By Rev. D. BEATON, Convener.
THE Committee have pleasure in presenting their report to the Synod. The Committee decided to send out printed copies to all members of the Synod for their consideration. Your Committee consider the subject dealt with of special importance to the Church and others interested in our ecclesiastical position, and would, therefore, respectfully recommend to the Synod that the paper should come under the review of the Business Committee before it is issued in its final form and approved by the Synod.
The Committee would add the following clauses to their draft paper at p. 23, immediately after paragraph on Prayer at the Grave:—”Worship.—The Free Presbyterian Church in contrast to the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church (Continuing) uses the metrical psalms as the only manual of praise in the sanctuary. It also rejects the use of instrumental music in divine worship. Holy Days.—The Free Presbyterian Church rejects the modern custom becoming so prevalent in the Church of Scotland of observing Christmas and Easter. It regards the observance of these days as symptomatic of the trend in the Church of Scotland towards closer relations with Episcopacy.”
Better to present truth in her native plainness than to hang her ears with counterfeit pearls.—Thomas Brooks.
News may come that Truth is sick, but never that it is dead.—William Gurnall.
One live coal may set a whole stack on fire.—John Trapp.
Losses and disgraces are the wheels of Christ’s triumphant chariot.—Samuel Rutherford.
Synod’s Statement of Differences between the Free Presbyterian Church and the other Presbyterian Churches in Scotland.
FOR the instruction of our people the Synod desire to direct their attention to the following differences between the Free Presbyterian Church and the other Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, viz.—Church of Scotland, Reformed Presbyterian, United Original Secession, United Free (Continuing) and Free Churches. These differences may be set forth under three general divisions—I. Constitutional; II. Doctrinal and III. Differences in Practice.
I. CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCES.
To the casual observer the constitutional differences may appear as scarcely worth any consideration. Yet the question underlying these differences may go far to explain the reason of the separate existence of the various denominations and to indicate their ecclesiastical policy and outlook. We would therefore call attention to the following constitutional differences between the various Presbyterian denominations and in doing so would emphasise the fact that these are not the only constitutional differences but the main differences.
I. The Church of Scotland. The present Church of Scotland is the result of the union of the Established Church and the United Free Church in 1929. It claims to be “in historical continuity with the Church of Scotland which was reformed in 1560, whose liberties were ratified in 1592, and for whose security provision was made in the Treaty of Union of 1707. The continuity and identity of the Church of Scotland are not prejudiced by the adoption of these Articles (Declaratory).” This extraordinary claim, as will be seen, rests more upon the imaginations of the framers of the Articles Declaratory than upon the facts of history. For the sake of clarity it may be as well to deal with the two sections composing the Church of Scotland. (1) The Established Church. This Church claimed
to be the true Church of Scotland but her claim was rejected by the Disruption Church which asserted that it was the Church of Scotland free and though this claim has never been recognised by Parliament nor by any legal tribunal yet the righteousness of the claim is not invalidated nor are the historic facts on which it is based as set forth in the Claim, Declaration and Protest (1842) disproved. From 1711 when the General Assembly strengthened its relation to the Confession of Faith until 1889 no change was made either in the Questions or Formula. But in the latter year the spirit of ecclesiastical restlessness bore fruit and an Act was passed by the Assembly entitled: “Act on Subscription of Office-bearers of the Church” which loosened the Church’s relation to the Confession. This was followed by the Act of Parliament (1905), skilfully though not creditably engineered by astute ecclesiastics, who, taking advantage of the difficulties of others had a clause inserted in the Act dealing with the property question between the Rainy party of the Free Church and the minority who refused to enter the Union in 1900, which gave permission to the General Assembly to introduce a new formula to be prescribed by it. In the final form of the Questions and Formula adopted by the Assembly there was a further departure from the Church’s relation to the Confession. In 1921, in prospect of the union between the Established Church and the United Free Church, an Act was passed through Parliament to declare lawful certain Articles Declaratory which had been passed by the General Assembly. These Articles mark a still further departure from the historic Church of Scotland notwithstanding the claim made in the said Articles that that Church is in historic continuity with the Church of Scotland. If the Established Church was not the Church of Scotland in 1843 it certainly had less claim than ever to be recognized as the Church of Scotland after all these changes.
