were large attendances of the general public. The retiring Moderator, Rev. R. Mackenzie, M.A., preached from Phil. i. 27—”That ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the Gospel.”

The following members of Synod were present:—
SOUTHERN PRESBYTERY—Revs. Neil Cameron, Neil Macintyre, D. A. Macfarlane, ministers, with Messrs James Mackay, Edinburgh, and John Macdonald, Glasgow, ruling elders. NORTHERN PRESBYTERY — Revs. D. Beaton (Clerk), E. Macqueen, W. Grant, Finlay Macleod, D. J. Matheson, ministers, with Messrs Inspector Sinclair, Sinclair Polson, Halkirk; Malcolm Fraser, Dornoch; Alexander Mackenzie, Dingwall; James Campbell, Inverness, ruling elders. WESTERN PRESBYTERY—Revs. D. N. Macleod, D. M. Macdonald, James Macleod, Malcolm Gillies, John Maclachlan, R. Mackenzie, (Moderator), D. R. Macdonald, Donald Macleod, ministers, with Messrs John Macdonald, Gairloch; John Macleod, Harris, ruling elders.

The minutes of previous meeting were read and approved.

The Moderator, having intimated that his term of office had now come to an end, said it remained with the Synod to appoint his successor. He thanked the Synod for their forbearance during his year of office. The Clerk intimated that he had carried out last Synod’s instructions re appointment of Moderator. The Rev. Neil Cameron then rose and said:—”In view of certain difficult questions that were likely to engage the attention of the Synod, I think it advisable that one of the older ministers should be appointed this year. And in accordance with this, I beg to move that the Rev. Ewen Macqueen, Inverness, be appointed Moderator for the ensuing year.” This was seconded by the Rev. John Maclachlan, and unanimously agreed to. Mr Macqueen then took the chair, and thanked the Synod for the honour conferred on him.

After examiners of the Presbyteries’ Records had been appointed, it was decided that all the members of Synod would meet as a Committee on Bills and Overtures next day, at 11 a.m., in the Hall of St Jude’s Free Presbyterian Church. The Synod decided to adjourn until next day and appointed next sederunt to be held (D.V.) in the Hall of St Jude’s Free Presbyterian Church at 5 p.m.

*The Report of the Synod proceedings given in the Magazine is not the official minutes of the Synod, as these have not yet been approved by the Court.—Editor.

Second Sederunt.

The Synod met on Wednesday, 23rd May, at five p.m. in terms of adjournment. The members present were the same as at previous sederunt. After devotional exercises, conducted by the Moderator, the Synod was constituted. The minutes of previous meeting were read and approved. Letters of apology for absence were intimated by the Clerk from Revs. Duncan Mackenzie, M. Morrison, and Mr Kenneth Munro, Ullapool.

The Clerk then intimated the order of business as agreed upon by the Committee on Bills and Overtures. The Synod then proceeded to deal with the items in order.

1. Proposed History of the Free Presbyterian Church.

The Rev. N. Cameron, Convener of the Committee, appointed to prepare a history of the Free Presbyterian Church, said he regretted that he could not report much progress. He had read a good deal in connection with the matter, and he made a beginning with writing down the first part of the work. He expressed the hope that the members of the Committee would do what they could to render help in the undertaking. The Rev. D. N. Macleod moved, and Rev. W. Grant seconded, the adoption of the report, and that the Synod reappoint the Committee. This was unanimously agreed to.

2. Financial Statement.

In the unavoidable absence of the General Treasurer, Mr John Grant, through illness, the Financial Statement was read by the Rev. W. Grant. All the funds, with one or two exceptions, showed encouraging increases. Mr Grant pointed out that the Foreign Mission Fund showed a balance of over £30 to the good between the income and expenditure for the past year, and it would thus be seen that if this were so, with its present commitments, that a very considerable increase would be required to meet the new demands on the Fund for the following year, when two additional missionaries would draw on the funds. The balance at the end of the financial year to the credit of the Sustentation Fund was £6811 5s 11d, as compared with £7276 17s 2d for last year. This was only, however, an apparent decrease due to the new method of payment within the financial year. If reckoned on the same basis as last year the balance would have showed a considerable increase on last year’s. The congregational contributions showed a very encouraging increase. Legacies, however, were only £170 3s as compared with £1583 17s 3d last year—a decrease of £1413 14s 3d.

The Rev. N. Cameron, in moving the adoption of the report, said that they were sorry Mr Grant, the General Treasurer, was presently laid aside. The report prepared by him was encouraging and ought to fill us with a measure of thankfulness. It proved the truth of the words:—”The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof.” He remembered their late respected friend, Rev. D. Macfarlane, Dingwall, remark on one occasion that since the Free Presbyterian Church was formed he found that a shilling went as far as a pound when he was in the Free Church. The Free Presbyterians began without a penny of funds, and we have to bear witness to-day that after 35 years we have lacked nothing. It ought to be a cause of thankfulness to us how remarkably the Lord opened the hearts of our people to provide money for the support of the means of grace in our midst. It is nothing short of amazing the amount of money also which has been collected for church building, manses, and mission houses since 1893. Mr Cameron said he had great pleasure in moving the adoption of the report, and in thanking the General Treasurer and the Auditors for their services (which were given free). He also moved that the Auditors be reappointed. Inspector Sinclair seconded, and the motion was unanimously adopted.

