Matthew Vogan
It is a matter for sincere thankfulness that, in a generation backsliding from previous attainments in doctrine, worship and practice, there should be any desire to make a public testimony to purity of worship and unreserved commitment to the Westminster Confession of Faith. This is to be found in the new constitution published by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland (RPCS) in April 2011.1 Where the Headship of Christ is set forth we can say with the Apostle Paul: “I therein do rejoice” (Phil 1:18), although sadly it may be undermined by unnecessary division.
A lack of distinctiveness. One might ask, however, what makes the RPCS distinctive from other Presbyterian denominations in Scotland holding to the same principles? How does the RPCS justify maintaining a separate position? We ask these questions out of a concern for truth and the cause of Christ, endeavouring to speak the truth in love. The constitution states that the RPCS “recognises that much of her testimony is shared by members of other Presbyterian Churches in Scotland. As such, while preserving what it sees as essential to a full and genuine witness that is both Reformed and Presbyterian in nature, it wishes others who share the same vision to join with it in order to secure the existence of one established Church, truly Reformed in doctrine, worship, government, and discipline, in each nation.”
These aims are right, and clear statements of differences help towards this
1There may be matters of practice in the RPCS that undermine an unreserved commitment to the Westminster Confession, such as the use of Bible versions which do not adhere entirely to the original texts of the Old and New Testaments that have been preserved pure in all ages by divine providence (WCF 1:8).
objective. The aspirations of wider unity also underline, however, the problem of a lack of distinctiveness in the new RPCS constitution. If divisions are sometimes necessary, they must come, in order that those who are approved shall be manifest (1 Cor 11:19). Yet how shall this be evident unless it is possible to distinguish one from the other? Church divisions are delicate matters and we need much wisdom in handling them in a brotherly spirit (Prov 18:19). As Thomas M’Crie observes: “When we are beside the waters of strife, O how needful the perfect illumination, the mystic Urim and Thummim which was upon Levi, whom God ‘proved at Massah, and strove with at the waters of Meribah!’ (Deut 33:8)”.
The RPCS. The current RPCS survives from congregations which separated from the RPCS in 1863 and one or two which declined to join the union with the Free Church in 1876.2 They maintained a separate position on the inadequate grounds that they wished to continue a testimony denying the validity of the political constitution of the United Kingdom, as it did not incorporate the National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant. The main practical means of maintaining this position was avoiding all political activity, including voting (originally, however, it meant avoiding any interaction with the state through appearing at civil courts, applying for licences, or paying taxes). This position is not included within the new RPCS constitution3 and there is no reason to suppose that this remains a distinctive of that Church.
Other Churches have the same constitutional commitment to the Westminster Confession and purity of worship, give a high recognition to the Second Reformation and the Covenanters and condemn the failure to reverse fully the statutes that cast aside their attainments. How can the smallest of all the denominations maintain its separate position?
The main matter of difference can only be the interpretation of one particular event in Scottish Church history, the Revolution Settlement of the Church of Scotland in 1690. The new RPCS Constitution gives a negative assessment of this event. Before turning to consider that, it may help to sketch out here the history of the RPCS.
The RPCS was established in 1743, although it had its history in the minority part of the United Societies that declined to follow their ministers into the (Revolution) Church of Scotland in 1690. They were without a minister and sacraments until John M’Millan of Balmaghie joined them in 1706. It has been stated repeatedly by the Hebrides News in recent months
2There was an unsuccessful attempt in 1876 to persuade the civil courts to recognise this separate body as the legal RPCS.
3It takes the place of the Historical and Doctrinal Testimony of 1839 and 1837 which was placed in “permanent abeyance” in March.
that the RPCS has a “long, yet clean, history untainted by splits, divisions and schisms”. The little-known truth is, however, that it has been at least as fissile as any other body; there were splits and divisions in 1753, 1822, 1859, 1863 and 1876.
