* This is a continuation of the Proceedings of the November Synod; the first part appeared in the January issue.
THIRD PUBLIC SEDERUNT.
THE Synod again met within the Hall of St. Jude’s Church, Glasgow, on Thursday, the 19th day of November, 1942, at 7 p.m., and was constituted. The Roll was called and business proceeded with.
Letter from Rev. D. N. MacLeod.
The Clerk read a letter from Rev. D. N. MacLeod, Ullapool, expressing appreciation of the May Synod’s message of sympathy to him in his illness.
National Bible Society of Scotland.
The Clerk stated that at last Synod the National Bible Society of Scotland asked to be allowed the privilege, that a Deputy from their Society would address the Synod on the work of the Society, at some future date according to the convenience of the Synod. The Synod sent a reply to that request asking whether the National Bible Society of Scotland kept strictly to their Constitution in the matter of translations, whether they are printing, publishing and selling any other translations of the Bible than the Authorised Version. The reply letter now received from the National Bible Society dated 2nd November was read by Rev. R. R. Sinclair and considered satisfactory.
Deputy from National Bible Society next May.
Rev. W. Grant moved that, “the Synod accepts the statement received from the National Bible Society of Scotland in reply to questions asked by the Synod of May, 1942, as satisfactory, and instructs the Clerk to arrange (D.V.) for a representative of the Society to address the Synod in May next.” Rev. W. Grant said “we are glad that the Synod is able to give hearty support to the excellent work being done by the Bible Society. I have heard Dr. Chisholm say that Free Presbyterians are numbered among the Society’s best supporters. That is as it should be, for the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland stands not for the mutilated Bible of Modernists, but for a whole Bible as the inspired Word of God. The Word is the Sword of the Spirit and although, in that sense, the Sword is to-day to a large extent as if in the scabbard, yet the time is promised and will come when it will be unsheathed and proved to be the Word of God, quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword in all lands. It is the weapon before which Satan trembles and it will be instrumental in the overthrow of Antichrist, the false Prophet and the Eastern deceiver. It will overthrow the system of error which enslaves multitudes of this world. It is destined to have free course and be glorified in the ingathering of souls to Christ out of all nationalities, Jew and Gentile, Black and White.” Dr. Tallach seconded above motion which was agreed to.
Legislation on Education.
Mr. Finlay Beaton moved the following resolution:—”That, as religion is basic to the formation of character and the fostering of the Christian virtues essential to a just and worthy social order, the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church met at Glasgow, conscious of the clamant need of the youth of the nation being grounded in Christian instruction, earnestly request Parliament to legislate for the instruction in religion in the schools. For the purity and preservation of such instruction the Bible is to be received and taught for what it proclaims itself to be, namely, the inspired Word of God, to the exclusion of modernist attacks upon its veracity. To this end it should be enacted that the teaching of religious truth (doctrine) in training colleges for teachers should likewise be strictly orthodox; that is, based on the fact of the Bible being the inspired Word of God—the supreme rule of faith and manner.” Copies of this Resolution were to be sent to the Prime Minister, and a number of other prominent members of Parliament.
Mr. F. Beaton said in moving his motion: We often hear it said nowadays that all sections of opinion are out to capture the children. Well, the Christian Church should be out to capture the children for the Lord Jesus Christ. The children are the hope of the future; they are the citizens of to-morrow and their character has to be moulded and to what should it be moulded but to the Christian ideal. The Reformation brought the open Bible, and the open Bible dispelled ignorance and the gloom of superstition and broke the shackles of tyranny; and in place of these evils the Reformation and the open Bible brought knowledge, true religion, liberty, peace and joy. The open Bible brought Britain greatness. We have, for instance, the historian (J. H. Green) say that at the Reformation England became the people of one book—”The Bible.” The land became the land of song. We often hear that religion brings gloom, but this is the verdict of that Historian that wherever the Bible comes it brings the song of deliverance. Now, in regard to the position of the children, a generation has grown up that knows comparatively little of the Bible. Most of us have seen in the Press a few days ago a statement by one of the great public men of England that Britain is largely a pagan country. This is largely a pagan generation and this fact is seen in the deplorable state of religion and morals to-day; and the effect of this is that the children are so largely neglected. This deplorable state of matters is likely to continue until the Bible gets its rightful place in the schools; its true place in the school curriculum as the inspired Word of God and is received and taught as such and not until that takes place can there be a real expectation of the improvement of the present deplorable state of matters. The fact that has to be borne in mind is this that the school teacher has got the children five days in the week. The minister of religion may get a few of the children for at most two hours in the week. See the handicap the ministers are under and the wonderful benefits when the Bible was received and taught in the schools generally throughout the land. Every legitimate effort should be made by those who have the good of the children at heart, who desire their true welfare, to do all in their power to bring pressure to bear upon Members of Parliament in regard to this matter.” The Resolution was now seconded and agreed to.
