By Rev. N. MACINTYRE, Edinburgh.
“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 are living in ominous and alarming days—“For behold, the Lord cometh out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity” (Isa. xxvi. 21). As a nation and as individuals we have been wringing judgments out of God’s hand and now He has risen to shake terribly the earth. We read that “when thy judgments are in the earth the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness” but alas! there are no signs that this has been the effect upon us. We are provoking the Lord more and more with our Sabbath desecration and many other sins and have cast Him out of our counsels and calculations. May the Lord in His great mercy grant us repentance and cause peace, established in righteousness, to prevail once again.
Paul wrote this epistle when he was a prisoner in Rome the second time. He had finished his course in the world and was about to depart to receive a crown of righteousness which the Lord the righteous Judge would give him. In this epistle which was the last inspired that he wrote he exhorts Timothy how he should behave himself in the house of God, and among other exhortations he says: “Hold fast the form of sound words.”
Now, it is as incumbent upon us to hold fast these words as it was on Timothy for what was written was written for our admonition. The eternal salvation of guilty perishing men depends on the Word of God being preached and read—”Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.” We should, therefore, hold fast this Word whatever others would do.
As all our ministers are expected to bring, at least once a year, before our people the principal reasons why we hold a separate position from other Presbyterian Churches. I take this passage of Scriptures as a basis to bringing a few facts before you why we should hold fast the profession we made in 1893.
Let us first take a retrospective view of how the Lord in His sovereign mercy visited this land and delivered us by His Word from the gross darkness in which we were for centuries. Our condition before the first Reformation under the darkness and superstition of Druidism and Roman Catholicism was sad in the extreme. The Lord, however, visited us with His glorious gospel and set us free from that deplorable state. There were no doubt godly men in the land before the Reformation actually took place, such as Patrick Hamilton, who was cruelly put to death in 1528, and others, but these men were not taken as instruments in God’s hand to stir up the people for His time had not yet come.
It was when John Knox “who did not fear the face of man,” returned home from his banishment on the Continent and began to preach the doctrines of God’s Word and declared the Church of Rome to be Anti-Christ that the people were stirred. As might be expected Knox had to contend with the hatred and power of the Royal House of the Stewarts and the Papacy.
The readiness with which all classes high and low flocked in support of the Reformation could only be ascribed to the power of the Holy Spirit. When the Church and State made every effort to stem the current that was turning the people from the Church of Rome, and to deprive them of privileges and liberties to which they had attained, they rose in a body and bound themselves by an oath that sooner than lose these they would suffer death. That oath became known as “the National Covenant.” In spite of all opposition the Reformation prospered and in 1592 the Presbyterian Church was established by an Act of the Scottish Parliament as “The National Church of Scotland.” That was the first Reformation.
During the next forty-six years many efforts were made by Charles I. and Archbishop Laud to enforce a semi-popish liturgy upon the people but they were determined to hold by the Presbyterian form of worship and absolutely refused to be brow-beaten by the King and his emissaries. The Reformers now claimed the right to hold a General Assembly irrespective of the good or ill will of the King. At length, much against his will, the King consented and the Assembly met on 21st November, 1638, in Glasgow Cathedral. Alexander Henderson was appointed Moderator. Resolutions were passed declaring that the Presbyterians would on no account tolerate Prelacy. The Marquis of Hamilton who was Lord High Commissioner, on seeing the trend and determination of the Assembly rose and said: “I make a declaration that nothing done here in this Assembly shall be of any force to bind any of His Majesty’s subjects and I in His Majesty’s name discharge this Assembly to sit any longer.” With these words he left. The Assembly, however, continued its business. Henderson closed that famous Assembly with these memorable words: “We have cast down the walls of Jericho, Let him that rebuildeth them beware of the curse of Hiel the Bethelite.” That was the Second Reformation. The King, as might be expected, was furious and described their work as treason and of the devil. In 1641 he was, however, compelled to call a meeting of Parliament in Edinburgh which recalled all the Acts passed against the Presbyterian Church since 1592 when it was established as “The National Church of Scotland.”
