by Rev. Alex. McPherson, Stratherrick
To make a stand is to offer determined resistance. The fitness of the expression to describe the separation effected by Rev. Donald MacFarlane and his followers from the Free Church in 1893 can best be judged by glancing at the processes which changed the Scripturally based Free Church of 1843 into the debased body that it became in May 1892 by the passing of the Declaratory Act. After only some twenty years of existence the complexion of the Free Church began to alter. The important establishment principle came under attack, Arminian doctrine began to be taught in many pulpits, the rationalistic higher criticism found a firm foothold, hymns and instrumental music were permitted in public worship, and discipline ceased to be universally applied. This trend away from the original soundness and purity of the Free Church disturbed and saddened many of its ministers and people, yet while the Church’s constitution remained intact they saw it to be their duty to remain in it. When, however, the Declaratory Act was adopted by a large majority of the 1892 General Assembly to be a “binding rule and constitution in the Church”, the case altered. This act made it lawful for office-bearers to hold and teach doctrines which were different from and subversive of the undiluted Scriptural creed stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith. On account of these radical doctrinal changes the Free Church was now constitutionally different from what it had been, and those who dared not ignore the fact now found it necessary to make a stand, that is, to offer effective resistance to this attempt to extinguish the distinctive testimony of the Free Church. The only way to do this was to separate clearly and definitely from the new Church (for such it was despite the retention of the name) and, leaving it to continue on its dishonourably divergent path, unfurl anew the Free Church banner of total adherence to the Bible and Confession of Faith. Mr MacFarlane effected the necessary separation by reading and tabling a protest at the 1893 Assembly, and afterwards took steps along with those who followed him to form a Presbytery. In this way what became known as the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland continued without interruption the existence and identity of the true Free Church.
Should there linger any doubt as to the need for such a stand, the subsequent history of the Declaratory Act Free Church ought to prove the need beyond dispute. What conservatives had predicted of the effects of the Declaratory Act all came true. During its brief existence of eight years before it joined with the United Presbyterian Church to form the United Free Church, the Free Church deteriorated further from the old paths, and in the following twenty-nine years before it became lost to view by its union with the Established Church in 1929, it manifested many further departures from the Scriptures and their divine pattern for a Christian Church. The Church of Scotland today, so blatantly unscriptural in doctrine, practice, worship and discipline, while still paying some lip-service to the Bible itself, is the logical and moral descendant of the Declaratory Act Free Church. No one who appreciated what a Christian Church ought to be can question in the light of subsequent Church history that a stand HAD to be made on account of the passing of the 1892 Declaratory Act.
A further question must now be answered. Was the separation of 1893 THE stand which the situation required? The present Free Church insists that it was not; that it was premature and even schismatic. The reason for this Church’s attitude is bound up with the circumstances of its own origin. Right up until February, 1893, there were quite a large number in the Free Church who had opposed and spoken strongly about the Declaratory Act, regarding it in exactly the same way as did Mr MacFarlane. Yet at the date mentioned, being apparently unwilling to face the results of a separation, they professed to discover that, after all, the Act was not binding upon them, and that they could continue in the Declaratory Act Free Church. They did this, but, when in 1900 the Free Church joined the United Presbyterian Church to become the United Free Church, these constitutionalists, as they were generally known, refused to go with them and remained under the title Free Church. This, they assert, and not the separation in 1893, was the correct juncture at which to make the stand for Free Church principles.
Since 1900 the Free Presbyterian and Free Churches have repeatedly stated their respective cases to be recognised as the Free Church. Only a few on each side have acknowledged the rightness of the other’s claims and gone over, but quietly yet surely the claims have been tested. When Gamaliel advised the Sanhedrim to be careful as to how they treated Peter and the other apostles, he only stated a principle of the divine government of the Church which history has amply borne out. He said “Refrain from these men and leave them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5, v. 38, 39).
