SATURDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1904. THE PROBLEM OF THE FREE CHURCHES.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 98, 22 October 1904, Page 4

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1904. THE PROBLEM OF THE FREE CHURCHES.

The latest cable messages go to show that the prospects of an amicable settlement of the Free Church problem is more remote thnn ever. The Conference has collapsed, the new "Free Church" — popularly known as the "Wee Kirk"— has demanded from the Court of Session the enforcement of the judgment of the House of Lords ; while, on the other hand, the "United Free Church" has decided to contest every movement of its adversaries in the Courts, and has prepared a draft Bill for the House of Commons to avert; if possible, the threatened spoliation of its goods. "Stands Scotland where it did?" can no longer be answered in the affirmative — the unfortunate thing is, that Scotland herself does not know where she stands ; and there is much misapprehension of the position abroad. Some have professed to see in the House of Lords judgment a vindication of the eecred

rights of minorities; the fact being that, however eound the decision may have been in law, it did not take account of the equity of the situation, and, if carried into effect, will be the means of inflicting -a wrong of almost unexampled magnitude. It has been asserted that the influence of Huxley and Tyndall on theology had brought about the disaster; the connection being about as obvious as that of Tenterden steeple and the Goodwin Sands. The real point, and the sole point on which an irreconcilable minority claimed the property of a flourishing church, was this— that they held inflexibly, literally, and unreservedly, certain statements of doctrine drafted nearly three hundred and fifty years ago, which statefments were incorporated in the constituHion of their church. While the Confession of Faith had been retained unaltered, 'the church as a whole interpreted it in a more liberal manner and with a better •sense of proportion than their forefathers. In its strictest sense the Confession authorised religious persecution. That it was co understood by its framers is shown by their own deeds. The men. who confined John Biddle in a prison for years merely for preaching Socinianism, and who decreed the punishment of death for denying the doctrines of the Trinity and the Atonement as defined by Calvin, had certainly none of the modern ideas of Christian tolerance. The doctrine of the Divine sovereignty, as understood by the Assembly of Divines, overshadowed their conception of the Divine love or righteousness, and combined with their rigid views on election and predestination, the perdition of infants and of the heathen followed in logical sequence. The fact that the church standards could be susceptible of such an interpretation had long weighed upon the conscience of the church. To repeal or abolish the standards would have been difficult, if not impossible ; nor, in view of their general excellence, was it deemed expedient. But, as certain terms of the Confession proved a stumblingblock to applicants for membership, it was, as lately as 1892, decided to make an authoritative declaration as to the sense in which these doctrines were interpreted by the church. