by Rev. K. D. MacLeod
The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has now been in separate existence for all but one hundred years. Those who took the initiative in establishing a separate denomination in 1893 were wholehearted in their support of the principles of the Disruption Free Church, which had itself come into separate existence only fifty years earlier. What had changed in such a relatively short time that could justify this drastic step of a further separation? The fact is that a great deal had changed, of which only the briefest outline can be sketched in an article such as this.
The solemn grandeur of the scene has often been described, when in May 1843 over four hundred ministers, and a further large number of elders, left the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in St Andrew’s Church, Edinburgh, and wound their way to Tanfield Hall where the first General Assembly of the Church of Scotland Free was constituted.
It was probably the high-water mark of that particular tide of evangelical religion in Scotland.
When the tide actually began to turn may be somewhat doubtful — such things are generally imperceptible. But in 1867 a clear signal was given that the tide had ebbed significantly and that there was now a large element in the Free Church which did not have any deep love for truly Scriptural principles. That year the Free Church General Assembly refused to support a unanimous decision of the Glasgow Presbytery to proceed against one of their ministers, Walter C. Smith, because of his unscriptural views on the binding obligation of the moral law in New Testament times and the place of the Old Testament as a whole in the New Testament dispensation. The successful motion, significantly, was moved by Robert Rainy. In it — and it was a procedure which he was to follow so often in the future — there was some condemnation of Smith’s views, but nothing was to be done by way of discipline. Smith had offered some explanations, but no apology or retraction. Clearly he had freedom to continue to hold unscriptural doctrines, and he could continue to teach them. The signal from the General Assembly was plain — others could teach and preach similarly and no serious action would be taken. Which is exactly what did happen.
In the course of the years professor after professor taught and published doctrines which were completely unscriptural. And many lent their support to Higher Critical views of the Bible, especially of the Old Testament — among them A. B. Davidson, Marcus Dods, A. B. Bruce, G. A. Smith and W. Robertson Smith. When cases involving the teaching of Dods and Bruce came before the General Assembly, nothing more was done beyond expressing some mild disapproval; and they were allowed to continue to teach their false views of the authority of the Bible to their students, who were to form the next generation of Free Church ministers. While proceedings against Robertson Smith went somewhat further, one is left with the feeling that his dismissal from his Professorship in 1881 was only the result of his contemptuous refusal to trim his sails just a little. In fact his status as a minister was unaffected and he actually sat as an elder in the 1882 General Assembly.
What probably opened men’s eyes more than anything else to incipient declension in the Free Church was the Union Controversy of 1863-1873, when there were proposals for union with the United Presbyterian Church. In 1867, the year of the Walter Smith case, five members of the Free Church’s Union Committee resigned; they had seen too much of a spirit of concession among other members of the Committee. The United
Presbyterian Church differed from the Free Church principally on two subjects: the extent of the Atonement and the Establishment Principle. However, it became clear that if the union was to take place at that time there would be a major split in the Free Church. As a result negotiations for union were broken off.
In the course of time, as well as departures from purity of doctrine, there were departures from the purity of worship which had been a clear principle of the Free Church in its early days. Permission was given to individual congregations to use uninspired hymns and instrumental music if they so wished. It was thus perfectly clear by the late 1880s that the Free Church as a whole had seriously departed from her moorings of less than fifty years previously. Yet, although there was much unscriptural teaching, belief and practice within the Church, and an almost total unwillingness on the part of the General Assembly to take action against those departures, the constitution of the Church remained intact. In the words of a contemporary, “As long as the errors and innovations were not justified by any Act (of Assembly) in which the responsibility of the whole Church was involved they felt at liberty to remain, but no sooner was an Act of this character passed than they considered themselves bound in conscience to separate.”
Such an Act was the natural outcome of declension in the Free Church. It took the form of a Declaratory Act, after the example of the United Presbyterian Church, which had passed just such an Act in 1879. The title was a misnomer, for the intention was not to declare what the Church understood to be the actual meaning of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
A Declaratory Act passed for that specific purpose would have been perfectly in order, but the intention of the Declaratory Act of 1892 was completely different; it was quite definitely to modify the degree of adherence which office-bearers were required to give to the Westminster Confession as the subordinate standard of the Church. The function of the Westminster Confession as the subordinate standard of the Free Church was to declare how the Church understood the Scriptures, but belief in the substance of the Reformed Faith was all that was demanded by this Declaratory Act. And it was clear that this substance was very significantly smaller than the sum-total of the doctrines of the Confession of Faith.
An overture from Selkirk had come before the General Assembly of 1887 proposing to delete all references to the Confession of Faith in the Formula which elders were required to sign at their ordination. By 1889
a new Formula for elders was in place which contained only a general reference to the Confession; they no longer had to subscribe to a belief in the whole Confession, as had been the case since 1711, when the Formula introduced in 1694 had been tightened up. It was in 1889 also that a committee was set up in response to overtures before the General Assembly “to make inquiry, and consider carefully what action it is advisable for the Church to take, so as to meet the difficulties and relieve the scruples referred to in so large a number of overtures — it being always understood that the Church can contemplate the adoption of no change which shall not be consistent with a cordial and steadfast adherence to the great doctrines of the Confession.” Three possibilities were raised in the Committee’s report to the next General Assembly: (1) To make some changes in the Confession itself. (2) To relax the Formula for ministers. (3) To pass a Declaratory Act. This last option was favoured by a majority of the Committee, and it was adopted by the General Assembly.
