This year’s Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, Rev. Angus Finlayson, North Tolsta, Lewis, took as the subject of his closing Address, “The Church in Scotland Today.” This Address appeared in The Monthly Record of the Free Church for July, 1964. In his Address the Moderator ranges hither and thither among the history of the Presbyterian Churches from 1843 to the present day.
At the outset, in dealing with “The Position of the Free Church” he remarks: “The three main crises in the history of our church, the Disruption of 1843; the conflict of 1873; and the upheaval of 1900, elucidated the great principles of our Church.” In this statement he deliberately omits any mention of the historical and serious event involving the late Rev. Donald Macfarlane’s action in protesting and thereby separating from the then Free Church in 1893, when the Assembly refused to rescind the infamous Declaratory Act passed by the Assembly in 1892. In that separation by Protest there came into existence the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
For younger readers not familiar with the terms of the above Declaratory Act, we give brief extracts as follows:—”That this Church does not teach, and does not regard The Confession as teaching, the foreordination of men to death irrespective of their sins.” “And that while the gospel is the ordinary means of salvation for those to whom it is made known, yet it does not follow, nor is the Confession of Faith to be held as teaching, that any who die in infancy are lost, or that God may not extend His mercy, for Christ’s sake, and by His Holy Spirit, to those who are beyond the reach of these means . . .” “That in holding and teaching, according to the Confession of Faith, the corruption of man’s whole nature as fallen, this Church also maintains that there remain tokens of his greatness as created in the image of God; and that he possesses a knowledge of God and of duty: . . . he is yet capable of affections and actions which in themselves are virtuous and praiseworthy.” ” . . . diversity of opinion is recognised in this Church on such points in the Confession as do not enter into the substance of the Reformed Faith . . .”
Readers may study these extracts in the light of the Word of God and find therein statements opposed to the teaching of the Confession of Faith and to the Holy Scriptures, upon which the Confession is based. And although the above attack upon the Word of God was agreed to by the Free Church Assembly of 1892 and 1893; and that in 1893, the late Rev. D. Macfarlane separated from the then Free Church, followed by divinity students and a substantial minority of the people throughout Scotland, these events are ignored completely in the initial statement made by Rev. A. Finlayson, which we quoted.
And it is of importance to note that the fathers of the Free Presbyterian Church held, as we do now, that all the ministers and office-bearers who continued in the so-called Free Church after 1893 until 1900, were under the Declaratory Act as a binding law of that Church. This has been denied by Free Church protagonists. But it is provable that they were. For example: Soon after the Act was passed, a minister when being settled over the Dornoch Free Church congregation made the following statement:—”I am to sign the Confession of Faith simpliciter, and wholly irrespective of the Declaratory Act passed by last Assembly, as signed at my license, and by the other members of the Presbytery.” The Synod of Sutherland and Caithness ordered this minister’s statement to be erased from the Presbytery Records, and later the Free Church General Assembly upheld the Synod’s decision. The Assembly would not permit protests of the above kind against the Act by any remaining in the Church. The Act was indeed binding upon all in the Church from 1892 onwards.
Now, the ministers and office-bearers of the Declaratory Act Free Church, who would not, in 1900, enter the union between the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church, these ministers formed in 1900 the present Free Church. But Rev. Mr Finlayson does not relate in his Address what we have very briefly stated occurred in 1893, viz.: the separation of many from the Declaratory Act Free Church, and, on the other hand, the continuance under that infamous Act of all the rest of the ministers and office-bearers including those who formed the present Free Church in 1900.
In his Address, the Moderator does refer to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland; and introduces his first main reference to our Church by saying, among other things, on behalf of the Free Church: “No Church is justified in allowing herself to be wrongly defamed.” This statement exactly explains why we are writing this article to correct statements made by the Moderator himself, which are wholly inaccurate in reference to the Free Presbyterian Church.
Let us give our readers a little information first of all from The History of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, pages 140-141, anent the rescinding of the aforementioned Declaratory Act by the Free Church Assembly in 1905.
In 1905, in a motion at the Free Presbyterian Synod, by two of the then ministers of the Free Presbyterian Church (who later left and returned to the Free Church) those two ministers expressed their own minds as follows: “The Synod desires to record its satisfaction with the Proceedings of the last General Assembly of the Free Church, particularly the rescinding of the Declaratory Act of 1892, the withdrawal of permission to use instrumental music and uninspired hymns, etc. . . .” But another motion, at that same Synod and in connection with the same debate, was moved by the late Rev. Neil Cameron as follows: “This Synod, in view of overtures anent the Declaratory Act and Formula for Deacons passed as interim Acts and sent down to Presbyteries by the Free Church of Scotland, declares as follows:—(1) In the preamble to the overture anent the repeal of the Declaratory Act, it is declared, whereas this Church adheres, as she has always adhered, to her subordinate standards in terms of the Act of 1846 anent Questions and Formula? By this statement the Free Church seem to justify their own actions since 1893, and by implication to condemn the separate position taken up then by the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. This action on their part makes it impossible for this Church to view the terms of said preamble in any other light than as fixing these Churches in their present separate positions.” Mr Cameron’s motion further dealt with other matters which we deem unnecessary to mention now. The first motion by the late Rev. George MacKay and Rev. Alexander Stewart was only supported by their own 2 votes. Rev. N. Cameron’s motion was supported by 12 votes; another motion of a non-committal nature received 6 votes, and Mr Cameron’s motion was carried. The debate centred on whether the Synod should confer with the Free Church because it had rescinded the Declaratory Act. This suggestion was rejected by the Synod.
