By the Rev. N. CAMERON, Glasgow.
“Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed; how then art thou turned unto the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?”—Jer. ii. 21.
THERE are nearly fifty years since we began to feel quite astonished at the extraordinary liberties men took in connection with the arrangement God made and recorded concerning His Church and worship in the world. When a man decides to build a house he provides a plan and specification as to the kind of house he desires to have erected for him. Other men never interfere with his right to build his house according to his own will, and to make alterations on it as seems good to himself. As regards the Lord’s House men have not kept their hands from meddling with it since He set it up among us. The only way by which this amazing practice on the part of men can be accounted for is—”The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. ii. 14). The darkness of man’s mind is so great and of such a pernicious nature that he calls darkness light and light darkness. Human learning cannot remove this darkness, it can only be removed by the power of the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness to shine in the heart of man. Till that takes place man’s wisdom leads him to conclude that he can
improve many things in and connected with the house and worship of God.
The portion of God’s Word upon which our remarks are to be based is—”Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed; how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?”
Let us consider these words under the following two heads:—
I.—The Church is God’s planting, and II.—How men ruin it.
I.—First.—The Old Testament Church was set up at Mount Sinai. (1). The moral law, or the ten commandments, was delivered by God with awful majesty and terrors. So terrible was the sight that Moses said, “I greatly fear and tremble.” (2). The doctrines concerning God’s work of creation; of the covenant of works (commonly so called) made with Adam; Adam’s fall and his posterity in him, and the sentence God passed upon him; the promise of a Saviour, and the way of Salvation set forth by a bloody sacrifice and the covering of skins given to our first parents. All these facts are set forth in the first three chapters of Genesis.
Secondly.—A tabernacle was built by God’s command to Moses. Moses was strictly enjoined to make all things according to the pattern (plan and specification) showed him in Mount Sinai. Every thing as regards measure, length, breadth, and quality, was done by Moses as the Lord had commanded. When the workmen finished every thing in strict accordance with the pattern received by Moses from God, we read—”And Moses did look upon all the work, and, behold, they had done it as the Lord had commanded, even so had they done it: and Moses blessed them” (Exod. xxxix. 43). This included all the material by which the tabernacle was built, along with all the internal furniture of it. Moses did not add nor deduct an inch from pin, post, cord, curtain, altar, table or board, because he realised that the house was God’s, and that he was only a servant.
Thirdly.—Moses was ordered to set apart Aaron as a high priest, and his sons as priests under him. The tribe of Levi were set apart to assist the priests in all the work that was to
be done in the order of God’s worship. The sacrifices that were to be offered for every species of sins were very minutely described by Moses just as the Lord commanded him. The persons who were not to be allowed to come into the tabernacle to worship God on account of any moral or ceremonial uncleanness were particularly specified, and also the method by which they could be purified and re-admitted. Also the feasts which they were to observe at their stated seasons yearly and the sacrifices they were to offer at these feasts. When all these things were written down, the book in which they were recorded was handed to the priests for their strict observance of each item set forth therein. So the Lord gave the character to Moses that he was faithful in all His house. The Church set up by God among the children of Israel is the “noble vine” referred to in our text, “The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant: and He looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry” (Isaiah v. 7).
After the children of Israel were settled in the land of Canaan, the whole of the Lord’s instituted form of worship—the tabernacle and all its prescribed structure and service—was set up in Shiloh. We shall see again how and why it was removed from that place. Again, let it be observed that when Solomon was instructed by his father, King David, to build the Lord’s house, that David gave Solomon the pattern, or plan of the temple; e.g., “Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper chambers thereof, and of the inner parlours thereof, and of the place of the mercy seat. And the pattern of all he had by the Spirit of the courts of the house of the Lord, and of all the chambers round about, of the treasuries of the house of God and of the treasuries of the dedicated things; also for the courses of the priests and the Levites, and for the work of the service of the house of the Lord” (1 Chron. xxviii. 11-13). We see that the Lord’s pattern was strictly adhered to again at this time of setting up God’s house and worship. The same thing was done after
their return from the Captivity in Babylon, we read—”Then stood up Joshua . . . and his brethren the priest, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God” (Era. iii. 2). This shows that the Lord’s house and worship was set up, for the last time, under the Old Testament dispensation, according to the pattern showed to Moses and infallibly recorded in the Scriptures.