Report of Committee re Rules and Regulations for appointment of Trustees.
Rev. D. Beaton moved, “That the Committee recommend that the Rules and Regulations for appointment of Trustees, drawn up in 1941, be all set aside and the whole matter be further looked into, and that new Rules and Regulations be drawn up by a Committee to be appointed by the Synod, and their recommendations be submitted to the Synod in May, 1943.” This was seconded and agreed to.
Committee reappointed re Rules, etc., for Trustees.
It was moved, “That the same Committee be reappointed to draw up new Rules and Regulations re Trustees, and that Rev. D. Beaton act as Convener and Rev. D. J. Matheson, as Clerk.” This was seconded and agreed to.
Report of Committee re Declaratory Statement on Protest.
The Rev. D. Beaton in submitting the report of the Committee said;—I might just explain at the beginning that in 1939 there was a deliverance of the Synod anent the Synod’s procedure in reference to Rev. Ewen MacQueen’s Protest and his subsequent actions. In that deliverance there was a Declaratory Statement which read as follows:—”While the law of the Church leaves no room for the tabling of a protest against the decision of the Supreme Court, the Synod declares this Church does not hold the view that a protest made and tabled against such a decision necessarily means and effects separation from the Church. A minister, however, who tables a simple protest against a decision of the Supreme Court and persists in that protest will inevitably find himself in the position either of facing a charge of violation of his ordination promise to submit to the judicatories of the Church, or of renouncing the jurisdiction of the Court.”
That statement did not give true satisfaction to some of us at the time. The introduction into this statement of the expression simple protest was peculiarly unfortunate for it diverted the mind from the Protest tabled by Mr. MacQueen which after all was by no means “a simple protest” whatever that term may mean. The Synod it is necessary to point out, was not dissatisfied with the way the protest of Mr. MacQueen had been dealt with but there were some who were; they said they had difficulties in accepting the Synod’s view in regard to Mr. MacQueen’s protest. it was in the hope that these difficulties might, if possible, be met that the foregoing Declaratory Statement was drawn up by the Synod, in 1939. We utterly failed in our kindly intentions for the statement only created new difficulties. The Synod, therefore, of May, 1942, appointed this Committee, whose report I am about to submit to you, to look into the matter and report their finding to the Synod. I now submit to you our report, Mr. Moderator, which is as follows:—”The Committee re Declaratory Statement (1939) after serious and prayerful consideration decided that it be suggested to the Synod that in place of the 3rd paragraph of the Deliverance (1939) the following be substituted viz.; ‘and further we hold that according to Moncrieff, the law of the Church leaves no room for the tabling of a protest against the decision of the Supreme Court, yet it must not be held that a protest is meaningless although there is no room for it against the decision of the Supreme Court. It may be used as a legal instrument in its own time and place.’ That is our report, Mr. Moderator, and I beg to move its adoption. Rev. James Macleod seconded the adoption which was unanimously agreed to.
