IF the men who left the Establishment in 1843 were told then that in thirty years the unity of the Free Church should be so shattered that preparations for another disruption would be set on foot they probably would have said: “It’s incredible!” Nevertheless such was the case. It is not our intention at present, to endeavour to trace the disintegrating influences which were at work for some time and which led up to this unfortunate condition of things in the Free Church after the initial fervour began to cool down. There were elements in it which sooner or later were to bring it into deep waters. These might not have been easily traceable to begin with but bye and bye they could not be hid even from the least discerning. In 1870 a brilliant young student, Robertson Smith, had been appointed to the Chair of Hebrew in the Aberdeen Free Church College. He had been trained in the New College, Edinburgh, under Prof A. B. Davidson, who is generally recognised as the father of the higher critical teaching in Scotland. In addition to this Prof. Robertson Smith got into touch with Wellhausen and it is no wonder that his brilliant vagrant intellect began to explore the barren and arid regions of the higher critical teaching to his own undoing and that of hundreds of others. Five years after his appointment two articles appeared in the Encyclopaedia Britannica from his pen which caused considerable uneasiness in the Church. Dr. Carnegie Simpson in an attempt to justify his hero says that it was owing to Prof. Robertson Smith’s “intellectual simplicity” that he was amazed at the ferment his articles caused in the Church. Prof. Smith’s case came before the courts—presbytery, Synod Commission, and Assembly. In the proceedings there was full scope for the exercise of his brilliant gifts and he made full use of his opportunities though by so doing he was hardening the minds of men who may have been his inferiors in intellectual attainments but who were far in advance of him in the consistent service they had given to their Master in the vineyard. As the case went from one stage to another it was generally recognised that Prof. Robertson Smith must be dealt with by a firm hand. Dr. Rainy with his usual astuteness in the beginning of the controversy was trying to ride two restive steeds in crossing a rushing torrent. But with all his adroitness he had an element of Scottish caution in his nature and he saw full well that if the young professor was to be allowed to remain in his chair the Free Church would be rent asunder so he determined to sacrifice Robertson Smith. Those of our readers who wish to get an idea of the case from the Free Presbyterian standpoint will find an account of it in the History of the Free Presbyterian Church (chap. iv.). Rainy lost caste with the advance wing in the Free Church through his final attitude in the Robertson Smith case. Dr. Carnegie Simpson declares that the dismissal of Prof. Smith from his chair was a tragedy. The real tragedy, however, was his appointment to the chair.
The next action of the Free Church Assembly, the appointment of Dr. Dods to the chair of New Testament Greek, in 1888 showed how the tide was flowing. Rainy was not present at this Assembly being in Australia but on his return home he was quick enough to see the trend of things. A movement now began in the Free Church for the relaxation of the terms of subscription by office-bearers to the Confession of Faith. In his Reminiscences published in 1913, Dr. Taylor Innes throws light on a phase of this movement at its initial stages. He, himself, had refused to accept office owing to certain objections embodied in the Confession. This may explain the reason why he was approached by the student to whom he refers in his Reminiscences. We will allow Dr. Taylor Innes to tell his own story. “In the course of this year (1888),” he says, “I had a visit from a brilliant theological student, who has since amply fulfilled his early promise. He was in a rather desperate state of mind about the subscription demanded from him and announced to me his intention to rise on the flour of the coming Assembly (of which, of course, he was not yet a member) and claim from it the redress he could not elsewhere obtain. I told him I thought he would be morally justified in taking such a sensational step, but the scandal which it would have produced might retard rather than advance his cause—a cause which seemed to me more hopeful than he believed” (pp. 219, 220). Had this young man been fortunate in his counsellor he would have been told kindly but firmly that he had too high an opinion of himself and that instead of making such an exhibition of himself it would be wiser for him to betake him himself quietly to other fields and pastures where he might have wider scope. The new wine, however, had made both old and young heady and under its influence strange things were said and done. Unfortunately “the brilliant theological student” did not get such advice as would have placed him in a humbler position than he occupied. He was advised by Dr. Taylor Innes to lay the matter before Dr. W. C. Smith, Prof. A. B. Bruce, Prof. Lindsay, Prof. Candlish Dr. Marcus Dods, and Dr. Ross Taylor. As already noted Dr. Rainy was not at home when the Declaratory Act was hatched but on his return he readily lent his influence to get into motion the machinery for the formation of that Act which was to mar and wreck the unity and peace of the Free Church. The Act was passed in 1892 and notwithstanding all that Dr. Rainy said, of its innocent nature there can be no doubt as Dr. Taylor Innes candidly admits that it was an Act which “practically cut down the Confession of his [Dr. Rainy’s] Church from that of Westminster to ‘the substance of the Reformed Faith’ contained within it” (pp. 223-4). In a footnote to his Reminiscences Dr. Taylor Innes further expresses himself in regard to the Act: “The Free Church Declaratory Act as a hurried and hand to mouth measure, was not even now satisfactory. In particular, it left the Formula of subscription unchanged to be eked out by a mental reservation founded on the Act, but on the part of the subscriber. I declined this; and when the Formula was tendered subscribed (irregularly, no doubt) expressly ‘under the Declaratory Act.'” Dr. Warfield’s estimate of the Declaratory Act may fitly conclude this article. After referring to Lord Halsbury’s excursions into fields which were not familiar to him he adds: “But on the other hand, it seems hardly possible to acquit the Free Church Declaratory Act of bungling. None of our Presbyterian Churches which have passed Declaratory Acts of late can be said to have been happy in its work. . . . what they have said has assuredly not been well said, and will not be permanently held to be creditable to the clarity of theological thought or the power of theological definition of their authors. The Church of Henderson, Rutherford, Gillespie and Baillie would beyond all question as zealously as the Free Church of Scotland have asserted the privilege and duty of the free proclamation of the gospel, the responsibility of men for their reception of the gospel, the condemnation of men solely for sin. But it would have asserted these things indefinitely better than the Free Church managed to express them in its Declaratory Act. . . . It is not merely Lord Halsbury who is to blame if the Free Church has been misunderstood. And his misunderstanding is not apt to be the only evil that will come from such a bungling piece of work” (Princeton Theological Review, iii. 500).