When we come to the setting up of the Church of God by our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, we have the fulfillment of many prophecies concerning Him, and especially of this prophecy—”The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto Him ye shall hearken . . . and it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which He shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (Deut. xviii. 15-19). We have two things observable from this prophecy (1) That the Prophet promised was to be like unto Moses (a) inasmuch as He was to be of their brethren, (b) That He was to reform the Church which Moses had by God’s authority—the Son’s authority—set up according to the Scriptures—”This was He that was in the church in the wilderness with the Angel which spake to him in Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; who receiveth the lively oracles of God to give unto us. . . .” “They (the fathers) have slain them who showed before the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers” (Acts vii. 38-52). This aspect of the work that our Lord was to accomplish is set forth in Scripture in many places, especially in the words—”The carnal ordinances imposed on them until the time of reformation” (Heb. ix. 10). The reformation referred to here was the setting up of the New Testament Church, and the passing away for ever of all the carnal ordinance of the ceremonial law; because these carnal ordinances were done away by our Lord’s one offering for sin upon Calvary’s Cross. It has to be observed also that such as would not hear God’s word spoken to them by that Prophet were to be cut off from His people.
The conditions of the Jews during the last nearly nineteen hundred years, since they have rejected Christ and His Gospel, and alas! do so still, is not only a proof that Jesus Christ was the Prophet promised, but also of the veracity of God’s threatenings as well as His promises.
- The New Testament Church was “built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. ii. 20). This shows that no part of the teaching of the Prophets has been annulled, except that which referred to the types and shadows of the ceremonial law, and that the New Testament Church was built by the Apostles upon the same foundation as was the Old Testament Church; Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone of both the Old and the New. This becomes very manifest by the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ, and also the Apostles, based the doctrines promulgated by them upon the Scriptures of the prophets. The reason for this is clear when we consider that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. iii. 16). This appears also in the Scriptures—”Of which salvation the prophets have enquired . . . what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when it testified before-hand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow” (1 Peter i. 10, 11). Consequently, the Church was the same from the beginning; the only change made was the removal of the types and shadows of the good things to come after the sufferings of Christ, which was “the glory that should follow.”
(1). The doctrines that are taught in the New Testament Church are set forth in clear and unambiguous terms. The only difference is that the Messiah promised had now come and that He had finished all that was prophesied of Him and had fulfilled them in every detail. (2). The ministry of the Church is clearly defined in the New Testament. There were to be elders—preaching and ruling elders—and deacons. The character of the men to be appointed to these several offices in the Church is given in detail. The tribe of Levi is no longer to be the officers of the church, and the sons of Aaron are no longer priests in it. Christ
is the only High Priest of the Church, and His one offering of Himself the only sacrifice for sin. (3). The order of worship is the reading and preaching of God’s Word. This appears in many places. For instance—”I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom; preach the Word” (2 Tim. iv. 1, 2). From Paul’s Epistles, specially that to the Romans, it appears that law and gospel had to be preached to men. Singing of the psalms of David by the human voice was taught to be the only psalmody of the Church. No mention is made of any musical instruments in God’s Worship. It was to be—”Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His name” (Heb. xiii. 15). (4). Discipline was strictly inculcated. For instance, the case of the incestuous man at Corinth (1 Cor. v.), and also—”Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof; from such turn away” (2 Tim. iii. 5).
- At the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Reformers took the Word of God as their infallible guide as to doctrine, form of worship, government, and discipline of the Church. The Reformers in Geneva and Scotland, etc., held that nothing should be allowed in the Church but what is commanded in the Word of God; while the Reformers of the Church of England, etc., held that any thing that was not forbidden might be held in the Church. From this arose the difference between England and Scotland as regards office-bearers and form of worship. Episcopacy, the use of instrumental music in worship, the form of government, and many other things have caused that the Church of England has held, and holds still, many of the limbs of the papacy, or Anti-christ; and that many of her ministers and too many of her people are halfway over to Rome.