(2) The United Free Church. The United Free Church was made up of the majority (or Rainy) Free Church and the United Presbyterians. In 1892 to pave the way for union the Declaratory Act was passed by the General Assembly. In 1900 the Union
between the majority Free Church and the United Presbyterians took place. A minority refused to enter the Union and there came thus into separate existence the present Free Church. The United Church was a strong Voluntary organization honeycombed with the Higher Criticism. It was this Voluntary Church strange to say which in 1929 united with the State Church. It is one of the ironies of Scottish Church history that such a union ever took place. A section true to their Voluntary principles refused to enter the Union in 1929 and formed the United Free Church (Continuing). Whatever defects the Established Church had constitutionally, it was not improved in any degree by the union with the United Free Church. The claim made by the united Church to be the true Church of Scotland, while sanctioned by law, is rejected by the Reformed Presbyterian Church, United Original Secession Church, Free Church and Free Presbyterian Church, and possibly also by the United Free Church (Continuing).
II. Reformed Presbyterian Church. This Church derives its name from the Reformed Presbytery (1743). Ecclesiastically the Reformed Presbyterians are the descendants of the Society people, who were followers of Richard Cameron and James Renwick and who refused to enter the Church of Scotland in 1688. They differ on a number of points from the other Presbyterian bodies. (1) Revolution Settlement. They refuse to acknowledge the Church of Scotland because of certain defects in the Revolution Settlement (1690). They hold that the attainments of the Second Reformation were ignored by that Settlement. (2) The binding obligation of the Covenants. They likewise hold that the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant are still binding and that it is the duty of the Church to renew the same. This principle is made a term not only of ministerial but, also, of Christian communion, i.e., it is binding on all their communicants. They differ from the United Original Secession Church which also holds the binding obligation of the Covenants in the manner of renewing them, objecting to that Church in leaving out the part of the covenants relating to civil affairs in the state. They hold that
the Secession testimony did not go far enough as it was too exclusively limited to matters that concerned the Church and did not sufficiently contend for Reformation attainments in the State.
(3) The Civil Magistrate. The Reformed Presbyterian Church differs from the other Presbyterian bodies in its view of the Civil Magistrate. It holds that God “hath authorised and instituted in His Word the office and ordinance of civil government and governors” and that civil magistracy has “its foundation in the moral-preceptive law of God.” A keen and prolonged controversy was carried on between the Seceders and the Reformed Presbyterians on this point. The Reformed Presbyterians, like the Seceders and others, emphasise the point that the Civil Magistrate in Christian States is bound to have respect to the Word of God and the interest of the Kingdom of Christ in all the laws and administration of the State but, in addition, they maintain that this is not simply for the well-being and usefulness of the magisterial office but that the above conditions were necessary before the magistracy could be recognized as having a valid standing.
(4) Political Dissent. The Reformed Presbyterians refuse to swear allegiance to, or to take part in, the civil government as presently constituted in this country inasmuch as it is not based on the foregoing principles. They hold that their communicants can neither take the oaths required for government offices nor put others in positions where such oaths are required to be taken. Hence they refuse to accept the right of the elective franchise and do not vote for members of Parliament. This is what is generally known as the principle of Political Dissent. It does not mean that Reformed Presbyterians offer physical opposition to the civil government. They only refuse to render allegiance to the civil institutions of the country as they regard them in opposition to Covenant promises and Second Reformation attainments.
III. The United Original Secession Church. The United Original Secession Church (usually called the Original Secession) was formed in 1842 by the Union of the section of the Old
Light Burghers who did not join the Established Church in 1839 and the Original Secession Church. They claim to be the direct ecclesiastical descendants of the Secession Church formed in 1733 by the Secession Fathers and like the Reformed Presbyterians claim to be the true representatives of the Second Reformation. (1) Like them they condemn the Revolution Settlement though regarding it as a great improvement on the Stewart regime. (2) They also hold the principle of the binding obligation of the Covenants which is a term of ministerial and Christian communion. (a) They differ, however, from the Reformed Presbyterians in their view of renewing the covenants—they do not renew them in the exact words nor in the parts referring to the civil magistrate. (b) They differ from the Reformed Presbyterians in their doctrine of the Civil Magistrate. The magistracy, they hold, was instituted by God as the moral Governor of the world and is common to mankind at large, and not derived from Christ as Mediator or peculiar to Christian nations and, though like everything else magistracy has been put into Christ’s hands in subserviency to His Church, yet neither of these alters its nature or renders it illegitimate when it is not used for this higher purpose. And while it is the duty of Christians and of Christian nations and rulers to regulate their conduct by the revealed will of God yet their neglecting to do so does not release them from subjection and obedience to them in all lawful commands. Adam Gib states the matter as follows: “It is to be considered, that the whole institution of the Magistrate’s office lies in natural principles being no way founded in the revelation of grace, nor at all peculiar to such as enjoy the benefit of that revelation” (The Present Truth, I. 373).