Rev. R. R. Sinclair now rose to speak. He said: “Seeing the question of protest has been brought up by this Report of a Synod Committee, I would like to draw attention to views on this matter presented to me recently prior to the Synod. A person connected with our Church (but not a member of this Court) desired a conversation with me which took place, and during which the matter of Protest was raised by this party. Further, the late Rev. D. MacFarlane’s Protest of 1893 was referred to and views were expressed in relation to it by the party concerned which I will endeavour briefly to recite. It was stated that our Church and our Church people had assumed all along since 1893 that Mr. Macfarlane, when he laid down his Protest in the Assembly of 1893, against the Declaratory Act Church, there and then separated himself from the then Free Church. That is of course, what we had held. But this person said to me, that that has really been an assumption on our part as a Church and as a people. We have been taking for granted that Mr. MacFarlane’s Protest, at the time it was tabled separated him from the then Free Church. It was said that the view of the Church may be right, it may be wrong. This person further said; “I am not saying that it was wrong but it may be wrong or right, and the Church should concern itself very seriously at the present time as to endeavouring to find out whether our Church’s view of Mr. MacFarlane’s Protest was really right or wrong.”
I replied, “Well, is this the time, after fifty years, to bring under the microscope the late Rev. Mr. Macfarlane’s Protest and what it affected, namely, his separation from the Declaratory Act Church?” I then stated what I considered to be the point of view held by our Church all along. I consider that if there are persons holding doubtful views regarding the very foundations of the Free Presbyterian Church, to which they belong, then that is a serious matter. It occurred to me to look up one of the late Rev. Neil Cameron’s New Year’s Day Lectures for some statement to confirm and substantiate our view against what was profounded by way of doubting. Let me read an extract from a lecture delivered by Mr. Cameron on New Year’s Day, 1920, in St. Jude’s Hall. The text is “Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.” Here is the quotation: “But the Lord had men in the Free Church who meant to follow up their words by deeds. So, when the Assembly of 1893, refused, by an overwhelming majority, to repeal that Act (the Declaratory Act) the Rev. Donald Macfarlane came forward, and read and tabled a protest against the drastic changes enacted, and declared that he, and such as would follow him, would adhere to the original Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland, and that he did now and then separate himself from the so-called Free Church, claiming all his own rights, and that of them who might follow him.”
The Rev. D. Beaton then made the following statement to the Synod: “In view of certain opinions expressed by some in connection with the Protest tabled by Rev. D. Macfarlane in 1893, a sample of which has just been presented to you by the Clerk I am of opinion that this subject deserves the most serious consideration by this Court and by our people generally. I never expected to live to see this matter raised or to learn that any doubt existed among us as to the meaning of that Protest. Some may ask, however, what connection has the Protest tendered by Mr. MacQueen in 1938 with the Protest of 1893 tabled by Mr. Macfarlane? The answer to this can be given in a few words. The Synod in 1938 were guided by the view always held among us that the Protest of 1893 effectually separated Mr. Macfarlane from the Declaratory Act Church. Some now say it did not and, therefore, the view of the Synod in 1938 which was based on the foregoing that Mr. MacQueen’s protest separated him from the Church represented by the Synod in 1938 is wrong. This is the reason why the significance of the Protest of 1893 has been raised. It is the purpose of what is now to be presented to you to show that it was the firmly held view among us that Mr. Macfarlane’s Protest did effectually separate him from the Declaratory Act Church. The evidence is cumulative and though parts of it may not be regarded by some as relevant yet, I hope, that its cumulative effect will be sufficient to establish the contention that for well-nigh fifty years the view held among us was that the Protest of 1893 separated Mr. Macfarlane from the Declaratory Act Church. By way of introduction attention may be called to a statement made by the Rev. Dr. Norman L. Walker in his Cunningham Lectures—Chapters From the History of the Free Church of Scotland—in which makes the following statement in reference to the Protest of 1839:—”When the 18th May, 1843, was approaching a question of some interest and importance presented itself for consideration viz.; that of how the contemplated separation from the State could be best carried into effect. It was believed that a majority of the members elected to the General Assembly were on the Evangelical side, and it seemed not unreasonable to propose that the act of disruption should be decided on by a vote of the representative House. But, for reasons which were held to be sufficient at the time, a less dramatic method was adopted. The past Moderator, Dr. Welsh, preached the usual sermon; but instead of proceeding afterwards to the steps connected with the constitution of a new Assembly, he read a Protest, setting forth the grounds on which the Church could no longer submit to the intrusion of the Civil Courts on its domain, and having laid this on the table, he moved towards the door. In doing this he was at once followed by most of the men who had been prominently interesting themselves in the revival of religious life in Scotland and the benches on one side of the House became practically empty.”