In Scotland, the Westminster Confession, the Order of Church Government, the Directory of Worship are in your hands. So you can see how they are all bottomed upon the Word of God, and agreeable thereto. Thus our godly ancestors left us a legacy more valuable than all the gold of Sheba. We will have to say
something under the next head as to the way we have dealt with this most precious inheritance. But let us observe that the Church of Scotland was set up according to the pattern—God’s Word.
II.—How men ruin it. (1). Under the Old Testament dispensation we see that immediately after the death of Joshua and the elders who outlived him, the people departed from God to idols, and from the order of worship, etc., set up by Moses at God’s command in the wilderness. Their priests defiled God’s tabernacle and worship in Shiloh. The unfaithfulness of Eli, the high priest was severely rebuked by the Lord through the mouth of the child Samuel. In a short time the symbol of the Lord’s presence amongst them—the ark of the covenant—was captured in war and taken to the land of the Philistines, no more to be set up in Shiloh. This did not cause Israel to learn wisdom, so as to adhere steadfastly to Jehovah and His worship. As time will not allow us, let us notice that ten of the twelve tribes set up idolatry and persisted in it, in spite of all God’s warnings by His prophets as to the terrible evils which they would compel the Lord to bring upon them, they persisted in their idolatry and evil practices till the Lord decimated them by sword, famine, and pestilence, and banished the rest to the south end of the Caspian Sea. Before He brought all these evils upon them, He testified that they had made themselves more defiled and abominable than the Amorites, whom the Lord destroyed in order to set the Israelites in their place. One would think that the other two tribes—Judah and Benjamin—would learn from this, that it is an evil and bitter thing to forsake the Lord. But no. In Judah, the Lord raised up godly Kings who repeatedly brought the people back from idolatry to the worship of the true God. But no sooner were these godly kings taken away than the majority of the people went back to idolatry. God warned them seriously as to the consequences by His prophets from time to time, but they persisted in their own ways till the Lord destroyed the temple and the nation with sword, famine, and pestilence, and sent the few that were left of them captives to Babylon—the country of
idolatry—to learn their lesson as regards the abominations and cruelties of idolaters and their own folly in having forsaken Jehovah, Israel’s God. Those of the Jews that returned, after being seventy years in captivity, were thoroughly cured of idolatry; for their off-spring will not look upon an idol but with abhorrence till this day.
After they returned they refrained certainly from idolatry, but they added glosses of their own invention, as you can see from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v., vi., vii.), and an accumulation of traditions of the elders which were the cause of the animosity of the priests, scribes, and Pharisees against our Lord Jesus Christ; because He warned the people concerning their soul-ruining doctrines. That He took upon Himself to scourge, on two occasions, out of the temple such as turned the temple to be “a house of merchandise” and “a den of thieves,” caused these leaders of the people to demand His authority for so doing. In the Gospel by Matthew, twenty-third chapter, He made the following pregnant statement—”Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” They had made the temple, which was the Lord’s house to be no longer His but their own. So He “went out, and departed from the temple,” never to enter into it any more. Notwithstanding this is recorded in God’s infallible Word, men have not taken the warning, but are to this day bringing in to God’s house their own carnal inventions. This was the end of the Jewish Church.
The New Testament Church as we have seen was set up by Christ and the Apostles. We read that even before the Apostle John was removed to his everlasting rest he left on divine record that “The spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is in the world” (1 John iv. 3). This spirit of Antichrist began to bring in damnable heresies, which were strenuously opposed by the faithful servants of the Lord. But one step after another was gained by this spirit; by setting up bishops and innovations in doctrine and
worship till the Man of Sin—Antichrist—had been developed. The Apostle Paul gave, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, a most remarkable pen picture of this awful apostasy—“Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day [the day of final judgment] shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, shewing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. ii. 3, 4). The Book of Revelation reveals by the symbols of seven seals and seven trumpets the full development of this terrible system, called Antichrist, and by the seven vials that were to be poured upon the seat of the beast, its destruction as a system out of the world.
