THE SCOTTISH CHURCHES.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 11988, 15 September 1904, Page 8

THE SCOTTISH CHURCHES.

A GREAT LAW CASE.

DECISION OF HOUSE OF LORDS.

EFFECTS ON VAST INTERESTS.

{noif ora ; owk coßßEWtisDEinr.)

LONDON/ Aagoet 6.

A law ca» of traly. stupendous"character, alike in its dimensions and m the vaefc intereste both religious and financial that are effected, has just been, determined by the highest tribunal in the land—the House of; Lords. ' The decision was given on Monday in this week. It will be read with keen interest in every part of the world where the Presbyterian form of religion eiists.

I may explain that the appellants axe the minority of the Free Church of Sootlandt who refused to go into union with tihe United Presbyterian Church, and the respondents are Lord Overtoun and the other trustees of the United Free Church', the title which the united churches have taken. The allegation that tho union was a violation of the principles of the Free Church opened up not only questione as to thews principles, bub as to the constitution of the Church- of Scotland, from whidh it seceded in 1843, and therefore the ecclesiastical history of the Kingdom from the time of John Knox was reviewed. Tho Free Church of Scotland, of course, date* from that "ecclesiastical convulsion" 'of 1843, the Disruption, when 470 of ite miuirfcra, after tho long controversy known as '"The Ten Years' Conflict," abandoned their churches, manses, and the 'benefits of a State Church rather than surrender the claim they made to spiritual freedom. They and those who adihercd to them formed a 'body under the distinctive name of the Free Churdi of Scotland, which became a powerful organisation, possessing many churches in the large towns and at least one church in nearly every parish in Scotland. In the year 1900, by a very large majority, the Ohurch decided to unite with the United Presbyterian Church, which represented earlier secessions from the Established Church, and came into the union with five or six hundred charges and about 200,000 communicants.' The.appellants are twenty-four ministers of the Free Ohurch, <who, out of a total of 100, protested against the union with the United Presbyterians, and contend that they are entitled to the property of the Free Church of Scotland, by. .which name they continue to describe themselves on ' the ground that the union was a violation of the principles of the Free Church. They urged that tihe Free Church had sacrificed he principles, because at the, time, of the Disruption the founders of the Church asserted that a'ligbfly-constituted establishment was right and proper, and that? in consummating tlie union, in 1900 the Free Ohurch liad modified the Calvaniem of its confession ■>. by proclaiming Arminianisni.>

The result of the decision, given in a sense which will create dismay throughout. Scotland, affects a sum which cannot be precisely estimated, but certainly amounts to several miHions, the value of the herit: able and' movable property poeseewd by tho Charcli being very targe. By a majority of five to two tibe appeal, from tlie Scottish Law Court* has been sustained, a»d, the contention of the two dozen ministers who protested, against union with the United Presbyterian Church has been 'upheld. .-;■..... . •.■;, - : ■:'■ ■■•'■ ■..•, .-■■.■ ■.

The arguments for and against the appeal have been twice heard. > Eight days; ■were devoted to it toward the close of last year, and judgment- was reserved. .•■ But early this year it reappeared on/the.list for hearing .on account of; of Lord Shand, who ; was;one=of ; ; thosebefor* whom.it was first orgued....'The Court; was specially constituted at ; the second hearing, the argumente,.which'this time lasted for nine days;-being; delivered before tine Lord Chancellor, Lord Macriagbten,:Lord Davey, Lord James of Hereford, Lord Alverston* (the Lord Chief Justice)) Lord Robertson, 4 Lord Lindley. * The counsel wcre:T-For rho appellants: Mr ,H. Johnston, X.C:, Sir Salvesen; K.C., and Mr J. R. Christie, For the respondents: The Dean of Faculty (Mr A*her, X.C-), Mr :R. B. K.C., Mr C. J. Guthrie, K.C., and Mr R. L.'Orr. / . .■•■;■■• ■■ .:■ . v -■:■ ■-' ~ In one of tlie lengthy reports of the case which have appeared in the Wading London; " papers it is remarked:— ;- , ' In* the course .of theargument* questions of a kjnd rarely raised, even in ue eccleeiastical. courts, were -discuSHed. One of the ai-gomente. advanced .on beliall of. the appellanle was that in uniting the United Presbyterians, who opposed an .establishment, the Free Church." had sacrificed ,-Aa principles, because at the time of the! Disruption the founders of -the Church asserted that a rightly-conetituttd estabi lishment was right and proper, Dr. Chalmers, having announced .. "We quit a vitiated establi* bmenti but would rejoice, in returning to a pure one. , * The arguments on:■ this branch of 5 the.; case pre-' scented no special novelty, btrt towajjde the close,of tho eeobnd hearing a goodrdeal.of importano* waa given to a contention that in oonsummating ' the union in 19D0 the *Free Church had modified the Calvinasm of its confession by .proclaiming Armininnism. '" On this and kindred pointW the distinguished Scottish counsel engaged jn the case advanoed varioue seibUe propositions. "Mr Holdane especially revelled in metaphysks on the question whether; the doctrine of predestination in the Confweion of mc Faith (which the Free Church at tJie; Disruption in 184S adopted) was not inoorcristent with the doctrine of tlio free offor of "ealvation. Mr lMdane contended that r tho whole , controversy disappeared wJien they raised the treatment of the question to what had. been ' called by theologians tlie epeculatJve point of view. The oontradictione, the learned counsel suggested, were.doe to anthropomorphism—the tendency in dealing with tlib topics to represent them in images which were taken from 1 daily experience and which were totally inapplicable. ■'■*■. ■•.'■'•■■•.••. ■;■ .••■ • '.-- v ;";■