In consistency with their views of the binding obligation of the Covenants and the Revolution Settlement, the United Original Secession Synod condemned the Free Church in additions made to their Testimony in 1853 and 1866 (though these additions form no part of the Authorised Testimony) for declining to take up the position held by themselves at the Second period of the Reformation in the matter of asserting the Divine Right of
Presbytery, acknowledging the perpetual obligation of our National Covenants and declaring in unqualified terms their adherence to the Westminster Standards as Covenanted Standards of conjunction and uniformity for the Churches in the three kingdoms. The Synod further expressed its deep regret on account of the secession of many of their brethren to the Free Church in 1852 “thereby dropping a Judicial Testimony in behalf of the Covenanted Reformation” (Original Secession Testimony, p. 219).
IV. United Free Church (Continuing). It consists of the section of the United Free Church which refused to enter the Union in 1929. It is made up largely of former United Presbyterians and is an out and out Voluntary organization. Its relation to the Confession is of a very doubtful nature. The Confession is received in the light of the Declaratory Acts of the United Presbyterian Church (1879) and of the Free Church (1892).
V. Free Church. The Free Church came into existence in 1843 and claimed to be the Church of Scotland free. It bore a clear testimony on the side of evangelical truth and in 1851 it defined clearly its relation to the attainments of the Second Reformation in the Act passed in this year entitled “Act and Declaration anent the Publication of the Subordinate Standards and other Authoritative Documents of the Free Church of Scotland.” It is stated here that the several formularies, Confession of Faith, Catechisms, Directory for Public Worship and Form of Church Government agreed upon by the Westminster Assembly—”as ratified, with certain explanations by divers Acts of Assembly in the years 1645, 1646 and particularly in 1647, this Church continues till this day to acknowledge as her subordinate standards of doctrine, worship, and government; with this difference, however, as regards the authority ascribed to them, that while the Confession of Faith contains the creed to which, as to a confession of his own faith, every office-bearer in the Church must testify in solemn form his personal adherence—and while the Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, are sanctioned as directories for catechising—the Directory for Public Worship, the Form of Church Government, and the Directory for Family Worship
are of the nature of regulations, rather than of tests—to be enforced by the Church like her other laws, but not to be imposed by subscription upon her ministers and elders. These documents, then, together with a practical application of the doctrine of the Confession, in the Sum of Saving Knowledge, a valuable treatise, which, though without any express Act of Assembly, has for ages had its place among them—have, ever since the era of the Second Reformation, constituted the authorised and authoritative symbolic books of the Church of Scotland.” While acknowledging that the fathers of the Second Reformation were fallible in many of their proceedings yet the Act holds that “that the work itself was the work of God.” In regard to the Revolution Settlement the following deliverance is worthy of attention: “That the Revolution Settlement by which the liberties of the Church were secured, under the reign of William and Mary, was in all respects satisfactory, has never been maintained by this Church. Thus, for instance, in the civil sanction then given to Presbytery, the Parliament of 1690, overlooking altogether the higher attainments of the Second Reformation, went back at once to the Act 1592, and based its legislation upon that Act alone, as being the original charter of the Presbyterian Establishment. Accordingly, it left unrepealed the infamous ‘Act Recissory’ of King Charles, by which all that the Church had done, and all that the State had done for her, in the interval between 1638 and the Restoration, had been stigmatised as treasonable and rebellious. Thus the Revolution Settlement failed in adequately acknowledging the Lord’s work done formerly in the land; and it was, besides, in several matters of practical legislation, very generally considered by our fathers at the time to be defective and unsatisfactory.” At the same time adds the Act “it would be in a high degree ungrateful to overlook the signal and seasonable benefits which the Revolution Settlement really did confer upon the Church as well as upon the nation.”* The Free Church, therefore,
* The attitude of the Free Presbyterian Church to Reformation attainments is set forth in “A Declaration anent Reformation Attainments and the Church’s Relation thereto” (Free Presbyterian Magazine, xv. 147-153).
claimed to be the true Church of Scotland alike with respect to the attainments of the First and Second Reforms, and though she did find the Revolution Settlement defective, yet, unlike the Reformed Presbyterians and Original Seceders, she accepted the same. Both the present Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church claim to be heirs of this Church.