Thus the Church set up by the Apostles, which never came to an end really, step by step became the greatest curse that ever yet appeared in this world. For nearly a thousand years it tyrannised over the consciences of men, and murdered millions of men, women, and even children, for no other cause but that they would not bow to this Man of Sin. This period of history is called the Dark Ages, and dark they were with a vengeance. Still, there are millions of men believing in this pernicious system. The greatest mystery is that the descendants of men and women who suffered terrible persecutions and even death under the power of the Papacy are showing signs that they are willing to go back to the spiritual and civil slavery from which they were set free. Such men deserve to be made slaves.
At the Reformation (I must confine my remarks now to Scotland) men were enlightened by the Holy Spirit, so that they took the Word of God as “the only rule given us whereby we may glorify and enjoy Him.” As we have seen already, they went straight to that Word and built their faith and practice religiously and civilly upon it. They were not like the ecclesiastics of our day, who hold that the Civil Magistrate should have nothing to do with religion; they bound themselves as well in their civil capacity as in their spiritual capacity to do all within their power to sustain and maintain the cause of Christ.
The first great trial and bloody persecution after the second Reformation took place when the two Kings—Charles I. and Charles II.—made a desperate effort to set up Episcopacy in Scotland. They would have succeeded had it not been for the heroic men and women who endured a bloody persecution for twenty-eight years; living in caves and holes of the earth in cold and hunger and nakedness. Why did they endure such tortures? Because they were convinced that Episcopacy was not the order of ministry set forth in God’s Word, but that it was a part of the mark of the beast. At last, they were under God victorious, and Presbyterianism was placed on its own basis as the order of church government in Scotland. Were it not for these men and women we would have been Episcopalians. It was not only such as were Episcopalians before that time that had the foremost hand in traducing, persecuting, and putting to death these noble men and women; but such as had bound themselves on oath to God and man that they would suffer the loss of all things and even their lives sooner than betray the Creed and Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. “Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils, for wherein is he to be accounted of?” (Is. ii. 22). Let us not be ashamed of our ancestors who jeopardized their lives on the high places of the fields of Scotland for Christ’s crown and covenant.
The next great trial the Church of Christ in Scotland endured was from Erastianism. The power to choose ministers for congregations was taken from the people and placed by the civil law in the hands of heritors. These heritors, who were for the most part men of the world, made choice generally of ministers who would attend suppers, balls, and plays or sports along with themselves. When the people opposed the settlement of such careless men over them, they were forced upon them by the power of the law. Neither the Court of Session nor Parliament would grant any relief. This was the cause of the Disruption in 1843. By taking the drastic step, forced upon them by the Government of the country, of separating from State connection and giving up all the benefits accruing from it to them; but holding
firmly the principle of the establishment of religion by the State in Scotland, they freed the Church from Erastianism. Those who remained under Erastianism were left, especially in the Highlands of Scotland, with very few adherents.
In the year 1863 a movement was set on foot to form an incorporating union between the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church. The negotiations for this union brought to light that the Free Church had changed, in twenty years, so much that she was resolved to abandon the principle of establishment of religion, and the doctrines of election, of man’s total depravity by the fall, the necessity of regeneration by the Holy Ghost, and the doctrine of the inspiration and absolute infallibility of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. All this became evident by the large majorities that voted for union, and for men who denied the inerrancy of the Bible, in her General Assemblies from year to year. Those who opposed the above changes were in the minority from the beginning of this controversy. They were becoming fewer every year till at last they almost vanished. Uninspired hymns and instrumental music were introduced into the worship of the Free Church as an open question, i.e., such as desired to use them were left at liberty to do so.