The people of England who were also suffering under the tyranny of the King and the Bishops sent an appeal to the Scottish Presbyterians craving their help to defend their liberties. That appeal was answered by the “Solemn League and Covenant,” which was the basis of a mutual agreement of the Church of Scotland, England and Ireland. It was this document which principally led to the calling of the Westminster Assembly in 1643 and which drew up the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. I have briefly referred to these great events especially because of their connection with the Confession of Faith to which we firmly adhere.
Charles II. ascended the throne in 1660. He was one of the most despicable and jesuitical characters that ever reigned. At his coronation he solemnly vowed he would uphold the Protestant religion yet in 1661 he ordered the Covenant to be publicly burned in London and next year at Linlithgow. In that same year, 1662, he called a meeting of Parliament in Edinburgh known in history as “The Middleton Drunken Parliament.” It was this Parliament that passed the infamous “Rescissory Act.” This Act rescinded all the Acts passed in favour of Presbyterianism. It also passed an Act known as the Abjuration Act which meant that all ministers were to recant the Presbyterian religion and all who would not comply were to be evicted from their parishes and leave before the first day of November. The last Sabbath of October was, therefore, a sad day in Scotland.
The history of the Church in Scotland for the next 26 years makes sad reading. The godly Covenanters were hunted on the mountains like wild beasts. They were hanged, burned and drowned—”being destitute, afflicted, tormented.” Amidst all their sufferings they “held fast the form of sound words,” and handed this precious heritage down to us their children—”other men laboured and ye have entered into their labours.” We ought also to hold it fast and transmit it pure and entire as we received it to coming generations.
The year 1688 was destined to be memorable in the annals of the civil and religious liberties in Scotland. The people rose in a body to deliver themselves from their cruel persecutors, and drove the House of the Stewarts from the throne and called William and Mary to reign. In 1690 Parliament met and re-established the Church on the basis of the Act of 1592 which as already noticed was the Magna Charta of the Presbyterian Church. In doing so, however, they overlooked the Rescissory Act of 1662 and left it unrepealed and it was until lately on the Statute Book. The retaining of that Act was one reason why the Reformed Presbyterians refused to acknowledge the Civil Government.
Time will not allow me to speak of the contending of the Church against Patronage and for the Crown Rights of Christ during the Ten Years Conflict which culminated in the Disruption of 1843. Let us, however, notice some of the declensions which crept into the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland in doctrine, worship and discipline.
(1) Take the Church of Scotland. There are ministers in that body who publicly denounce the Reformations as a great mistake. She has her Societies plotting to bring about what is called the Larger Union which has the Church of England as a half-way house to another home. You find images of the Virgin and Child and Crosses and Candles in many of the churches, prayers for the dead, and observance of Popish days such as Christmas and Easter are common within her pale. These declensions clearly show how she is drifting back to the darkness from which we were delivered at the Reformations. Many of her office-bearers showed their dissatisfaction with the doctrines and principles of the Confession of Faith which they solemnly subscribed at their ordination to believe, maintain, and defend. In a subtle way she got Lord Balfour of Burleigh to slip in a clause at the end of the Bill on the Free Church property case in 1905. That clause did not strengthen the relation of the subscriber to the Confession. This was a discreditable piece of work on the part of Lord Balfour and the Church of Scotland; what had the Confession to do with Free Church property. Whenever she got this relief she adopted a Formula which reads: “I hereby subscribe the Confession of Faith declaring that I accept it as the Confession of Faith of this Church and that I believe the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith contained therein.” You will notice that there is not a word about “asserting maintaining and defending” the whole doctrine of the Confession, only binding the subscriber to the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith—a vague phrase when compared with the one it replaced.
In 1921 an Act was passed by Parliament declaring the Church’s relation to the Confession and her power to define how she understood it. This was done in view of her Union with the United Free Church in 1929. Are these men, we might ask, the successors of the Reformers?