The Rev. D. Beaton moved that all annual payments, should, in future, be made quarterly within the financial year where the funds would allow it, and where this was impracticable that the General Treasurer report to the Synod. This was seconded by Rev. R. Mackenzie and unanimously agreed to.

3. Jewish and Foreign Missions Report.

This report, which is given on another page, was given in by the Rev. N. Cameron, convener. Prior to giving in his own report, Mr Cameron read Rev. John Tallach’s, which appears on another page. The adoption of the report was moved by Rev. W. Grant, seconded by Mr Alexander Mackenzie, and unanimously agreed to. In connection with the matter of the Questions and Formula for native elders in Rhodesia, the Rev. N. Cameron moved, and Rev. R. Mackenzie seconded, that the matter be left to the Foreign Mission Committee, who would report progress to next meeting of Synod. This was unanimously agreed to.

It was also agreed to, on the motion of Rev. R. Mackenzie, seconded by Mr Sinclair Polson, that the Synod approve of the grant of £45 made by the Foreign Mission Committee to Dr R. Macdonald for fees in connection with his classes in Tropical Medicine, and that a further grant of £40 from the College Fund be given to him as a student preparing for the mission field in connection with the Free Presbyterian Church. This was unanimously agreed to. It was also decided that the Church meet the outlay for Dr Macdonald’s medical equipment and his travelling expenses to Rhodesia, and that an appeal be made for the same through the Magazine. The Rev. F. Macleod, seconded by Mr James Mackay, moved that £150 per annum be given to Dr Macdonald as the Church’s share of his salary, payment to begin from date of his ordination.

The Rev. Neil Cameron said he had suggested, as books of study in theology to Dr Macdonald, Hodge’s Outlines of Theology, Cunningham’s Historical Theology, Calvin’s Institutes, and the Gospel according to John in Greek. He understood Mr Beaton had a report to submit on the way in which Dr Macdonald had acquitted himself in the examination set him in theology. Mr Beaton reported that he was agreeably surprised at the way in which Dr Macdonald answered the questions, in view of the fact that he had not had a long theological training, and that his time had been so much absorbed with medical duties and study in the classes connected with Tropical Medicine since he went to London. He had pleasure in moving that Dr Macdonald’s examination in theology be accepted by the Synod, and that the Southern Presbytery be authorised to license and ordain Dr Macdonald at a convenient date before going out to Rhodesia.

Mr Cameron intimated that Mr Angus Fraser had expressed a wish to accompany the Rev. Donald Urquhart to Palestine should the Synod decide on that country as the field of Mr Urquhart’s future work. Mr Fraser was willing to pay his own expenses. The Rev. D. Beaton moved that the Foreign Missions Committee arrange for the Rev. Donald Urquhart being sent to Palestine as a missionary to the Jews, and that Mr Fraser’s offer to accompany him be accepted by the Synod. This was seconded by the Rev. James Macleod and unanimously agreed to.

Mr Cameron had indicated in his report that the Committee had approached two or three of our ministers with a view to going to Australia, but that he had been unsuccessful. He was glad to report, however, that the Rev. R. Mackenzie had at the last meeting of the Committee on Bills and Overture consented to go should the Synod ask him. It was accordingly moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to that Mr Mackenzie be asked to go to Australia for one year. The Rev. M. Gillies moved, and Mr John Macleod seconded, that Mr Mackenzie’s travelling expenses, beyond the amount on hand, be paid out of the Foreign Mission Fund as a loan.

4. Report on Religion and Morals.

This report, which appeared in the June Magazine, was given in by the Rev. D. M. Macdonald. The Rev. James Macleod said, in moving the adoption of the report, that he had listened to it with interest. In one sense it made sad reading, and he was reminded of what Julian the Apostate said when facing death after spending his strength for the overthrow of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ:—”Thou hast conquered, O Galilean.” And he believed that powerful though the forces of evil were that they would be all conquered by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The motion was seconded by the Rev. D. R. Macdonald, and unanimously agreed to.

The Rev. D. M. Macdonald moved that the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church, in view of the danger to true religion and Scottish civilisation, urge upon the*Government to prevent the unrestricted immigration of Irish into Scotland, and that the Clerk be instructed to send a copy of this motion to the Secretary for Scotland. The motion was seconded by Mr John Macdonald, Gairloch, and unanimously agreed to.

The Rev. D. M. Macdonald also moved that the Synod call upon the Government to amend Section 18 of the Education (Scotland) Act favouring Roman Catholics, and that the Clerk be instructed to send a copy of this motion to the Secretary for Scotland. This was seconded by the Rev. N. Macintyre and agreed to.

