Christ in the Psalms

The Psalms are full of Christ. Christ is the speaker in many of them, and of many of them He alone is the subject. “The most ignorant and senseless objection ever made to the Psalms,” says the Rev Dr George, “is that they are ‘Christless’. The truth is that no book in the Bible reveals Christ with such fulness as is done in ‘the book of Psalms’, not excepting the Gospel according to John or the Epistle to the Hebrews.” “Truly,

I believe there is one view of Christ,” said the Rev Dr Cooke, “that can be discovered only in the Psalms, I mean His inward life. The Holy Spirit has there laid open the inmost thoughts, sorrows, and conflicts of our Lord.”

As there is so much ignorance, and particularly at present so much misrepresentation, on this subject, we shall summarise, in the words of Dr George, a few things about Christ that we may learn from the wonderful Book of Psalms —

1. His Divinity. Ps 14: 6, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” (Compared with Heb. 1: 8). Psalm 110: 1, “The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” (Compared with Matt. 22: 42-45).

2. His eternal Sonship. Ps 2: 7, “I will declare the decree: the Lord said unto me, Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten thee.” (Compared with Heb. 1: 5).

3. His Incarnation. Ps. 8: 5, “For Thou hast made Him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned Him with glory and honour.” (Compared with Heb. 2: 9). Ps. 11: 7, “Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me.” (Compared with Heb. 10: 5-7).

4. His mediatorial offices. (a) His prophetic office. Ps. 40: 9, 10, “I have preached righteousness in the great congregation,” etc. Ps. 22: 22, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren.” (Compared with Heb. 2: 12). (b) His priestly office. Ps. 110: 4, “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent; Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec.” (Compared with Heb. 7: 17). (c) His Kingly office. Ps. 45: 6, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a right sceptre.” (Compared with Heb. 1: 8). Ps. 110: 1, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” (Compared with Matt. 22: 42-45; Heb. 1: 13). See also Ps. 22: 28, and Ps. 72 throughout.

5. His betrayal. Ps. 41: 9, “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” (Compared with John 13: 18).

6. His agony in the garden. Ps. 22: 2, “O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night-season, and am not silent.” (Compared with Heb. 5: 7).

7. His trial. Ps. 35: 11, “False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.” (Compared with Matt. 26: 59, 60).

8. His rejection. Ps. 22: 6, “But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.” (Compared with Matt. 27: 21-23;

Luke 23: 18-23). Ps. 148: 22, “The stone which the builders refused is become the headstone of the corner.” (Compared with Matt. 21: 42; Acts 4: 11, 12).

1. His crucifixion. Ps. 22 throughout, also Ps. 69. (Compared with the Gospels). The scenes attending the crucifixion are described to the minutest particulars. The mockery, the shaking the head, the parting the garments, the casting lots on the vesture, the thirst, the vinegar and the gall, the pierced hands and feet, the cry of the forsaken, the committing of His spirit to God, and the “It is finished”, as many read the last verse of Ps. 22.

2. His burial and resurrection. Ps. 16: 9-11, “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life,” etc. (Compared with Acts 2: 25-31).

3. His ascension. Ps. 47: 5, “God is gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet.” (Compared with Acts 1: 11 and I Thess. 4: 16). Ps. 68: 18, “Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them.” (Compared with Eph. 4: 8-10). Ps. 24: 7-10, “Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in,” etc. (Compared with Rev. 5: 6-14).

4. His second coming. Ps. 1: 3,4, “Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence.” “He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that He may judge His people.” Ps. 98: 6-9, “With trumpets and sound of cornet make a joyful noise before the Lord, the King.” “Before the Lord; for He cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall He judge the world, and the people with equity.” (Compared with Matt. 24: 31; I Cor. 15: 52).

Well, said Jesus: It is written “in the Psalms concerning me”. “The sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow,” are here unfolded, and these “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Col. 3: 16) are replete with Christ. If any one will examine and compare these passages, he will readily believe that when Paul wrote, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom,” it was as if he had said, “Memorise the Psalms.” — Christian Banner.

The truths of revelation are so high as to exceed our comprehension, but, at the same time, the Holy Spirit has accommodated them so far to our capacity, as to render all Scripture profitable for instruction.