* In reading the above it occurred to me that readers who have back numbers of the Magazine might, with advantage, read the New Year’s Day Lectures delivered by the Rev. Neil Cameron to his own congregation and particularly the Synod’s tribute to Rev. D. Macfarlane. (F.P. Magazine, xxxii 259). The Committee who drew up the tribute were Revs. Neil Cameron, Ewen MacQueen and Murdo Morrison.
* This is the famous Protest of 1843, which every office-bearer in the Free Presbyterian Church at his ordination approves of its general principles.
It may be here objected, in the first place, that this Protest was not a protest against a decision of the Supreme Court of the Church but against the action of the Civil Courts. The point, however, of interest at the present is that the leaders of the Evangelical party had made up their minds to separate from the Church whose liberty was being interfered with by the law courts and in looking about for the best way of effecting their purpose they decided on tabling the Protest. When it was tabled the protesters walked out of the Assembly and thus separated themselves from the Church of Scotland as then constituted. Secondly, it may be further argued that the tabling of the Protest did not put them out of the Church of their fathers but the decisions of the law courts. Our point, however, is that in deciding to carry out their intuition they decided that the Protest was an effective instrument to accomplish this and so they tabled their Protest and walked out. It would appear that they, not only, regarded this as the best way but also the most effective procedure in the circumstances.
In the spring of 1893 the Rev. D. Macdonald assisted Rev. D. Macfarlane at Kilmaillie Communion. They had a talk over the matters which were then agitating the Church by the passing of the Declaratory Act. They both came to the decision that unless the Declaratory Act was repealed at the coming Assembly they would leave the Declaratory Act Church. In all likelihood they discussed the best way of accomplishing this. At any rate Mr. Macfarlane’s future action seems to clearly indicate the decision arrived at before the decisive step was taken. When the General Assembly met Mr. Macfarlane tabled his protest when he saw the Declaratory Act was not to be repealed and refused to withdraw it or amend it to give satisfaction to Dr. Rainy and his party though requested to do so and walked out of the Assembly. That Dr. Rainy considered this a very serious matter is evident from his words when he said in the Assembly: “If this document which had just been read was merely a dissent, even though strongly worded then they should have no hesitation in allowing it; but it was much more than that. It was an express repudiation of the authority and validity of the final act of the General Assembly in this matter as far as that Assembly was concerned” (Free Church Assembly Proceedings for 1893). If Mr. Macfarlane was still in the Declaratory Act Church after tabling a protest which was an express repudiation of the authority and validity of an act of the Supreme Court he was in a very strange position? The plain fact is that by this act of his Mr. Macfarlane separated from the Declaratory Act Church never to acknowledge it again. It may be argued that it was not his protest that separated him from the said Church but the Declaratory Act itself. The Act in itself would not have caused the separation. He might have dissented and like the Constitutionalists remain in that Church Declaratory Act notwithstanding if his conscience permitted. Some maintain that Mr. Macfarlane was not separated from the Declaratory Act Church until the end of July when the first Presbytery connected with our Church was constituted. If this contention be correct what about Mr. Macfarlane’s actions between his leaving the Assembly and the formation of the Presbytery. He went down to Millhouse (Kames) and addressed the congregation and they separated from the Declaratory Act Church. He did the same at Raasay. If he was still a member of the Declaratory Act Church then he was guilty of breaking his ordination vows in not only following divisive courses himself but abetting those who did so. Further he would be guilty of schism as also all who followed him. That is a charge against which we have protested against with no hesitating voice when preferred against us by those who were not our friends notwithstanding their professions of friendship.
In a letter Mr. Macfarlane wrote to the Northern Chronicle he says: “When I saw that the Assembly of 1893 refused to repeal the Act I tabled a protest and took up a separate position.” All this seems to indicate that Mr. Macfarlane both by his actions and words regarded himself as separated from the Declaratory Act Church by tabling his protest and walking out.
