by Rev. Donald MacLean, Glasgow
Although there had been other separations from the Church of Scotland before 1843, the Disruption of that year was the most serious of all. It is not the intention of this article to examine the causes of that event. It will be sufficient to say that the Church of the Reformation in Scotland was now divided into the Church of Scotland Established and the Church of Scotland Free. There can be little doubt in the minds of those who love Divine Truth that the true heir to the Church of Knox, Melville, Henderson and Rutherford was to be found in the Church of Scotland Free. It should be remembered, in this connection, that the Free Church of Scotland held to the principle of the duty of nations to support the Cause of Christ and to acknowledge the Saviour as King of Nations as well as King of Saints. This “establishment principle”, as it is called, is part of the testimony of the Church of the Reformation in Scotland and was part of the Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland, a fact recognised by the well-known phrase of Dr. Chalmers, “We have left today a vitiated establishment; we would return tomorrow to a purified one; and we are not Voluntaries.”
The Free Church of Scotland in 1843 gave every appearance of being a worthy heir of the Church of the Reformation. Her ministers had been willing to suffer deprivation in many ways in order to maintain their principles. These principles were well worthy suffering for. In doctrine, she was reformed or Calvinistic; in worship, scriptural simplicity was observed; while her Presbyterian government and discipline, which acknowledged Christ’s right to rule in His own House, had been splendidly vindicated by her refusal to bow to the Civil Authorities when they attempted to obtrude ministers on congregations contrary to Presbyterian principles. Her Professors were men of ability and piety, sound in the faith, and concerned that the people to whom the gospel came would hear the pure doctrine of the Word of God.
It is true that there were some who voiced doubts. Speaking on the subject of The State of Religion in the Free Church Assembly of 1844, Dr Duncan said, “the question was not only should there be more preaching but should there be better preaching.” Here he meant to refer to the earnest admonition given by Dr. Malan at the Assembly in Glasgow to beware of Arminianism. He (Dr. Duncan) did not believe that Arminianism existed in their own Church, but he could not disguise from his own mind that of late years, at least previous to the Disruption — he knew not how it may have been since, for they could not expect to get rid of all these evils in a day — since evangelism had become more fashionable, it had become more indefinite and diluted; and if this did not amount to Arminianism, it had become a rubbing off of the rough corners for the sake of refining of that which was called Calvinism, but which he believed to be a system of doctrine contained in the Word of God; it was a rubbing off and smoothing down of the salient points of Calvinistic doctrine into something which, if it was not Arminianism, was a kind of doctrine with which all who are called Calvinistic evangelicals and Arminian evangelicals could agree. Now this was just the beginning of the evil — it was a letting in of water — the dilution of the gospel; the dilution of the gospel would very soon slide into the perversion of the gospel.” Rev. J. R. Anderson, a friend of Dr. Duncan’s raised a very clear testimony against the inroads that an ill-balanced gospel was making in the Free Church. Many of his predictions with regard to this body were strikingly fulfilled, especially after his death in 1859. Among the godly laymen, there were some who were not very satisfied. One instance of this can be seen in the case of the eminently pious Captain Robert Ross of Wick. In his obituary in the Free Presbyterian Magazine we read, “As already related our friend was somewhat of a religious dissenter in his youth. This, we have to add, he continued to be more or less through life. Although an admirer of the fathers of the Disruption in 1843, and a staunch upholder of the principles for which they contended, he was never quite satisfied with the Free Church. He was a strong believer in the Establishment principle, and he could not brook any tendency to weaken the Church’s hold of that principle. He also abhorred every form of Arminianism, and any leaven of this kind was obnoxious to him. Elements of the character described existing in a religious body which professed the sound doctrines of the Confession, were fitted to alienate him from her. However, he never hesitated to countenance and support those in the Church who were distinctly loyal to her principles and preached the gospel in its purity and fulness. For such men as Drs. Kennedy and Begg he entertained a very high regard. It need hardly be said, further, that when Rev. Messrs MacFarlane and MacDonald raised a testimony for the Truth in 1893, he cordially supported them and rejoiced at the formation of the Free Presbyterian Church. We have heard him say, ‘I was never so well satisfied with any Church as with this.’ It may be thought a rather remarkable circumstance that this worthy man did not communicate at the Lord’s Table until he was about 88 years of age. The fact that he was not satisfied with the ecclesiastical course of the Free Church no doubt contributed to prevent him from entering into fellowship with her . . . He went forward on a sacramental occasion at Wick. The sight of the aged and beloved Christian proceeding for the first time to the Lord’s Table moved many in the congregation to tears.”
While some doubts were felt by the more pious and discerning of the Free Church, yet it was to be expected that a church which made such a promising beginning would continue faithful to the Lord, Whom she professed to serve. Yet the extraordinary fact remains that history discloses that, within 50 years, this Church had fallen so low as to forsake her principles to such an extent that she could not be recognised as the Free Church of the Disruption. The passing of the Declaratory Act in 1892 was the culmination of a course of almost incredible backsliding — so much so that one of her prominent ministers said, “And if the Declaratory Act becomes part of our constitution, what remains of our former principles is wholly obliterated and anyone who pleases may pronounce the funeral oration of the once noble Free Church of Scotland . . . She is no longer the Free Church of our early love and loyal adhesion, but a false claimant to honours and dignities which she wilfully and shamefully forfeited. Her pristine glory is gone; the finger is already out upon the wall writing her doom; and her kingdom is given to the motley Medes of religious equality and the fierce Persians of political voluntaryism.” (Rev. M. Macaskill, Glasgow 1892).
