BY DR J. M. JOHNSTON.
PRESS Reports of the Edinburgh Presbytery of the Free Church state that Prof. J. K. Cameron submitted his proposed overture to the General Assembly dealing with “closer co-operation or an incorporating union” with, among others, the Free Presbyterian Church. This was seconded by Prof. J. R. Mackay, and supported by Dr A. Stewart. The Church of Scotland Magazine gives its benediction in these words:—”Whatever may be the issue, Prof. Cameron’s statesmanlike proposal merits the ‘Godspeed’ of all who love the good of Christ’s Kirk in Scotland.” An earlier press report, dated 1926, credits Prof. Cameron, addressing the F.C. College, with the words: “The coveting of an outward union, secured merely by common government and laxity in respect of truth was that by which the Church was betrayed.” The application and correlation of this last trite remark with the proposed overture is the object of this article. Preliminary retrospect over what is now cold historical fact is necessary.
Startling as it may appear, the first occasion when men went out to the wilderness from the Reformed Church of Scotland because the integrity of the infallible Scriptures was assailed, was in 1893. In all of the previous separations for conscience sake, governmental and administrative politics were involved, but the position of the Word and the great doctrines of grace were not contested. Setting aside all theological quibbling about “de forma, de facto, de jure” (vide F.P. Synod speeches 1917), the passing of the Declaratory Act, 1892, was the official liberation of that doctrinal monstrosity which is now matured and broadcast from the pulpits of the United Church of Scotland to-day, where the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures is derided and the doctrines of evangelical repentance, regeneration, atonement, and sanctification are scorned. In other words, the responsibility for much of the chaotic teaching, religious indifference and worldliness of the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland largely, if not wholly, rests upon those men, Rainyites and Constitutionalists, who actively or passively opened the floodgates in the Free Church in 1892-93. The Constitutionalists were morally guilty. Read their speeches in the Assembly records of 1893—loud, swelling words, which died away as the cold wind of the wilderness of testimony began to blow about their imaginations, and unlike the Disruption Fathers, they remained seven long years receiving the wages of their hire from the defecting majority who virtually held the purse-strings. Here we had an outward union complete with common government and laxity in respect of truth. Was not the Free Church betrayed? It is an interesting speculation to wonder how long would it be, if ever, before the founders of the present Free Church would have appealed to the civil courts for property, or what course they would have taken, had the consummation of the 1900 union been delayed or abandoned, assuming quite logically that the intellectual libertinism of the pulpit would progress as it has done: The Church of Scotland, Free and Presbyterian, had its legal beginning when the minimum requirements for a Presbytery met and drew up their Deed of Separation, in which they professed to stand simpliciter where the Disruption Church stood in 1843. This document is to-day one of its important subsidiary standards as regards doctrine, worship, and government. It also clearly declares that the Declaratory Act violated the constitution and principles of the Free Church. In the Free Church case, the pursuers (F.C.), in their condescendence 20, state: “These Acts (1892-94) . . . constituted a grave defection from the principles and constitution of the Free Church as originally constituted.” According to the apparent views of those who remained “under dissent” in the Declaratory Act Church till 1900, separation owing to internal disunity involving the doctrines of grace is unjustifiable, until the defecting majority go out to an even more unacceptable body, or place themselves within the pale of civil law as regards temporalities. In 1900 the present Free Church was left untrammelled to its own devices. The “grave defection” (vide supra) was not repealed till 1905—five long years this time. Why five years? Why not immediately? Further, if the Act was really “de facto, de forma, but not de jure,” why repeal it at all? There has been too much circumlocution about these matters in the past.
In 1904 the Free Church appeal to Caesar succeeded. The Free Presbyterian Church lauded the decision. But let the Free Church remember that the Supreme Court was not called upon judicially to declare them the Church of Chalmers, but merely that they held by the Establishment principle and the doctrines of predestination and election in contrast to the United Free Church. Further, the Law Lords again enunciated the law of sense and honesty, which holds that no majority can wrest temporalities from a minority which abides by a constitution, for the upholding of which these assets were donated or secured. In 1905 a minister and a majority of the Free Presbyterian congregation at Edinburgh openly departed from this ruling, going over to the Free Church with property, leaving the remnant minority to struggle for 18 years before they could obtain a suitable building for worship. Such a transaction done in the name of Christ would not pass unchallenged in civil life to-day.
In 1907 the Free Church passed a Deliverance aent admission to the ministry. Why was this necessary? In 1905 and 1918 overtures similar to the present one resulted in several ministers leaving the Free Presbyterian Church for the Free Church. They “took their testimony with them.” Where is that testimony to-day? Are they as instant in the Gospel “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded” as they were when they shared the vicissitudes of a small, poor, narrow, bigoted Church for the Truth’s sake? This leads directly to another consideration. One whom the Free Church has honoured used strong terms against prayers at the grave, soirees, and Church bazaars:—”The Free Presbyterian Church’s attitude relative to these matters, and the conduct of the Free Church relative to these same matters, have constituted obstacles to greater friendliness between the two denominations: but I do think when the Free Church seems to evince a desire to do justice to the facts in all these references, we ought to take the matter up sympathetically and see to it that the blame for the scandalous divisions in Presbyterian Scotland should not lie at our door” (Free Presbyterian Magazine, XXII., 104). Exactly! Ten years later we find bazaars freely reported in the press in connection with the Free Church, and at one recently in Ross-shire a Free Church minister justified these things by the analogy of the tithes tribute of the Jewish Church! Condemnation of these things is looked upon as a Free Presbyterian failing. “Making a storm over a cup of tea,” said the Editor of the “Free Church Record,” only to be effectually countered by an unanswerable exposure of a soiree in Oban (Free Presbyterian Magazine, 1919-1920—Rev. N. Cameron’s reply to Free Church Record).
