By Rev. JAMES MACLEOD, Greenock.
IN recent times it has been circulated among our people that our Synod abolished the right of protest in the courts of the Church. That sort of talk seems on the surface of it childish; but it is a deeply-laid plot of Satan to discredit the Synod, the ministry, and cause confusion among our loyal people! The right of protest is a recognised privilege, and an inalienable attainment in the Protestant Churches of Europe, and wherever the Reformed faith, and government has been settled in accordance with the Word of God.
The papal church refuses to its people the right of protest, and requires of all the devotees of that system implicit obedience to all its laws, enactments, and decisions. The Protestant Churches from the dawn of the blessed Reformation acknowledges that the people have the right to appeal, complain, and petition the courts of the Church, when they consider that necessary in the interest of the cause of Christ with which they are intimately united by the bonds of faith, and love.
The courts are open, and must be kept open to hear their complaints, appeals, petitions, and overtures. The Church would cease to be Protestant, and Presbyterian if the opposite could be proven against any of its courts. The complainant, petitioner, or partly aggrieved must always have access to the courts of the Church if his business, or grievance should be brought within the ambit of the ecclesiastical court. We should endeavour to keep in mind that there is a clear line of distinction between the civil, and ecclesiastical courts. No sane person should trifle with these courts. One may have grievances, afflictions, and complaints that the men to deal with them is the physician, and apothecary. The members of our courts have the right to protest when they are convinced in the light of God’s Word that it is their duty to do so in defence of truth, conscience, principles, vows, engagements, and promises: against conduct, doctrines, and unscriptural practice which they not only repudiate but must separate from.
Let us not forget when the ecclesiastical court is constituted in the name, and by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ; He is there and then acknowledged as Supreme Head of His body the Church, and if His servants execute their duty according to His Word there can be no room, nor place for a protest against the decisions of that court. In Forbes Procedure p. 12 we read “In June, 1563, it was ordained, that if any person found himself wronged by any sentence given forth by the session of any particular Kirk, he be permitted to appeal to the superintendent, and the Synod, and, if yet wronged, from them to the General Assembly from which it shall not be lawful to appeal.”
We read in Row’s history p. 91 that the Assembly of 1582, 24th April, which met at St. Andrews, inter alia: “After decision, if the party sentenced conceive himself wronged, it shall be lawful to him to appeal to the next General Assembly, and to intimate the same within ten days after the decision, otherwise, the decision to receive present execution. It is concluded that the Kirk has full power to revoke any thing formally done to their hurt and prejudice.
John Knox was a member of the 1563 Assembly, and Andrew Melville was Moderator of the Assembly of 1582. If the Synod were to change, or tamper with the constitution, repudiate the authority of Scripture, deny the doctrines of the Confession of Faith, government, practice, or discipline then it would be the duty of any member thereof to dissent, and protest, and separate from that Church which deliberately changed from her original avowal, and adhere with all his heart to the Word of God. The Reformers maintained the above attitude as long as the Supreme Court continued loyal to the Word of God.
The Lord Jesus protested against the wicked conduct, and false doctrines of the Pharisees before finally, and for ever separating from the Synagogue, and temple worship. It was repeatedly referred to in recent times that Rev. Dr. Begg before, and after final decisions in the Assembly protested, and that he was not declared separate. One is inclined to treat this sort of arguing, and reasoning with, if not contempt, silence. Dr. Begg, and others, protested under their Scriptural constitution in defence of it against decisions arrived at by majority rule. Dr. Begg never had any occasion to protest against any final decision arrived at by the General Assembly which came before the Supreme Court under the Carrier Act. He could not do that, and his opponents well recognised that the veteran leader of the Free Church was acting under the constitution which he vowed to assert, maintain, and defend. Rev. D. Macfarlane in the lower courts of the Free Church in 1892 in defence of the constitution, protested but as the Assembly of May, 1893, would not revoke what the Assembly of 1892 did, Mr. Macfarlane, and all who followed his lead had no alternative but separate from those who had departed from the Word of God.
It is bare-faced trickery to preach in the ears of our people that there is no place given by the Synod for protesting in defence of truth and righteousness. If the courts of the Church act according to the Word of God, Confession and Faith, and subordinate standards there is no room for protests. When Aaron, and Miriam challenged, and protested against Moses, and called in question his authority, he calmly, and meekly submitted the matter to God to decide between who was right, and who was in the wrong. The courts of the Church must consult the Word of God, and abide by their decisions if not convinced by clearer knowledge, and light that they acted, and decided the matter on insufficient understanding of the case before them on a previous occasion. Let us bear in mind that it is a grievous sin to renounce the authority, and jurisdiction of the court, provided always, the ecclesiastical court acts in submission to the Head of the Church according to His own Word! When Mr. Macfarlane renounced the authority, and jurisdiction of the Declaratory Act Free Church Assembly in May, 1893, and all the subordinate courts as well as the Supreme Court—he did so because that Church had renounced the Word of God, Confession of Faith, and introduced a new constitution into the Church.
When Revs. Allen Mackenzie, and Ewen Macqueen protested against decisions arrived at by the Synod, the truth is there was no need in neither case for protesting, nor for protester. We have in both these cases an open and unprovoked act of rebellion against constituted authority, and a public repudiation of the jurisdiction of the final decisions of the highest court of the Church. Their separation was schism—an unscriptural division!
Another matter which has been brought to our notice is “that some men in our Church teach, or hold that there is little if any difference between ‘dissent, and protest’ in the ecclesiastical sense.” That of course means that Rev. D. Macfarlane could have simply dissented with reasons and remained under the Declaratory Act after May, 1893, to his dying day, as of course they did who dissented in 1892, and 93! Those who hold that opinion are not Free Presbyterians, and do not understand, nor in truth value the testimony of our fathers in May, 1893.
May God give us His grace to abide faithful to His Word to the end.
J.M.