5. Canadian Mission Report.

This report, which is held over meantime, was read by the Rev. N. Macintyre, convener. The Rev. James Macleod, in moving the adoption of the report, said we ought to remember our Canadian people at the throne of grace, and pray that the Lord of the Harvest would send out in His own time a pastor, or pastors, who would break the bread of life to them. He had much pleasure in moving the adoption of the report. The Rev. D. A. Macfarlane seconded the motion, which was unanimously agreed to.

Mr Macintyre asked in regard to the request from Vancouver whether in the event of the Vancouver congregation not being able to meet the expenses of a deputy, would the Church come to their rescue? It was moved by the Rev. D. J. Matheson, seconded by the Rev. James Macleod, that in the event of the Vancouver congregation failing to meet the expenses, after doing all they could, that the Church would come to their rescue.

6. Communications from Canada.

The Clerk read communications from Rev. William Matheson, Chesley, the Ontario elders (Messrs Hugh Scott, Alexander Macfarlane, and Murdoch Matheson), and the Winnipeg Kirk-Session. The Rev. Neil Macintyre read a letter from Rev. James Tallach, which had been received by the Southern Presbytery, and had been remitted by them to the Synod.

After these had been read, the Clerk said that, in view of certain statements made in these communications, he felt it his duty to review them at some length, as they bore more or less on the procedure adopted by the Synod in passing certain declarations and motions having reference to church privileges. In doing this he said: “I shall have occasion to quote from the minutes of the Committee on Bills and Overtures, the Synod records, and also from the letters of Rev. W. Matheson read to the members of Committee on Bills and Overtures in 1927. It might be necessary also, for the benefit of the younger members of the Synod, to begin with a brief history of the Synod’s declarations and motions on the subject that is now before the Synod. Other controvertible statements contained in the documents read will probably be dealt with by others.

The finding which called forth the communications is as follows:—”The Synod express strong disapproval of the conduct of the Rev. William Matheson, Chesley, Ontario, inasmuch as he admitted to the Lord’s Table and Baptism at Winnipeg parties debarred by findings of this Synod anent Sabbath observance, and also, of the lax and modern views revealed in correspondence with him about this matter; and, while the Synod refrain from taking further steps as to his conduct in the matter referred to, they warn him and all concerned that the findings of the Synod must be honoured.” Owing to what Mr Matheson terms “the registered complaint of our esteemed and respected missionary at Vancouver, Mr D. Matheson,* against our procedure at Winnipeg with respect to what may be called the question of the use for church-going of Sabbath street cars,” Mr Macintyre asked for an explanation. Mr Matheson, in his reply, dated 28th August 1926, says:—”I am constrained to draw your attention to the facts that, on being asked by the elders of the Winnipeg session at our first meeting there regarding the dispensing of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, I acquainted them with the fact that I stood upon the ground taken in the resolution of the Synod of May 1921, as published in the report of the Synod in the Free Presbyterian Magazine and Monthly Record, Vol. XXVI., No. 3, July 1921, page 85, which reads—” . . . that it be an understood matter that such as receive the privileges of the Church from the Free Presbyterian Church should not make use of trains or street cars run for secular purposes on the Lord’s Day, and that we acted accordingly.” This reply was submitted to the Canadian Mission Committee, and the Convener, in communicating with Mr Matheson after the matter had been discussed by them, wrote:—”The Committee did not understand what you actually meant when you say, ‘I acquainted the Session of Winnipeg that I stood upon the ground taken in the resolution of the Synod of May 1921.’ The Committee were not clear as to whether you acted even according to the above resolution. I must, however, point out that the resolution of 1921 is not the fixed law of the Church but the authoritative law on the subject is set down in the Church Documents (page 85), of which you no doubt have a copy.” In his next letter, dated 3rd November 1926, Mr Matheson makes the following statements:—”I am firmly convinced from Scripture that it is not wrong to take any public conveyance to church on Sabbath, however run by others in defiance of God’s law, any more than it was wrong for a believer to eat meat and to drink wine at an idolater’s table, however the ‘meat and drink’ was prepared and partaken of by the idolater in defiance of God’s law. Does not the resolution of the ‘Church Documents,’ by necessary implication, really recognise the rightfulness of what it penalises, viz., the church-going use of a conveyance on the Sabbath Day? In other words, is not the ground of condemnation of the use of a public conveyance based upon the action and motive of the Sabbath-breaking conductor of such conveyance? This is fundamentally unjust according to the doctrine of Scripture in the case of the eating of meat and the drinking of wine idolatrously offered to strange gods. Again, as for Pharisaism, was not an undue rigidity with respect to the Sabbath one of the characteristics for which they came most under the severe reproofs of our Lord? Do you ask me to debar a soul from the Lord’s Table for using a street car in order to come to church when the fact is that in that very church the comfort of lighting by gas or electricity is being enjoyed, and I go home from enjoying the ordinance myself to enjoy, perchance, a meal cooked on a gas or electric range? What difference in principle, may I ask, is there between paying for accommodation and shelter for the public worship of God by means of a special collection on the Sabbath Day, and paying for transportation to that place of accommodation and shelter for the public worship of God on the Sabbath Day? In the former case we are the enjoyers of the fruit of Sabbath labour, perhaps more unreasonably than the one whom we debar, and in the latter we have actually been enjoying what we would now condemn that soul for doing.