The Free Presbyterian Church has consistently set its face against all worldly innovations and practices. It holds that Christ’s Kingdom on earth is spiritual, in the world but not of it, and that His house is a house of prayer, and not a convenience for merchandise or pleasure either in it or in connection with it. The support of the Church rests upon the liberality of the people directed by the Providence of the Head (not abrogating the Establishment principle in other spheres). No matter what that Church professes on paper, laxity in practice in a branch of the Visible Church is indicative of something radically wrong within it. Practice after all is merely the expression of how far profession influences the life. While no true perfection is attainable in this world, yet sincerity and truth make for all lawful endeavours to attain to perfection, and this ought to hold peculiarly in Christ’s Church. The only practicable test of purity is the exercise thereof, even though that be dubbed “self-righteousness” by others. A Church stands or falls by the actions and rulings of its Church Courts. The Free Presbyterian Church can unashamedly say, that in much weakness and in the face of much of the world’s ridicule, it has endeavoured to keep its Courts with clean hands. It is not denied that there are godly people in the Free Church, but one fact has struck the writer, viz., that these very people shake their heads sadly over the practices indulged in by many in their Church. One ventures to say that were a Free Presbyterian minister to engineer a bazaar, he would forthwith cease to be a minister of that Church unless genuine contrition was forthcoming and discipline duly exercised.
The Free Presbyterian Church has unequivocally defined its position with regard to other denominations. It is solemnly bound to have nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with any Church which does not hold by the same standards and practice. It is open to consider a motion for union “should a Church appear in Scotland holding, both in her profession and in her practice,” these standards, major and minor (Free Presbyterian Synod 1905). This is merely an adaptation of the Scripture—”Can two walk together except they be agreed?” If a motion for union or co-operation come before it, the Free Presbyterian Synod has but two questions to ask, viz.:—Does the overturning Church hold the same profession as we? Do its practices conform to ours? An affirmative to the first and a negative to the second query debars the Synod from union without further equivocation. This is only reasonable. For example, a religiously-minded young woman who marries a man of intemperate or worldly habits will soon find that it is much easier for the man to pull her down to his level than for her to elevate him to hers. Would she not be better to disregard all flowery promises and sentiments, and say “Go, reform your ways, then seek marriage with me?” Such should hold good in ecclesiastical life, but men have glib phrases about “agreeing to differ,” “satisfactory adjustment of differences,” which mean just what they mean. Their equivalent is not to be found in Scripture.
Turning to the Free Church, has that Church since it received ex-Free Presbyterian ministers in 1918 altered its course in one iota? These men entered her pale on distinct understandings. We find strange happenings and sayings in the reports of her Assemblies. In 1929 the closing Moderatorial address contained 13 lines from Robert Burns as a quotation (Free Church Record, July). Since when were the sayings, however trite, of a debauchee, no doubt honoured among men, to be brought into the sanctity of the Church? One member moved that certain Canadian delegates be admitted for admonition by the Moderator, but the influential received them “out of courtesy” and with many soft words. Later one minister implied that the Free Church seemed to be composed of 90 per cent. commercialists and 10 per cent. or less of preachers. In 1922 a petition from Kilmuir, Skye, was submitted. All honour to the men who sent it! They stated that they were “deeply grieved at the prevalence of congregational social meetings and sales of work within the Church.” An admission honestly made, that such things were not uncommon but prevalent. The petitioners believed “that such functions were unscriptural and contrary to true piety.” The Free Presbyterian Church puts its Amen to that. Prof. J. K. Cameron got his motion (that the Assembly pass from the subject) carried by a speech in which he casuistically defended the things complained of, and which was characterised by one of his brethren as “a most unfriendly speech, which would do harm to the Free Church” (Free Presbyterian Magazine XXVII. p. 85, taken from the Free Church Record). When will those who believe such things to be unscriptural and detrimental to piety realise that they are in the wrong camp? There can be no satisfactory adjustment in matters unscriptural and contrary to true piety.
Space forbids entering upon the doctrine of union. Suffice it to say that public sentiment to-day extols union in any shape or form. The Angel of the Churches never went beyond the commendation, “Because thou hast kept My Word and hast not denied My Name.” Keeping in mind Prof. Cameron’s remarks quoted at the outset, about an outward union secured merely by common government, etc., the writer humbly submits that a true union is feasible. But how? By those in the Free Church who treasure the old paths and grieve at the unscriptural practices in their Church, resolving that, as their leaders are not prepared to wipe out these scourges, they will “come out from among them and be separate.” Union would then be an accomplished fact in a very short time between such and the Free Presbyterian Church.
Three times now has an overture directed towards union been mooted. On two former occasions much painful division occurred in the Free Presbyterian Synod, and some ministers left “with their testimony.” The Free Presbyterian Church went on her way, derided by some, condemned as pharasaical by others, but still unaltered in her profession and practice. The Free Church did the same in her own way, and will do so again, unless there is a cleaning up of the threshing floor in her midst. I believe that there are God-fearing men and women in the Free Church. Will they not at last turn a deaf ear to what their leaders instil into them, and face the facts for themselves? Whatever picture has been drawn for them they will find that a true Free Presbyterian is merely a man who holds fast by the Gospel of Christ and who will, by grace, keep the world out of the Church.