IN the Free Church Monthly Record for July the editor, in passing strictures on a paragraph of ours which appeared in these pages some time ago, appears to be on the horns of a dilemma as to whether to be amused or shocked at being charged with blasphemy against the Holy Ghost for what he considers merely “a reproachful word” against the Free Presbyterian Church. In the paragraph in question we think it has been shown very clearly that the “reproachful word” was not uttered merely against the Free Presbyterian Church but against the Holy Spirit who moved godly men to raise a testimony on behalf of God’s truth in Scotland when the majority in the Free Church—Voluntaries and pseudo-Constitutionalists—accepted the notorious and ever-to-be-abominated Declaratory Act. It is true that the editor of the Monthly Record can argue that he did not mention the Holy Spirit, and that he never made any reference to His work, but nevertheless we consider that he has no reason to be either amused or shocked at the charge made, but has every reason to consider where he stands before that God to whom both he and us have to render an account.
In the twelfth chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew we find the Pharisees saying in reference to Christ curing the man possessed with a devil, “This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” It is true that they did not mention the Holy Spirit, nor made any reference to His work, yea they might as well vehemently deny this miracle to be the work of the Holy Ghost as the editor of the Monthly Record has done that the Free Presbyterian movement was from the same source when he says that from its inception it has proved a disruptive influence, yet Christ implies that they had committed the unpardonable sin when He says, “Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” The sin of the Pharisees was that they had directed their hatred against the peculiar operation of the Holy Spirit, as manifested in the miracle performed by Christ, and fathered that miracle on the prince of devils. Thus, logically, they would have to maintain that the miracle in question was calculated to deceive and to work for evil, a conclusion which is maintained in the charge that the Free Presbyterian Church has been a disruptive influence throughout its history.
For this sin against the Holy Spirit there is no forgiveness, ” . . . but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” Matt., xii., 32. It is a sin committed without fear and with delight, and therefore committed with that presumption by which the Lord is reproached. It is worthy of note that under the Old Testament dispensation there was no sacrifice for the sin of presumption. “But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.” Numbers, xv., 30. By this we ought to learn how highly dangerous it is to wilfully and maliciously refer to a movement originated, and in its subsequent history acknowledged, by the Holy Spirit, in a way which indicates it to be a rending of the Body of Christ.
That the Free Presbyterian Church was thus originated and acknowledged by the Spirit of God needs no proof here. Ample proof may be found in the facts that those who formed it, and their successors, have been enabled to maintain a testimony for God’s truth in Scotland, and far beyond its shores, in the face of bitter opposition, and that they were made instrumental in turning men and women from sin unto God, thus showing that they were called not only to office in the church by the Holy Spirit, but that they were called to occupy the honoured position of upholding the standard which the Spirit of the Lord raised against the flood of the enemy. That the founders of the Free Presbyterian Church were men of acknowledged worth and piety more than the friends of our Church had to acknowledge. Some of our readers may have seen a book, The Free Church of Scotland, published under the joint authorship of the late Dr. Alexander Stewart, Edinburgh, and Professor J. Kennedy Cameron. Neither of these gentlemen were lovers of the Free Presbyterian Church although one of them was a minister in it for a period, but their testimony on this occasion suits us very well. On page 78 of the book in question it is said of the Rev. Donald Macfarlane that he was “a man of unquestioned standing for depth of piety and earnestness of conviction,” while the following glowing description is given of the Rev. Donald MacDonald, Shieldaig. “He prayed, almost literally, without ceasing. Day and night, for long hours together, he lived in solitary fellowship with Christ. He cared to speak of little else than the things of the Kingdom of Heaven. And when he preached, the man was almost transfigured. His whole being was yielded up to His Master’s work. All the powers of his soul were stretched to their utmost capacity in making known the tidings of redeeming love. His face would be suffused with a winsome radiance; his thoughts would find expression in language of singular poetic beauty; his voice would vibrate with earnestness of appeal, and in moments of deep feeling would break into a strange little sob. It was no rare thing for congregations to break into ‘a rap of calm weeping’ under his preaching. His one theme, of course was Christ crucified, and when thoroughly imbued with the spirit of his message, not Samuel Rutherford himself could describe the rose of Sharon with more moving tenderness.”