The Revolution Settlement. The new RPCS constitution summarises historical details and recognises that these are matters of contention. It claims that the Church of Scotland was established in 1690 upon Erastian grounds, by which it is meant that it maintained the supremacy of the civil government over the Church. The principles of Christ’s sole Headship over His Church and of the spiritual independence of the Church from the state were, however, fully maintained in that settlement. According to the terms of the Westminster Confession, in a situation where the Church is not settled or constituted in point of government, the civil magistrate has the “duty to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire . . . ” (WCF 23:3). It should be noted that, while our fathers in the Established and Disruption Free Churches welcomed the Revolution Settlement, they also viewed it as imperfect in various aspects.4
The RPCS makes five distinct charges against the Revolution Settlement. The first is that, in establishing Presbyterianism, the words, “agreeable to the Word”, were used, which is deemed to be a “lower ground” than to say it is “the system of government mandated by the Word of God”. That this is unnecessarily pedantic can be seen from the fact that the phrase “agreeable to the Word” is found throughout the Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government and was also used by the Church of Scotland General Assembly – for example, in 1648 in relation to the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
The third charge is that a considerable number of former Episcopalians were admitted to the Church of Scotland at the Revolution. Yet this was done only upon their subscription to the Confession and Presbyterianism. So many Episcopalians were removed from their parishes, however, that it was not possible to fill all the vacancies. As James Durham, points out, failure to censure unfaithful men is not a sufficient impediment to union.5 The fourth charge, that the Revolution Settlement allowed landowners the right to intrude ministers into congregations, is incorrect. Patronage was explicitly rejected by the Revolution Settlement of 1690.
In relation to the second charge, that the Settlement “failed to revive many of the free acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland which had been repealed by the King”, we may note that the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has explicitly condemned, through a Synod resolution (1910),
4See particularly the Free Church Act and Declaration of 1851.
5Concerning Scandal, pp 337-39.
the failure to repeal the Acts Recissory. The fifth charge, that the Settlement “failed to acknowledge the Solemn League and Covenant”, is freely accepted. The requirements of the National Covenant were, however, upheld by the Revolution Settlement.6
The only substantive issue at stake in these matters is whether or not it was sinful for the Church of Scotland in 1690 to have accepted a scriptural establishment conforming to its historic terms because the same king offering the establishment was not imposing identical terms in a separate nation. The same situation had occurred under James VI and I and Charles I, when faithful men were obliged to protest against real corruptions within the Church of Scotland while remaining within her fold. The fathers of the Church were not required to approve of Episcopacy in England as a condition of the Church being established in Scotland and therefore did not believe that they were being required to sin.7
The RPCS constitution also regards the Secession of 1733 and the Disruption of 1843 “as vindication of the decision not to accept the terms of the Revolution Settlement”. This cannot be the case, however, since patronage was not implemented in 1690. It is rather the case that the spirit of separatism showed in 1690 by those who sought to continue outside the Establishment weakened the hands of faithful men in the Church of Scotland and established a precedent for further separation. Alexander Shields asked those who refused the Revolution Settlement how these principles would work out in future church life. “Shall it be in these that for every scandal, defection and corruption not confessed there must be a rupture, division and separation again? Then how long shall that Church last? . . . Must there be endless divisions and withdrawings?” (Prov 17:14).8
This question echoes strongly today. Three hundred and twenty years on, it is especially sad that these issues continue to perplex and generate contention although there is little practical import other than continued separation. It seems that there is potential at present for the RPCS to gain congregations in the Highlands at the expense of the Free Church. Are we now to expect a sixth or even in some cases a seventh Presbyterian denomination competing within the communities of Scotland? Unity must only be in the truth and without sin, but where such unity is possible it is a necessity.9
6The National Covenant of 1638 was a revision of the earlier Covenant and so remained unaffected.
7It is evident from the Informatory Vindication (1687), Head 4, that even the resolute James Renwick would have joined all the other ministers in the Church of Scotland in 1690.
8An Enquiry into Church Communion, 1747 edn, p 97.
9The present writer’s article in The Bulwark magazine July-Sept 2010, “Undoing the Reformation: Schism”, explores these issues in greater detail.
Israel and Judah were divided for many centuries after the reign of Solomon. The time came ultimately, however, that they were to be joined together once more (Ezek 37:19). The prophet said that this union would be marked by tears and holy resolve (Jer 50:4-5). After all that has been said, it is this “heart-melting” spirit that we so much need.10 “Softness of heart in the sense of bygone sin would silence many things among us, that all disputings, writings and printings will not be able to do. Pray for this to the land, as the most effectual mean and way of curing our divisions, and of uniting us in the Lord. It joins Israel and Judah together, whose breach was much greater and of far longer continuance than ours.”11
Book Reviews1
According to Mine Heart, The Collected Letters of James Kidwell Popham, edited by Matthew J Hyde, published by Gospel Standard Trust Publications, hardback, 419 pages, £14.50.
Here are all the letters of a godly Gospel Standard pastor which are still available. His ministry lasted 63 years, most of it in Brighton. His successor stated that “the secret of his ever-fresh ministry [was] the close exercises of his own soul before God; herein he was kept continually conscious of his own sinnership and need, and obtained living supplies from the great fountain head”.
In addition to the letters, the book contains biographical information, a substantial introduction from the Editor and several appendices. The last of these deals with Mr Popham’s connections with Scots: in particular Revs Donald Beaton and J R Mackay, and the latter’s gracious sister Charlotte.
The letters are almost entirely spiritual, giving much sound advice, and encouragement to those who were in trouble. He tells one “friend in tribulation”: “Never give up . . . crying for mercy. . . . Cry on, hard as you feel, full of all manner of sin as you feel.” He comments to another correspondent: “Real religion is an amazing mercy. May much of it fall to us.”
One is disappointed to find Mr Popham write about C H Spurgeon: “The little that seemed right was so counteracted by the much that . . . was undoubtedly wrong”. Dr Hyde justifiably criticises Spurgeon’s support of D L Moody, the American evangelist, but it is surely improper to speak in such disparaging terms of a preacher whose sermons are so full of solid scriptural truth. But it seems clear that, at the centre of Popham’s objections to
10The expression belongs to James Durham in his comments on this passage.
11Shields, p 17.
1Publications reviewed here are obtainable from the Free Presbyterian Bookroom.
Spurgeon, lay the latter’s willingness to offer the gospel freely to his hearers. However, spiritually-minded readers will appreciate the solid scriptural truth of which these letters also are full.
John Calvin, Man of God’s Word, Written & Preached, by Peter Barnes, published by the Banner of Truth Trust, paperback, 137 pages, £5.50.
This book by an Australian minister focuses first on Calvin’s attitude to the Bible. The author sums this up in the Genevan Reformer’s own words: “Our wisdom ought to be nothing else than to embrace with humble teachableness … whatever is taught in sacred Scripture”. Considerable effort is applied to refuting defective modern views on the subject.
The second, and longer, section is devoted to a discussion of Calvin’s proclamation of the Word of God. The greatest usefulness this book can have is to bring people to read his sermons for themselves. Amazingly, 1500 of them have survived, though by no means all of them are in English.
The Agency that Transformed a Nation, Lessons From the Great Awakening of the 18th Century, by J C Ryle, published by the Banner of Truth Trust, booklet, 16 pages, £1.00.
This is an introductory chapter from Ryle’s book Christian Leaders of the 18th Century, available in paperback from the same publishers. The book provides biographical sketches of some of the leading figures in the 18th century awakening in England. The particular chapter now reprinted as a very small but useful booklet emphasises “the instrumentality of preaching” in the awakening.
Ryle stresses “the substance of their preaching” and lists the following points: (1) the sufficiency and supremacy of holy Scripture, (2) the total corruption of human nature, (3) Christ’s death on the cross as the only satisfaction for man’s sin, (4) the great doctrine of justification by faith, (5) the inseparable connection between true faith and personal holiness, (6) God’s eternal hatred against sin and His love towards sinners. This is the kind of preaching that needs to be heard again in these degenerate days in England – and in Scotland and the rest of the world.