In 1933 the History of the Free Presbyterian Church was published. It was drawn up by a Committee consisting of Revs. N. Cameron, N. Macintyre, E. Macqueen and D. Beaton. In Chapter VI, written by Mr. Cameron and approved by the other members of the Committee there is a statement to the following effect: “As this action [tabling the protest] of the Rev. Donald Macfarlane meant that he was refusing to acknowledge the Church as now constituted under the Declaratory Act as the true representative of the original Free Church of Scotland, some of the changes thus made may be noticed” (p. 107). How could Mr. Macfarlane consistently remain in a Church of which he says in his Protest?—”Neither my conscience nor my ordination vows allow me to act under what has now been made law in this Church.”
In November, 1901, there appeared an article from my pen on the Barrier Act in the Free Presbyterian Magazine (vol. vi.) in which the following sentences occur: “It is necessary at this stage of our discussion, to point out that this is the only course open to minorities [viz. dissenting] in case of objectionable legislation, and that they have no power to protest against the finding of a Supreme Court unless they are willing to take the step which persistence in such a course involves viz. separation from the Church that has passed the law. A dissent may be accepted by a Supreme Court against its decisions but never a protest Free Presbyterian Magazine (vi. 263). The foregoing opinion was based on the significance we attached to Mr. Macfarlane’s Protest, and I refer to it here because a member of Synod in May, 1942, to my great surprise said that I did not now hold the view anent this Protest that I held in 1901. Of course, it may be argued that the statement above quoted is only the expression of an individual opinion and not necessarily the mind of the Church. Granted—but the point to be noted is that the writer of the article who based his opinion on the view held in regard to Mr. Macfarlane’s Protest never received any criticism of this view from the older ministers—Revs. D. MacFarlane, N. Cameron, J. S. Sinclair, N. Macintyre nor E. Macqueen. And when it is borne in mind how ready anything which appears in our Magazine affecting the Church’s standing is scrutinized and, if necessary, criticised by friend or foe, it does seem strange, if the above quotation did not express the mind of the ministers whose names have been mentioned, that they did not call it in question by a letter either to the editor or to the writer of the article. As no such letter was ever received is it too much to say that the quoted statement expressed their mind on the significance of tabling a protest and refusing to withdraw it? The plain fact is that we who belonged to a generation that is now fast passing away never heard anything to the contrary as my friend Mr. Macintyre, if he ever were here I am sure, would corroborate.
This brings us now to the Synod’s decisions in 1938. The Northern Presbytery sent up a Reference to the Synod which was received by a narrow majority of one. Mr. Macqueen stepped forward to table a protest but was persuaded to withdraw it at that particular stage.
At a later stage in the proceedings, when the Synod by a majority of 15 to 7 received and answered the prayer of a Petition sent up to them by the aforesaid Reference, Rev. E. Macqueen tabled the following Protest:—”To the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland met at Inverness this 29th day of June, 1938. I protest against your finding because I consider it to be irregular, unconstitutional and unscriptural.” The Moderator supported by Revs. N. Macintyre and D. N. Macleod appealed to Mr. Macqueen to withdraw his protest. This he refused to do and then walked out. After tabling such a Protest the protester could not, in accordance with his ordination vows, remain in a Church whose Supreme Court had given a decision which, in his opinion was “irregular, unconstitutional and unscriptural.” It is public knowledge that there were others who did not agree with the decision but they were content with voting against it and some of them went the length of dissenting. They did not, however, go the length of Mr. Macqueen in his view of the decision though disagreeing with it; otherwise, if they regarded it in the same serious way they, too, could not remain in the Church. There was a constitutional way whereby that decision could be brought under review by him if he had remained in the Church. A question arises here viz. “Did the Protester regard himself as outside the Church whose Supreme Court had given the decision against which he protested?” It would appear from the following advertisement which is taken from the Inverness Courier (1st July, 1938) that he did:—”Free Presbyterian Church (1893). Minister: Rev. E. Macqueen. “As an ordained, licensed, and inducted minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ Rev. Ewen Macqueen refuses to condone contumacious conduct by any member of the Free Presbyterian Church, as constituted in 1893 and has, therefore, protested against the ruling of the Free Presbyterian Church of 29th June, 1938, because that body has flouted Holy Scripture, the Confession of Faith, and the Free Presbyterian constitution of 1893,” Services will, therefore, be conducted by Rev. E. Macqueen in the Free Presbyterian Church, North Place, Inverness, etc. Note.—A Congregational Meeting will be held in the Inverness Church on Tuesday, 5th July, at 8 p.m.” The Protest was tabled on Wednesday, 29th June, and the above advertisement appeared on Friday, 1st July. It will be noticed that the Protest, the advertisement says, was made against the ruling of the Free Presbyterian Church of 29th June, 1938. Did Mr. Macqueen regard himself a minister of the Church so described in the advertisement after tabling his Protest? It would appear he did not. Was he right in this opinion? We believe he was.