(2) Let us notice now the Free Church of 1843. The Lord greatly acknowledged the noble stand the Free Church made in defence of Christ’s headship over the Church and over the nations. She declared in her Protest of 1843 and in her Act of Separation and Deed of Demission that she “firmly asserted the right and duty of the civil magistrate to maintain and support an establishment of religion in accordance with God’s Word.” The Free Church held, as does also the Free Presbyterian Church, that it is the duty of the civil magistrate to acknowledge and support the cause of Christ. The Church abandoned nothing at the Disruption but the endowments and she abandoned these not because she had changed her views of the relation which ought to subsist between Church and State but because of the Erastian interference of the State in the spiritual affairs of the Church. As Dr. Chalmers said: “We quit a vitiated Establishment but would rejoice to return to a pure one and we are not voluntaries.” Not many years, however, passed when it was manifest that she was drifting from her original position both in principle and doctrine. A movement was set on foot by Dr. Rainy and his followers for Union with the United Presbyterian Church. Then the infallibility of God’s Word and the Divinity of Christ were assailed by such men as Professors Robertson Smith, Dods, Bruce and Denney. These heretics were shielded by the majority of the Assembly and allowed to disseminate their pernicious doctrines throughout the land. The result was that a hue and cry got up regarding the principles and doctrines of the Confession. A Committee was appointed on the Confession in 1889. They presented their report to the Assembly in 1891. The Assembly on the motion of Principal Rainy approved of the work of the Committee and ordered that it be sent down to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act. A large majority of Presbyteries approved of it and the Assembly of 1892 passed it into an Act, well known as the Declaratory Act. That Act, which was our chief reason for separating from the “so called Free Church” is in its doctrine as contrary to the doctrines of the Confession as light is to darkness.
In framing this new creed the aim of the Voluntary party was to put an effective stop to processes against the Higher Critics and to bring its Constitution into line with that of the United Presbyterian Church with a view to union with that body. That Union took place in 1900 and the new Church formed was called the United Free Church of Scotland. In 1929 this U.F. Church united with the Established Church. That union was one of the most amazing that ever took place in Scotland. It could only be understood by an outsider that the Voluntary U.F. Church, whose Funds had been considerably reduced since the union, was anxious to have her share of the Endowments.
There were and probably there may be still negotiations going on for Union between the Church of Scotland and the Church of England, and while little is heard of these at present no doubt there may be something going on behind the scenes. The next step will be to the Church of Rome unless the Lord in His mercy will prevent it. In view of this downgrade career on the part of these Churches have we not greater reason than ever to “hold fast the form of sound words.”
(3) We now notice the present Free Church. This Church consists of those who refused to enter the Union of 1900. They remained under the Declaratory Act of 1892 for seven years and had it not been for the Union of 1900 probably they would be under it still. The reasons why the Free Presbyterian Church and the Free Church took up separate positions are as far apart as the poles. In our “Deed of Separation” we charge the Free Church, of which the minority formed a part, with abandoning the whole doctrine of the Confession. That was the ground on which we took our stand and on which we take our stand still. To abandon that position now would make ourselves schismatics.
Much has been made of by the Free Church of the House of Lords’ decision in their favour. The Lords, however, did not deal with the question at issue between the Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church. The Free Church was not at law with the Free Presbyterian Church but with the United Free Church and no man in his senses would hold that the United Free Church was the Free Church of 1843.
There are many reasons which might be given, but which I am not to take up at present, why we hold a separate position from the Free Church. They have sales of works, soirees, prayers at the grave and some congregations use paraphrases, especially at communion times.
What we have briefly pointed out shows that the Reformed Church of Scotland is laid in heaps like Jerusalem. Her hedges are broken down so that the beasts of the forest devour her at their pleasure. Rationalism, Ritualism, Aminianism and Voluntaryism have destroyed her fair name; also the authority of the Word of God in the conscience of the people is removed so that many of them have become practical infidels. The time may not be far off when the struggles for civil and religious liberties will have to be fought over again in this land.
Some one may say what about your own Church; have you not plenty of troubles yourselves without taking up the failings of other Churches. Yes, and many a sleepless hour these gave some of us. At the same time these troubles did not arise from any doubts or differences our ministers and office-bearers had regarding the authority and infallibility of God’s Word. There arose a difference of opinion concerning church discipline. Discipline is certainly a most essential part of the constitution of any church for when discipline is lacking in the house of God then disorder must necessarily follow. While there may be a difference of opinion regarding the mode of discipline it does not necessarily follow that there is any departing from the fundamental doctrines of Scripture or that there has been a breach of the Constitution, as some who wish us ill affirm.
In conclusion, if we had reasons in 1893 to separate from the Free Church which passed the Declaratory Act into a binding law and constitution we have even greater reasons today to “hold fast the form or sound words,” and may the Lord grant us grace to do so.