The Declaratory Act of 1892
The Westminster Confession of Faith remained the confession of faith and constitution of the Church of Scotland till after the Disruption of 1843. There were men in the pre-Disruption Church who quarrelled with some of its doctrines, such as Thomas Erskine of Linlathen, a layman, Rev. John MacLeod Campbell, the parish minister of Row or Rhu, and others. These believed in and set forth a universal atonement. In the case of Rev. John MacLeod Campbell the matter went to the General Assembly, and he was deposed. However, the number of influential members of the Assembly who took his side and did all that they could to turn the Assembly from giving a just decision was remarkable. The first organised opposition by a constituted church to the Confession of Faith came from the United Presbyterian Church. For years prior to passing their Declaratory Act of 1879 there were men among them who did not believe in an atonement limited to the elect; and it is probable that it was in order to suit their views that this Act was passed. The same class of people were found in the Free Church, who had “difficulties and scruples” with respect to many of the doctrines of the Confession of Faith. If these men had been honest they would have come out frankly and said that it was with the Bible, upon which the Confession is based, that they had the quarrel. After a great deal of evil work among the students of the Free Church some of these professors (such as Professors Robertson Smith, Marcus Dodds and F.B. Bruce) began to come out more openly with their heretical views. Others succeeded them who had drunk the heretical poison of these men, with the result that practically the whole Free Church had been polluted. Under such conditions it was an easy matter to pass such an Act as the Declaratory Act of 1892.
This raises the question: What was the attitude of those who objected to this Act? Prior to the passing of the Act, and when it was under the consideration of the Presbyteries under the Barrier Act, there was a meeting of those who objected to it, held in Glasgow on Thursday, 18th February, 1892. The speeches delivered then were afterwards published in pamphlet form, and the present writer was favoured with the loan of a copy recently. At that meeting the Rev. Murdo MacAskill, Dingwall, in referring to the Disruption, said, “The Free Church came forth from the Establishment, claiming to be the Church of Scotland free and carrying with her all the Scriptural polity, all the doctrines of grace, and the simple Scriptural worship, which had so long characterised, and are so legibly written in the constitution and standards of the true Reformed Church of Scotland. It was our boast then to call ourselves the Church of Scotland Free. We do not hear much of that proud claim now, and for the very good reason that several important items belonging to that claim have long ago been surrendered, and even controverted as having ever formed an essential part of the claim. And if ever this Declaratory Act becomes part of our constitution, what remained of our former principles is wholly obliterated, and anyone who pleases may pronounce the funeral oration of the once noble Free Church of Scotland. None of her children can contemplate such an event without keenest sorrow, and hence we are here tonight, resolved, if possible, to avert such a dire calamity. But if, in spite of our opposition, this injustice is perpetrated, then the once noble name, with all its endearing associations, becomes to some of us a mere mockery. She is no longer the Free Church of our early love and loyal adhesion, but a false claimant to honours and dignities which she has wilfully and shamefully forfeited. Her pristine glory has gone, and the finger is already upon the wall writing her doom, and her kingdom given to the motley Medes of religious equality, and the fierce Persians of Political Voluntaryism. But will the leaders who mislead her, dare do it in the face of the earnest opposition now given? Can they legally do it while so many of her office-bearers and members protest against her action? I do not believe they can. But stern and vigorous opposition is needed, if the determined purpose and diplomacy of those leaders are to be successfully opposed.”
In this Mr MacAskill spoke the truth, although he himself did not adhere to it and proved himself a nuisance and an enemy to those who afterwards refused to enter the Union of 1900. This was but a sample of what was said at that meeting. The Rev. D.J. MacCulloch, afterwards Principal MacCulloch, who also spoke at the meeting, said with reference to the Declaratory Act that “accuracy of statement was one of the most conspicuous attributes of the standards produced by the Westminster divines. He had no wish to say anything uncomplimentary regarding anyone, but he took the liberty of holding as his own opinion that the accuracy of the Confession of Faith was its great cause of offence. If there was anything characteristic of the present time it was the desire to have no limits to their thoughts or to their speech. They had drawn largely from German sources—and one of the characteristics of the German minds was that they liked large liberty in their thinking; they did not wish to be cribbed and confined to creeds or confessions, or anything of that kind. One can easily understand how some like to meander along the boundless prairie instead of walking on the king’s highway. Whereas a man was apt to lose himself on a prairie, or be overtaken by some unfriendly individual, there was safety on the highway. It would be an evil day for the church when they travelled the boundless expanse of undefined theological prairies, instead of keeping to the well-marked paths and lines wherein the church in all ages had been treading. The inference to be drawn from the action of those who were bringing forward the Declaratory Act was that because men could not comprehend all truth, they must have everything at large. Surely although they did not know everything, they might assume that they knew something, and although they could not confine all knowledge—or the Most High himself—within limits, they might see what God has made plain, that he who ran might read. There had been illustrations within the last three years—without a Declaratory Act—of what might be expected if the Act were passed. The doctrine of the Divine Personality of our Lord had been tampered with, and yet the majority of the Assembly had declared that there was no cause for discipline.”
What, it may be asked, caused these men to forget their language against the Declaratory Act, so that Principal MacCulloch remained under the Declaratory Act for seven years until it was rescinded by the minority at the end of that period, and Rev. Murdo MacAskill remained under it for the rest of his life, and entered the Union in 1900? This certainly emphasises the truth, “Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils; for wherein is he to be accounted of?” Isaiah 11:22.
On the evening of the day on which the Declaratory Act was passed by the Free Church General Assembly a meeting of some of the Constitutional Party was held in the New College, Edinburgh, at which Dr William Balfour presided, and made a statement to the following effect—”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 are 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.” At this meeting Rev. Murdo MacAskill got up and said, “I never thought or dreamt of a disruption.” This was the language of one who was not to submit to the Declaratory Act on any account.
After all hope of rescinding the Declaratory Act was gone, the Rev. Donald MacFarlane, then of Raasay and afterwards of Dingwall, read a protest against the passing of the Declaratory Act, in his own name and in the names of all who would follow him, claiming his civil and sacred rights as a minister of the Gospel, and walked out of the Assembly, thus separating himself from the Declaratory Act Free Church. Dr Rainy characterised the Protest as “an express repudiation of the authority and validity of the final act of the General Assembly in this matter as far as the Assembly was concerned.” Free Church Assembly Blue Book, 1893, p. 183.
(To be continued)
In heaven believers shall have a full, a satisfying, and never ending sight of God, and of all His glorious perfections and excellencies, and they shall be ravished with the view thereof for ever.
Thomas Boston.