John Calvin

The Constitutional Aspect of the Declaratory Act

by Rev. D. Beaton

In our Deed of Separation the constitutional aspect of the Declaratory Act is very clearly set forth in the following words: “That by passing of the Declaratory Act of 1892, the said present subsisting Church, calling herself the Free Church of Scotland, through her General Assemblies, has, in so far as said Church is concerned, destroyed the integrity of the Confession of Faith as understood and accepted by the Disruption Fathers and their predecessors, and instead of the Westminster Confession of Faith as the recognised standard of orthodoxy in the Church, in all its heads and articles, has substituted what is called ‘the substance of the Reformed Faith therein set forth,’ the Church, through the majorities of the members of her Courts, being by the said Declaratory Act made the sole judge of the particular points that are to be included under this category of doctrines — a provision which overthrows the fixed doctrinal Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland, and lays its Creed at the feet of an irresponsible majority to determine the same as it will.” In making this charge of violating the Constitution of the Free Church, Free Presbyterians have appealed to the fact that this Act was passed under the Barrier Act of 1697. The title of this famous Act indicates its purpose: “Act anent the method of passing Acts of Assembly of general concern to the Church and for preventing of Innovations.” The relevant part of the Act bearing on the subject under discussion may now be quoted: “Considering the frequent practice of former Assemblies of this Church, and that it will mightily conduce to the exact obedience of the Acts of Assemblies, that General Assemblies be very deliberate in making the same, and that the whole Church have a previous knowledge thereof, and their opinion be had therein, and for preventing any sudden alteration or innovation, or other prejudice to the Church, in either doctrine or worship, or discipline, or government thereof, now happily established; do, therefore, appoint, enact, and declare, that before any General Assembly of this Church shall pass any Acts, which are to be binding rules and constitutions to the Church, the same Acts be first proposed as overtures to the Assembly, and, being by them passed as such, be remitted to the consideration of the several Presbyteries of this Church, and their opinions and consent reported by their Commissioners to the next General Assembly following, who may pass the same in Acts, if the more general opinion of the

Church thus had agreed thereunto.” There are two points in this Act which have a direct bearing on the violation of the Free Church’s Constitution by the Declaratory Act. (1) The Barrier Act expressly states the kind of Acts with which it deals, viz., Acts “which are to be binding rules and constitutions to the Church.” These words are plain enough, and lend themselves to only one interpretation, viz., that Acts which the Church sends down to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act are meant to be “Acts which are to be binding rules and constitutions to the Church,” otherwise the collected wisdom of the Church, in General Assembly gathered, is betraying its utter incompetence to deal with legislation. (2) It is also clear from the wording of the Barrier Act that, while it was intended “for preventing any sudden alteration or innovation or other prejudice to the Church, in either doctrine or worship, or discipline, or government thereof,” yet, though no doubt it was meant to hinder “sudden” alteration or innovation, it gave a significance to any alteration or innovation in doctrine or worship passed under it that it would not otherwise have but for the fact of having passed through the Barrier Act. It is this aspect of the Barrier Act which, it may safely be surmised, its framers never intended, that aided the wreckers of the Westminster Confessional doctrine in the Free Church of Scotland. The founders of the Free Presbyterian Church, while holding that the majority in passing the Declaratory Act were acting ultra vires, inasmuch as a use was made of the Barrier Act for which it was never intended, at the same time asserted that the Declaratory Act, being inconsistent with the Confession, violated the Constitution of the Free Church. In taking up positions seemingly at variance, there was no inconsistency. Both positions were tenable and consistent with the real facts of the situation created by the ecclesiastical policy of one of the astutest ecclesiastical leaders Scotland ever had, though, alas! his gifts were prostituted to a bad cause. It is true, of course, that in 1894 an Act was passed in which it is enacted “that the Assembly hereby declare that the statements of doctrine contained in the said [Declaratory] Act are not thereby imposed upon any of the Church’s office-bearers as part of the standards of the Church; but that those who are licensed or ordained to office in this Church, in answering the questions and subscribing the formula are entitled to do so in view of the said Declaratory Act.” This was only a makeshift, and deceived only those who wished to keep their eyes shut. When Principal Rainy found the Free Church in the serious position in which she was placed by the passing of the Declaratory Act his subtle brain immediately set to work on formulating some method whereby the Declaratory Act would not appear to have the formidable

position it really had under the Barrier Act, he fell on what must have appeared to himself and others a real inspiration in his ecclesiastical need. According to this presentation of the case, the Declaratory Act was not the serious piece of legislation that some men took it to be; it was only a “relieving Act.” This phrase did ignoble service in many a speech, and captured the imagination of the facile followers of Dr Rainy to such a degree that those who thought differently were laughed to scorn. A relieving Act! What else was it but a relieving Act? It did not need Dr Rainy’s subtle brain to coin this phrase, but there was one thing he ought to have laid a little more emphasis on to meet the real situation, and that was that this relieving Act relieved office-bearers from doctrines which were embedded in the constitution of the Free Church. The fact that it was a relieving Act did not nullify the damaging fact that it violated the Constitution of the Free Church.

