WE were praying and hoping that the Synod of our Church should not be involved in the dispute that had arisen between Rev. Ewen Macqueen and the members of the Northern Presbytery. We were most anxious that the matter should be amicably settled in a brotherly and Christian spirit, and that the whole Church should not be drawn into a dispute that should never have arisen in the Courts of the Church. In a statement sent to the “Northern Chronicle” in name of all the members of the Presbytery, we find that Mr. Macqueen agreed with the other members anent that statement. However, Satan was not at rest, and after this was agreed to by all members of the Presbytery at a meeting held at Dornoch on 3rd September, 1935, whatever transpired between the said meeting and another held on 24th September, 1935, at Bonar-Bridge, Mr. Macqueen dissented from the findings of these meetings, and left the Presbytery at their meeting on 24th September before the business was finished.
Mr. Macqueen ‘phoned the Moderator of Synod after the Bonar-Bridge meeting of Presbytery suggesting that a meeting of Synod should be convened at once, giving as his reason that they (the members) were trying to put him out of the Church. The Moderator said it was impossible for any party to put him out of the Church without cause and reasons. The following morning the Moderator wrote him, pointing out that he would not call a pro re nata meeting on his own initiative, unless he was convinced that such a meeting of Synod was necessary in the interest and peace of the Church, but, if a requisition signed by not less than three ministers of the Church was sent him, he would consider the matter. The Moderator had no further notice from Mr. Macqueen about calling a meeting of Synod.
The Church Interests Committee have requested that the above Statement, which appeared in the Inverness Courier and Northern Chronicle, be printed in the Magazine.—Editor.
We would draw special attention to the above suggestion on the part of Mr. Macqueen for a meeting of Synod, in view of his contention, later, that such a meeting actually held was unconstitutional on the ground of his having appealed to the ordinary meeting in May. It is scarcely necessary to point out that there is here evidence of inconsistency, to say the least of it.
On the 16th October, 1935, the Moderator received a requisition signed by three ministers and one elder of the Northern Presbytery craving a meeting of Synod on the 20th November, 1935, at Inverness. The Moderator consulted none of his brethren in this matter of calling a pro re nata meeting of Synod, but concluded that it was his duty, for the sake of the cause of Christ, and for the peace of the Church, to convene a meeting of Synod. In “The Practice of the Free Church of Scotland,” by Sir Henry Wellwood Moncrieff, 4th Edition, page 75, anent pro re nata meetings of Synod, is the following statement:—
“A pro re nata meeting of a Provincial Synod may be called by the Moderator, either sua sponte or on a requisition addressed to him by some of the members, three of whom at least should be ministers. In former times such a meeting was seldom called, except when the Synod, at the previous ordinary meeting, had foreseen the probable expediency of calling it, and had specially authorised the Moderator to do so. But the Act 1647 asserts the right of the Synod to assemble pro re nata as well as at ordinary times. The grounds that will justify the Moderator in calling a pro re nata meeting when he has no special instructions to that effect, are the unexpected intervention of matters which seem to demand the Synod’s attention, as affecting those interests which it is called to watch. The meeting may be convened by advertisement in the newspapers. The particular business to be transacted must be specified, and no other business can be taken up. The conduct of the Moderator in calling the meeting must be considered and approved or disapproved of at the outset before the Synod proceeds to deal with the subject for which it has been summoned. If the Moderator declines to call a
pro re nata meeting, after receiving a requisition to do so, the whole circumstances of the case may be brought before the Synod at the next ordinary meeting.”
We may here point out that the above Church Law and Practice governs our calling a pro re nata meeting of Synod, and not the opinions of men untrained in Church law. It is the recognised law and practice of the Church of Scotland from 1647. A circular letter announcing the meeting of Synod for the 20th November, 1935, was sent to all ministers of the Church, and, through them, to all their representative elders. Mr. Macqueen raised no objections to the pro re nata meeting of Synod until we met on the 20th day of November.
Why, if opposed to the pro re nata meeting of Synod, did he not object through either the Clerk or Moderator of Synod, or were his objections a mere gesture to gain time for certain specific reasons of his own which were utterly unknown to the rest of us? He was obviously anxious to meet with the Synod to state his grievances and to prove his charges against the members of his Presbytery. He was also anxious that the Synod should meet in public, for otherwise the “men of the North,” quoting his own words, “were threatening to come and burst open the doors of the church if the Synod were to sit in private.” It is passing strange to us that Mr. Macqueen, who is such an advocate of Scriptural and constitutional procedure, should have communicated this threat of hot-headed zeal to the Moderator, as if the Synod was to be intimidated by such foolish and rash conduct.
In the face of all that, how could he call the Synod meeting “unscriptural and unconstitutional” after it was convened and sitting in public, as he desired it to be? At the very beginning of our sitting, which was legally constituted according to the ecclesiastical law of our Church and the general procedure of our Courts, Mr. Macqueen said he had appealed to the ordinary meeting of Synod in May, 1936. Was he afraid to face the facts in an open Court? or did he realise by this time that
all the charges he had made against his brethren could not be substantiated in an open Court? The other members of the Northern Presbytery printed and published all the relevant documents anent the Presbytery’s proceedings. Mr. Macqueen had had these documents before him long enough before we met to enable him to gather all his facts, state his case, and prove his charges before us on 20th November. He was given sufficient time and ample opportunity, but he absolutely refused to produce one single statement against the members of his Presbytery.
