“Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me,
in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” (II. Tim. i. 13).
WE have now, my friends, entered on another year and I wish you all the blessings for time and eternity. The year on which we have entered may be our last for it is certain that thousands who have seen its beginning shall not see its end. It would, therefore, be wise on our part to seriously examine ourselves as to how we stand in view of death and judgment. There is no doubt much gaiety and frivolity taking place at this season of the year by many for whom it would be better to weep than to dance: for to every Christless sinner a New Year means another year nearer a lost eternity.
This pastoral epistle was written by Paul to Timothy shortly before his death. He was ready to be offered and the time of his departure was at hand (iv. 6). We notice, however, how anxious he was that the gospel which he preached should continue to be declared to perishing sinners after his death. He could appeal to the Galatians that “though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. i. 8). We also see how concerned he was that the cause of Christ should prosper after his decease. He was not like some who excuse themselves that they are too old to stand in defence of God’s cause and truth when trampled under foot. Paul stood to his very last day on earth promoting the interests of Christ’s cause and truth in the world.
The exhortation, to “hold fast the form of sound words” is as binding on us as it was on Timothy, that we should hand down to coming generations these doctrines for which our forefathers laid down their lives. Let us notice, I. What was he to hold? “The form of sound words.” II. How was he to hold this “form?” He was to hold it “fast.”
I. What was he to hold? “The form of sound words.”
1. Paul charges Timothy before God and the Lord Jesus Christ
Paul charges Timothy before God and the Lord Jesus Christ “who shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom to preach the word” (iv. 1). That is, he was to declare the whole counsel of God as that is revealed in His inspired Word, whether men would receive it or not. Paul saw “the time coming when men would not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts would heap to themselves teachers having itching ears and would turn away their ears from the truth and be turned unto fables.” If ever these words were fulfilled they are in our day to the very letter. The doctrines which our forefathers preached and which were so abundantly blessed by the Spirit in the conviction and conversion of sinners are almost entirely discarded by preachers in these days of blasphemy and rebuke. The doctrine of the fall of man and his helpless, miserable state by nature, the atonement of Christ, His divine Person in His two natures, the necessity of regeneration, justification by free grace, repentance, and such vital doctrines which, we might say, make up the whole Bible are utterly denied by the vast majority of preachers to-day. They are considered as old-fashioned and out of keeping with this so-called enlightened age. But Paul’s command to Timothy was “preach the word.” “So that the race which was to come might well them learn and know,” etc. (Ps. lxxviii. 6).
2. What did Paul mean by this exhortation to “hold fast the form of sound words?”
What did Paul mean by this exhortation to “hold fast the form of sound words?” Did he mean that Timothy was to have a mere outward form without reality or life—a form of godliness like the Pharisees but denying its power? Paul had more than enough of that kind of religion through which he almost lost his soul. The word “form” here means a “pattern.” Paul refers to the “pattern” when he says, “which thou hast heard of me.” The Apostle was a systematic theologian for we see how orderly and correctly the vital doctrines of God’s Word are delineated in all his epistles. These doctrines are never mixed but each placed in its proper relationship. This “form of sound words” might be said to be made up of what the divines termed the “three R’s: Ruin by the fall, Redemption by Christ, and Regeneration by the Holy Spirit.” This was to be the system of doctrine or confession of faith which he was to hold fast. Now, there is a great hue and cry in these days against any system of doctrine, or confession being imposed upon men in taking office in the Church. They maintain that no one ought to be bound by any “form” but to hold and preach whatever opinions one likes regarding the Word of God. Indeed, that is what most office-bearers did even when they bound themselves by solemn promise before God and men that they would not only “assert” but also “maintain and defend the whole doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith,” yet no sooner did these men get into office than they publicly denied what they declared on oath to believe and so became guilty of the most serious perjury one could commit.
3. Timothy was not only charged to preach the Word
Timothy was not only charged to preach the Word but also to oppose and denounce publicly all heretical doctrines and warn his hearers against these as a plague ruinous to the salvation of their immortal souls. Now, there are some, even among Free Presbyterians, who find fault with ministers and others for testifying against heresies that are so prevalent in our day. They describe such preaching as “the religion of miscalling.” They hold that ministers should preach the gospel and take nothing to do with what others preach. Timothy was charged to “reprove, rebuke and exhort.” If our Reformers had acted on the principles of these critics the Reformation (first and second) would never have taken place. We, as office-bearers, came under solemn vows at our ordination that we would not only “assert” but also “maintain and defend the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith.” We are, therefore, bound by our solemn ordination vows to defend these doctrines when assailed by enemies. If we fail in this duty we are guilty of breaking our vows. Let us, therefore, “hold fast the form of sound words” in face of all opposition from whatever quarter it may come.