The nature of mnoh of tie argument in tl*is remarkable ca.-» may be gathered from what wee submitted in connection with this doctrine of free grac*. Mr Haldane quoted the passage from the Confweion of Faith: "Man by his fall having .made jhimseif incapable of life by-that covenant, tlve Lord wae pleased to make- a second, cqmmonly called the covenant of grace, wlvereby he freely offereth unto smnera life and salvation by Jesus Cliristj requiring of them faith in Htm that they may be saved, and promising to give nirto all those that are ordained unto life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing .and able to believe." The whole scheme of this chapter, tho learned counsel contended, was that God entered into ar covenant..

Lord James: How can He enter into a covenant with the predestined? The''number of predestined is certain and definite. 3lr Haldane: Because tie doctrine of predestination w not to be understood anthropomorphicolly, but as something which occurs above-the forms of space and t-ime, and in which the freedom j>f the individual is to be reconciled with* Hβ relation of identity with.God a« an absolute epirit. In the knowledge of God, which is infinite and Dot'subject to time, the.number of the predestined Jβ definite, and it is within the scheme of the Creator,, because He contains all creation witnin.Himself. That is one *ado of the antinomy/ The other *ide is that thereby no violence is .offered to the will of the creature, but hb responsibility is, asserted. .':.'■-. lord James r If is no doubt my fault, but I cannot follow your meaning.".; , llr Haldane said lie could not expect to make intelligible in iralf sn hour the whole eyetem of philo«iphy of Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, or what the Church termed a ■myetery. .- ''■ -:'^ : y ■■ '■'■ .•••■_ ■;.■'■• "'■-.^■-..'

The/Lord CbanoeSoV: Potting yonrpropoeiiion in plain terms, which I think is a. little obecered by metap&ygjce, it is this, that Armiriius on one fide, and Calvm,on the other, if they had , o,nly bewv good metaphysicians,.would ■ have understood

;<that i■ they did iJo^TiK^>*h:at\th^;reaid,;,; '. ■ VMr. ■' "icltf pt«r.;^oi: the ttof^od^iwhwh'e^^^-^^Tiatljj , endued "the' will: of "mm natoral libtrty' that; it »?i^i&erSforc«d^nory : .by: anyV: *;, of mined to- goo<lor evil," eabmiUed that this wnap'undoubteidly on a^acrlibn^f r ;frtewill v ' ; -,A whether" that »freewiH. -eiirts ataong the classlother thaiii those-predeorined;; \ '/' Mr Haldane submitted that that wa* an unnatural reading of the arid there wae no reason for reading it apart'|ro»n the text. It wa* a meet thing to stake the construction of his, lonfchip,: because "it would make the will of God the direct cauee of• «"u. '-"■ ■-'•■: y-. : ; V'"--'.-'-- -. -.- - ;

