This Assembly also began its meetings on Tuesday, the 19th day of May.
The New Moderator
is the Rev. Angus Finlayson, North Tolsta, Isle of Lewis. The title of his opening address was “The Present Day Challenge to the Church of Christ.” In it he declared as to the Sabbath Day, “the Church of Scotland has shirked her duty, following the line of least resistance, capitulating to the clamour of the age and to the claims of the modern mind.” But what is the official attitude of the Rev. Angus Finlayson’s Church, in the south of Scotland, to the use of public transport on the Lord’s Day, transport run systematically for financial gain? He rightly declared: “Moral standards are lowered . . . sentimentality has been substituted for moral law . . . the line of demarcation between the world and the Church had been defaced . . . godlessness practically engulfed our civilisation . . . divorce courts bore testimony to the dishonour cast upon the marriage bond . . . the desecration of the Lord’s Day went on apace,” etc. The Moderator also dealt with Church or religious unity at some length and put the question, “Is religious unity, however, as desirable as it is made to appear today?” He exposed the dangers of the ecumenical movement which most of the Church of Scotland leaders heartily support. (The Church of Scotland Assembly Moderator last year, Rev. Professor T. S. Stewart, who visited the Free Church Assembly last year, is a keen supporter of the talks with Anglicans and Romish priests. Professor Stewart mentioned in our hearing at his own Assembly this year that although the Free Church had castigated the Church of Scotland (a reference to Rev. Angus Finlayson’s address) he had taken part in a service with Professor Collins of the Free Church, in the Free Church across the way. Professor Stewart was speaking of Inter-Church Relations).
Welfare of Youth.
Rev. H. G. Mackay, of Aberdeen, in seconding the report of the Welfare of Youth and Publications Committee, spoke of the tales of delinquency and outbursts of hooliganism reported in the press. He said that the festivals of Easter and Whitsun had both been defaced by these outbursts. Surely Free Church ministers are not so concerned about these Anglican festivals! We agree with Mr Mackay so far, when he stated that “The blame rested with the older generation who had allowed young people to grow up without instruction in the Christian faith.” But when he declared that “Youth was not entirely, not even mainly, to blame,” we feel that any tendency to relieve young hooligans of blame for wicked conduct must be guarded against. He said further: “Our attitude should be one not of condemnation but compassion because those who are affected by whatever mania is on at the time are victims of a disease of dissatisfaction.” Well, our first reaction here is to refer our readers to the case in the Bible where the children mocked the prophet Elisha. Must there be no firm condemnation of wickedness on the part of the young? As to “a disease of dissatisfaction” suffered by this generation of young boys and girls, who have plenty of money, food, clothes, dance halls, worldly entertainments of all kinds, etc.—it certainly is not dissatisfaction with sin and it most certainly is not dissatisfaction because of a sense of their being without an interest in God. Satan, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, is wielding his power in and through these young hooligans and their wicked hearts are responding. Prayer and much secret prayer is called for.
Lecturers in Religious Instruction.
In Colleges of Education, the Free Church have lecturers in Religious Instruction, who instruct students in training to be teachers in our schools in this all-important subject. It was reported to the Assembly that some students who do not belong to the Free Church prefer to attend the instruction given by Free Church lecturers, because of unsound teaching given by other lecturers. There was strong disagreement in the Assembly over which Committee of the Church should pay for maintaining these appointments. Major Mackay held that such payment was the responsibility of the Welfare of Youth Committee and that the General Purpose Fund should cease to shoulder this expenditure. When reading this report we found that we were under a misapprehension as we formerly thought that the Scottish Education Department (or the Government) paid the salaries of all these lecturers. And we now wonder why that is not so. We think that Major Mackay is on right lines in arguing that the Welfare of Youth Committee should pay these lecturers. Youth is being served.
London and the Young.
Rev. Murdo MacLeod, London, referred to the evil influences brought to bear upon young people who went to London, and that only those who lived in London knew about such influences. He emphasised the need of immediate contact with young people coming to London for the first time to work, so that they would be guided to attend Church services.
The Lord High Commissioner Visits the Assembly.
As has been customary, the Lord High Commissioner to the Church of Scotland General Assembly visited the Free Church of Scotland Assembly. General Sir Richard O’Connor, in his address, quoted words from an address by Rev. Professor W. T. Cameron, now Assembly Clerk of the Free Church Assembly. The quotation included the words “. . . it is our duty to recognise the spiritual unity in Christ of all true believers, even when they differ on certain matters of doctrine and worship . . .” He conveyed what are called “the traditional greetings” of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to the Free Church.
Public Questions: Religion and Morals.
