By Rev. John Colquhoun, Glendale, Skye.
(continued from p.249)
The Free Church
We have shown already in these pages that the purpose of separation in 1893, and the setting up of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, was in order to preserve the carved work of the Church of the Reformation. It was to be expected that in an age of declension it was bound to meet with opposition of the most virile kind. At the very outset some who, before the separation, professed to be the friends of those who separated, and who spoke so loudly against the Declaratory Act, proved to be among their most bitter enemies. Those who separated from the Declaratory Act of 1892 were deprived of churches and manses, and their one-time friends were as active in their opposition to them as those who never showed them sympathy before the separation. We read of dissents against the Declaratory Act but we look in vain for dissents against enactments of Presbyteries in turning those who remained faithful to the Constitution, on to the hill-side to worship God under the canopy of heaven. On the contrary, there are painful instances of these friends using their influence in Parish School Boards to deprive them of the use of schoolrooms for their services, and that in districts where the followers of the Free Presbyterian Church formed the majority of ratepayers. This clearly manifested that they had no reason to expect mercy from men, but they had the countenance of the Lord. The majority of them were poor, but out of their poverty they were able to build churches and manses, and pay the salaries of an educated and God-fearing ministry, as the Lord was pleased to bestow such ministers on them. As is admitted on all hands, the Declaratory Act of 1892 was passed in order to pave the way for Union with the United Presbyterian Church, which union took place in 1900, with a minority remaining out of it. It is not the purpose of these Articles to enter upon the struggle which took place between the majority and the minority for possession of the property except in so far as that is relevant to the position of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
The late Archibald Crawford, Tighnabruaich, who was a far-seeing man, and of whom it could be said that he had “the secret of the Lord” above many, warned some of the ministers of our Church that we would have more trouble from the minority in 1900, than we would have from any other denomination in Scotland. We write this in the full knowledge of what had been published by the Free Church Publication Committee some years ago, and which would give the impression that Mr. Crawford was not satisfied with the position of the Free Presbyterian Church. We deem, however, that this has been sufficiently answered already and needs not to be repeated here. He also divulged that after taking to the Lord in secret the relationship of that minority to the Free Presbyterian Church, the truth which spoke to him was, “Let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them.” Jeremiah 15:19. It is remarkable that the same truth spoke to two other eminently God-fearing persons as far apart as Laing and Strathy as to the duty of our Church towards the present Free Church. Mr. Crawford’s prediction has been amply verified to this day. After the House of Lords’ decision, which gave the property to the minority who called themselves the Free Church of Scotland, efforts were made by them to get the Free Presbyterian Church to unite with them, and these efforts were countenanced by some of our ministers, who ultimately went over to them. To this day a strong plank in the Free Church platform is that because the Declaratory Act was ultra vires, it was not binding on anyone, and that it, in no way, changed the Constitution of the Free Church. This is very different from the view of their lawyers when they contested the property before the House of Lords. Mr. H. Johnston, K.C., in dealing with a certain section of the Declaratory Act, said, “Now we unquestionably object to that provision because it practically sets loose the Confession of Faith and leaves it for the Church of the time to determine what parts of the Confession of Faith remain the faith of this Church, and what parts of the Confession of Faith may be written out of it.” The Free Church of Scotland Appeals, 3rd. edition, p.257.
It is true that the Constitution of the Free Church, as was shown in the decision of the House of Lords, is unchangeable, but men may, and have, changed their relationship to it. When there was no further hope of repealing the Declaratory Act, those who formed the Free Presbyterian Church showed, by their deeds more than by their words, that they were not to change their relationship to the Constitution of the Free Church, and the only way that they could do so was by separation. There was no use in remaining under it as their one-time friends did for they would have to take part in the ordinations of ministers and elders who would state publicly that they were taking office under the shelter of the relief afforded by the Declaratory Act. No amount of Relieving Acts could save them from such a consequence of the Declaratory Act. Perhaps one of the weakest arguments advanced by those who merely dissented against the Declaratory Act and remained under it, is that, it being ultra vires, it could not affect men’s relationship to the Constitution, even though it was sent down to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act, and an overwhelming majority of Presbyteries had favoured it. From its beginning to its end there is not a provision in the Barrier Act to support this view, but the whole tenor of it shows that any legislation sent to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act and afterwards passed into law by the General Assembly, becomes a binding law and constitution of the Church. The only rational conclusion, therefore, that we can come to is, that the Church which adopted the Declaratory Act has another Constitution than that which it previously had, and that those who remained in it were subject to that Constitution and cannot rightfully, claim to be the Free Church of Scotland. The Lord Chancellor came very near bringing the position of the Free Presbyterian Church into the Case, when he asked Mr. Haldane, the United Free Church Counsel, if people were turned out of their manses for protesting against the Declaratory Act. Mr Haldane, after consultation with his clients, replied, “Not under the Declaratory Act, my Lord, There have been people turned out for heresy, but it has nothing to do with the Declaratory Act.” The Counsel for the minority observed a discreet silence, and, probably, breathed a sigh of relief when this manifest falsehood succeeded in diverting the Lord Chancellor from pursuing a line which would ultimately have led him to see that there was another denomination in Scotland which had a better claim to the property than the Pursuers. It is only fair to the United Free Church to state that, in the third edition of their Authorised Report of the Appeal, they state in a footnote on page 531 that “those ministers of the Free Church of Scotland who protested against the Declaratory Act, and formed the Free Presbyterian Church, were not proceeded against for heresy. Actions were raised in January 1894 against two such ministers, to have it declared that, having ceased to be ministers of the Free Church of Scotland, they were not entitled to retain possession of the churches and manses occupied by them.” This footnote, significantly, was inserted after the Royal Commission had virtually overturned the House of Lords’ decision. Perhaps, if the minority had acted in a more charitable manner towards their Free Presbyterian brethren on the 23rd. day of June 1904 not quite so much of the property would have gone over to the United Free Church.