When asked to substantiate or withdraw his charges he took refuge in reserving his evidence for the May meeting of Synod. What new light could six months show on these charges, which were already months old on the 20th November? He said he was condemned without a hearing. If Mr. Macqueen was condemned without a hearing it was he who condemned himself, for he cannot blame the Synod, in reason or in equity, for not getting sufficient time and opportunity to justify or withdraw his charges against his brethren. Members of the Northern Presbytery were charged by Mr. Macqueen with besmirching his character and for treating him not in accordance with the Word of God nor the practice of the Church. Were we to allow these members leave the Synod with a stigma attached to them that they were besmirching the good name of the Rev. Ewen Macqueen, and acting contrary to the Word of God and practice of their Church without a shred of evidence brought forward to prove the allegations made against them?
Mr. Macqueen would evidently bless and praise us if we had branded his brethren with all the charges he had made against them, although he could not offer one word of evidence to substantiate them. In our hearing Mr. Macqueen challenged the correctness of the minutes of his Presbytery, but that was not the time to object to any irregularities he might consider in the minutes. If there were irregularities he should have seen to it that his objections were duly inserted in the minutes of
his Presbytery. But the whims and moods of individual members must not be the regulating principles of the Courts of the Church of Christ, for if so “surely then is arrogance and presumption run mad.”
Mr. Macqueen said before the Synod that he was charged with being unfaithful, but he would not tell the name of the person, or persons, who charged him with unfaithfulness. The members of his Presbytery were prepared to give evidence on oath (if that were necessary) that the allegations and charges made against them were unfounded and utterly false—in fact, they stated before us that they loved, respected and honoured Mr. Macqueen as an aged servant of the Church and as a father in Christ. When Mr. Macqueen was asked by the Synod if he accepted the confession of these men towards him, he said:— “From the bottom of my heart I cannot believe one word of it, for their treatment of me is contrary to their professed regard for me.”
What harsh, unbrotherly, unscriptural, unspiritual treatment had they meted out to him? He would not tell us. Mr. Macqueen loathes and condemns dancing, and we accept the truth of that public declaration. But why did he not publicly condemn the dancing which took place in Mr. John Murray’s house? We cannot conceive that he condones dancing which savours of the flesh under any circumstances, whether indulged in by old or young. We did not ask for publicity, neither did we seek the public opinions of men, who have neither real nor scriptural interest in the things of God. If religion has been brought into contempt and ridiculed by London’s ungodly crowd, neither the Kirk Session of Dornoch, nor the Presbytery, nor the Synod, can be held responsible for that, but only those who gloat over public opinion and publicity. We are neither afraid nor ashamed of the opinions of righteous and upright men and women.
It is to be feared that Mr. Macqueen has put himself into a cul-de-sac. He protested against a procedure of a Kirk
Session of the Church. What constitutional law can he quote to prove that he had any right to protest against the decision of a Kirk Session which was duly constituted according to Church Law? Where can he find, in the annals of Presbyterianism, a pastor of another congregation protesting against another Kirk Session, which is not under his own immediate jurisdiction? He protested against the finding of his own Presbytery, although on a former occasion he had approved of a statement, along with other members of his Presbytery above referred to, concurring with their application of 1 Timothy iii. 4-5. He also protested against the finding of the Synod. in his own name and in the name of all that would follow him. Was his mind made up beforehand on this point? If so, his appeal to the May Synod was forestalled by his own premeditated action. If that was not his intention his action reveals ignorance of Church Law and procedure which he subscribed to uphold, defend, assert and maintain to the end of his days as a minister of the Gospel.
In his statement, which appeared in the “Northern Chronicle” on 27th November, he quotes Sir Henry Wellwood Moncrieff, and says—”I was surprised to hear that a pro re nata meeting of this Synod had been convened for the purpose of enquiring into my attitude towards the Northern Presbytery re the Dornoch case.” May we point out to Mr. Macqueen that he was only one member of the Presbytery, and that it was perfectly competent for the other members of the Presbytery to call a pro re nata meeting of Synod at any time if, and when, they were convinced that conditions within their Presbytery demanded the attention of the Supreme Court of the Church. His quotation of Moncrieff, page 118, is not applicable to the present case at all, and for reasons best known to himself, Mr. Macqueen carefully omits to quote section 7 on the same page; therefore his protest against the irregularity of calling a pro re nata meeting of Synod, in our opinion, falls to the ground.
The bait of playing to the gallery may take with some unstable minds, and particularly with those who are prejudiced against the Church, but loyal Free Presbyterians can rest assured that the Synod did all in their power to settle this painful dispute in a brotherly and Christian spirit. If we have failed, it is because we were up against a most determined Satanic attack that we cannot really account for, and are puzzled to understand the meaning of it all, but we must wait patiently on the Most High until, in His Holy condescension, He reveals it to us as a Church.
Mr. Macqueen and others must bear in mind that no one in our Church has any special commission to make serious charges against Church Courts and individual members without having to substantiate or withdraw the same.
The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland is intact in her constitution, government, doctrine, practice and discipline, and we can assure our people that we shall maintain and defend all our rights and privileges impartially and faithfully in our dealings with all the members of our Church under the jurisdiction of our Courts.
(Sgd.) NEIL MACINTYRE, Minister.
( ” ) D. M. MACDONALD, Minister.
( ” ) MALCOLM GILLIES, Minister.
( ” ) JAMES MACLEOD, Minister
(Convener).