Under the report of the Committee on Public Questions, the following amendment was discussed and rejected: “The General Assembly commend the Committee for their special report on Church relations and instruct the Committee to continue their work in this direction. They direct the Committee to attempt an assessment of the present ecumenical situation and generally to illustrate the duties and difficulties of inter-church fellowship today, with particular reference to Great Britain.” The Assembly declined an invitation from the World Alliance of Reformed Presbyterian Churches to send a fraternal delegate to the next general council, to be held in Frankfurt in August. It was stated that the Presbyterian Alliance was becoming more and more involved in the ecumenical movement and it was understood that there was to be an observer from the Roman Catholic Church at the meeting. It appears from this information that any Church which is really concerned to retain its Protestant witness today must be prepared to stand apart from many religious organisations and movements. Discernment, we consider, was never more needed than today if God’s people are to see clearly the subtle movements of enemies of the faith. Rev. Murdo A. MacLeod, London, convener of Public Questions Committee, said: “We are today living very largely in a pagan society, one which has rejected the standards of the Christian faith and is largely materialistic and humanistic in its values.” The root cause of this, he said, was the theological landslide from Holy Scripture to theological specialisation. We do agree that this is so.
Depopulation in the Highlands.
Rev. M. J. Nicolson, Urray, touched on this problem and asserted, we think rightly, that there had been no real effort on the Government’s part to bring industry to the Highlands. The result was that young people were “being swept away to the South.” We would add to these observations the point that many Churches now in the North and North-East of Scotland have comparatively small congregations, contributed to by the “drift South” of young and old, although indifference to the worship of God is largely the cause. Yet, however few in number, sinners and believers in Christ may be in the North, they need the ordinances of the gospel like others elsewhere.
Tourism and the Lord’s Day.
The Rev. John MacLeod, Shawbost, referred to the influence that tourists might have in the Outer Isles regarding the observance of the Lord’s Day. The temptation may arise to depart from the standards observed. Mr MacLeod certainly reported what has been said before of this real danger, and the warning needs to be repeated. Where is the ‘god’ tourism today in Aberdeen? That city has become increasingly covetous to benefit from tourism. This year the income of the city will be down by millions of pounds. If people depend on tourists to the disregard of God’s law and day, God can cause their idol to fall.
Moderator’s Closing Address.
The Rev. Angus Finlayson, North Tolsta, the Moderator, devoted his closing address to “The Church in Scotland To-day.” The brief report of it in the press revealed that the Moderator dealt critically with his subject. For instance, he referred to the Church of Scotland’s trend toward the Roman Catholic Church; and that the Church of Scotland was now “destroying the faith they once preached.” The Moderator made references to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland in regard to the Declaratory Act. He also mentioned The Confession of Faith regarding liberty of conscience, his reference being critical of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The Moderator’s Address appeared in the July issue of The Monthly Record of the Free Church. We shall have a reply to the Moderator in the Free Presbyterian Magazine for September.
OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE
Exposition of The Confession of Faith, by Robert Shaw, D.D.
(Continued from page 78)
After stating that the Magistrate had power to call Synods it is added, “To be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.” “Not to insist here,” to use the language of Dr. McCrie, “that these words ought, in fair construction, to be understood of such synods as have been convoked by the magistrate, what reasonable objection can be made to his being present? May he not claim a right to be present at any public meeting within his dominions? —may he not be present in a synod to witness their proceedings, to preserve their external peace, to redress their grievances, or (why not?) to receive their advice or admonitions? But, if it be supposed that his presence is necessary to give validity to their proceedings, and that he sits as preses of their meeting, or as director of their deliberations and votes, I shall only say, that the words of the Confession give not the slightest countenance to such claims, which are utterly inconsistent with the common principles of Presbyterians, and, in particular, with the well-known and avowed principles of the Church of Scotland. A similar answer may be given to the objection against the last clause of the paragraph. May not any Christian, whatever his station be, “provide that whatsoever is transacted,” even in synods, “be according to the mind of God”? If the legislature or government of a nation have a special care about religion, or if there is any particular duty at all which they have to discharge respecting it, and particularly, if they have power in any case to call synods, must it not in a special manner be incumbent on them to see to this? Now does this imply that they are in possession of any ecclesiastical powers, or that they pass a public judgment on true and false religion. Their private judgment is sufficient to regulate them in their public managements in this as well as on many other subjects about which they exercise their authority, without sustaining themselves as the proper judges of them, as in the case of many arts and sciences which they patronise and encourage. Must not Christian rulers, judges and magistrates, provide that “whatsoever is transacted” by themselves “be according to the mind of God”? Is it not highly fit that they should be satisfied, and that they should, by every proper means, provide that the determinations of synods be according to the mind of God, if they are afterwards to legalise them, or if they are to use their authority for removing all external obstructions out of the way of their being carried into effect; both of which they may do without imposing them on the consciences of their subjects? And, in fine, are there not various ways in which they may provide, as here stated, without assuming a power foreign to their office, or intruding on the proper business of synods or ecclesiastical courts? But if it be supposed that the magistrate, as the proper judge in such matters, is to control the deliberations of the ecclesiastical assembly—to prescribe and dictate to them what their decisions shall be; or that, when they have deliberated and decided, he may receive appeals from their decisions, or may bring the whole before his tribunal, and review, alter, and reverse their sentences, I have only to say, as formerly, that the words of the Confession give not the slightest countenance to such claims, which are utterly inconsistent with the common principles of Presbyterians, and, in particular, with the well-known and avowed principles and contendings of the Church of Scotland.”*
Section IV—It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honour their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.