The history of the Church of Christ shows that those branches which have kept true to Christ and his word have been not only indestructible but prone to grow, whereas any Church of which the opposite is true in any degree has shown an increasing tendency towards inconsistency and declension. The Free Presbyterian Church is willing to have the stand of 1893 tested by this principle as its outworkings have appeared in the last 75 years.
At the outset the claim could be made for the Free Presbyterian Church that in the several spheres of doctrine, practice, discipline and worship it has remained so true to the original Free Church constitution that in these matters no denomination has been able to criticise it justly. The same cannot be said for the Free Church. One point of time where this fact makes its appearance clearly is the year 1917 when the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church had to consider a Free Church suggestion that the two Churches might unite. A Free Presbyterian statement of differences which stood in the way of union began with a serious charge relating to doctrine. The Free Church was accused of glossing over the case of Professor Alexander whose book “Demonic Possession”, published in 1905, contained rationalistic views of Scripture. In this case, invoking the vital doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, the Free Church Assembly showed by its lightness of speech and failure to take disciplinary action that it undervalued the doctrine which had been assailed by one of its members. Professor Alexander himself showed nothing of the deep and bitter repentance that might have been expected of a higher critic who had come to see the error of his ways, and his Church honoured him by appointing him Moderator in 1911.
In the sphere of practice there were many Free Church congregations where sales of work, bazaars and socials were of frequent occurrence, and others which held concerts, and one which staged a play. Two cases, one where an organ, hymns, flower decorations and other unhealthy symptoms figured, and another concerning a church window with a picture of the Saviour, were settled only with difficulty, proving the existence of a strong element disloyal to true Free Church principles. The indiscriminate admission of ministers from the other Churches to utilise the property gained by the House of Lords decision in 1904 was another example of non-adherence to the principles of the Free Church. So that in 1917 the Free Presbyterian Synod refused to imperil itself by negotiating union with a Church displaying so much inconsistency between its profession and its practice.
In the following half-century, tracing the Free Church’s career down to the present day, things have become no better. We are to proceed to the proof of that. In the May issues of both Free Church magazines, The Monthly Record and The Instructor, leading articles marking the 125th anniversary of the formation of the Free Church stress once again the claim of the present Free Church to be the true successor of the noble body of 1843. After we have assembled some evidence bearing on the real state of this Church as to its doctrine, worship, practice and discipline, Free Presbyterians (and others) can judge the validity of the claim, and, we trust, be more convinced than ever that it was by the stand of 1893 and none other that the Free Church of Scotland was kept in being.
Of primary importance to the continuance of any Scripturally-based Church along the lines laid down in its constitution is its staunch adherence to the DOCTRINE it professes. The Free Church has always proclaimed that it adheres to the complete doctrinal system of the Disruption Free Church, but the genuineness of that adherence must be proved by a unambiguous and unanimous opposition to serious error, and separation from bodies infected by it. Paul is clear on this: “If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; . . . from such withdraw thyself.” (1 Tim. 6, v. 3, 5).
This is what the Free Church has not done. On a number of occasions its General Assembly has received “courtesy visits” from Moderators of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in the course of which pleasant speeches have been made on both sides but never a word in faithfulness to souls to warn the national Church that it is terribly backslidden and now wields a harmful influence in the land. Neither did the Free Church Assembly show zeal for truth when in 1951 it left the door open for delegates to be received from the heretical World Council of Churches. The same reluctance to condemn and dissociate from organisations which had embraced soul-destroying error appeared in the 1955 decision by a small majority to withdraw from the ecumenical-minded World Presbyterian Alliance. No fewer than 19 members dissented from the decision which, after all, was only in keeping with the words of Scripture just quoted.