(1) The Free Presbyterian Church. This Church came into separate existence in 1893. It was owing to the passing of the Declaratory Act of 1892 that those who formed it felt in conscience they could no longer continue in the so-called Free Church. (1) Declaratory Act. The Free Presbyterian view of the effect of the Declaratory Act on the constitution of the Free Church was that it seriously affected the Constitution in the explanation it offered of the Confession of Faith. This was the view held by the Constitutionalists during the agitation against the Act before it became law. With no uncertain sound it was declared from pulpit and platform that if the Act became law the Free Church was gone as the Free Church. The utterances of the Constitutional leaders on record prove this to the hilt. Up to this date the ranks of the Constitutionalists presented an unbroken front to the enemy; there were no divided counsels in the camp. It was only after the Act became law that some of the Constitutional leaders, realising where their utterances were driving them, began to search for a formula that might conveniently cover their retreat. This hesitation caused a feeling of amazement among those who had hitherto accepted their words at their face value. It was now discovered by these sons of Ephraim that the Declaratory Act was not binding on them—it was only a relieving Act. (2) Act inoperative. In their explorations for something to justify their retreat the further discovery was made that the Declaratory Act, being ultra vires, was inoperative. That is, the Assembly went beyond its powers in passing the Declaratory Act. Dr. Rainy was too astute an ecclesiastic to engineer, in the face of much opposition, a piece of legislation that was to be inoperative with reference to the supposedly tender consciences of those who were crying for
relief, and when some cases from presbyteries came up before the Assembly, the protests entered on the records of the presbyteries of Inverness and Dornoch were ordered to be deleted. If the Act was inoperative why was there such drastic procedure taken? (3) Questions and Formula not changed. This was another reason advanced for remaining in the Church and of all those advanced it is probably the weakest. It is almost incredible that any one with the slightest acquaintance with the law of creed subscription in the Established and Free Churches should ever have advanced such an argument and it would not be worthy of any attention were it not that it has been advanced, and still is, with all seriousness. It is admitted on all hands, both by Free Churchmen and Free Presbyterians, that the Declaratory Act interpreted certain confessional doctrines quite contrary to the view held of them by Constitutionalists in the Free Church. When, therefore, a minister, probationer, or elder answered the Questions and signed the Formula, in the light of the Declaratory Act, was there no change? Did not the very change made by the Declaratory Act of necessity change the Questions and Formula if, not in words, at any rate in sense which after all is the vital point? Will any man, with the facts before him, say that any one of Dr. Rainy’s followers answering the Questions and signing the Formula after 1892, attached the same meaning to them as he did before the passing of the Declaratory Act? Would he not on answering these Questions and signing the Formula understand them in the light of the liberty conferred by the Declaratory Act? To advance the above as an argument to justify the Constitutionalists who remained in the Free Church shows the poverty of their argumental resources and the straits to which an inconsistent position drives them. (4) Positions diametrically opposed. The view held by the Free Presbyterians was that the Declaratory Act, being passed under the Barrier Act, became a binding rule and constitution in the Church, and that while individuals might refuse to accept it, it was the law of the Church and the machinery of the Church would make it effective for every one who desired to make use of it. This was the position taken up by the Constitutionalists until they broke the ranks and found excuses for
remaining in their tents while seeing their former brethren go out into the wilderness. Nor did they wish them God-speed—on the contrary, some of them assumed a very hostile attitude.