A number who were opposed to the Declaratory Act still remained in the Church, and argued that they were not under it. This plausible argument ignored the working of ecclesiastical law. Take, for instance, a supposed case — The members of a whole Presbytery, with one or two exceptions, might refuse to licence a student because he wished to take advantage of the Declaratory Act, the case would be appealed to the Synod by the dissentients, and supposing the majority of the Synod supported the Presbytery, the matter would probably be appealed to the Assembly. The Assembly, in dealing with the case, had no option but to ask the Presbytery to licence the student and to give him the full benefit of any relief the Declaratory Act, its own Act, gave him. No amount of ecclesiastical argumentation could alter this fact, that the Assembly had passed this Act for such a purpose, and no amount of dissents could alter the fact that it was not an inoperative piece of legislation, but operative. Students, therefore, must be licensed and ministers ordained who were in the fullest sympathy with the Declaratory Act, and all the arguments of those who were opposed to it but yet remained in the Church betrayed their incapacity to realise the real logic of the ecclesiastical situation.

It has been argued by those who remained in the Church in 1893 and afterwards refused to enter the Union in 1900, that Free Presbyterians should be silent about being under the Declaratory Act, for (1) the Rev. D. Macfarlane remained in the Church a year after the Declaratory Act was passed, and during that year accepted a call to Raasay. In answer to this we have only to remind our readers that Mr Macfarlane explicitly stated in a letter to the press, reprinted in the Free Presbyterian Magazine, vol. XXVIII, p. 150, that it was at the request of the Constitutional party,

who were opposed to the Act, that he remained in the Church, in the hope that the Declaratory Act would be repealed at the Assembly of 1893. But even though, it could be proved that Mr Macfarlane was under the Declaratory Act for a year, which he denied, for the reasons stated in the forementioned letter, that does not prove that the Free Presbyterian Church was; for in the formation of the Free Presbyterian Church there was a complete break by Messrs Macfarlane and Macdonald with the Church which passed the Declaratory Act. (2) It has been argued that the Free Presbyterian Church never repealed this Act. One scarcely wishes to believe that those who use this argument are serious, as it shows an exceptionally low mental acumen, but, as it has been used time and again, and by those of whom better things might be expected, it is necessary to point out for the reason above stated that the Free Presbyterian Church, in making a complete break with the Church of the Declaratory Act, and in going back to the attainments of the Disruption Church, was under no necessity to repeal a law which never had a place on its statute book. The charge, therefore, that the Free Presbyterian Church is still under the Declaratory Act because it did not repeal the same is a piece of inconsequent reasoning that no man who wishes to be credited with even a minimum of logical acumen should ever dream of using. It was entirely different with the Free Church, which claimed to have a continuity with the Free Church up to 1892 and onwards. They were in duty bound to repeal the Declaratory Act in accordance with their profession at the earliest possible opportunity. That opportunity came in 1900, but it is a matter of history that it was not repealed until after the property case had been decided, and it is also a matter of history that the reason of this delay was owing to the question of the Church property then in dispute between the United Free and Free Churches. It has often been a question of interest to us: Supposing there had been no Union, would an effort ever have been made by those who afterwards formed the Free Church to have it repealed? We are aware we are dealing with hypothetical propositions, but propositions which nevertheless are very interesting. In the famous Church Case, Lord James of Hereford put a very interesting question to Mr Salvesen, one of the Free Church counsel: “Supposing,” he said, “the majority of the United Free Church said: ‘We take that view, and we will administer the Trusts according to their original form.’ What would prevent their taking possession of and seeking to administer the property?” To which Mr Salvesen replied: “I think they would have to rescind the Union, because our view is that the Union necessarily involves the abandonment of the principles of the Free Church; but if they

rescind the Union and came back to the Church, of course they would be entitled to participate along with the Pursuers [i.e., the Free Church].” In other words, had there been no Union the Free Church would not have been able to claim the property on the pleas she put forward in the case. Such, at any rate, seems to be the inference that may be drawn from the opinions of the learned counsel of the Free Church.

It was because those who afterwards formed the Free Presbyterian Church believed that it was impossible to remain in the Free Church without being bound by the Declaratory Act, with its anti-Scriptural, anti-Confessional teaching, that they left the Free Church as then constituted. Events have proved that they were wisely guided in this matter. Even from a worldly standpoint any little sacrifice made for the cause of truth has been made up more than a hundred-fold. The Lord has owned the stand made in 1893 in the interests of His truth, and there are many now at rest who rejoiced to see the day of deliverance when they experienced a joy which must have been akin to that felt by Israel when they left the bondage of Egypt forever behind.

The Dyke

by Rev. J. A. T. van Dorp

A confessional document is like a dyke. A dyke is to keep out the destructive inundation. Who has not heard of the legendary Dutch boy who supposedly plugged the tiny crack in the dyke with his finger for many hours until help arrived and so prevented a destructive inundation? An interesting story and although a mere legend it can teach an important lesson, such as the need to immediately rectify small faults.