II. How this “form of sound words” was to be held: “Fast”
Let us now notice how this “form of sound words” was to be held. It was to be “held fast.” He was to hold it with all his strength, taking a death’s grip of it, and not lose one jot or tittle of it even should he have to lay down his life in doing so. This was what Paul himself did. He “kept the faith,” “the faith once delivered to the saints,” the whole Word of God. In keeping the faith he had to fight for it but it was “a good fight” in which he laid down his life but for which he received a crown.
1. How was this form of sound words to be held fast?
How was this form of sound words to be held fast? By contending earnestly for it and by faithfully declaring the whole doctrines of God’s infallible Word. Paul could appeal to the conscience of the elders of Ephesus that “he had not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God” (Acts xx. 27). Now, it is an undeniable fact that the vital and essential truths of God’s Word, to which we have already referred, have ceased to be declared from the great majority of the pulpits in Scotland and the people have turned their ears from the truth to fables. Not only have ministers ceased to preach the doctrines of God’s Word but they have assailed ruthlessly the very fountain and foundation by denying the inspiration and inerrancy of God’s Word. They hold that many parts of that word are not inspired and that it is full of errors and immoralities and so have made infidels by their teaching of many in this land.
Let us now turn to the history of the Churches in Scotland and, especially the Free Church, with which we are more immediately concerned. The Free Church of 1843 made a noble stand in defence of the crown rights of the Lord Jesus as King and Head of His own Church. They had to contend, especially during the Ten Years’ Conflict, against the intrusion of the civil courts to rule in the house of God and ignoring the authority of the courts of the Church. The Disruption Fathers were compelled on account of this illegal interference to separate, not from the Church of Scotland as to her Creed and Constitution, but from the Erastian party who were ruling in her Courts. They came out and continued the Church of Scotland free. This was clearly stated at the time in the famous declaration of Dr. Chalmers: “We have left,” he said, “a vitiated Establishment, but we would gladly return to a pure one and we are not Voluntaries.” The separation by the Free Presbyterian Church in 1893 was identical. The Revs. D. Macfarlane and D. Macdonald did not separate from the Free Church but from the Declaratory Act Church. They maintained, and rightly so, that they were the continued Free Church of 1843, holding by her entire Constitution. Now the Free Church which made such a noble stand and which the Lord so abundantly acknowledged, did not proceed far on her journey when “boars from the forest” appeared to devour her and break down her hedges. The first to appear openly was Professor Robertson Smith, of Aberdeen. He publicly denied the authenticity and inspiration of several parts of the Bible. His case caused much wrangling in the Courts of the Church. He was finally suspended by the Assembly from his professorial chair, by a majority vote, because his views were inconsistent with the standards of the Church. That his suspension was by a majority vote showed clearly that he had many supporters and sympathisers hiding in secret. These enemies encouraged, no doubt, by the lenient treatment given to Robertson Smith soon made themselves known. Rev. Marcus Dods published a sermon in 1877 in which he denied the infallibility of the Scriptures. He finally withdrew the sermon in deference to the opinion of the Glasgow Presbytery. He also preached a sermon in St Giles in which he stated that it was not essential to believe in Christ’s divinity and His atonement to be a true Christian. We see how the plague of errors was spreading. Several heretical professors were now occupying chairs in the Free Church Colleges. I remember at the first meeting held by the Kames congregation, and they were the first to cast in their lot with the Rev. D. Macfarlane after he tabled his protest, that eminent man, the late Archibald Crawford, Tighnabruaich, was asked to express his mind. He said: “I saw this bastard child being formed in the womb of the Free Church when Dr. Dods was appointed professor, and in my mind I was separate from the Free Church then, but as the Constitution was still intact, I did not openly sever my connection. But, now, that child is born in the Declaratory Act, and her Constitution broken to atoms and I am done with the Free Church for ever.”
Now, these heretical professors instilled their poisonous heresies into the minds of their students, and these young men, having finished their divinity course, went out as a plague of locusts over the land preaching the errors they had imbibed in the Colleges to the people. Probably they felt, though they were preaching doctrines which were contrary to the Word of God and the Confession of Faith, that they had no legal authority behind them. They, therefore, sent up Overtures to the General Assembly in 1889 regarding the Confession of Faith. The Assembly appointed a Committee to inquire into the difficulties and scruples supposed to be felt by those men. What these difficulties and scruples were no one knew, for they were not defined. This Committee brought its final report to the Assembly of 1891 in the form of a Declaratory Act. The Assembly sent it down to Presbyteries as an Overture under the Barrier Act. It came back from Presbyteries to the Assembly in 1892. A large majority of Presbyteries had voted in its favour and the Assembly passed it as an Act and, being passed under the Barrier Act, it became a “binding law and constitution” of the Church.