The position of the Constitutionalists who remained in the Free Church was diametrically opposite to that of the Free Presbyterian and the ecclesiastical course followed by the two parties clearly proves this and nothing that has happened since indicates that they were or are at one in the matter. The Free Church in rescinding the Declaratory Act inserted in the preamble the words “this Church adheres as she has always adhered to her subordinate standards in terms of the Act 1846 anent Questions and Formula” while the Free Presbyterian Church in her Deed of Separation asserts: “That by passing the Declaratory Act of 1892 the present subsisting Church, calling herself the Free Church of Scotland, through her General Assemblies, has, in so far as said Church is concerned, destroyed the integrity of the Confession of Faith as understood and accepted by the Disruption Fathers and their predecessors, etc.” These two statements are not simply opposites but contraries. The step taken by the Free Presbyterians in 1893 was considered a blunder by the Free Church Constitutionalists and those who took it were declared by them schismatics. The Free Church advocates, time and again, have asserted that the above clause was not intentionally inserted as a condemnation of the Free Presbyterians but the fact that it was inserted implied a virtual condemnation of the Free Presbyterian position. There never has been the slightest attempt in any responsible court of the Free Church to have these words deleted, for should they do so they would condemn their own action in 1893 and onwards. This insuperable barrier to union is not likely soon to be removed. Free Presbyterians have not yet been so far left to themselves as to confess that the step taken in 1893 was a blunder. Besides considering it an exceedingly strange thing on the part of those who profess to be yearning with great affection towards them to characterise them as schismatics they recognise that the gulf separating the two bodies is by such an outlook very much wider than their professed friends are willing to acknowledge.
(2) The present Free Church. This Church came into separate existence at the Union between the majority in the Free Church and the United Presbyterians in 1900. Had there been no union there would have been no body taking up the position of the present Free Church. There is, therefore, the greatest difference between the constitutional standing of the two Churches—Free Presbyterian and Free. The former came into separate existence through the passing of the Declaratory Act. As stated, had there been no union there would have been no Free Church as presently constituted. This is not a biased judgment on the part of Free Presbyterians, for Mr. Salvesen (afterwards Lord Salvesen), one of the Free Church counsel, in answer to questions put to him by the Appeal Judges while the case was being heard in the House of Lords, said: “I think they (i.e., the United Free Church) would have to rescind the union, because our view is that the Union necessarily involves the abandonment of the principles of the Free Church; but if they rescinded the Union and came back to the Church, of course they would be entitled to participate with the pursuers” (R. L. Orr’s The Free Church of Scotland Appeals, p. 315). In other words the Free Church counsel admitted in so many words that according to the case presented by the Free Church to the Law Lords, if it had not been for the Union no claim could be made for the property and that the majority with the minority would have remained in possession of the property and be recognized as the legal Free Church. The Free Presbyterian Church, if it had gone to law, would have presented a different case and, whether successful or not, it would not, in this way, have played into the hands of the majority. The House of Lords’ Decision. It has been said that the Free Church has been recognized by the highest legal tribunal and that this settles the matter as far as the claim of the Free Presbyterian to be the Free Church of 1843 is concerned. This short and easy way of settling the matter is based on a false view of the situation. The issue between the Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church was never before the law courts. Both the
United Free Church and Free Church in presenting their cases assigned a position to the Declaratory Act which was rejected by the Free Presbyterians. (1) The majority in presenting their case maintained that the Barrier Act empowered them to pass legislation such as the Declaratory Act and that, in passing the Act, they did nothing that was ultra vires. (2) The Free Church maintained in their pleading that the Barrier Act gave no such power as the majority claimed. They held it was ultra vires for the Assembly to have passed the Act, and consequently the Act was not binding on the Church. (3) Free Presbyterians agree with Free Church people in saying that the Act was ultra vires, but hold that having been passed into law, under the Barrier Act it became a binding rule and constitution. This, it may be said, is rather a nice distinction, but it is this distinction that made the division in 1893 and caused a separation that has not been healed.
Again the present Free Church hesitated to rescind the Declaratory Act for a number of years after it came into separate existence, simply because that by so doing it might invalidate its claim to the property. As a tu quoque argument Free Church advocates retort by saying that the Free Presbyterian Church never repealed the Declaratory Act. One would like to believe that those who bring forward this do so without any serious intention other than to divert attention from the weakness of their own position to a seeming opening in the armour of their opponents. In advancing it, however, they have never yet explained how it came about that those who left the Church in 1893 because of the Declaratory Act took that Act with them. When this has been explained the above argument may be dealt with.
In conclusion a few other points of difference between the several Presbyterian denominations may be noted:—
-
Open Communion. All the Presbyterian bodies with the exception of the Reformed Presbyterians and Original Seceders hold the principle of Open Communion.
-
National Recognition of Religion. All the Presbyterian bodies in Scotland with the exception of the United Free Church (Continuing) hold this principle. It is generally known as the Establishment Principle and sets forth the duty of the State to recognise the Church of Christ.
-
Claim of Church of Scotland.—None of the Presbyterian Churches allows the Church of Scotland the claim which she makes for herself though recognised by the law of the land.
II. DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES.
God. The duty of the Christian theologian is to collect, ascertain, and combine all the facts which God has revealed concerning Himself and our relation to Him. These facts are set before us in the Bible. This is true because everything revealed in nature and in the constitution of man concerning God and our relation to Him is contained in and authenticated by Scripture. The first matter we will here consider is our knowledge of God and how we differ from some other churches in Scotland in the manner in which we regard Him. To us “God is a spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. While receiving the truth that God is love as a precious revelation from heaven we emphatically protest against the modern interpretation of the text as if it read: “Love is God.” The Scripture with no uncertain voice proclaims Him to be holy and just as well as merciful.
Evolution. At the very beginning of the inspired Word God is set before us as the Creator and Upholder of all things. (a) The Church of Scotland does not clearly voice her belief in God as Creator inasmuch as she allows within her pale without using any disciplinary measures against them those who hold and teach the Evolution theory. In its most consistent form this theory is a denial of the doctrine of Creation and robs God of His glory as Creator. (b) No one holding the Evolution theory can accept the doctrine of the Fall as set forth in Scripture nor the doctrine of the atonement. It is not necessary to adduce proofs in support of these statements as all conversant
with the teaching of the advocates of Evolution will readily endorse them.
Person of Christ. As a Church we hold that “the only Redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person forever.” We deny all doctrines and theories which in any way detract from the supreme Deity of the Son of God or call in question the perfection of His humanity. For, though at His incarnation He veiled His Deity, yet He was, and is, and ever shall be, God over all blessed forever (Roms. ix. 5). We deny the teaching of those who assert that our Lord in becoming man so emptied Himself of His divine attributes that He was liable to err. We protest against this dishonouring doctrine which in its various forms is usually designated the Kenosis theory.
Atonement. We also believe and hold forth God’s sovereign electing love in that He from all eternity loved some of the human race and elected them in Christ not because He foreknew any merit in them but simply in accordance with the good pleasure of His will. We deny the doctrine of the so-called Universal Fatherhood of God taught in most of the Churches in Scotland to-day. We also deny every kind of teaching which would give the atonement a universalistic application which it has not in Scripture. For while we hold that Christ’s death is infinite in value, on the other hand we as firmly hold that its saving benefits are only applied to the elect. While recognizing to the fullest extent the perfect example of the Lord Jesus Christ yet because of man’s condemned and helpless condition under sentence of death we deny that mere following of the example of the Saviour apart from a personal interest in His atoning death will avail to save the souls of men. The Churches in Scotland which teach that Christ died for all or that His example with a little effort on their own part will save men are deceiving sinners, and such teaching cannot be for the glory of God or for the eternal good of their fellowmen.
Holy Spirit. We firmly believe in the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit; further we hold that He is the Third Person of the adorable Trinity, God equal with the Father and with the Son. We deny that He is merely an influence proceeding from God. We also believe that, as the incarnation and atonement were absolutely necessary for the salvation of God’s elect, so the work of the Holy Spirit is necessary for their regeneration and sanctification. We believe whole-heartedly the teaching of Scripture that it is the Holy Spirit who convinces of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, and that no scheme devised by man can ever take the place of His work in the conversion and sanctification of sinners. It is when sinners are convinced by the Holy Spirit that they realise total depravity is not merely a doctrine taught in Scripture but a bitter experience. It is then also through the teaching of the Holy Spirit they realise their great need of the atonement and find in it a suitability and a sufficiency to meet their needs.
We deny the teaching too common in the churches of Scotland that there is some moral good in man towards God and that by human effort, influences or associations it may be so wrought upon as to bring him into a state of grace. We also deny that he is “capable of affections and actions” towards God “which in themselves, are virtuous and praiseworthy.” We hold that “works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God” (Confession of Faith, chap. xvi., sec. vii.).
The Sabbath. We believe in the binding obligation and divine authority of the moral law summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments of which the Fourth Commandment is the key-stone, the removal of which wrecks the whole structure. We
hold that “from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly Sabbath; and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian Sabbath.” We deny that the Fourth Commandment was merely a Jewish institution and that it was abolished with the ceremonial law. The assertors of this are guilty of denying the binding obligation of any or all of the commandments of the moral law and this if put in practice would let loose hell on earth. We also deny the view that one day of the week is as good as another and that it remains with men to say which day of the week should be observed as the Sabbath.
