THE great event of the Union of the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church is now a matter of history. Whether we agree with the methods leading up to the Union and the negotiations of the now United Churches or not, we are bound to recognise that an event took place on 2nd October in Edinburgh of tremendous consequence for the religious life of Scotland. The new Church has a strength that completely overshadows every other denomination in Scotland. And if the influence of this Church is cast on the wrong side its very strength will be a serious menace to the well-being of Scotland. We have already in these pages shown how the Churches, now one, have departed from the old moorings in doctrine and in worship, and it would be something if one had a faint hope that the Union now consummated would be an effectual drag on any further developments in the wrong direction. Unfortunately we cannot entertain such a hope. Dr Mitchell, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland Assembly, in May uttered a few ominous sentences which indicated that this Church now released by law from its old position, meant to use its liberty in the direction of doctrinal licence. As for the United Free Church, the world knows that its whole ecclesiastical tendency is Modernistic. The view thus stated of the positions of the two Churches can be proved up to the hilt, and it is because of this that we view the Union with the deepest concern in its bearing on the religious life of Scotland. A few years will make clear to the country the policy of the new Church ecclesiastically and doctrinally.
The Assemblies of the uniting Churches, as separate Courts, met for the last time on Tuesday, 1st October. The Duke of York was Lord High Commissioner to the Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The joint report on Union was presented by Dr White and seconded by Lord Sands. Dr White, in presenting the report, said they took with them intact the heritage which had been left by their fathers. No one who knows all the outs and ins of the Union negotiations, the legislation required to pave the way for Union, and the position held by our fathers will accept that statement; that it should have passed unchallenged on the floor of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland shows how completely the desire for Union has drugged the memories of the ministers of the Church of Scotland. In the United Free Church Assembly the Minority vote against Union dwindled down to 22. This, of course, is not the full strength of the Minority. It only represents their membership in the Assembly. In addition to the number of congregations (33) which have refused to enter the Union there is a considerable number of congregations which have been almost equally divided on the question of Union. Profiting by sad and bitter experience, the Majority in the U.F. Assembly are giving the Minority £25,000. This does not include Church property that will fall to the Minority. There was no such generosity in 1893 or 1900. Mr Macfarlane and Mr Macdonald and those who followed them were turned adrift to make the best shifts they could. No offer was made to the Free Church Minority in 1900, and when they wrenched from the Majority all the property of the Free Church, Lord Halsbury taught the followers of Principal Rainy a lesson which is benefiting the Minority in this case.
Wednesday was the great day in which the promoters of the Union saw their dreams realised. The whole proceedings were staged on a grand scale, making its appeal alike to the eye and the sentiments of the great audience of over 12,000. The newspaper reporters, in their descriptive accounts, had a difficulty in conveying to their readers the impressiveness of the scene in the hall of Union. The new Church made a bad beginning, for the workmen employed in the preparation of the hall were busy at work on the Sabbath. When the attention of some of the officials were directed to this they expressed regret, while one of them brought forward the stock excuse of necessity. It is a blot on the escutcheon of the new Church that will not be easily wiped off; no excuse of ignorance that the work was going on or that it was a work of necessity will stand. A thousand times better that the hall should be without its decorations, and its floor without its linoleum, than that the Lord’s Day should thus have been desecrated. The King, in a letter to the Assembly, wished it God-speed in its work, and expressed regret that, owing to the state of his health, he could not be present. Dr John White, Glasgow, was appointed Moderator of the new Church, which, by the terms of the Act of Union, is to be known as the Church of Scotland. In his moderatorial address Dr White expressed the hope that the remaining sections of Scottish Presbyterianism might yet be gathered within the enlarged Church. He went farther by saying that when the Lambeth proposals had come before them a promise had been made that when this Union was accomplished they would be ready to explore the situation indicated in the above proposals. It looks like that the spirit of Union may lead Scottish Presbyterians very much farther afield than Scotland and Presbyterianism. This statement of the Moderator may have a great deal more in it than is yet apparent. Dr White also stressed the fact that the new Church had its work cut out for it in dealing with the churchless million who are outside the care of the churches. The Moderator in saying: “The Church that will control the future is the Church that puts the best educated ministry in the field,” gave expression to a very questionable proposition. We believe in an educated ministry, but it must be a ministry taught by the Holy Spirit, and an education which is a hand-maiden to, and not a mistress of, religion. A graceless education has been the ruin of the Church in Scotland. It would have been wiser for the Moderator of the new Church facing the future with all its great responsibilities to have said: “The Church that will control the future is a Church that has a Spirit-taught ministry.”