Now, Rev. A. Finlayson in his Address proceeds to “defend” the Free Church thus: “The Free Presbyterian Church still charges the Free Church with complicity in the Declaratory Act legislation of 1892, and as still having the Act as part of her constitution.“
We have already pointed out our Church’s considered view (and which we deem to be provable); that those ministers and office-bearers who formed the present Free Church in 1900, were in law and fact bound by the Declaratory Act from 1892 to 1900, and thence from 1900 to 1905, when it was rescinded. If it was not a binding law of their Church till 1905 and they were not implicated in it and by it — why rescind it? And when in 1905, the Free Church Assembly held to the gratuitous claim that they adhered, as they always adhered, to the subordinate standards of the original Free Church, then the Free Presbyterian Church just simply refuses to believe or accept this claim.
As to our still charging the Free Church as still having the Act as part of her constitution, we are at a loss to know upon what the Moderator founds this statement. To our knowledge, the Free Presbyterian Church in her Synod has never charged the Free Church with still having the Declaratory Act as part of her constitution since 1905. The official organ of the Free Presbyterian Church, the Free Presbyterian Magazine, has not to our knowledge published such a charge since 1905. We know of no minister in our Church who asserts this regarding the Free Church. It maybe that some belonging to the Free Presbyterian Church have expressed their personal opinions as to the effects of the Declaratory Act still being discernible in the Free Church. But having made this observation in the previous sentence, we still hold the Moderator to his own actual words against the Free Presbyterian Church that we still charge his Church “as still having the Act as part of her constitution.” This simply is not true; and we feel having to write in such terms regarding a Moderator of a General Assembly.
In relation to his above charge against the Free Presbyterian Church, the Free Church Moderator has a lot to say about “ordinary courtesy and Christian charity.” These references come ill from such as reveal ignorance and rashness in their utterances.
Again, the Free Church Moderator endeavours to substantiate that the Free Presbyterian Church, “While adhering to the Westminster Confession, has added to its constitution the denominational testimony responsible for its origin.” In the actual text of his Address, he refers to “Churches in Scotland” having acted as above. But he immediately proceeds to say, “For instance, one of the fundamental differences between the Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church is that, whereas the Free Church in accordance with Chapter XX, paragraph 2, of the Confession of Faith, allows full liberty of conscience in her Church Courts, the Free Presbyterian Church, by a finding of her supreme Court (Synod), has declared that any member of her courts who persists in a protest against any findings of the Supreme Court by doing so automatically shuts himself out from the communion of the Church. That is to say, any person who is not prepared to submit his conscience to the findings of men is excommunicated from her membership, should any such occasion arise. The Free Church has added nothing to her constitution nor has she taken from it.“
This is a statement derived from a very large background and affects to show the Free Presbyterian Church as having added to and also taken from her constitution, which, the Moderator says, the Free Church has not done in her own case. Many readers of the Free Church Monthly Record and also readers of this magazine, will be at a loss to know exactly what the Moderator is referring to, apart from his specific reference to that part of the Confession of Faith which deals with our aspect of Liberty of Conscience.
His mention of “the denominational testimony responsible for their origin,” being added by some Churches in Scotland to their constitution, seems to us a reference to the late Rev. D. Macfarlane’s Protest of May, 1893, or to the Deed of Separation by Rev. Donald Macfarlane, Rev. Donald MacDonald, and Mr Alex. Macfarlane, elder, from the Church calling herself the Free Church of Scotland, dated 14th August, 1893. But from what the Moderator states regarding the attitude taken up by the Free Presbyterian Church to one who persists in a protest, it seems he charges us with adding to the constitution of our Church, our view of a protest persisted in and against a finding of our Supreme Court, the Synod. His observations constitute a charge of either taking from or adding to (or both), that section of the Westminster Confession which deals with Liberty of Conscience. The actual case the Moderator has in mind is that of the late Rev. E. MacQueen, Inverness, and in his argumentation he follows the lines adopted by others now outwith the Free Presbyterian Church who, following upon the MacQueen case, challenged the Synod’s viewpoint.