A fault that developed in the national church scene in the Netherlands and did not immediately get rectified was in the probationers’ subscription of 1816. Until then subscription to the constitution had been total. Then it was changed to: “that we accept in good faith and heartily believe the doctrine, which according to God’s holy word, is contained in the accepted forms of unity of the Netherland reformed church”. At least that is how it translates into English. The words that made the breach in the dyke were “WHICH ACCORDING TO GOD’S HOLY WORD”. This clause of course appears perfectly in order and that was no doubt a great part of the trouble. It appears that no person could see anything wrong with this form of subscription. At least not until many years later. Meanwhile the water of error began to seep through the dyke. If anyone

would point out to liberals that their doctrine was not according to the three forms of unity then they would not be slow to refer to the undertaking they had given in their subscription to “believe the doctrine, WHICH ACCORDING TO GOD’S HOLY WORD, is contained in the accepted forms of unity”. In other words the three forms of unity were qualified and modified by their personal interpretation of the scriptures. Dr C. N. Impeta, in his book Kaart van Kerkelijk Nederland 1972 states that “Through the changed probationers’ formula it was not clear whether the preachers held themselves bound to the confession of the church BECAUSE or IN SO FAR AS this agreed with the holy scriptures. In reality this meant liberty of doctrine”. (p27)

Within a few years the trickle through the dyke became a veritable flood to the deep grief of many true believers. One deeply concerned minister writes: “Already in the first meeting of Synod 1816 a regulation for the examination and admission to the teaching office in the reformed church was drafted and introduced. This requires the probationer to subscribe ‘that we accept in good faith and heartily believe the doctrine, which according to God’s holy word, is contained in the accepted forms of unity of the Netherlands reformed church’. This paragraph has been compiled with so much cunning and subtlety, that the wise and good father Krieger (the president of the Synod) surely not suspecting any evil, did not notice it, and many after him did not perceive it. Everyone who carefully considers this declaration, will see clearly that it does not say, THAT THE ARTICLES OF OUR CHURCH ARE ACCORDING TO GOD’S WORD, but with reservation, THAT ONE BELIEVES THAT DOCTRINE WHICH ACCORDING TO GOD’S WORD, IS CONTAINED IN THE ARTICLES OF OUR CHURCH. The subscription is therefore not made, because the articles are recognised as agreeable with God’s word, but in so far as they are agreeable with God’s word. Such a subscription can be made by every Christian faction, the papists can subscribe it, yes even the Jews can do it. If they had used the words IN SO FAR AS, then every person would have noticed it and every one would have been on their guard: but now we call this way of acting cunning and subtle, and a secret undermining and rejection of our reformed doctrine”. (Documenta Reformatoria, Vol. 2, p.114, letter of Rev. Molenaar). This letter was written by Rev. Molenaar to his reformed brethren in 1827.

The question is — Can anyone see a parallel between these events of the 19th century and what happened in Scotland in 1989? The APC constitutional clause — in so far as each and every one of the documents is consistent with the holy scriptures — may not be of the same covert con-

struction but it certainly is of the same overt tendency to let in the murky waters of false doctrine and practice.

In the Netherlands that occurred within a few years of the new subscription clause being introduced. Rev. Molenaar wrote his warning letter in 1827. By then the lowlands were inundated with the murky waters of modernism. Was there no champion to turn the tide? By this time it must be remembered it was no longer a matter of endeavouring to plug up an insignificant crack that could become a threat. The LIBERTY OF DOCTRINE CLAUSE, as it could be called, was doing the work it was meant to do. That was to give liberty to teach according to one’s views and not according to the constitution. Modernism extended eventually to the theological faculties of the universities where supernatural revelation, miracles, the bodily resurrection of Christ and the trustworthiness of the scriptures were denied.

Heroic attempts were made by various ministers, notably Rev. Hendrik de Cock of Ulrum to stem the rising tide of modernism. However his witness on the side of the truth was at a tremendous cost to him of suspension from the work of the ministry, loss of reputation, financial hardship and even of liberty. He spent three months in gaol like a common criminal. How like his Master and Lord he had become. “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord” (Mat. 10: 24). A number of faithful colleagues and numerous godly people throughout the land shared in these persecutions which led eventually to the secession in 1834. On the 18th October 1834 the congregation at Ulrum signed the Act of Secession and Return; i.e. they returned to the principles of the reformation from which the national church had departed. A movement that snowballed and brought about a division that still has not been healed. A schism is no doubt a terrible wrench, the responsibility for which must be born by those determined to make a leak in the dyke.

It is interesting that the terminology chosen by the APC in 1989 is similar to the wording used by the innovators of 1816 fame in The Hague. Only the 1816 clause was much more ambiguous; a fact the godly came to rue much when the implications became clear. Had the “IN SO FAR AS” wording been used the crack in the dyke would have been too conspicuous and would not have been allowed to remain.