“Now I do not say that I cannot have acted in a way which gave opportunity for criticism, if my action can be construed properly as disrespectful to the authority of the Synod. But I do not see that as I deliberately owned the resolution of Synod to which I have referred, having studied its terms very carefully when it reached me, and having decided that, owing to its terms, I was not under necessity to send any word of dissent on the question, on the very ground of the Scripture treatment of the ‘meat and wine’ question, and because I did not wish to appear to weaken, in any way, the testimony of our Church to the sanctity of the Sabbath. On the question of granting the privileges of the Church of Christ to persons who make use of public conveyances on the Sabbath Day for church-going purposes I cannot acknowledge error. I am sorry to have to challenge your assumption with respect to ‘a law in agreement to the Word of God, and passed by the highest Court of the Church.’ I hold that the ‘law’ in question has not only no true basis in, but is in definite conflict with, the Word of God. And I am content that, before I can be censured in any way for my action, the law of the Church requires that I be shown to have acted in ‘contrariety to the Word of God,’ as well as to ‘the laws of the Church.’ I am sorry that you seem to fear what may develop out of this for me. But I must face it in faith.”

* The Rev. N. Macintyre explained to the Synod that his informant was Mr Donald J. Matheson.—Editor.

When the correspondence which passed between Mr Macintyre and Mr Matheson was read at the Committee on Bills and Overtures in 1927 Mr Cameron gave notice that he intended to move at the next sederunt of Synod a motion in terms of that already quoted. This motion was duly moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to by the Synod.

As there are certain declarations and findings referred to in these communications, it may be as well at this stage to state as clearly as possible what these are to avoid confusion. But before doing so it may be as well at the outset to indicate the real issue between the Synod position, as I understand it, and the position taken up by the writers of these communications sent us. The real issue may be brought out thus:—Has the Synod, in refusing church privileges to those who make use of trains and street cars run on the Sabbath Day in coming to church, erred, or has it acted within its rights and in accordance with Scripture? Those who oppose the Synod’s position say that it has erred, and Mr Matheson has no hesitation in passing this sentence upon it:—”I hold that the ‘law’ in question has not only no true basis in, but is in definite conflict with, the Word of God.”

And he further says:—”I am firmly convinced from Scripture that it is not wrong to take any public conveyance to church on Sabbath however run by others in defiance of God’s Day.” That statement, as it stands, appears to me would sanction the use of our members at Beauly taking the Sabbath excursion trains to attend services at Dingwall, or from Balloch, to attend services at St Jude’s. To say the least of it, surely the statement, “any public conveyance . . . however run by others in defiance of God’s Day,” requires a sweeping qualification. We ask our people, and especially those who hold such views as are expressed in these communications, to seriously consider where such statements will lead them. It was statements such as these that the Synod described as “lax and modern views,” and surely no one will blame them for so doing. The way is now cleared for a short history of the various resolutions of findings and declarations of the Synod bearing on the subject. At a meeting of the Synod held in May 1920 a remit came up from the Northern Presbytery, in which it was stated that one of the ministers of the Presbytery felt bound to refuse baptism to an adherent because he was regularly employed on the railway on the Lord’s Day. The Synod agreed that the minister was fully justified in the refusal. It was also agreed to delete a former minute of this Presbytery which did not sufficiently safeguard discipline on this point. Following this there is the following entry in the Synod minutes:—”The Rev. Neil Cameron moved the adoption of the following resolution, which was agreed to:—”The Synod declare, in accordance with previous resolutions on Sabbath observance, that the Sacrament of Baptism is not to be given to any who engage in unnecessary work on the Sabbath Day, or who travel on the sacred day by trains or cars which are run in systematic disregard of the claims of the Fourth Commandment, but the Synod leave special cases of baptism, where the husband, but not the wife, refuses to adhere to above standard of Sabbath observance, or has ceased to acknowledge the Christian religion, to the serious consideration of kirk-sessions to decide as to the matter of giving the ordinance to the wife if she be found faithful to the Fourth Commandment and otherwise exemplary.” This resolution does not appear in the Magazine report of the Synod, but is recorded as above in the Synod Minutes (III., 90). This resolution, though probably suggested by the case referred to above, was meant to have general application throughout the Church, and was never intended to be limited to such cases as that which came up from the Northern Presbytery. At the following Synod (1921) a declaration on the subject of Church privileges was made by the Synod substantially the same though differently worded. It is as follows:—