As one would also expect, the slack attitude towards doctrinal purity shown by a majority of the supreme court on various occasions has appeared just as clearly in the practice of individual ministers. In 1919, at the beginning of the period under review, the Rev. Norman MacLean of St. Cuthberts, a man who among other grave errors taught the validity of prayers for the dead, preached a “Rededication Sermon” in Free Buccleugh and Greyfriars. Again, on a wartime Sabbath the Rev. Selby Wright, “the Radio Padre”, another purveyor of heresy, preached to a Free Church congregation and went on to preside at a Burns concert. In 1964 Rev. Donald Gibson of Dunoon Free Church took part in the opening of a new building for the Apostolic Church in that town. A move by the Presbytery of Skye and Uist to forbid such practices and that of exchanging pulpits with Church of Scotland ministers was soundly defeated in 1952. Another victory for the anti-isolationists!
Perhaps the biggest commotion ever aroused in the Free Church over a doctrinal matter was that caused by the publication of Rev. Kenneth MacRae’s booklet, “The Resurgence of Arminianism” together with the overture from the Synod of Glenelg to the 1955 Assembly re the shortcomings of the Free Church’s Calvinistic witness. The overture was departed from by 53 votes to 37, but the long discussion revealed that a considerable section of the Free Church itself were not satisfied that the teaching throughout the Church was as clearly Calvinistic as it ought to be. And if Professor Renwick’s defence of the blatantly Arminian Faith Mission in 1950 be considered, that in itself would be sufficient to raise doubts in people’s minds. Lastly, under this part of our refusal of the Free Church’s claim to doctrinal integrity we just mention the favour which the Strathpeffer Convention finds with some of its ministers and people. Here they mix with Baptists, Christian Brethren and Church of Scotland people, one of the latter declaring at the 1960 Convention: “We gave to newer and more modern conceptions on theology and worship a hospitality which the evangelical Calvinist would withhold.” From all these facts the conclusion must be drawn that the real doctrinal position of the present Free Church is not that of the Church of 1843.
Purity of WORSHIP, something which every Free Church minister is pledged to maintain, has often been departed from by ministers who have conducted services in other Churches. And even within the borders of the Free Church there have been congregations which used paraphrases and employed choirs. None of this accords with 1843 standards. Neither does the practice of holding remembrance “Sunday” services and parades as has been done by the Dornoch Free Church minister for years. What place in the worship of God has “Lochaber no more” rendered on the bagpipes at a war memorial? At Brora last December the Rev. David Paterson conducted a watch night service, another innovation.
Another violation of purity of worship is the habit so common now among Free Church ministers of praying at the grave. This is often aggravated by a sharing of the worship beforehand with graceless Church of Scotland ministers whose unscriptural prayers cancel out in the minds of the hearers the most orthodox sentiments of the Free Churchmen. Worse still, perhaps, was the action in February this year of the Rev. M. J. Nicolson, Urray, praying at a Roman Catholic funeral at the request of the officiating priest. Are the men who do these things the successors of the Disruption Fathers?
We come next to the PRACTICE of religion. Any claim to Christian character must be supported by distinctively Christian conduct. There must be a walking as children of light, and no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather a re proving of them. (Ephesians 5, v. 8-11). What are we to make of the following actions of Free Church ministers? At the time when Professor R. A. Finlayson was minister of Urray, he requested a concert party from Dingwall to entertain the Lovat Scouts of which he was chaplain, and afterwards described it as the best entertainment for years. During the war, when Editor of The Monthly Record, the same man appealed for indoor games, wireless sets, gramaphones and records to help keep lonely soldiers out of temptation. Later still he wrote an article on sabbatarianism for the Sunday Express In 1962 Rev. Wm. MacLeod, as Provost of Dornoch, complimented those who had set up an illuminated Christmas tree in the town square and took part in planning the next year’s festive decorations. The same minister took the leading part in welcoming to Dornoch last July a Canadian pipe-band which came to perform at the Highland Gathering. Another minister in the west allows his teenage daughters to wear trousers, but perhaps he can claim to have been encouraged by the frontispiece of The Instructor for November, 1964, entitled “Our Dutch visitors by Loch Lomond”. In the group shown, at least one girl is wearing trousers.