On Wednesday night the delegates from various Protestant denominations were received, among them being the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Lang, who expressed a hope that one day the Scottish Episcopal Church would be united with them. It is a sign of the times, and does not augur for good, that one who has done so much, and is still doing so much, to encourage the Romanist movement in the Church of England, should have such a prominent place given to him in a Presbyterian Assembly. He, too, harped on the now well-worn theme—the larger unity. After Dr Lang’s speech the Moderator intimated that another message had been received from the Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland (Rev. Prof. J. R. Mackay, D.D.), who was at present touring in the Highlands. Dr White then added that Rev. Prof. Morton, D.D., Original Secession Church, would convey the greetings of all the other Presbyterian Churches in Scotland. This was not correct, as far as the Free Presbyterian Church was concerned, as no greetings were sent from us. Dr Morton expressed pleasure for being asked to rejoice with them on that most memorable and historic event. He added: “the very inspiring ideal that you this afternoon presented to us of those streams still remaining outside this great stream is a very attractive one—a very attractive one to myself. I do hope it will be realised. I venture to say if this great United Church takes its stand on evangelical principles, finely and broadly, and firmly on the side of our Protestant faith, that ideal will be realised.” The significance of that gesture towards the new Church was stressed in Prof. Paterson’s speech the following day, when he said that Prof. Morton’s speech held out the hope of a speedy reconciliation between themselves and the Original Secession Church. We cannot say whether Prof. Morton is speaking for the Original Secession and Reformed Presbyterian Churches or not, or whether he is only giving his own personal view, but if so the sooner it is made clear that it is only his own view he is expressing the better. The United Original Secession had an opportunity of joining the Free Church in 1852 and the Reformed Presbyterian in 1876, when that Church was much nearer their position than the new Church is to-day, and the sections which continued these Churches refused to unite with the Free Church then. The witchery of Union seems to have seriously affected the vision of some, and its glamour is too much for them. Dr Morton was followed by the Moderators of the Irish, English, and Welsh (Calvinistic Methodists) Presbyterian Churches. Then came the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church (Dr Robberds), followed by Dr Ribson, representing the Wesleyan Methodist Churches in Great Britain, who spoke of their interest in the Union. Dr Ribson, remarking that the Presbyterians had come nearer to the Methodists in their theology. This witness is true. Delegates from the Congregational and Baptist Churches also spoke, and were followed by delegates representing Churches in the United States, Canada, and Europe.
On Thursday Prof. Paterson, in a speech already referred to, after his reference to the Original Secession Church, said: “Very near to them also were the Free Church and the Free Presbyterians, and although it might be thought that the time for negotiation was not yet—for the healing ministry of time was a factor in this matter—who of them did not hope for the day when the Church of Scotland would again be enriched by the full volume of Highland piety and loyalty . . . In the meantime, if they could not have ecclesiastical Union with these bodies, surely the most earnest attempt should be made to cultivate spiritual communion. He would suggest as a beginning that they might have an annual conference of a devotional kind, perhaps during Assembly week, with the representatives of the other Churches, at which they would express and cement their brotherhood by realising their common faith and common brotherhood by sitting down at the table of the Lord.” When he had thus delivered himself Dr Paterson then began to coquette with Episcopacy, and ended with words indicating that his eyes were turned to the larger Union. The Moderator, in introducing Lord Davidson, formerly Archbishop of Canterbury, said they welcomed him for his work’s sake. We wonder if Dr White had in mind Dr Davidson’s disastrous policy in the Church of England during the past years. Lord Davidson had much to say about conferences for unity, though he was discreetly silent on the Malines conversations. He had much to say on the Lambeth proposals and the Lausanne Conference on Faith and Orders. The Moderator thanked Lord Davidson for “his beautiful and arresting words.” Such is a specimen of the broad-minded charity of the new Church.
The continuing U.F. Church Assembly met in Glasgow, and, according to press reports, the dissentients were highly satisfied with the support they are getting. In the matter of pulpit supply they were able to provide for 80 congregations the first Sabbath of their separate existence.
In reading the accounts in the newspapers one is impressed with the undisguised attempt at spectacular display and the effort to work up enthusiasm at the act of Union—an enthusiasm woefully lacking throughout the country. This gesture to the world may appeal to certain minds, but it will have little effect on those who long for the coming of the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. The vision of a larger Union has evidently captured the minds of the leaders, and if one-tenth of the stress that was laid on unity had been laid on purity of doctrine and fidelity to the Word of God our hope of the new Church’s usefulness would be much brighter than it is. Men seem willing nowadays to make compromises in order that Union may be brought about. The petition in our Lord’s prayer, which, of course, has nothing to do with such a mixed Union as took place, has been wrested from its true meaning, and the manner in which it was applied misled many and deceived the simple.