At first glance much of the Act, which was first presented to the General Assembly of 1891, seems innocuous enough. Indeed, if it was otherwise, and if loose phrasing and ambiguity had not be pressed into service, it would have been difficult for the proposers of the Act to carry with them such a large body of the Church. To understand the intention of many individual statements it is necessary to read them in the light of prevailing currents of thought. Especially it is necessary to read them in the light of this explanatory statement given in the Act itself: “It is expedient to remove difficulties and scruples which have been felt by some in reference to the declaration of belief required from persons who receive licence or are admitted to office in this Church.” It is thus difficult not to assume that each and every statement made in the Declaratory Act represents a weakening of Confessional doctrine, if not an outright departure from it. In each case we can ask ourselves, if this statement is only meant to reaffirm Scriptural truth, rather than to weaken the Church’s affirmation of it, why was it made at all in an Act whose purpose has just been explained, in its own words? And the final statement of the Act was very clearly intended to give very considerable latitude to the beliefs of individual office-bearers. No one could doubt if the Church rather than the Confession was to interpret the limits of “the substance of the Reformed Faith” she would follow that same line which over the years she had repeatedly and increasingly taken in cases of discipline.
The first section of the Declaratory Act speaks of “the divine purpose of grace to those who are saved”, and declares that “this Church most earnestly proclaims, as standing in the forefront of the revelation of grace
the love of God . . . to sinners of mankind, manifested especially in the Father’s gift of His Son to be the Saviour of the world, in the coming of the Son to offer Himself a propitiation for sin, and in the striving of the Holy Spirit with men to bring them to repentance.” In reading these words we must remember that the purpose of the Act was to help men who did not fully believe the doctrines of the Westminster confession to remain in, or enter, office in the Free Church. It has therefore been pointed out that this section was an attempt “to blend the general benevolence of God with His discriminating love for the elect, and the attempt has proved a disastrous failure.” This writer also pointed out that in using the expression, Saviour of the world, there is an implication, Scriptural and all as the phrase is, that the gift of the Son flows from God’s universal love.
Writing in opposition to similar American attempts to revise the Confession B B Warfield has pointed out how “it is frequently objected . . . that the Confession makes too little relatively of the love of God, and too much relatively of His sovereignty, and thus reverses the emphasis of the Bible. The framers of the Confession are not responsible, however, for this separation of God’s love and sovereignty; to them His sovereignty seemed a loving sovereignty, and His love a sovereign love, and in founding the whole fabric of their Confession on the idea of God’s undeserved favour to lost sinners they understood themselves to be glorifying His love to sinners. It is perfectly true that they seldom make use of the term love, but this is due to the exactness of their phraseology, by which they prefer to speak of God’s goodness and grace — by the use of which terms they designate by the first His general love, and by the other His special love for His people.”
The second section teaches that it is the view of the Church that the Confession does not teach “the foreordination of men to death irrespective of their own sin”. But this, again in Warfield’s words, is to “confound the treatment of preterition (the act of God in passing by the non-elect), which is sovereign, with that of condemnation, which is based on sin”. “Sin is not the cause of preterition; election is the cause of preterition, that is, the choosing of some is the cause that the ‘rest’ are left. Sin is the cause, however, of how the preterited ones are treated.”
The next section declares that it is the view of the Church that the Confession does not teach that any infants are lost. This was true to the extent that the statement in the Confession, “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated” (10: 3), does not attempt to go beyond what is revealed in Scripture. The statement in the Confession is a masterpiece of caution, but the statement in the
Declaratory Act seems clearly intended to imply what has not been revealed — that all infants are saved. The final part of this section goes on to assert the possibility of salvation for such as are beyond the reach of the gospel. The Confession does state that there are elect persons who are “incapable of being outwardly called” (10: 3) — obviously constitutionally, because of severe mental handicap. But on Scriptural grounds it very emphatically rules out salvation for the heathen, no matter how morally upright they may be — and this assertion in the Declaratory Act was very obviously intended to apply to the heathen.
The fourth section seems to be an attempt to minimise the Confessional teaching about the fallenness of man. It is indeed true, as it states, that “man possesses a knowledge of God and his duty”, but this natural knowledge is totally insufficient for salvation, and this is a point which is completely obscured by the language of the Declaratory Act. The expression is also used that man is “unable without the aid of the Holy Spirit to return to God”, which suggests that the Spirit need do no more than co-operate with man’s own efforts in this direction. Certainly, and this is in line with the whole intention of the Act, it gives perfect liberty to men to hold such views and to teach them with impunity. Similarly the emphasis on man being “capable of affections and actions which in themselves are virtuous and praiseworthy” detracts from the Confession’s teaching that because such acts “proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God” (16: 7).