“The Synod declares, in accordance with former resolutions, that Church privileges, such as baptism, are not to be given to any who engage in Sabbath work (other than works of necessity or mercy), or who travel by trains or cars run in systematic disregard of the sacred day. The serious and careful consideration of kirk-sessions to be given to special cases, such as that of a husband who has ceased to acknowledge the Christian religion, or who refuses to adhere to the above standard of Sabbath observance, but whose wife (desiring baptism) fulfils the demands of this declaration.” It was this declaration which was read to the Winnipeg Kirk-Session in 1922 by the Church’s deputy for that year as recorded in the minutes of the Kirk-Session dated 7th October 1922:—”The Session decided, after the Moderator’s statement as to the resolution passed by the Synod in regard to church privileges denying these to such as work on the Sabbath or make use of street cars or trains on the Lord’s Day, that intimation to this effect should be made on first Lord’s Day. The Session decided that the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper should not be held on this occasion.” The Kirk-Session of Winnipeg were thus fully aware of such a declaration as were also the communicants. It was the duty of the elders to inform Mr Matheson of its terms which had been brought to their notice, and publicly read before the Winnipeg congregation when Mr Matheson acquainted them that he stood upon the ground taken in the resolution of the Synod of May 1921, as published in the report of Synod in the Free Presbyterian Magazine and Monthly Record, vol. XXVI., No. 3, July 1921, page 85. The elders failed alike in their duty to the Church, of which they were office-bearers, and to Mr Matheson when they did not point out to him the declaration which was specially brought before them in the Session and read before the congregation of Winnipeg in 1922. But why did Mr Matheson take his stand on the resolution given at page 85 of the Magazine (vol. XXVI.), and make it necessary for the Rev. N. Macintyre to point out to him that the authoritative rule of the Church on the subject under discussion was the declaration in the Church Documents? Mr Matheson’s answer is that he was not aware of it until his attention had been called to it in 1926. It certainly seems strange that he did not take notice of it when the Magazine appeared in 1921, as it is given quite a prominent position only a few pages before the motion on which he took his stand at Winnipeg. But what is stranger still is the fact that this declaration was read in the draft minute submitted to the Synod for its approval in 1922. Mr Matheson was present at the meeting at which the minute containing this declaration was read, but as Clerk of Synod I am not aware of receiving from him or anyone else any communication indicating that he or they were out of sympathy with the rule of the Church as set forth in this declaration.

We come now to the resolution on which Mr Matheson took his stand at Winnipeg. It reads as follows:—”That it be an understood matter that such as receive Church privileges from the Free Presbyterian Church should not make use of trains or street cars run for secular purposes on the Lord’s Day.” Mr Matheson interprets the words “should not” as “hortatory” and not “prohibitory.” Why he should do so is not quite clear, for there can be no doubt that the words are often used in injunctions in a strongly prohibitory sense, e.g., “Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? (Gen. iii. 2.)” The words of the Synod’s resolution are as prohibitory as those of Nehemiah when he gave the order that the gates should be closed against the Sabbath traffickers, and that they “should not be opened until after the Sabbath (Nehem. xiii. 19.)” Mr Matheson evidently thinks that the prohibitory “must not” should have been used instead of “should not.” The Synod’s meaning, however, is as clear as Nehemiah’s, and that was clear enough.

It is in connection with this resolution, as interpreted by him, that Mr Matheson makes the statement:—”I know of no finding of the Synod anent Sabbath observance contravened by the Session under me at Winnipeg in 1926, and I am conscious of having honoured the authority of the Synod in its findings deliberately to the utmost of my power during my deputyship in 1926. I stood on the ground of the Synod’s ‘motion against members travelling on street cars on Sabbath of 1921.’
But the elders who composed the Session with Mr Matheson candidly admit their wrong-doing in their communication to the Synod in the following words:—”Considering the fact that the Session had actually dishonoured the finding of the Synod with regard to the matters referred to in the reprimand, it was therefore agreed that the Session accept the reprimand.” We leave Mr Matheson to settle with the Winnipeg elders as to whether it is a fact or not that the Session over which he presided had “actually dishonoured the finding of the Synod.” The elders say it did, and most people will feel that the elders are right, and that they did right in making a confession of wrong-doing.

We come now to the declaration of 1923 as given in the Church Documents. In this the declaration of 1921 and the motion of the same year above referred to are combined. The subject was discussed at some length at the business meeting, and on unanimity being reached it was decided that it be included in the Church Documents and submitted with them for the Synod’s approval. This was accordingly done, and the declaration, with the other findings of Synod in the Church Documents, was passed as an authoritative rule of the Synod.