The judgment giv«h, however, did not settle aay of these metaphysical problems raised, but simply determined -the Wctriar merits of the most important problem which km presented itself in Scottish ecciesiastioal hjstory. •• ' : ; ~ The Lord Chancellor eaid the appellante complained' of a', breach 6f trust, 'liver* could be. no doubt in tits opinion of the purpora of til* *irutst. It -was for the.n*am- r tenance and support of-.the. Free Oiburcli of Scotland. Equally t)he questiou what was tiw Free Church of Scotland in 1843 coald hardly admit of doubt, Neitlwr could there bo any doubt of the (principles arol faitli of those who . Came out of the Church of Scotland and described themselves as Free Olwrch. It woe'to the persons thu* describing themselTes that the funds in dispute were given, and until the union of. 1900 no difficulty was heard of as. arimng in administration of the trust. Aβ the identity of the new body witih the Free Church" was now disputed, it .'became necessary to conuder wlta t constituted the identity of 13m original body. Speaking generally, one. would fay that the identity of a religious community described as a Church must consist in the unity of its doctrines. If that were so there wae no lack of material from which to deduce tho identity of the Free-Church of. Scotland. Its founders left their claim, declaration, and protest to stand for all time ttm & dear exposition both of their reahone for leaving the dbureh of Scotland and aa a profession of their faith a* the,true Church of Soot; land, though eeparated from jthe ostabliaament. In the controversy which had arieen a court of law had notiiing to do ,with tie coundnws or. unsoundness ; ,of a paiTticular doctrine.. ' The Court had ply to detemrine the original purpoee of the trust. Having quoted various authorities,; the Lord Chancellor said the conclusion wae that no question of a majority of persons could affect the question; the original purpose, of the trust* must be the guide. In these circumstances the question' in dispute seemed to be reduced to an examination of the evidence as to what -was the difference between' the majority and' the minority, if any, and if their, difference did or did not accord with the ■ original .purposes of the trust.". Upon the question whether the establishment principle formjed one of the eesential principle* of he Free Church, he could not doubt that there was an overwhelming, body of evidence in favour of the ' appellants; The Free Church asserted the right and the duty to maintain' and support the establishment'of religion, kwhile ' the United Pretbyterian' Church asserted 'that Christ's ordinance excluded State v aid. ; • Each of: them; fore, ■ treated the question; as one of" religious belief and obligation; aid not as one J from' whicli wligions duty might -beiex. eluded. The Chancellor, then dealt I with < ■secowd;s ; :qu«»iitionV>. : .itt:i > ;:-.de^, , bate, - the - difference ■■. between ;?; the , .two bodies asV ■ to■ : :. , ':tlie.;T:.:'C!»lvin»»tie' and; Arminian doctrine of predetination; After reviewinig; the luiloiyiofjtbe{predertination cellor iwid he wae.led to. the' tht upon thie.eecond question thereppel-lante-were entitled Hα i -eucoeed.: : >He did; not- suppose, that, anybody; would dispute, 'the right of ■Myrmahyior , any of men,, to change their religious principles according: to ■ t&ir I bwn;;coittck'nc«, but; when:'men eabscribed ( nic-aey v for a' jtotte! cularsobject; and l«ftit bfehindthem fot the promotion of that their *u<xee- ; cor* had n6 right to cWge the object: 1 ;endowed^;: ; s TheM;; : wai»' : ground upon which he thaught the; appear lantJi to wae the eo-odied union 5 wia noi reaUy unionvbf ?■ religious belief at^ell.^;* : ! Mteej most icarefuV exammatioa Vof *;tbe : :-Trariooi" doouroerrta (submitted,.;he- could not trace ■ the".: lea*t; ; - evidence "■•of^JoitJhEeir. , ? abandoned their origiiul ■ ; Tiews.^vVlt;--:wa»^nbt";ihe^caW t dated bodke of Ohristiaas;in-complete. harmony aie. to their;dc^^nle ! ><i|twingf(o; share their if agreeing, to koep. their •eparate religious ■ view- where . s tliey to Tneie tlkdr formulaxm co permit - .'according It avcolourabU union, and no trust f«ind ( . denroteds.t&^bß* 4 ' form of faith: could, anotiwri communion j «mply r T>«aui»^^^^^^^ effect" ti>e»je we or that profession which they would .agree not io discuss. Frir all these reoeom he thought the judgment of the Court below should be rererwd, and lie moved accordingly. , . > Lord Macnaghten raid he was unable to agree with the Lord Chancellor's conclusions, although he dia not differ as to~*he law applicable to the care. Hβ was per-' evaded the Free Church had power tore* lax the stringency of the formula required from her minietem and office-bearers.* He, therefore, concurred with the opinions delivered in the Court below. * *

j . Lord James of Hereford, and Lord' Robertson agreed with th« Lord Chancellor, while Lord jJndlar ooncurred. with Lord Mecnagbt«n in mpport o< the iudgroebt of tbx> Courts tetpyr;.*£ : i\;'-tf { Qiancellor that the appeal ehould be auitained.;;••. •■ '■■■■;:-":' '■■;■ r The Lord Chancellor' th«n; snored' that the order apjwaled for ahould be revewed, and that the responWts pay the appe'» lante':'tl»''oo^.:';.li!»;-we-V»jw«d t :ito> by 5 to 2. -The decision applies to another appeal which .was' iwoiight m. * tteti «ace in order; to «ace tWqueetien of Gongregational property, diMMK*i;frpto the general property the Chnrch,^which is raked in the mdri appeal;-vlh' th« bleeding ■a«tJon^thβ■■ca(u»'' : wi^:l>e|■•■''^wMite4'•* : tβ' the Court of Seaaadn for *ny necesearyconeequcntial prooeediDgis.; ■