These were men who had a tender love for Christ who were willing to suffer hardship in His service, who had implicit trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and who had the secret of the Lord above many. Did they go about the business of forming the Free Presbyterian Church rashly. We trow not. They well knew what bitter opposition and persecution was in store for them but faithfulness to Christ and their ordination vows weighed heavier with them. They and the godly men and women who cast in their lot with them could say with a clear conscience before the Most High that it was His Word coming with power to their souls which caused them to take the step which they took, and that ought to make any person bold in the path of duty. They took joyfully to the spoiling of their goods, knowing in themselves that they had in heaven a better and an enduring substance, and the promise was fulfilled to them, “But he shall receive an hundred-fold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.” Even their most bitter enemies can see the fulfilment of that promise to them to the present day, but there is one thing more which their enemies do not see, and would wish to ignore, and that is, that these men and women had a clean conscience, and liberty in approaching a throne of grace. Could this be so if they were schismatics, rending the Church of Christ? We think not. These very things prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the movement in which they were but weak and uninfluential instruments was originated and carried along by the Holy Spirit. All unbiased Christians outside our own denomination who know the contendings of the Free Presbyterian Church will acknowledge this, and men who had no sympathy with the Presbyterian form of Church government but who were eminent for their piety and their gifts have often publicly expressed their thankfulness to the Most High for having, by the forming and continuing of the Free Presbyterian Church, kept a witness for Himself in Scotland, in the midst of an otherwise universal yielding to German Rationalism. In the opposite camp to these men we find the editor of the Monthly Record. In the meantime it has suited his purpose to couple his chariot to that of Dr. Rainy, and to adopt his views of the Free Presbyterian movement when he said of the two godly ministers who were at the beginning of it that they had been “laid hold of and exploded, as it were, into space by forces with the origination of which they had very little to do, and for the effects of which they had no very special responsibility.”
We have been charged with manifesting an unchristian spirit because we dared to refer to the language of the editor of the Monthly Record, in characterising what is admitted by unbiased minds as the work of the Holy Spirit as evil in its origin and evil in its influence, as blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. No doubt it has hurt him to be placed in the same category as the Pharisees, but we believe that they would not be less vehement in fixing the same charge on the Saviour. However, we are sure that did Him no harm whatever loss was theirs. We have no desire to gain the approbation of any within the pale of the Free Church but we can say sincerely that we have no desire to hurt any in that Church. We regret the painful necessity which compels us to write as we do, but we do it in faithfulness to their souls, to the distinctive testimony of our Church, and to the good of the professing church at large. In this we hope we have nothing in view but the glory of God, and a true desire for the day when it will not be necessary for one in our position to point out the errors of any branch of the Christian Church. As for the charge of indulging in “securilous and provocative language” we leave it to men less biased than the editor of the Monthly Record to judge of this, but we give more credit to the integrity of our brethren in the ministry of the Free Presbyterian Church than to believe that he is correct in imagining that even one of them will forget his ordination vows so far as to interfere with what is but a feeble attempt at defending our position as a Church, when that position is attacked, but should there be any such we fail to see why he should remain with us any longer for the Free Church would receive such a one with open arms, and certainly it would be no loss for us that such should leave us. With reference to the hint that our internal condition “was never more transparent or more brittle than now,” and that unpalatable things could be said about us, we can only say that if the editor of the Monthly Record knows of such things it is his duty, in faithfulness to his ordination vows, to expose them and bring them to the notice of those who should put right what may be wrong. In the meantime we would give him timely warning to make sure of his facts, for, in the case of anyone acting otherwise, we consider ourselves justified in having such a one pilloried at the bar of public opinion as a wilful transgressor of the ninth commandment, and an obstinate enemy of all righteousness.