Then there is Sabbath observance or the lack of it. This subject might be enlarged upon but we shall merely list some items. Free Church people are not forbidden to use, and do use for the purpose of churchgoing, public transport vehicles run for profit on the Lord’s Day. The Free Church allows services to be broadcast from their places of worship on Sabbaths. Those employed in making the broadcasts are Sabbath-breakers pure and simple, and their work in connection with these church broadcasts is not less so than any other which they perform. An aggravated case of this was the Gaelic service conducted by the Free Church minister of Rothesay to conclude the Gaelic Mod held there in 1952. Marked by a comparable disregard for the sanctity of God’s Day was the colour dedication ceremony connected with the Dornoch branch of the British Legion in August 1957. Taking the main part in this sacrilegious vain show was the Free Church minister of Dornoch, the Rev. Wm. MacLeod. Pipe-bands, parading past a salutary base, “dedicating” the Colours and a religious service in Dornoch Cathedral all formed part of an event which could not but be offensive to Him who says: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.”
The same minister was a member of Sutherland Education Committee when it agreed to establish a Field Study Centre at Elphin. The studies and sport take place on Sabbaths also; the only concession to the day being a “simple act of worship” conducted by one of the teachers, and perhaps a religious discussion. Another Free Church minister, Mr McLennan of Lairg, dissented but spoiled this protest by saying that if the Elphin facilities had been intended for city slum children, a case might then be made out for their use on the grounds of mercy. This would imply the strange doctrine that city slum children may be exempted from keeping the Lord’s Day holy.
Which brings us finally to notice what sort of DISCIPLINE is exercised in the Free Church. One clear evidence of its lack has been the long established practice of receiving and granting the privilege of baptism to persons who on just grounds had been refused the sacrament in the Free Presbyterian Church. To the sin of granting a privilege improperly was thus added that of undermining the discipline of a better principled Church. A similar instance was that of Provost Murray of Dornoch who after being suspended by the Free Presbyterian Session, in connection with a dance held at his home, was received into the Free Church at Rogart and allowed to conduct services. Shortly after this he stated to the press that he did not object to young people dancing providing that they finished at a reasonable hour.
Surely, however, the serious lack of discipline in the Free Church has been one of the main causes of many of the sinful irregularities in the Church’s doctrine, worship and practice. Had a strict, wise and godly discipline been exercised, it is safe to say that much of what is recorded in the foregoing pages would not have occurred. Yet all the machinery of the discipline which contributes as much to keep a Church pure and sound does exist in the Free Church. What seems to be lacking is a will to make the full use of it.
What now is to be the verdict regarding the stand of 1893? The Church which emerged from that crisis cannot be charged with such things as the present Free Church is guilty of. Does it not appear very clearly that God Himself animated that stand and that his blessing has followed those who make it and their successors? For the Free Presbyterian Church has grown and by God’s grace has been kept from backsliding. That entails upon Free Presbyterians to be humbled and thankful rather than proud, and we trust that that is how we do feel. To us has fallen the task of maintaining the true Free Church testimony, and only as we realise this and earnestly seek grace to remain faithful to Christ and His Word shall the blessing continue. Among other duties there lies upon us a solemn responsibility to assert the rectitude and scripturalness of our distinctive ecclesiastical position against the erroneous claims of those who would rob us of it.
As for the Free Church, in the light of such serious faults as have been indicated in this article, ought it not to reconsider its oft-repeated assertion that it was never under the Declaratory Act? The writer who has had the unpleasant task of compiling this catalogue of faults, errors and inconsistencies would seriously suggest that they are nothing less than the blight produced by the Declaratory Act under which the Free Church was from 1892 until 1905. Not pretentious to being the successors of the Church of 1843, but repentance and reformation would better become this Church today.