It is this declaration that is now recognised as the rule of the Church on the subject, and it is worthy of attention to notice the terms of appointment of the Committee on Church Documents, the care with which they carried out their work, and the unanimity with which all the documents were passed by the Synod in 1923. In 1918 “the subject of publishing a booklet containing obligatory Church Documents and resolutions was discussed at the Synod, and it was resolved to appoint a Committee, consisting of Revs. Neil Cameron, Alexander Macrae, and James S. Sinclair, to deal with this and report (Synod Minutes III., 44.)” At next meeting of Synod this Committee was reappointed, Mr Beaton being added in place of Mr Macrae, with instructions “that they prepare a publication which will embody those documents of an obligatory kind (Synod Minutes III., 83.)” It was reported at next meeting of Synod that the Committee had done nothing, and it was reappointed. A similar report was given in 1921. At the Synod meeting of 1922 Mr Cameron, as Convener, gave in the following report of the Committee:—”The Committee looked over all the resolutions passed by the Synod, and copied out those which they considered binding on the Church, but owing to unavoidable pressure of other urgent work they have not been able to have the matter so far advanced as they would like before presenting it to the Synod. . . In the opinion of the Committee it is suggested that a Committee should be appointed to give a final revision to the two branches of the work referred to above. And they would further suggest that typed copies of the resolutions referred to above, and also a list of suggested omissions and changes in Sir Henry Moncrieff’s Practice be sent to each member of Synod, so that they may be in a position to deal finally with the matter at next meeting of Synod.” The Committee was reappointed, and payment for the typing of the documents was authorised to be made out of the Organisation Fund (Synod Minutes III., 130-131). In 1923, at the meeting of the Synod’s Committee on Bills and Overtures, the minutes state “the greater part of the time of this sederunt was taken up with the Church Documents and the Gaelic translation of the Questions and Formula put to and signed by elders at their ordination (Synod’s Business Committee’s Minutes, p. 8.”) It was at this meeting the Declaration of 1921 and the motion of the same year were combined. After unanimity was reached as to what documents should be included in the Church Documents as binding on the Church, and their terms adjusted, it was reported by the Convener to the Synod:—”Copies of resolutions and findings of Synod considered binding on the Church had been collected and typed, copies being sent to all members of Synod. These had been carefully considered by the Business Committee (Magazine, XXVIII, 68). It was then moved at the Synod, and unanimously agreed to, that the Synod adopt the report of the Committee on the Church Documents, and order the same to be printed as soon as possible. It will be generally admitted that the Synod did not rush the matter, neither did it carry through the work unawares to the Church, nor did it neglect to give the fullest opportunity to the members of Synod to consider carefully these Synod findings that were to be regarded as binding on the Church. Not since the Free Presbyterian Church came into existence has there been such prolonged consideration and careful attention given to legislation passed by the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church. [The part of this speech dealing with the Barrier Act is held over until next issue].

The wording of the Declaration of 1923 has been criticised, and while it is admitted that the substitution of “or” for “and” would make the Declaration clearer, it is necessary to point out that the meaning of the Synod was clearly understood by the generality of readers, and did we consider this matter sufficiently important it could be easily shown that the meaning Mr Matheson takes out of the Declaration cannot, by a careful interpretation, yield the meaning he reads into it.

Another point that requires clearing up is Mr Matheson’s statement made in 1926 in reference to the 1923 Declaration, and what he says in 1928 about the same Declaration. Writing to Mr Macintyre (3rd Nov. 1926), Mr Matheson says: “Had I known of any such distinction I would not, I believe, have allowed any time to pass in making known the impossibility of my recognising the binding force of this latter resolution.” That seems to mean, unless we are misunderstanding his words, that Mr Matheson would have deemed it necessary to object to the 1923 Declaration had he realised that it had the authoritative place Mr Macintyre said it had, for he would not, he believes, “have allowed any time to pass in making known the impossibility of my recognising the binding force of this resolution.” But about two years after, in his communication to the Synod (6th March 1928) he maintains that the explicit terms of these resolutions [that is those of 1921, the one on which he took his stand at Winnipeg, and the 1923 Declaration] debar no one from church privileges on the single ground of the Sabbath church-going use of street cars” (see Sec. VI. of communication to the Synod). If this is so what need had Mr Matheson to object to the 1923 Declaration, however authoritative it might be, seeing it did not debar from church privileges, those who took the street car or used trains in coming to church on the Lord’s Day, provided they did not work on the Sabbath. To plain thinking people his 1928 statement looks very like an effort to find a sanction for the deed after it was done, for in the interval between 1926 and 1928 Mr Matheson, after scrutiny of the 1923 Declaration, has discovered something in the wording of the Declaration that was evidently not noticed before he went to Winnipeg or when he wrote to Mr Macintyre.

In referring to the 1921 and 1923 Declarations Mr Matheson described the latter as “the authentic or official version.” But why this distinction? Both are authentic, and both are official. When the Synod Clerk reminds the readers of the Magazine that the report of the Synod appearing in its pages is not official he is guarding against the view which some might be ready to entertain that such a report was the official minutes of the Synod. No minute is official until approved by the Synod, but every motion duly passed by the Synod is official and operative whenever passed.

The elders of Winnipeg, in their communication to the Synod, wrote—”We freely admit that street cars run on the Sabbath is a violation of the sanctity of that Holy Day. But we are faced with the facts, and the fact is that they are run. Accepting the fact, is it not a Scriptural method of procedure to take the devil’s weapons out of his hands and use them against himself? It would not be the first time that Haman was hanged on his own gallows.” Yet if the Synod will not alter the existing law the elders say—”We are left with no other alternative but to resign from the eldership,” and that, be it noted, after their acknowledgment that “street cars run on the Sabbath are a violation of the sanctity of that Holy Day.” The other statement as to using Satan’s weapons is a very dangerous one, and without a qualification will lead our friends into paths which we are sure they would willingly shun. We are heartily in agreement with them in their effort to enact at Winnipeg what was so effectively done at Shushan, and if they are as successful in bringing to an end the bad career of Satan as the Persian officials were in ridding the Persian Court of that arch-schemer, Haman, they will have done a work which will not be soon forgotten.

