by Rev. Fraser Macdonald
(A paper read at the Centenary Meeting on 25th May, 1993)
Fathers, brethren, and friends, I feel honoured to be deputed to make this small contribution to the celebrations, occasioned by the arrival of the Centenary Year of our distinctive existence and witness as a separate denomination. I pray that the God of all grace and comfort, who has so graciously and mercifully spared us, not only to see, but to participate in today’s proceedings, may deign to favour us with His divine Presence.
I wish to make four simple observations, regarding some of the differences that obtained between the Assemblies of 1843 and 1893.
Firstly, there was a difference between the issues involved. In 1843, the prime issue at stake was the defence of the Crown Rights of Christ against the intrusion of the civil courts, into the spiritual jurisdiction of the Courts of the Church of God. Now, we do not doubt or minimise the seriousness of the issues then at risk, but we would respectfully suggest that they did not possess the same degree of gravity as the later challenge made, by the appearance and tolerance of the Higher Critical views.
In 1893, it was the veracity and authority of Holy Scripture, which was imperilled and called in question. Now, without descending into the historical details, we must take cognisance of the sad fact, that Professors in Chairs of the church were the leading culprits in this field, moreover, one would have expected the Free Church to recognise the greater guilt accruing to the activity of these men from their places of confidence, leadership and more especially their consequent influence on the rising ministry of the Church. Contrary to expectation, their status as professors only served to ensure for them a degree of safety and immunity from any radical and effective discipline. We have good reason to ask if this deplorable and highly dangerous policy is still in operation in the present Free Church of Scotland. If we judge them, not by the carnal criteria of numbers, or the extent of excitement and interest generated, but by the intrinsic characters of the issues at stake, we would argue that there was MORE at risk in 1893 than in 1843.
Our second observation relates to the relative degree of courage, strength
and discernment afforded the two leaders. The voice of Dr Chalmers was no solitary one in the Assembly of 1843. He knew the strength and solidarity of the loyal and cordial support, upon which he could rely, and was already recognised as a man of great stature and power in the Church. Mr Macfarlane’s voice, on the other hand, was more or less, a lone voice in the Assembly of 1893, nor did he know the strength or weakness of his support. But a tiny minority in that vast Assembly appeared to have any real sympathy with him. Some of these spoke, and spoke well, but FAILED to translate their words into positive action. Such, it seems were easily wheedled and placated by the craft and popularity of Dr Rainy. It was therefore left to Mr Macfarlane to register his own Protest. Surely, the greater trial required the greater proportion of grace and God-given courage. We would also argue that the more singular honour was bestowed upon the man of smaller stature and greater obscurity ecclesiastically. Our founding father did more for the Lord and His Cause that day, than that whole Assembly, composed of so many men of great erudition, ability and other endowments. To God alone be all the glory. His magnifies His grace, stains the pride of man, and pours contempt upon princes, while he uses a Mordecai, as his honoured instrument to save the Israel of God from destruction.
Our third observation relates to the fact quite frequently overlooked, but none the less significant, namely, that 1893 as distinct from 1843 was the JUBILEE YEAR of the Free Church of Scotland. This feature of that august Assembly distinguished it from all previous ones. It had, so to speak, a distinct atmosphere all of its own, as one might appreciate. In 1843, a spirit of holy reverence, of deep spirituality, of humble gratitude and earnestness prevailed. There was no place there for levity, among men who loved one another in faith. In 1893 however, the Record of the Proceedings of that Assembly seems to indicate that the whole tone of the Assembly was altered and visibly lowered. We make full allowance for the fact, that this was their Jubilee Year; nor does the intensification of the notes of joy and gratitude surprise us, but, in the light of the culpable decadence already mentioned, might we not expect the spirit of contrition, penitence, concern and even consternation to be much in evidence? Indeed, had the Proceedings of that Assembly been not only tinged, but shot through with profound sadness, it would have been much more in accord with the reality of the situation. What, alas, we do find is that the air was charged with a spirit of levity, on occasion bordering on hilarity. There was in evidence a readiness to break into unholy laughter at the least display of wit, or when a point was made that appealed to the
majority, to indulge in too frequent carnal applause. It seems to us, as if the decree had gone forth, that none dare appear before that Court, clothed in sackcloth. If our judgment is worth anything, the impression given was, that the atmosphere was such, as to render it difficult for the spiritually minded to breathe, let alone speak or act out of tone with the majority.
