The first part of this article sketched the course of declension in the Free Church of Scotland during the fifty years from the Disruption of 1843, and gave a brief examination of the Declaratory Act which was passed by the 1892 General Assembly of the Free Church on May 26.
At a meeting of the Constitutional Party that evening Rev William Balfour declared that the time for separation had now come. Rev Murdo Macaskill, possibly the man closest to being a leader of the party at that stage, then said, “I never thought or dreamt of a disruption.” This remark sounded strange from someone who had up till then taken such an outspoken line against the Declaratory Act and against the general declension within the Free Church. But it appears that “he was not always consistent with this public attitude in his conduct of things”, at least when he had been a minister in Greenock. The outcome of this meeting, and of others which followed, was a decision to fight on within the Free Church. For that particular year those who objected most to the Declaratory Act were protected by a dissent and protest which contained an appeal to the General Assembly of the following year. Protests were also engrossed in the records of various Kirk Sessions and Presbyteries.
When 1893 came round the moves against the Declaratory Act were rebuffed by the General Assembly, by a majority even more overwhelming than in 1892. Immediately afterwards Rev Donald Macfarlane, who had already ascertained that none of his ministerial brethren were prepared to separate, with the exception of Rev Donald Macdonald, read his Protest against the introduction of the Declaratory Act. By his Protest he separated from the Free Church, now so definitely committed to a line of defection from the Westminster Confession of Faith, and therefore from the Scriptures also. The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (originally called the Free Church Presbytery of Scotland) was formally established on July 28, 1893, when the two ministers and Alexander Macfarlane formed the first Presbytery of the Church and signed a deed of Separation from the Free Church.
Were they justified in their separation? The serious tendencies of the Declaratory Act, which were outlined in the first part of this article, might indeed seem sufficient justification. However, the fact that such a change in the constitution was ultra vires (going beyond the power of the Church) was used to justify their remaining in the Free Church by that part of the Constitutional Party which did not separate, especially as the Formula for ministers had not been altered. But the fact of the matter was that, in practice at least, the creed of the Church was now the Westminster Confession of Faith as read in the light of the Declaratory Act, and men were now entitled to sign the Confession of Faith “in view of the Declaratory Act”.
Much play was made of the argument, made explicit in a resolution of the 1894 General Assembly, that the provisions of the Declaratory Act were not binding on any who did not wish to avail themselves of the doctrinal relaxation which it gave: “Whereas the Declaratory Act of 1892 was passed to remove difficulties and scruples felt by some in reference to the declaration of belief required from persons who receive licence, or are admitted to office in this Church, the Assembly hereby declare that the statements of doctrine contained in the said Act are not therefore 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”.
The Free Church minister of Halkirk, for instance, made a statement along these lines to his congregation, and it was reported in the local press. A reply appeared shortly afterwards which showed that his freedom, and the freedom of those who thought in the same way, was not as real as he imagined: “Mr Fraser states that this Act is not imposed on him and does not bind him. . . . If anyone applies for admission to communion in the Church Mr Fraser may endeavour to ascertain the knowledge of the applicant by asking him or her a few questions from the Shorter Catechism. If it happens that some of the questions asked assert the imputation of Adam’s guilt to his posterity, and the electing love of God, what can an examining minister say if the applicant asserts his belief, according to the Declaratory Act, that no one is foreordained to death irrespective of their own sin, and that God loves all men? If the minister is true to his own convictions he will refuse admission to the applicant. If the matter is brought before the Church Courts their finding must necessarily be, that, although the minister is at liberty to hold the strict view of these doctrines, yet he is not at liberty to refuse the privileges of the Church to those who hold views of these doctrines that are given in the Declaratory Act. Where is now the minister’s freedom from the binding obligations of the Act?”