Spiritism and Prayers for the Dead. This Church in view of the alarming spread of what is called Spiritualism (more correctly Spiritism) and the popish doctrine of praying for the dead would call upon all who value the truth of God to shun churches which tolerate those who teach such unscriptural doctrines which are so manifestly contrary to the supreme and subordinate standards of the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland and are also entirely opposed to those vows made by office-bearers in accepting office. The doctrine of praying for the dead is opposed to the teaching of the historic Church of Scotland and a church which tolerates it places itself beyond the pale of the Reformed Church in Scotland.
We hold that Spiritism is not merely deception but a Satanic doctrine and a revival of the ancient practices and belief of those condemned in Scripture who sought “unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and mutter” (Is. viii. 19). The Holy Spirit made known of old such departures from the faith—”Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils” (I. Tim. iv. 1).
Scripture. As a Church we hold the doctrine of the inerrancy and verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture as given by the Holy Spirit. In maintaining this position we differ from most of
the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland. For years the higher critical leaven has been at work in the branches now united in the Church of Scotland and also in the United Free Church (Continuing). This is so apparent that it needs no proof. With grief we have also to state that the present Free Church when she got the opportunity of a lifetime did not free herself of this leaven for among her first appointments to a professorial chair was that of one whose teaching in a published work was correctly characterised at the time as “occupying a position far down on the rationalistic stream” (Northern Chronicle, 12th July, 1905). Since then both from professor and lay preacher doubt has been voiced as to the Marean authorship of Mark xvi. 9-20 and the Johannine authorship of I. John v. 7. Instead of the church courts calling these to account the matter was passed over in silence and one of the college staff in a correspondence carried on later in a northern paper passed an eulogium upon a lay preacher who took an active part on the wrong side.
III. DIFFERENCES IN PRACTICE.
Creed and practice. The Free Presbyterian Church firmly maintains that while it is the duty of all churches to have a sound scriptural creed. It is also incumbent upon them that the practice should be in keeping with the profession. It regards the profession of a sound creed without a practice in keeping with the same as a glaring inconsistency unbecoming a professing Church of Christ. In this connection it strongly condemns the unconscionable making of most solemn promises and signing of strict formulas which are never intended to be kept. Where such practices prevail in the admission of office-bearers into office it is not only an indication of a very low ethical standard on the part of those who so act but barefaced deception and dishonesty in order that they may enter a church whose creed it is never their intention to keep.
Church Privileges. While the Free Presbyterian Church does not hold the doctrine of Close Communion it exercises the
greatest care in granting church privileges. The Church’s rule is that church privileges, such as Baptism and admission to the Lord’s Table, are to be granted only to those who have been carefully examined by, and have given satisfaction to, the kirk-session. All who engage in Sabbath work (except works of necessity and mercy) or who travel by trains or cars run in systematic disregard of the Lord’s Day and all who are members of secret societies are denied Church privileges.
We condemn the carelessness of church courts too in Scotland, of the prevalent carelessness of church courts in granting church privileges to those who on account of the life they lead ought never to get such privileges. We also condemn the practice of granting privileges to fugitives from our discipline on the part of other Presbyterian Churches as action fitted to render useless the very purpose for which discipline was set up in the Christian Church. We utter an emphatic protest against the custom prevalent in Scotland of asking young people to become communicants when they attain a certain age without their having undergone a saving change.
Admission into Office. (1) We condemn the practice of allowing into office in the Church men whose only qualifications may be gifts, social position, or wealth but who give manifest signs that they are still in a state of nature, spiritually dead, and have never come under the quickening power of the Holy Spirit. Dead material of this kind is only a drag on the church which carries it.
(2) We condemn the modern movement of admitting women into office in the Church as contrary to Scripture. The United Free Church (Continuing) has already opened its doors for admission of women into office and in the Church of Scotland there are many zealous advocates of the Movement.