The Protests of Rev. D. Macfarlane and Rev. Ewen Macqueen have this in common both are protests against what the protesters regarded as vitiation of the constitution of the respective Churches involved owing to certain decisions come to by the Supreme Courts of these Churches—in the one case the General Assembly of the Declaratory Act Church of 1893 and in the other case of the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church in 1938. They differ in our view in this that Mr. Macfarlane’s view of the Declaratory Act was right and so we followed him while Mr. Macqueen’s view of the Synod’s decision of 1938 by a majority vote was wrong and so both those who voted for that decision and those who voted against it did not follow him for they did not believe the decision vitiated the constitution of the Free Presbyterian Church.
As stated already there is more evidence in support of our contention to be gleaned from the Lectures the Rev. Neil Cameron delivered to his congregation annually on New Year’s Day but meantime let what has been said suffice. I should have much preferred to leave out names referred to in this paper but found it impossible to do so.
Rev. James MacLeod addressed the Synod as follows: “I have nothing to add but just to corroborate what Mr. Beaton has already read. Our Clerk made a statement and he brought before our notice that he met one who is evidently a member of the Church questioning the position taken up by Mr. Macfarlane in 1893. Mr. Macfarlane from June, 1892, until he tabled his protest the following year (1893) never for one moment considered himself under the Declaratory Act. He maintained, taught, and left on record for us to examine that that was his position and his conscientious conviction until he closed his eyes in death. Now, that is the position that we have before God, and our own consciences accepted. Although Mr. Macfarlane by his protest in 1893 separated from, an association of men, calling themselves the Free Church of Scotland; yet that same body, or association of men, had introduced into the Church a Law inconsistent with, antithetical to, and contrary to the Constitution under which Mr. Macfarlane took his ordination vows. Mr. Macfarlane did not go out of the Church of his fathers; he remained in it. He carried with it the Constitution of the Reformed Church intact; and we maintain that Mr. Macfarlane, by his action, continued the Reformed Church of Scotland from the Revolution Settlement as he received it from his fathers. We accepted that position ourselves. We maintain; and hope, by the grace of God, to defend that position as long as we are in time. From it we cannot deviate. From it we cannot go to the right or to the left because it is based upon the infallible Word of God. There is the Bible and the Confession of Faith. We have accepted that position and, as far as we are concerned, there is no turning to the right or to the left. It does not matter what anyone says inside or outside of the Church about that position. I was amazed, at the reference Mr. Sinclair made about questioning that position. Free Churchmen, for nearly fifty years have been challenging that position and they take up the attitude towards the Free Presbyterian Church that we were guilty of schism. We repudiate that charge as unscriptural and truly unwarrantable. I am now quite satisfied with the position taken up by the Synod anent a protest.