* McCrie’s Appendix, pages 142, 143.
Exposition
-
This section, in the first place, states the duty of subjects towards their rulers; and the proofs adduced by the compilers of our Confession clearly show that it is their duty to pray for the divine blessing upon them, to honour their persons, to pay them tribute, and to yield them a conscientious subjection and obedience in all their lawful commands.
-
It is affirmed, in opposition to a Popish tenet, that “infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him.” Christ himself paid tribute to Cæsar, and his apostles inculcated upon Christians subjection to “the higher powers” then existing, although all these powers were heathen. It must be admitted, however, that nations favoured with supernatural revelation ought, in choosing their rulers, to have a respect to religious qualifications. And nations that have made great attainments in reformation, and pledged themselves, by national vows to the Most High, to hold fast their attainments, certainly ought, in setting up magistrates, to look out for those who will concur with them in the maintenance of the true religion, and rule them by laws subservient to its advancement. On this principle our reformers acted; for they provided, by their deed of civil constitution, that the sovereign over these realms should be of the same religion with the people, and co-operate with them in prosecuting the ends of the national covenants. But where a magistrate has authority, by the will and consent of the body politic, or majority of a nation (this being what renders his authority “just and legal,” according to the Word of God), “infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void his authority,” nor release individuals, or a minority, from subjection and obedience to him in all lawful commands. With this principle, so clearly laid down in our Confession, accords the practice of “our reforming fathers in Scotland under Queen Mary, and of their successors during the first establishment of Episcopacy, and after the Restoration, down to the time at which the government degenerated into an open and avowed tyranny.”
-
It is affirmed that “ecclesiastical persons are not exempted” from due obedience to the civil magistrate. This is an explicit denial of the Popish doctrine of the exemption of the persons and property of ecclesiastics from the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal and civil tribunals. Our Confession decidedly maintains that the civil magistrate may not claim authority to control or overrule the office-bearers of the church in the discharge of their proper functions; but it no less clearly teaches that ecclesiastical persons are not exempted from his authority in matters that fall under his rightful jurisdiction, as being of a civil nature. The apostolic injunction is general, and extends to all sorts of persons: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers” (Rom. xiii: 1). The expression every soul is very emphatical, and seems intended to bring the idea of the universality of the obligation more strongly out than the use of the ordinary phrase every one would have done. The civil and ecclesiastical authorities have separate and distinct jurisdictions. In ecclesiastical matters, civil rulers have no rightful jurisdiction; and in civil matters, ecclesiastical persons, as they are members of the commonwealth, are equally bound with others to be subject to the ruling authorities.
-
It is further affirmed that the Pope hath no power or jurisdiction over magistrates in their dominions, or over any of their people. The Popes, when in the plenitude of their power, usurped a supremacy over the whole earth, in temporals as well as in spirituals. They pretended to have authority, by divine right, over kings and their dominions, and claimed a power to dispose of crowns and kingdoms at their pleasure. This arrogant claim they have, in innumerable instances, reduced to practice. They have deposed and excommunicated kings, on the ground of pretended heresy or schism—absolved their subjects from their allegiance, and transferred their dominions to others. Since the Reformation, however, the exorbitant power of the Pope has been greatly restrained. Protestants disclaim his authority, not only in temporal but also in spiritual matters; and even in the most of those countries where his spiritual authority is still acknowledged, his temporal supremacy is disowned; but since Papists boast of the unchangeableness of their church, and since the Roman pontiffs lay claim to infallibility, it cannot be supposed that they have renounced their right to universal dominion; and should they again attain to power, it may be presumed that their ancient extravagant principles would be openly avowed, and their universal supremacy enforced as rigorously as in the darker ages. Every friend of civil and religious liberty ought, therefore, strenuously to resist every encroachment of “the man of sin, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God.”