By Rev. Alex. Morrison, N. Uist
“What will a man not see when it suits his own purpose?” are words which force themselves on one’s mind on reading “A Reply to Free Presbyterian Allegations” by Rev. Angus Finlayson, North Tolsta, which appeared in the January issue of Free Church Record. Of his Address which he as Moderator delivered to the Assembly of the Free Church last May he says, “Our chief aim in the Address was to clarify the position of the Free Church which we considered had become somewhat blurred mainly through Free Presbyterian propaganda.” His aim in the Address and Reply seems to be the same.
In his Reply the Moderator missed out a number of historical facts which have a close bearing on the position of the present Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church. The Free Church, which came into existence in 1843, was not left long undisturbed. These disturbances originated within her own pale, and they proved successful in making divisions among the brethren. “A house,” said the Redeemer, “divided against itself shall not stand” (Matt xii: v. 25). “To keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace,” one thing from among many may be mentioned to be essential, viz., “That ye all speak the same thing” (I Cor. i: v. 10). In the days of our blessed Lord on earth there were disciples who could not endure the words of eternal life from His mouth and a time came when they went back and walked no more with Him. An identical situation arose in the Free Church. Men found it hard to abide by the doctrines of God’s Word, which doctrines are set down in the Westminster Confession of Faith. To comply with the desire of those men
the General Assembly of 1889 saw fit to appoint a Committee to investigate if a change could be effected to satisfy those men. At a later date this Committee framed a Declaratory Act which was submitted to the General Assembly. That this Act would change completely the position of the Church can be easily seen by Dr. Balfour’s protest of 1891, to which Mr Finlayson refers; and also from the statement by the same Dr. Balfour which he made in the hearing of some of the Constitutional Party on the evening of the day the Declaratory Act was passed. The statement reads: “It has come to this pass now in the Free Church that only two alternatives are left us. (1) We must separate from those who were responsible for passing the Declaratory Act immediately and declare ourselves the Free Church as this Church was settled in 1843; or (2) if we remain in this Church, and, if we continue to fight for the Creed and Constitution of the original Free Church, we shall be kicked out one by one.” The first part of this statement contains exactly the position taken up by the first Mr Macfarlane in 1893, and it therefore follows that he preserved the Creed and Constitution of the Free Church for himself and others.
Mr Finlayson maintains that the Declaratory Act was inoperative because the Questions and Formula were not changed. This conclusion was arrived at not by the General Assembly but by ministers and elders of the Constitutional Party at a meeting at Inverness in February, 1893. We regard this conclusion to be extremely false, and while the Free Church cleaves to this position the most that can be said for her is that she is the true representative, not of the Free Church of 1843, but of the Constitutional Party in that Church after the aforementioned date. With regard to the present Free Church making good her claim at law, the truth is that “the issue between the Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church was never before the law courts.” (See History of the Free Presbyterian Church, page 250.)
Further, Mr Finlayson admits that he is glad to see that the Free Presbyterian Church acknowledges that the Declaratory Act is now no part of the Constitution of the Free Church.* We would also be glad to have an explanation from the Free Church how it came about that she was able to rescind that Act. The rescinding as well as the passing of the Declaratory Act was the work of Assemblies. Two things can be said of the rescinding of the Declaratory Act in 1905. (1) It confuses the minds of people; and (2) it barred the door against closer relations between
* Rev. Angus Finlayson does not apologise for stating in his last year’s Assembly Address that the Free Presbyterian Church still charged the Free Church with having the Declaratory Act of 1893 still as part of her Constitution.—Editor.
the two denominations. The Free Church in rescinding the Declaratory Act inserted in the preamble the words: “This Church adheres as she has always adhered to her subordinate standards in terms of the Act 1846 anent Questions and Formula.” This is as much as to say that the separation in 1893 was uncalled for.
When one considers how the Free Church is today, it becomes all the more evident that the separation of 1893 was not a leap in the dark. Mr Finlayson will remember what the late Rev. Kenneth Macrae, Stornoway, wrote about many Free Church pulpits. He must also be aware that in some congregations in the Free Church the worthy custom of fencing the Lord’s Table is not practised. Praying at graves is common and becoming more so as time goes on. The Free Church from the Butt of Lewis to Glasgow received many into her fold who on Scriptural grounds were refused privileges by Free Presbyterian Kirk Sessions. What a change! Nevertheless we can still say, “The Lord hath been mindful of us” (Ps. cxv: v. 12).