The United Presbyterian Church passed a Declaratory Act in the year 1879 in order to define her position in relation to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which revealed how far she had drifted from the doctrines and principles of God’s Word as set forth in the authoritative standards of the Second Reformation. In the Free Church a claim was put forward to the effect that there were promising young men aspiring to the ministry of the Church who had scruples of conscience concerning expressions in the Confession of Faith, on account of which they could not enter into the ministry of the Church for whom some modification should be made on the terms of the Confession seeing the Church could not brook the idea of losing the labours of these young men. But none of those scruples were brought to light either by those who advocated their case before the courts of the Church or by
the young men themselves. At last a committee was appointed by the General Assembly to consider what changes were desirable, if any, on the statements of the Confession of Faith; but that they were to be careful that no change should be made which would affect the strict adherence of the Free Church to her doctrinal standards. At last the mask was thrown away and a Declaratory Act was presented to the General Assembly in 1891. It became then apparent to all concerned that the doctrines and principles of the Confession of Faith, which were hitherto nominally, at least, held by the Free Church, were to be cast over board. This Act was sent down, under the Barrier Act, to the Presbyteries of the Church. It received the approval of a large majority of the Presbyteries, so at the General Assembly of 1892 it was passed to be “a binding law and constitution” in the Church. The relation of the Free Church to her subordinate Standards was thereby changed absolutely. A protest was tabled against it by the minority, which contained a statement to the effect that they would not license or ordain any who answered the questions or signed the formula with a view to the relief it gave. To this statement they did not adhere; but they, on the contrary, continued to license and ordain men without asking them the question referred to above. So men ruined the Free Church of Scotland.
At the General Assembly of 1893, the Rev. D. Macfarlane tabled a protest thereby separating himself and such as would adhere to his protest from this new Church, and that in order to adhere to the Free Church as settled in 1843 in accordance with his ordination vows. Steps were immediately taken to revive the Free Church upon her original basis, so a Presbytery was formed on the 24th day of August, 1893. Thus the Free Church of Scotland was saved from destruction, and all the doctrines and principles for which she stood in 1843. For taking this necessary step, if the doctrines and principles of God’s Word as set forth in the subordinate Standards of the Church of Scotland at the Reformation were to be preserved, we were branded as schismatics, etc., by none more vehemently than by those who protested, when
the Act was passed, notwithstanding they had bound themselves to separate in 1893 if the Assembly would not take steps to repeal this Declaratory Act. Their slogan was “that the Declaratory Act was not truly a Declaratory Act, and that it was not binding on them.”
This was a very humiliating and false position, especially after all they spoke and wrote to the contrary; for it was truly binding on them.
Negotiations were begun again for union with the U.P. Church. This union was consummated in the year 1900. The minority contested in the civil courts the right of the majority to the property and funds of the Free Church under the law of Trusts. The case was decided in their favour in the House of Lords. The two main points in their contest were the principle of establishment of religion and the doctrine of predestination. The majority acknowledged that they ceased to hold these, so they lost the case, as they truly should have done. But they got the most of the property back by an Act of Parliament. This union was consummated by worldly policy without any regard as to whether it was based upon the infallible Word of God. So far as the people of the two Churches were concerned they were quite apathetic, being led blindly by their equally blind leaders. But instead of any apparent union, it was truly a disunion. It split the Free Church into three parties. This is always the effect of unscriptural unions, which are based, not upon truth and conscience, but upon worldly policy. This is the way men ruined the Church of Christ in past ages. It is quite evident that men are ruining it still by introducing their own inventions into it. “When wise will ye be?” (Psalm xciv. 8).
Another union negotiation was begun soon after the above events. This time it was with the view of bringing the Established Church of Scotland and the U.F. Church together. There were, to begin with, insuperable barriers supposedly between them. But in 1921 an Act of Parliament was passed by which the Established Church of Scotland was disestablished and her creed handed absolutely over to the will of men who did not
value the safeguards, in more ways than one, of the fact that the creed and constitution of that Church were based upon God’s Word and were on the Statute Books of both the Parliaments of Scotland and England, thereby making them an integral part of the civil law of this nation. The endowment of religion still stood in the way, but in 1925 this barrier was also removed by an Act of Parliament by which the endowments were placed in the hands of Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who, with the Sheriffs of Counties, were to judge in all the cases which might arise; their decisions in every case being final. This is a very unrighteous Act, seeing a man, or body of men, cannot appeal to any higher court however contrary to justice such decisions may be. The leaders of this movement for union, on the Established Church side, repeatedly declared that they were now as free from State control as the U.F. Church. This was truly the case. So, after a good deal of carnal policy and after they had broken down absolutely the settlement of the Reformation in Scotland, a union was consummated between the two Churches in 1928. This proved to be only a union of the most of the ministers of these Churches; for as regards the people, with very few exceptions, they are as separate as they were before the union. This nominal union has been consummated by handing over for nothing the precious heritage which our forefathers handed down to us at the cost of great sufferings, even unto the shedding of their blood. If the people of the so-called Church of Scotland were to realise what injustice has been done to them and their children’s children they would not remain one day in the fellowship of that Church or of the men who have been responsible for ruining the Established Church of Scotland. The General Assembly of this Church appointed at its sitting last May a large committee to revise the Confession of Faith or to make a new Confession. Have the people decided that they are prepared to abandon the Confession, which is solidly based on God’s Word, to follow men who, many of them, do not believe in the inspiration of the Bible nor in its doctrines and principles? Many of the sons and daughters of the Church of Scotland in the past have been saved
and are now in eternal glory who were converted by the doctrines of the Confession of Faith; but the doctrines now taught by men who abandoned these are making the people vain.