We often hear it proclaimed loudly, in season and out of season, that the highest tribunal in the land declared the present Free Church to be the sole heirs of the Disruption Church. Of course, it did nothing of the kind. The Law Lords had only the Unionists and the anti-unionists before them, and decided in favour of the latter to the exclusion of the former. The case of the Free Presbyterian Church was never before them, and, therefore, their position was not considered by that tribunal, and from the fore-going facts, it does not appear that it would suit either party that it should be.
The purpose of this paper is now to consider how the Church calling herself the Free Church of Scotland dealt with the carved work of which she claimed to be the sole custodian. When the House of Lords’ decision was announced, it was no doubt hoped that when she would get possession of the New College, Edinburgh, that this College, long a seminary for the dissemination of destructive Higher Criticism, would be restored to its original use as the training-ground of ministers who valued the doctrines of the Bible. Such hopes were doomed to disappointment. The first Professor appointed was Dr. W. M. Alexander who had a long list of letters to his name, but whose book, Demonic Possession in the New Testament, published in 1902, showed him to be a very advanced Higher Critic. How did the Free Church deal with him when his unscriptural views were discovered? An indication of this is to be found in a discussion on the book in the Free Church Presbytery of Inverness. One member thought the book should be withdrawn, another said that he read the book, but there was not a word, except, perhaps, a slight expression used in one place, which went to show that Dr. Alexander doubted the infallibility of the Bible. Other two members expressed themselves satisfied with Dr. Alexander’s disclaimer. Ultimately the book was withdrawn, not because of the serious errors which it contained, but “in defence to Highland opinion,” and Dr. Alexander was allowed to go on teaching the Free Church students, as if nothing had happened.
The manner in which Dr. Alexander and his book on Demonic Possession has been dealt with shows what has been asserted over and over again, that the present Free Church does not exercise discipline on its office-bearers as it ought. In the particular matter before us we have a case of the most glaring heresy where the inspiration of the Bible is denied, in spite of a repeated and solemn assertion of belief in that doctrine. We do not find the least expression of regret on the part of the writer, except one expression of regret for having caused uneasiness to others. There was no expression of regret at the dishonour done to God and to His Word. This does not warrant us to conclude that there was the least trace of evangelical repentance, and yet the author was allowed to remain in a most responsible position in the Church to the end of his life, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that discipline is not exercised as it ought to be in the Free Church. It may be observed that discipline was part of the carved work of the Church of the Reformation in Scotland, and its exercise, when necessary, has often been followed by salutary effects. The following statement on church discipline by the godly Robert Murray McCheyne ought to be seriously considered by all to whom it concerns: “When I first entered upon the work of the ministry among you, I was exceedingly ignorant of the vast importance of church discipline. I thought that my great and almost only work was to pray and preach. I saw your souls to be so precious, and the time so short, that I devoted all my time, and care, and strength, to labour in word and doctrine. When cases of discipline were brought before me and the elders, I regarded them with something like abhorrence. It was a duty I shrank from; and I may truly say it nearly drove me from the work of the ministry among you altogether. But it pleased God, who teaches His servants in another way than man teaches, to bless some of the cases of discipline to the manifest and undeniable conversion of the souls of those under our care; and from that hour a new light broke in upon my mind, and I saw that if preaching be an ordinance of Christ, so is church discipline. I now feel very deeply persuaded that both are of God — that two keys are committed to us by Christ, the one the key of doctrine, by means of which we unlock the treasures of the Bible, the other the key of discipline, by which we open or shut the way to the sealing ordinances of the faith. Both are Christ’s gift, and neither is to be resigned without sin.” McCheyne’s Memoirs, p.73.
This lack of discipline in the Free Church is particularly conspicuous in their disregard of the claims of the Fourth Commandment. Never in its history, since its beginning in 1900, has the Free Church Assembly passed a resolution condemning the use of vehicles run for monetary gain on the Sabbath day. Its members and some of its ministers travel to and from church by means of such transport on the day of rest and worship, and thus help to create a demand which owners and managers of Sabbath trains and buses pretend to a necessity for satisfying. Apart from the running of such vehicles being contrary to the law of God, there is the added sin of depriving the employees engaged in running such transport of the opportunity of rest and worship, for when a passenger pays the fare for a Sabbath bus or train, he is engaging those employed, as his servants, to bring him to his destination. This ignores the command to keep the Sabbath day holy, not only as far as we are concerned ourselves, but also with regard to our man-servant and our maid-servant. Where is the conscience of the minister or church member when they are not rebuked for thus ruining the souls of their fellow-creatures? The professing Church ought to condemn Sabbath labour instead of condoning any breach of the Fourth Commandment which suits the convenience of some of its members. A passage in the Life of the Rev. John Ross of Brucefield, Ontario, ought to be seriously considered in this connection:—”Railway Companies do know that it only requires purpose on the part of the Christian population of the land to close their Sabbath traffic for ever. But the Christian Church has no purpose in the matter, and even wishes on the subject are weakening. What will she say to her Lord when He makes enquiry after the blood of the thousands of employees who could have been protected in their Sabbaths, but who were not? While the people are busy here and there, building beautiful churches and playing heavenly music, behold, the young men are gone! slipped soul and body under the wheels of the Sabbath trains” — and we may add buses. The Man with the Book, p.193. The fact that such conditions exist in the present Free Church, which claims to be the sole heir of the Disruption Church, without the proper exercise of discipline, prove that she “has no purpose in the matter.”
(To be continued)