The Formula, by which office-bearers formally affirmed their beliefs, certainly remained unaltered, at least for ministers. However, it is clear that the leaders of the Free Church did not consider such a change necessary as the Formula could now be signed “in view of the Declaratory Act”. The inconsistency between the Formula and the Declaratory Act must have been obvious to all. But there was a difficulty: to alter the Formula was to run the very definite risk of splitting the Free Church far more drastically than in the separation which took place in 1893. The motion accepted by the Confession of Faith Committee in 1892 clearly reflects this concern: “That the Committee, while recognising the value of the Declaratory Act, and the important purpose it is fitted to serve, find it difficult to introduce any reference to the Act into the Formula which would not imply the acceptance and approval of those who subscribe it of all the doctrinal statements now referred to, and may find in them a serious obstacle to their signing the Formula. The Committee consider that it is not the design of the Declaratory Act to add anything to the Confession or to lay on any party any new burden. The primary purpose of the Act being to afford relief, not to impose any new restriction, the Committee are of opinion that the purpose is sufficiently served by the passing of the Act in question, and that any reference to it in the Formula is unnecessary, and would be fraught with serious risks.” This policy, in pragmatic terms, was largely successful; the larger part of the Constitutional Party considered the Act “inoperative”.
It is now, of course, perfectly clear that a policy of non-separation at any price has ended with incorporation in the present Church of Scotland, where it would seem that both in doctrine and practice anything goes except the refusal, either to ordain women to the eldership, or to baptise infants. Thus the only serious question to be answered is, Was it right to separate in 1893, rather than in 1900 when the Free and the United Presbyterian Churches united to become the United Free Church? The above discussion indicates that the time of crucial change in the structure of the Free Church took place with the passing of the Declaratory Act, and so the proper time for separation was when it was clear that that change was irreversible. But for a reasonably detached view we may turn to Principal Rainy’s major biographer, P Carnegie Simpson. Referring to the secession of 1893, he says, “They expected a far larger ministerial following, and had a right to do so. One has more respect for the two ministers and their associates than for those who had used the most violent language and then, at the last moment, themselves drew back.” And John Macpherson, by then a United Free Church minister, in commenting on the continuing Free Church, said that “most of those composing it ought in consistency to have gone out with that secession” (that of 1893).
Dr John Kennedy of Dingwall has been quoted in support of staying on in the Free Church in 1893, on the strength of his remarks in his Unionism and the Union when he had addressed the pro-union party in the first union controversy over twenty years earlier: “Of your ministers, elders, deacons and people, not a few are resolved not to forsake the . . . Free Church, and are resolved not to separate from you till you have parted from them by being actually incorporated with those whose fellowship you have preferred . . . and if there is to be a disruption, the act shall be yours.” This was exactly the course pursued by those in the Free Church who did not join the union of 1900 — except that the circumstances were very significantly different. There was no question of change of doctrine or constitution between 1863 and 1873, apart from actual union with the United Presbyterian Church. In 1892, on the other hand, a fundamental change in the constitution had taken place. Certainly the Church had acted beyond its powers in making that change, and the result was inconsistent, but the consequences in practice should have been obvious.
This was, however, something that Dr Kennedy had in fact foreseen. In private conversation, at least, he had referred to what he called the advanced party getting out from under the Confession of Faith, yet remaining in the Free Church. “No, they cannot,” he went on, “nor can they alter it, but they can frame an Act modifying its doctrines, as has been done by the UP Church . . . I believe that the Lord has a remnant in our land who will not brook a creed framed to suit and to shelter men of Arminian and Rationalistic opinions, a remnant that will separate, and, as I think, the separating party will be found especially in the districts lying north and west of the Caledonian Canal. I am naming it prospectively the Caledonian Church. . . . Perhaps I shall have joined the Church of the first-born before the crises comes, but that it will come within a very few years appears to me inevitable.”
Inevitable the separation indeed was if men were to hold to Scriptural principles. To remain in the Free Church was to endanger the Scottish testimony to the accurate statement of Scripture doctrine, not only for that time, but for all time to come. To separate was to preserve the testimony intact for that generation and to hand it down to the next, however few there might be who would hold on to it. The necessity remains in each generation to remain faithful to that testimony. It is our duty too; may we get grace to be thus faithful!