The present Free Church made several efforts to form a union between that Church and ours since they refused to enter into the union consummated in 1900 as above. On two occasions in the past—in 1905 four ministers went over to them, again in 1918 three ministers went over—but very few of the people followed them on either of these occasions. Several motions were brought up in our Synod between 1900 and 1905 for and against this movement for union, always with the result that only the ministers who left and two or three elders voted in favour of it. In 1917, when a movement for union was projected, a statement of differences was passed by our Synod and sent to the Free Church for her serious consideration. The differences pointed out were (1). That “The Free Church has never explicitly condemned the views advocated by Dr. W. M. Alexander, one of her professors, in a book named ‘Demonic Possession,’ etc. (2). “The Free Church, in the Act of 1906, rescinding the Declaratory Act of 1892, inserted a clause in the preamble of the said rescinding Act, namely, ‘as she has always adhered,’ which bears the construction that the Free Church in her corporate capacity had always adhered to the Confession of Faith—as adopted by the Free Church in 1846, which clause may be reasonably construed as a censure of the position of the Free Presbyterian Church relative to the Declaratory Act of 1892, etc.” (3). The Free Church since 1900 has thrown open the door of admission to her ministry very indiscriminately to men out of a great variety of Churches, and this latitudinarianism has also raised a barrier between her and the Free Presbyterian Church.” (4). “The Free Church has been lax in her general discipline and practice, and differs from the Free Presbyterian Church in such matters as Church bazaars, sales of work, church soirees and social meetings, prayers at the grave, the failure of her Assembly to remove a Popish symbol from one of her Church buildings” (The Free
Presbyterian Magazine, May, 1918, p. 16). To the above statement the Free Church returned a very evasive reply, which caused the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church to put an end to any further proceedings. To prove that the F.P. Church had not misconstrued the import of their reply, the Free Church has not taken any steps till this day to remove any of the foresaid differences, but instead she has gone farther on her way of raising other differences, some of which we are compelled to point out on account of the fact that some of the leading men in the Free Church are persistently declaring that there is no difference between the two Churches. Along with the differences above stated, there are several others, which seem to be so right as regards the consciences of Free Churchmen, which makes the prospect of union between the two Churches an impossibility while these practices are carried on with a high hand by some, and tolerated by others who make it quite plain that they do not approve of them. Let it be noticed here that I do not write nor speak about the private affairs of individuals, neither do I judge any man’s state before God, but I have God’s Word for judging man’s conduct—”Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matt. vii. 16). We are considering just now “how men ruin the Church of God” by their own inventions in as much as there are strenuous efforts made to cause light and darkness, Christ and Belial to agree. Satan is too subtle and too strong for men to thrust him out, but Christ can thrust him out of doors—”When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace; but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusteth, and divideth his spoils” (Luke xi. 21, 22). Satan has got strongly entrenched in the Churches of Scotland—the Free Church not exempted—so it will take the Almighty power of the Holy Ghost to cause men and churches to cast out of their hearts, practice, and worship all the carnal innovations introduced by them. The year before last an article appeared in “The Evangelical Quarterly,” from the pen of the late Professor W. M. Alexander, D.D., in which it was repeatedly stated that the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel were an