I must apologise to my brethren for the time I have taken, but it is to be hoped that the Synod will make it plain to all concerned that they do not regard the Declaration of 1923 as contrary to God’s Word, and that they mean to stand by it.

The Rev. N. Cameron then rose and moved the following motion:—”The Synod re-affirms its adherence to its resolution on Church Privileges printed in ‘Church Documents’ of 1923, viz.:—’The Synod declare, in accordance with former resolutions, that the Church’s privileges, such as admission to the Lords’ Table and Baptism, are not to be given to any who engage in Sabbath work (other than works of necessity and mercy) or* who travel by trains or cars run in systematic disregard of the Lord’s Day.'” Mr Cameron, in speaking to the motion, said:-

* “Or” is substituted for “and” to avoid misunderstanding.

We have heard a great deal about this case to-night, as set forth in the letters read from Mr Matheson, the elders of Winnipeg, the elders of Ontario, and Mr James Tallach, also the answer that Mr Beaton gave to their criticism of the Synod’s procedure in framing the Declaration under review. It is evident enough that the whole thing is levelled against the Synod’s finding, and that an attempt is made to allow Free Presbyterian members, and such as receive baptism, full permission to travel on cars or trains on the Lord’s Day. When we consider the history of the day in which we live, as to how Churches and nations observe the Lord’s Day, we see there is a flood of Sabbath desecration. This is true of the aristocracy in this and other countries, and those who are responsible for the legislation of the land are the advance guard in this, and they transgress openly and defyingly God’s law. If you follow on you will find in the industrial world that the flood is carried over the whole country. I am not speaking of individuals, for there are still Lots in Sodom. All the Churches have opened their doors to what these men want; they admit to Church privileges such as travel by cars and trains on Sabbath; their office-bearers and ministers do it, and the Churches are just full of this flood of Sabbath desecration. The little body to which we belong is the only one (as far as is known to us) which stems this flood, and these men are attempting to remove this bar in order to let the flood in. This is nothing but Satan’s work, for he wants to destroy this barrier, so that there will be no place clean at all. We are not saying that we are perfectly clean, but we are clean in this matter—the keeping of the Sabbath Day.

How could these men write such documents and not say one word about the Fourth Commandment? There was a deliberate effort made to keep away from the very point at issue, which was not the Barrier Act—that was only a mere Church Act. The terms of the Sabbath Day are quite clear and unambiguous—“Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work.”

When trains began to be run in this country on the Sabbath Day, a most faithful letter, which should never be lost sight of, was written by the Rev. Robert Murray McCheyne, to the legal agent of the Directors of the Railway Company, in which he made it clear that it was necessary for all to observe the Lord’s Day, and that the action of the Company horrified him. The same thing was true when they began to run trains to the North—Perth, Inverness, and all over; people were horrified when they saw anyone, to say nothing of communicants, they knew travelling on them. The case of the user of the street car on the Lord’s Day for the purpose of attending the means of grace it has been argued is analogous to the case of Lot in Sodom. We should remember, however, that it is written to the commendation of Lot, that he was vexed day after day at the conversation of the wicked, but I am afraid it is not true of us, for we are getting so used to it now; but it was true of him that he was as much grieved the last day he was in Sodom as he was on the first; and if that were true in Scotland no man would put his foot on a train or street car on Sabbath, for men know very well that it is a transgression of the Law of God, which is sin, and the wages of sin is death.

This is not a trivial matter at all. It is because we believe the breach of this law if persisted in means eternal death that we have had a hand in this resolution, for if we slackened our hands, we were conniving at the everlasting ruin of those souls for eternity; but we are more concerned for their souls than to remain silent, and we are concerned also that the blood of no poor sinner should be sought for in our skirts at the Great Day.

Much of the reasoning in the papers sent to the Synod is sheer quibbling. The most of the argument in Mr Matheson’s long document is based on the case of the Christian in Corinth that was supposed to be invited to supper by a man who was an idolater. Mr Matheson took good care, however, that he did not give the whole quotation. There is nothing I loathe more than men taking and trying to carve God’s Word. The Apostle says of this man in Corinth that he was to go and to eat what was put before him, for “the earth belongs unto the Lord and all that it contains.” An idol was nothing to him, but Mr Matheson carefully overlooked this, that if the man who offered him the meat would say, “This was offered to idols,” he was not to taste it, for if he would take it after he was distinctly told that it was offered to idols, then it would mean that the Christian did not see so much wrong with idolatry after all. Again, he was not to eat it in order that he might not hurt the conscience of the weak brother for whom Christ died. A man that goes into a street car does not need any one to tell him that it is run for making money for the idol Mammon, and certainly if he is to apply the Scripture Mr Matheson uses, he is not to put his foot on that car, and I must say I am very much afraid Mr Matheson is not giving justice to his conscience in this matter.