The points which we have considered thus far were all intended to make it easier for ministers and others to avoid discipline although their beliefs were inconsistent with Scripture. But it was the final section that completely destroyed any possibility of holding any office-bearer to the full teaching of the Bible. It is explicitly stated that there are points in the Confession which do not enter into “the substance of the Reformed Faith”, and that on these points “diversity of opinion is recognised in this Church”. Full authority was given to the Church to distinguish between the two categories of truth, an authority which the Free Church was usurping far too lightly, for the plain duty of the Church is to declare “all the counsel of God”. Besides, it was clear from the decisions of previous General Assemblies that the points on which diversity of opinion would be allowed included the inerrancy of Scripture, the binding obligation of the Moral Law, election, Christ’s atonement, His divinity and resurrection, and the use of hymns and instrumental music in public worship.
This was the Act which was approved by a majority of Free Church Presbyteries in 1891/92, and by a 346 to 192 vote in the 1892 General Assembly on May 26. It was the climax of a period of steady declension, and was to result in the formation the following year of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
Notes and Comments
L.D.O.S. and Sabbath Trading
The Lord’s Day Observance Society has produced a leaflet entitled “Towards a Better Shops Act” which gives an informative survey of the situation at present with regard to the Sabbath. It expresses the view that the main advocates of Sabbath trading are the multiple D.I.Y. stores such as Texas and B&Q and points out how they embarked on a policy of deliberate and widespread law-breaking in order to force a change in the law.
In the leaflet the Lord’s Day Observance Society states that its position remains unchanged. It says: “We are fully committed to the Bible and the Law of God and we seek, in all that we do, to uphold the sanctity of the Sabbath.” Later it appears to contradict this by setting out proposals for regulating Sabbath trading which would not conform to the claims of the divine law. While these proposals might produce a better Shops Act, yet the only Shops Act which true Christians can support is one which would forbid trading altogether on God’s holy day. We do not think it is the duty of Sabbatarians to help Sabbath desecrators to produce a Shops Act which might be better than the one they might produce on their own, but to bring before the conscience of Sabbath breakers the claims of the divine law.
The L.D.O.S. in London has taken a firm and unequivocal stand on behalf of the Lord’s Day and we would not like to see this stand compromised in any way.
Since this leaflet has been sent out a Bill has come before Parliament which would severely restrict Sabbath trading. It was introduced by Mr Ray Powell MP as a Private Members Bill. It received a second reading on 22nd January and was approved by 214 to 41. This shows that many MPs are opposed to unrestricted Sabbath trading. The Government is to bring in its own Bill on Sabbath trading giving Members of Parliament the opportunity to vote for various options. May the day soon come when the Sabbath will be restored in the land for the worship of God and for the honour of His Name.
Betting Shops Late Opening
The Home Secretary, Mr Kenneth Clarke, has announced that from 1st April and throughout the summer betting shops will be allowed to stay open until 10 p.m. This is a further sad reflection on a Government which is also to institute a national lottery to raise money for what it considers worthy causes, to the sin of gambling and the miseries that flow in its train the Government appears to be blind. What moral perverseness is inherent in such a course of action when the Government should be advocating lawful methods and not sinful means for men to increase their own wealth and that of their neighbour. The gambling industry is a multi-million pound business in our country but, lacking the blessing of God, it cannot add to the prosperity of the country by one iota, but is a sign of our moral decadence as a nation. If better days were to come the bookmakers and pools promoters, along with the tavern owners, would rapidly go out of business. The grace of God would make men recognise the illicitness of their trade. May the Lord speedily grant such a time.
Glasgow Drug-taking
It is reported that more than 22,000 young people in Glasgow take drugs. It would appear that Glasgow is taking over from Edinburgh as the drugs capital of Britain. It is not a record for which either of these cities should be proud, rather is it a cause for sadness and shame. In the past year in Glasgow sixty addicts died. Behind this scourge are the drug barons who grow rich on the misery of others. What an account such will have to give in the day of account. Nothing will cure our cities and our land of this and other plagues but the outpouring of the Spirit of God upon the nation to bring our nation to repentance. Because we have forsaken the Lord, it is only too evident that the Lord has forsaken us and given us up to the lusts of our own hearts.
Women Priests
The approval of women in the ministry of the Church of England has made a deep split in that Church. An attempt is being made to arrive at some compromise by which those who are opposed to the ministry of women may be catered for by those acceptable to them. Some of the high Anglicans are in touch with the Roman Catholic Archbishop Hume to see if they might be received as a group into the Church of Rome. They hope this can be done in such a way that the ecumenical process between the R.C. Church and the Anglican Church would not be harmed. Cardinal Hume in stating that he was considering the proposals put to him
said: “I do not lose sight of the fact that the ultimate aim of all our ecumenical endeavour is full communion between all the churches, and that the primary responsibility of all Christians is to proclaim Christ and His gospel to our nation.” If he really believes this, then it is about time he began to proclaim Christ and His gospel and not the false dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.