appendix. This statement was made public in our lecture on New Year’s Day last year, and previously made at Plockton in July of the year before last. The Rev. Professor J. R. MacKay, D.D., took in hand to maintain that Dr. Alexander was right, which position he was absolutely unable to make good, because the evidence against him was overwhelming by scholars of the highest attainments and who had examined the original MSS. for themselves. In his first letter on this subject to the “Northern Chronicle” and “The John o’ Groat Journal” he stated that 1st John, v. 7, was not a part of the inspired Word of God. His exact words were—”No one would at this time of day say that the Apostle John wrote the words of 1st John, v. 7—although the doctrine is not touched—unless he should with the Roman Church be prepared to prefer the Latin Valgate to the Greek Verity. I do not believe that F.P.M. would affirm that John wrote those words”—(John o’ Groat, 14/2/30). He claimed Calvin and others as holding his view. Calvin held quite the contrary as you will have seen in our Magazine, and as you can find in his “Commentary on the Catholic Epistles” (pp. 257, 258, 259). Professor J. R. MacKay gives the opinion of Rev. John Owen (not the famous John Owen) who edited this part of Calvin’s works, but a dean of the Church of England and fathers it upon Calvin. I trust he did this unknowingly. He charged the Free Presbyterian Church with being as bad as the Roman Catholics because we adhere to the Authorised Version of the English Bible, and advised us to take the Revised Version of the Bible instead, which is faulty in many ways. He wrote during that correspondence that I wished to place him among destructive critics, so I wrote charging him with being a destructive critic seeing he was for cutting out of the Bible the above verse, after it had been so ably defended by the Rev. D. Beaton, and that on solid grounds, and after such a phalanx of witnesses had been brought forward as to the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel as being Mark’s. He suggested that the following phrase should be inserted between the 8th and 9th verses—”Although they were silent by the way, they did run, as
they were commanded, to report the empty grave to the disciples” (“Northern Chronicle,” 19/3/30). What is this but adding to the words of God’s Book?
It seems the Free Church are of the same mind with Professor J. R. MacKay, for we have not heard or seen that their Assembly took any steps in a way of dealing with this very serious matter, notwithstanding these views were made very public in the two newspapers referred to above. It seems that the Professor intends to hold the position in the Free Church College held hitherto by Professor W. M. Alexander, D.D. If Professor MacKay had remained in the Free Presbyterian Church he would certainly have been brought to task for his anti-scriptural views, but in the Free Church he will be applauded as very orthodox, as his predecessor had been.
Professor Donald MacLean, D.D., has been at Ceilidh nan Gaidheal, held in Glasgow, at which he was reported as having delivered a lecture on “Wit and Humour of the Gaelic Bards.” In the “Daily Record” of 4th February, 1931, it is reported that “Professor MacLean laughed when he was asked if he had any comment to make on the comments which appeared in the Free Presbyterian Magazine with regard to his address to Ceilidh nan Gaidheal.” “There is very little to say,” he remarked. “I found the meeting very well conducted in every way, and the discussion was intelligent. If there was anything of the world, the flesh and the devil, I certainly did not see it.” A correspondent in a letter to the “Daily Record” of 11th February, 1931, wrote as follows—”I would like to ask Dr. MacLean a few questions, seeing he holds such a prominent and conspicuous position in the religious life of Scotland, particularly amongst those who maintain that they are the direct followers of Knox, Henderson, and Chalmers. Did he see or hear anything there that would benefit a soul for eternity? Where did he find his authority for attending? Why did he not take his text from the Holy Scriptures? Was he afraid that it would not suit the appetite of his hearers? Surely discipline is at a very low ebb in the present Free Church of Scotland when they would tolerate
such actions by one of her Professors.” The above letter should cause the Professor and the Free Church to consider their respective duties. On the part of the Professor: was he doing his duty, as a teacher of Divinity students, to the souls placed under his charge, to the cause of Christ, to the example he ought to set before these young men who are under his tuition, and to his ordination vows as a Professor of the Free Church? On the part of the Free Church: is she doing her duty in allowing her Professors to go clean out of their way to lecture on “Wit and Humour of the Gaelic Bards,” or to quote in sermons, etc., the poetry of that licentious and adulterous man, Robert Burns? Is she allowing this for popularity’s sake, or because she wishes to be considered learned, not narrowminded but broadminded and charitable by the carnal world? There is a scripture which says—”Ye cannot serve two masters.” Such conduct lowers her even in the eyes of sober, worldly-minded men, who despise inconsistency in such as profess to be godly.