How are we to account for this extraordinary collapse? Some attempts have been made. Our own Church History says, “It is one of the ironies of our ecclesiastical history that in one of the most evangelical churches in Christendom as far as Scotland is concerned, the Higher Criticism which has done so much to throttle the spiritual life of Scotland showed itself first of all.”
But this is rather a statement of fact than an explanation of underlying causes. Principal MacLeod in his book, Scottish Theology, offers the following explanation, “But it was reserved for the younger ministers of the Free Church to take the lead in the abandonment of the Faith of their fathers. They were the party of movement. Behind them there was in their Church a tradition of having things done. And, with the conceit of leadership they were bent of showing how things could be done. Their country had become with improved means of communication in the 19th century, much less isolated and self-contained than it was before. So the teaching of the German Theological Schools began to tell upon its younger ministers. Without well knowing at first what they were doing they borrowed to begin with from the Liberal Evangelicals, and then from the Rationalistic Schools of Germany the kind of theological ideas that found favour among them. These being, on the whole, so far Lutheran, as distinct from Calvinistic, and unbelieving as distinct from Christian, were at war with the underlying principles upon which the orthodox faith of the Reformed Churches builds. The hospitality which was given to such ideas led by degrees to the forsaking of the ground which, from the Reformation onwards, had been held by the evangelical teachers of Scotland’s Reformed Church. The freedom of thought, and of utterance for it, that was common in Protestant Germany came to be envied, to be copied, and at last to be freely practised. In one of his essays, William Cunningham had passed a disparaging judgment on the theological insight of even his own day. The really distinctive features of various systems were not clearly enough recognised, in his opinion. The next generation was to show what a measure of reason he had for cherishing such a low estimate of the theological competence of the men about him. They were too much at sea in judging the true differentia of systematic schemes of thought.” But the rising of ministerial upstarts is a plague with which most churches are affected at one time or another. So this does not really come near to the solution of this problem. Principal MacLeod does come nearer the core of the matter when he wrote a chapter on “A Type of Union Policy at Work.”
At the first General Assembly of the Free Church in 1843, a large number of evangelical churches sent representatives. Speeches, which were very appreciative of the Free Church position and stand, were made, and an unusual degree of commendation voiced. This accorded very well with the spirit of the Assembly, itself, and a Report was submitted on Correspondence with other bodies of Evangelical Christians. This Report was submitted by Dr. Buchanan and supported by Dr. Smyth and Dr. R. S. Candlish, who said, “He rejoiced in the latter recommendation in the Report for the appointment of a Committee to co-operate with and to meet deputations from other Churches for the interchange of information and for consultation as to what ought to be done for the cause of God and His Anointed.” Rev. C. J. Brown, while welcoming the Report as involving a question of the most vital importance, added a cautionary note in saying, “The Committee very properly recommends co-operation; but the Church ought to avoid any rash attempt at incorporation.” The following year, Dr. Candlish again spoke on the same subject and stressed the need for a conference with other Churches. As, however, other Churches had not shown the same disposition to move in the matter, he suggested that his overture should be recommended to the Commission (of Assembly) rather than appoint a Committee for this particular purpose.
It is very evident that both Dr. Candlish and Dr. Buchanan, as well as others, were full of the notion of Church co-operation, while professing to continue separation and independence in their ecclesiastical arrangements. None of the Free Church ministers were so full of this notion as was Dr. Chalmers. He threw the immense weight of his prestige behind this movement, and some of his statements would do credit to our modern ecumenists. At a meeting held in Edinburgh on 13th July, 1843 to celebrate the Bi-centenary of the Westminster Assembly, he referred to the “oft repeated aphorism” of “co-operation without incorporation.” “I would substitute for these words,” says Dr. Chalmers, “co-operation now and this with the view, as soon as may be, to incorporation afterwards.” Small wonder that he was referred to afterwards by a later speaker as the great Apostle of Union! His biographer, who was also his son in law, Dr. Hanna states, that Dr. Chalmers, “did not believe that any form of Church Government had been authoritatively enjoined, so that its adoption was a matter of imperative and universal obligation. Let there be an essential unity of faith, and and he would have merged his own Presbyterianism, much as he valued it, either in Episcopacy on the one hand, or in Independency on the other, had it appeared that the great object of a visible unity in the Church of Christ could thereby have been attained.” How any man who professed to stand in May 1843 for the whole position of the Church of the Reformation in Scotland could hold such sentiments is quite beyond the comprehension of those who hold that such a stand involves not only doctrine and worship, but also government. Such, however, is the subtle influence of false conceptions of Church unity that it almost inevitably brings men, however distinguished, to lose sight of the value of Divine Truth in all its component parts.
THE HOUR OF TEMPTATION: I find my Lord going and coming seven times in a day. His visits are short; but they are both frequent and sweet . . . I hear ill tales, and hard reports of Christ, from the Tempter, and my flesh; but love believeth no evil. I may swear that they are liars, and that apprehensions make lies of Christ’s honest and unalterable love to me . . . Temptations, that I supposed to be stricken and to be laid upon their backs rise again and revive upon me; yea, I see that while I live, temptations will not die”.
Samuel Rutherford