There was a party in the Church, known as Constitutionalists, who fought against the errors and declensions that were coming in. During the time the Declaratory Act was passing through the Courts of the Church, the leaders of that party went through the country from one end to the other, declaring that if this Act was passed it would mean “Bible or no Bible, Confession of Faith or no Confession of Faith” and rather than submit to it they would go to the back of dykes with their families. But, alas! like “the sons of Ephraim who, nor bows nor other arms did lack, when as the day of battle was they faintly turned back” (Ps. lxxviii. 9). They lacked neither bows nor arms; they had natural gifts, at least, some of them had. They had the bows and the arms of the testimony of God’s Word and conscience and a great number of people, especially in the Highlands and Islands, behind them had they stood faithful. But in the day of battle, instead of refusing to submit to and protesting against the arrogant procedure of Dr. Rainy and his followers, they simply contented themselves by tabling a dissent. The only member who protested in the Assembly of 1893 was the Rev. Donald Macfarlane, the father of the Free Presbyterian Church. His protest to the Assembly of 1893 is the only one on record in that Court against the Declaratory Act.
I may notice here that much has been made by the present Free Church of their dissent as if a dissent was of equal force to a protest. The difference between the two is this: a dissent frees the party from being responsible for the Act passed but does not free him from the operation of the legislation passed. Whereas a protest, when entered against the decision of the Supreme Court, means that the protestor refuses to submit to it and places him without its borders. If he adheres to his protest the church must take proceedings against him and depose him. Now, in the case of Rev. D. Macfarlane he tabled his protest and left the Assembly. Dr. Rainy and his co-adjutors immediately set about to put the machinery of the law in motion for to depose him. By this time the Rev. Donald Macdonald, Shieldaig, had joined Mr. Macfarlane, and the two, along with Mr. Alex. Macfarlane, schoolmaster, Rasaay met at Portree in August and formed themselves into the “Free Church Presbytery of Scotland” (that was our first name) and by thus constituting themselves into a separate body, they slipped out of the hands of Dr. Rainy and were beyond his jurisdiction. Dr. Rainy, we have been told, acknowledged that this was the cleverest thing done in the ecclesiastical history of Scotland. The only punishment they could now inflict was to deprive these godly men of their Churches and Manses for their fidelity to their ordination vows and in defending the truth of God. But “they took joyfully the spoiling of their goods.” The Lord whom they so faithfully served soon provided them with churches and manses.
Let us now go back to the Constitutional Party who dissented but remained under the jurisdiction of the Declaratory Act Church and co-operated with them for seven years. In 1909 the Union between the Declaratory Act Church (we say Declaratory Act Church deliberately for she was no longer the original Free Church) and the U.P. Church took place and became known as the U.F. Church. Twenty-five ministers refused to enter that Union and separated, not from the Free Church for that Church, as far as they were concerned, was dead and buried when the Declaratory Act was passed according to their former declarations; but from the Declaratory Act Church. They refused to enter the Union, not because of the Declaratory Act, but because of the Union with the U.P. Church. Had not the Union taken place they would have been in that Church still as far as we can see. Now, much has been made by the present Free Church that they gained their case in the House of Lords and, therefore, that they are the Free Church of 1843. Let it be remembered that the case was tried between the U.F. and the present Free Church and not between them and the Free Presbyterian Church. Had we seen our way to contest our claim in the civil courts we have every reason to believe we would have been successful. But we left the carrion with the eagles and a great noise they made over it which in many instances was not to the credit of either party.
I am not to speak of the Church of Scotland, for that Church has completely left her moorings and is rapidly drifting towards the Episcopal Church and unless the Lord will prevent her she will finally land in the Church of Rome.
The present Free Church holds that there is no difference between them and the Free Presbyterian Church and that we should, therefore, be united. As was already pointed out, the reasons for our separate positions are entirely different. We separated on account of the Declaratory Act being passed into a binding law and constitution of the Church, they on account of Union with the U.P. Church. These reasons are as far apart as the poles. There are many other reasons which keep the two Churches apart. These reasons were pointed out on different occasions when we were approached for Union, such as sales of work, soirees, travelling by street cars and buses on the Lord’s Day, prayers at the grave, use of paraphrases in public worship. There is also a form of Latitudinarianism in the Free Church. They welcome ministers and others from almost every denomination in the land to their Assembly, and at ordinations and inductions one finds, at times, a mixed ecclesiastical multitude. The most, at least, of these denominations represented are by their creed and profession doing their utmost to break down the work of the Reformation and deny the inspiration of God’s Word. “What concord hath Christ with Belial?” These are some of the reasons which keep the two Churches apart and until they are removed separation must continue.
As a Church we have to lament the breaches made on our ranks by the removal of so many godly men and women to their eternal rest and so few raised up to take their place. But we have reason to be thankful that all our office-bearers (lay and cleric) and people are in complete harmony in holding fast the testimony raised by the Church in 1893.
In conclusion I would repeat what I heard the late Rev. D. Macfarlane say to the young people of Tomatin the last time he officiated at the communion there. “We raised a testimony,” he said, “on behalf of Christ’s cause and truth in 1893, and I am soon to be taken away to heaven, and I leave that testimony with you, young people, to maintain it.” We would pass on Mr. Macfarlane’s appeal to the young people of the Free Presbyterian Church and exhort them to “hold fast the form of sound words.”