Worldliness. The World is the enemy of Christ. Its spirit is as much opposed to Him to-day as when He tabernacled among men and if its hostility may not be so apparent yet this is not because of its friendliness but the outcome of changed tactics on the part of the god of this world. The Church is Christ’s
witness in the world and it is her duty as the professing Bride of Christ to keep her garments unspotted from the world. In Scotland the churches have opened the door and the world has poured into the sanctuary until in many cases it is difficult to distinguish the one from the other. 1. We condemn as partaking of a worldly nature (a) bazaars, (b) sales of works, (c) social meetings. These have many advocates, especially the latter, but when one remembers the cheap buffonery often indulged in by professing ministers of Christ, its frivolous atmosphere, and its copious floods of empty flattery, and the mixture of the songs of Sion with the songs of the world, the less said in defence of the social meeting in connection with the church the better. Its history in Scotland ought to be a warning to all who say that it is quite innocent and in keeping with the aims of the Church of Christ. We condemn without hesitation raffling at church bazaars and other unscriptural schemes such as whist drives, etc., for raising money for church purposes.
- In the same category are to be placed Boys’ Brigades; Boy Scouts; Girl Guides; football, cricket, golf, badminton, boxing, dramatic and ramble clubs connected with Churches. The professing Church of Christ was never intended to provide recreation or entertainment for the young. The plea usually offered is that something must be done to keep hold of the young but there are other legitimate ways of caring for the interests of the young than dangling before them a hook with such baits.
We condemn without hesitation the modern movement of Community Drama which is capturing so many of the young and is making its way into the Church. The professing Church of Christ in Scotland in its best days always stood clear of any association with the stage and we advise our people to set their faces sternly against this insidious movement to popularise the stage.
Burns’ Concerts and Dinners, etc. The Church condemns the practice now so common of ministers either presiding or giving appreciations of the poet at Burns’ concerts and dinners. Burns
in his lifetime was not such a friend to the true church of Christ nor did he live such a virtuous life that professing ministers should fall over one another in their efforts to flatter and canonize the poet. We also condemn the objectionable practices of the Comunn Gaidhealaich and the Women’s Rural Institute.
False Charity. We condemn the false charity masquerading under the names of good feeling, neighbourliness, and brotherly love but which is armed to the teeth against vital godliness. This is not the charity the Apostle wrote of so beautifully in I. Cor. xiii. Satan has made use of this false charity as a drug to deaden the feelings and to lull to a sense of security where there was real danger of his kingdom being attacked. Its poisonous effect is seen in its power to pervert the judgment so that otherwise intelligent men speak of condemnation of error as fault finding and the exposure of worldly practices as the religion of miscalling.
Memorial Services. While recognizing and appreciating as fully as any of our countrymen the great and noble sacrifices made by those of our young men who fell in the Great War we would emphatically sound the trumpet against the view that because of these sacrifices they had a passport into heaven without the need of any saving change. The habit common throughout the country of having religious services at the War Memorials once a year is liable to create a spirit of hero-worship and tends to idolatry and leans in the direction of prayers for the dead. God alone is the object of worship and He is jealous for the glory of His name. Besides, from the purely humanitarian viewpoint it is well-known that these services are a yearly opening of deep wounds, not yet healed, to bleed afresh in the hearts of those who lost dear ones in the terrible struggle. It is no lack of patriotism or want of sympathy with the bereaved that moves us to condemn these services, but a deep sense of the honour that is due to God.
Prayer at the Grave. The Free Presbyterian Church, we believe, stands alone among the Churches in Scotland in having no prayer at the grave though the Church of Scotland and the Free Church, like us, have accepted the Directory of Public Worship for a guide. It has been urged against our practice that the reasons given by the Westminster Divines for such a prohibition, viz., that it has been grossly abused and is in many ways hurtful to the living, no longer exist. In answer to this we have only to point to the Church of Scotland, some of whose ministers tell us unblushingly that they have been offering prayers for the dead for years.
Worship. The Free Presbyterian Church in contrast to the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church (Continuing) uses the metrical psalms as the only manual of praise in the sanctuary. It rejects also the use of instrumental music in divine worship.
Holy Days. The Free Presbyterian Church rejects the modern custom becoming so prevalent in the Church of Scotland of observing Christmas and Easter. It regards the observance of these days as symptomatic of the trend in the Church of Scotland towards closer relations with Episcopacy.
In summing up, the Free Presbyterian Church accepts the Bible as her infallible supreme standard; and the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith as her subordinate standard because we believe it to be founded upon God’s Word and it is our desire to hand down this priceless heritage to our children and our children’s children unimpaired. We make no claim to perfection, we are painfully conscious of many defects in ourselves and in our witnessing for the truth yet we believe the truths we are contending for and which call us to maintain a separate existence are the truths of God’s Word and therefore are to be upheld at all costs.
He that rides to be crowned will not think much of a rainy day.—John Trapp.