Our last observation is perhaps the most alarming and revealing of all. The spirit of the 1893 Assembly, and the sentiments expressed by the Moderator, stand in stark contrast to the loyalty, the fidelity, and the unifying convictions of the Disruption Fathers. So changed was the spiritual and moral climate, that the retrograde steps and policies of the Jubilee Free Church were acclaimed as strident advances upon the stern faithfulness, and uncompromising love and zeal for the Truth, by which their fathers were motivated. Instead of reaffirming the principles, for which their worthy forebears had contended so valiantly, the Moderator in his Address to the delegates lamented “the folly of exaggerating their differences”. One cannot but detect in his words a noxious similarity to the slogans of modern evangelical ecumenism. The full implications of the policy advocated is, that points of disagreement should be minimised, or marginalised in the interests of the much greater significance of the points of agreement. Much lip service was rendered to their forebears but it closely resembled the activity of the Pharisees in impiously and hypocritically garnishing the sepulchres of the prophets. The ecumenical spirit which was hailed by the Moderator, as an encouraging prelude to closer union, has since then, been allowed to develop, and what a monster it is! Both the germ and the heretical language of the union envisaged, are to be found in this address. Just listen for yourselves to the Moderator, and catch for yourselves the heretical undertones, as he proceeds to make light of mutually exclusive doctrinal differences. Here I quote, “To my mind indeed, this spontaneous gathering of deputies from so many different churches, and so many scattered countries, is like an Ecumenical Council than anything we have known for long years (Applause).
We have not, it is true, in this capacity discussed doctrines, or framed creeds, or issued decrees for the whole church — but we have done, what perhaps, is quite as much of importance for the present day. We have borne witness to the essential oneness, of all the churches, holding the Evangelical Faith (whatever that may be!). For ages we dwelt on our points of difference, and exaggerated their significance. We were keen disputants, often failing in charity — rarely failing in severity. The Calvinist frowned at the Arminian, and the Arminian misunderstood the Calvinist. . . . Judah
vexed Ephraim (laughter) and Ephraim vexed Judah, but now evangelical christendom, through nearly all its borders has risen to a higher conception of the calling of God, and we recognise that there is a REAL unity, the unity of a common life in Christ . . . and it is this unity which is represented by this Ecumenical Council today.” (Applause.)
Fine words, but oh how naive! The spirit inherent in the sentiments expressed, has paved the way for dialogue with Rome and the Jesuits. The direction of the Ecumenical movement is decisively Romewards. And by using the opposite, and ostensibly more charitable and effective principle of exaggerating our points of agreement, the gap is narrowing by the hour. Neutrality or silence on such crucial issues is criminal, and our worthy forefathers knew only too well that Arminianism and Romanism were allies. The Moderator of that Assembly made light of Truth in the interests of unity, and had the temerity to say with unmistakable gratification “It is as if every man had left his sword on the wall, and left all his fighting gear at home.” That final assessment of the Assembly that refused to rescind the infamous Declaratory Act was sadly, sadly true, except for one noble exception — Rev. Donald Macfarlane — who drew his sword and drew it well. To him, under God we owe an unspeakable debt of gratitude. By God’s grace, one hundred years after the event, we celebrate, with humility and joy the Centenary of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, of which, he had the honour to be the founder. This branch of the visible church has few friends, and many enemies, but we believe with all our hearts, that Mr Macfarlane was the instrument in the Lord’s hand to bring our fathers, ourselves, and, we trust, our posterity, out of real spiritual bondage and darkness. Gratitude, humility, fidelity and courage are the virtues called for, in the present climate of Ecumenism, declension and a darkness which CAN BE FELT. But we look to that God of whom it was written
“He out of darkness did them bring, and
from death’s shade them take;
These bands where with they had been bound,
asunder quite he break.” Psalm 107: 14
Mbuma Mission Meeting — April 1993
Rev. Donald A. Ross