Professor J. K. Cameron has written a booklet which shows the kind of union which he desires to bring about. He writes—”The real danger is that matters may be raised into the position of principles, and a demand made for uniformity along these lines. It is to be sincerely hoped that such a matter as the uniformity that is insisted upon in the Church of Rome may not be aimed at, but that unity, and not uniformity, be our aim, as it has hitherto been in the Reformed Church” (p. 52). Which Reformed Church does the Professor mean that aimed at unity without uniformity? Was not uniformity the very reason why the Westminster Assembly of Divines sat and laboured during the best part of five years? If their aim had been unity without uniformity, they could have unity in a few months. But they wanted unity in the truth, so they laboured hard to have it based upon God’s Word and not upon unscriptural compromise. Professor Cameron endeavours to defend the Free Church as regards her discipline—”We are not aware of any special failure in this direction,” the Professor writes, “especially if her actions be judged by the Standard of the recognised Moral Law of God”
(p. 64). Does he acknowledge the fourth commandment as forming a very prominent part of the Moral Law? If he does not that explains a part of the practice of the Free Church; if he does, how are men who work on the Lord’s Day or who travel by tramcars, etc., received to Church privileges in the Free Church? What is the difference, in God’s sight, between a man working on his croft or farm on the Lord’s Day in Ross-shire or Lewis, etc., and a man working in Glasgow? Will the Free Church give baptism or admit to the Lord’s Table a man in the south who works (except works of necessity and mercy) and refuse the same privileges to a man say in Lewis? The fourth commandment is—”Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy . . . on it thou shalt not do any work,” etc. The practice of the Free Presbyterian Church as to discipline is consistent with God’s Moral Law, but that of the Free Church is a glaring breach of the Moral Law of God as regards their laxity as to Sabbath rest. To make a noise in public against laxity on the part of Railway Companies and to connive at Sabbath desecration in her congregations goes very near to hypocrisy in our opinion.
The Church of Scotland passed a resolution in 1643 to this effect—”The General Assembly declares that the Acts made against salmon fishing upon the Sabbath, or against any other labour upon the Lord’s Day, to be not only against servants who actually work, but also that the same should be extended against masters whose hired servants they are.” (Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, p. 79.) This was the mind of Henderson, Rutherford, Gillespie, etc. Thus, the F.P. Church can appeal to God’s Law, and also to many Acts based upon that Law by the Church and Parliament of Scotland concerning Lord’s Day observance; but no evidence will have any weight with a man like the learned Professor, whose aim has been and still is to keep the Free Church from reforming herself by casting away all the above carnal policy and practices. Indeed, the Free Church was being destroyed by her Professors during the last sixty years and by such as followed their pernicious ways, and I regret to have to say that she suffers from the same yet.
These inventions of men brought into the Churches of Scotland have been their ruin as sure as it was the ruin of the Jewish Church, the Apostolic Church which turned her, with the exception of a remnant, to become antichrist, and the Church of Scotland to become an anti-scriptural Church. Let the Free Church and also the Free Presbyterian learn from the fate of other churches in the past to keep close to God’s Word in heart sincerity as regards doctrine, worship, government, and discipline, and refuse to follow any men except in so far as they follow Christ.
In conclusion, it causes amazement to some how intelligent people follow men who have publicly overthrown the order of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline of the Church of the Reformation in Scotland, as the present Church, calling herself “the Church of Scotland,” has done. The steps taken by the majority of the congregation of Uig, Lewis, reveal that they are not prepared to give up the position taken by the Church of Scotland at the Reformation to follow men who have overthrown it. Why should not other congregations show these men and their pseudo-church that they are not under any obligation to continue in church fellowship with them, but on the contrary that for truth and conscience sake they are bound to separate from them. Schism is to separate from a Church which holds to God’s Word in doctrine and practice. It is not schism to separate from a Church which ceases to hold to God’s Word in doctrine and practice.