Perhaps I may be allowed to say this. I have full liberty, no one can hinder—to protest if need be to conserve my ordination vows and the Word of God and so has every office-bearer of this Church. This was the only legal instrument of our predecessors. It was a legal instrument in the hands of the revered Mr. Macfarlane to separate from that association calling itself the Free Church; and I fully agree with Mr. Beaton’s paper on the difference between Mr. Macqueen’s protest and Mr. Macfarlane’s protest. You see Mr. Macqueen’s protest was charging the Church Courts with becoming unscriptural, unconstitutional and irregular; and, if so, according to his ordination vows, it was an absolute impossibility for him to remain one moment longer in such a corrupt Church which had become such in his opinion. Now, that is a charge against me, against all my brethren, and the office-bearers who are in the Church. We must repudiate that charge in the sight of God, our own conscience, and our own people in order to retain what we have received in the Church of God, known as the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.”
Rev. James A. Tallach, in rising to make a few remarks, said:—I’m afraid I cannot contribute anything of a really constructive nature to the subject under discussion, because most of the things dealt with took place before I was born. I can say, however, that for that very reason, I have listened with all the more attention and appreciation to what has been said. When I was a boy, like most of the young folks brought up in Free Presbyterian homes, I had accepted the Church of my father as my Church without question. To examine into the rightness or wrongness of the position occupied by the Church did not occur to me; I simply accepted it, more or less, on the testimony of others whom I respected and in whose judgement I had the utmost confidence. It is exceedingly gratifying to find now that such confidence was not misplaced. What Mr. Beaton has told us tonight has considerably clarified my view of the situation, and has supplied information which enables us to have an intelligent grasp of the position occupied by the Free Presbyterian Church in Scotland. Without hesitation I can express deep thankfulness to my Maker that, in His good Providence, I am to-day where I am.
Rev. D. A. Macfarlane spoke on several points. He stated that he had nothing new to add to what the Clerk brought to their notice, or to what Rev. D. Beaton set forth in his excellent paper. After referring to the need of Free Presbyterians having an intelligent and growing grasp of the constitutional and historical position of the Church, he emphasised the following regarding a Protest namely,—that, as explained by Rev. D. Beaton, a Protest deliberately tabled against the final decision of a Supreme Court, and adhered to, is a recognised legal instrument. It cannot, of course, be “received” by that Supreme Court. Yet as a valid legal instrument it effects the separation of the person protesting and does so de facto, (in fact), de iure (in law), and de forma (formally).
So Dr. Welsh, in 1843, and the 203 concurring in the read and tabled Protest, thereby, in fact, legally, and formally renounced the jurisdiction of the courts of the Church of Scotland and separated from those acquiescing in Intrusionism, etc.
So Rev. D. Macfarlane renounced the jurisdiction of the Declaratory Act Free Church as her constitution was vitiated, and kept intact the status quo (that is, the continuity, the continued existence), of the Constitutional Free Church. Mr. Macfarlane’s Protest effected a barrier between him and them. If any member of Synod,—Rev. D. A. Macfarlane added,—was prepared to contradict such a view, or views, let such say so and let the matter be put to the vote, if not, let the conduct of the brethren in future be in harmony with the view generally accepted in the Church until now.
Mr. K. Matheson said, I would like to thank the Lord that there are still alive a few witnesses on the side of the truth of God in Glasgow, and in the world, who follow a testimony that the late Mr. Macfarlane was guided by the Holy Spirit to witness to when he came out in a very dark night in 1893. We seem to be taking the same darkness upon us again as a Church. The Lord honoured Mr. Macfarlane and many others to stand on the side of the truth of the Word of God when he came out with the whole Bible and, with no temporal resources, he took the legal instrument—the “protest.” Pity us if we begin to dig and delve into the foundations laid by those in glory.
Rev. M. Gillies said: “I think we should all be the better of this explanation and discussion.” There was no dissentient speech or counter motion to any part of the business anent the matter of Protest.
Publication of discussion.
Rev. James MacLeod, moved, “that Mr. Beaton’s report be printed and published in the Magazine and also a report of the discussion that took place.” Rev. J. Colquhoun seconded, and this was agreed to.
Next meeting of Synod.
It was moved, seconded and agreed to “that the Synod meet again, in the Hall of St. Jude’s Church, Glasgow, on Tuesday after the third Sabbath of May, 1943, at 6.30 p.m. (D.V.).”
The meeting was close with praise and prayer.