There was one thing in the arguments of the Winnipeg paper that made me smile, viz., the suggestion made by the elders as to how they were going to hang Satan, or, as they say, Haman, on his own gallows, but I am very much afraid they have given themselves a work that I should not take in hand, viz., hanging Satan.

I am not going to enlarge further, but the Lord said—”If ye love me, keep my commandments,” and we never yet met a man or woman, young or old (and we are looking around us on the religious world for fifty years) who had grace, that had any desire to travel on trains or cars on the Lord’s Day. We are told distinctly that God writes His Law on the heart of every converted man and woman, and as He did not forget to write the Fourth Commandment on the tables of stone on Mount Sinai, He does not forget to write it on the heart of the sinner whom He saves.

This was seconded by the Rev. D. Beaton and unanimously agreed to.

The Rev. James Macleod then moved:—”The Synod require of all who receive Church privileges in this Church to honour this re-affirmed Declaration and such as may infringe on the Synod’s ruling, shall be dealt with by the Courts of the Church, and that the attention of all adherents of the Church is seriously drawn to this matter.” This was seconded by the Rev. D. A. Macfarlane and unanimously agreed to. The Moderator then said, to avoid all future misunderstanding, would those who agreed to these findings hold up their hands. All the members of the Synod present did so.

The Synod then made the appointment of Church collections, which are on the same dates as last year. There was no change made in the Church’s Standing Committees.

The Magazine report, which will appear in next issue, was submitted by the Editor.

Third Sederunt.

The Synod met again in terms of adjournment on Thursday night at 5 p.m. After devotional exercises, conducted by the Moderator (Rev. E. Macqueen), the Synod was constituted.

The sederunt was the same as last, with the exception that Revs. D. N. Macleod, D. R. Macdonald, ministers; and Messrs Malcolm Fraser, John Macdonald, and John Macleod, ruling elders, were absent.

After the Roll was called a letter of apology for absence was read from Rev. W. Matheson, Chesley. The minutes of previous meeting were held over. A statement dealing with the question of the use of public conveyances on the Lord’s Day, which was drawn up by the Rev. R. Mackenzie and discussed at considerable length by a special Committee, consisting of the whole Synod, and unanimously agreed to, was submitted to the Synod. The approval of the statement, which is printed on another page of this issue, was moved by the Rev. N. Cameron, and seconded by Inspector Sinclair, and unanimously agreed to.

The report on Fishing Stations was given in by Rev. M. Gillies, and will appear in next issue.

Business from Presbyteries.

WESTERN PRESBYTERY.—Among some of the items of business coming up from this Presbytery, the following of general interest may be noted:—1. The resignation of Mr Donald Mackenzie, Laide, was accepted, and a decision come to in regard to his salary. 2. Mr John MacLennan, Diabeg, and Mr Kenneth Macleod were appointed joint-missionaries of Shieldaig and Lochcarron congregation at a salary of £20 each. 3. A request from Applecross to be sanctioned as a charge, with right to call a minister, was granted. 4. A petition from Finsbay was remitted to the Presbytery. 5. A motion was passed that missionaries should not interfere with ministerial supply for Communions.

NORTHERN PRESBYTERY.—A letter was read from Mr Kenneth Matheson, Dingwall, requesting to be acknowledged as an unpaid missionary. The Synod recommended that the Northern Presbytery grant the request.

Competent Business.

1. MEMORIAL STONE TO THE LATE REV. D. MACFARLANE, DINGWALL.—It was decided that an appeal be sent to the Magazine for funds to erect a memorial stone to the late Rev. D. Macfarlane, Dingwall. The following Committee was appointed to carry through arrangements:—Rev. N. Cameron (convener); James Campbell, Inverness; and Samuel Fraser. An appeal for funds will be inserted in the Magazine when the Committee have ascertained the probable cost.

2. FREEMASONS AND SECRET SOCIETIES.—The Rev. D. A. Macfarlane moved that such as are members of societies requiring secret oaths from their members, such as the Freemasons, etc., are debarred from Church privileges in this Church while they remain connected with such societies. This was seconded by the Rev. D. M. Macdonald, and unanimously agreed to.

3. LEGACY COMMITTEE APPOINTED.—It was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to that the Finance Committee in future also act as a Legacy Committee.

4. LAW AGENTS AND LEGAL ADVISERS APPOINTED.—It was unanimously agreed to that Messrs Morris and Macdonald, Inverness, be appointed law agents and legal advisers to the Church.

5. GRANTS TO MINISTERS’ WIDOWS.—The question was raised as to whether an increase would be granted to the amounts allocated last year. It was finally decided that the amounts remain the same for this year.

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF DONATIONS, ETC., IN THE MAGAZINE.—It was decided that in future only anonymous contributions (with certain exceptions) be acknowledged in the Magazine. For a fuller statement see notice under Church Notes.

7. DAY OF HUMILIATION AND PRAYER.—The Synod decided to appoint a day of humiliation and prayer on account of the religious state of the country, on Wednesday or Thursday, 25th or 26th July.

The Synod decided to meet again, D.V., in the Free Presbyterian Church at Inverness, on Tuesday after third Sabbath of May 1929. The meeting was closed with praise and prayer.