We are aware that he charges the Free Presbyterian Church with violating its Constitution, having in his view departed from or acted contrary to the subordinate Standard of the Church, The Confession of Faith. A man in a public position would need to be very sure of his information and the clarity of his argument before making such a charge against a Church; although we are not worried in the least by this charge.
Now, we hold as a Church that the late Rev. D. Macfarlane’s Protest of 1893, ipso facto, separated him from the Church then calling herself the Free Church of Scotland and that that was his intention and view and Dr. Rainy’s view too. In the case of the Free Church Assembly they had acted contrary to the Word of God.
In Rev. E. MacQueen’s case, the Supreme Court, the Synod, had made a decision to restore a former member to full communion. This decision indeed was not an act contrary to liberty of conscience surely. Rev. E. MacQueen protested against this decision, but was not immediately told that he was separate from the Free Presbyterian Church, the moment he laid his Protest on the table. His Protest contained serious charges against the Synod, namely, that they had come to a finding which, in his opinion, was irregular, unconstitutional and unscriptural. Mr MacQueen was warned of the seriousness of his action by the Moderator. The senior ministers of the Church pleaded with Mr MacQueen to withdraw his Protest; but he persisted in his Protest and shook hands with the Moderator and senior ministers, bidding them good-bye. Thereafter he left the Court and walked out of the Church. He declared: “I protest in every sense of the term.” A little more than a month following this he advertised his separate services under the heading, “Free Presbyterian Church (1893).” Mr MacQueen’s Protest was recognised as an ecclesiastical instrument to effect his separation and the Synod at the time judged accordingly.
Where in all this is there a departure from the Westminster Confession on “Liberty of Conscience?” Wherein did the Free Presbyterian Church add to its Constitution? Even the late eminent Lord Cooper in the Court of Session, in the “Inverness Manse Case,” stated that the Free Presbyterian Church had in no way departed from her Constitution in the MacQueen case.
The Free Church Moderator would do well to consider that the members of a Supreme Court of a truly Christian Church have consciences also which they must conserve and have liberty of conscience to come to decisions; albeit decisions which at times may issue in even the actual, positive exclusion (not necessarily excommunication) of one of their members. What must we conclude, if a minister appeared before the Supreme Court of his Church and was found guilty of some serious offence by the Court and was thereafter disciplined according to Scripture, if this minister persisted to protest that the Court had acted unscripturally, and in an irregular and unconstitutional manner? Surely in such a case there would be a breaking of ordination vows and a repudiation of the Authority of the Supreme Court. To consider such a person as no longer within the Church, would in our view be truly consistent with the Confession of Faith on “Liberty of Conscience,” chapter XX, but especially paragraph 3, (which paragraph Mr Finlayson does not mention) viz., “They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty . . .”
The Moderator, as we have quoted, says of the Free Presbyterian Church “. . . any person who is not prepared to submit his conscience to the findings of men is excommunicated from her membership. . .” This is a strong and comprehensive charge.
We would remind our critic that there is such a procedure in Church Courts, and even in a Supreme Court, of a dissent with reasons against any findings of such a Court. If the Moderator does not know, we herewith inform him that there have been dissents with reason in the Courts of the Free Presbyterian Church. For instance, the late Prof. John R. MacKay, when a member of the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church, in 1905, dissented with reasons against a decision of the Synod not to confer with the Free Church. He remained in the Church until 1917. So that liberty of conscience has been allowed all along in the history of the Free Presbyterian Church in her Courts, and still is.
Liberty of conscience may be recognised in cases, and is, in many Churches today, where in the light of God’s Word the cases—or persons, are proper subjects for Scriptural Church discipline. The Moderator said, as we quoted, that the Free Church “allows full liberty of conscience in her Church Courts.” This may mean that a minister or office-bearer who travels on the Lord’s Day by public transport run systematically for monetary gain can successfully plead liberty of conscience if found fault with in the Courts of the Free Church. We know that liberty of conscience is allowed in certain quarters on this question and it is well known that the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has made its views clear, that those who are known to travel on the Lord’s Day by public transport are either refused Church privileges or have these privileges withdrawn from them. Is everything the Free Presbyterian Church does by way of exercising scriptural authority and discipline to be marked against her as a refusing to her people full liberty of conscience?
It would be well for some to think a little further before charging the Free Presbyterian Church with adding to or taking from her constitution. Contrary to the opinion of some, the Free Presbyterian Church is sensible of her imperfections and limitations in the service of her heavenly Master, the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet we know that we have a clear and goodly heritage, handed down to us by faithful Disruption fathers and then by those fathers and mothers in Israel who kept their garments clean by refusing to be under the authority and influence of a Declaratory Act Church from 1893 onwards.
Finally, we have no intention of entering further upon this subject in these pages unless we deem it absolutely necessary. And we end by again quoting the Free Church Moderator’s words: “No Church is justified in allowing herself to be wrongly defamed.” We agree.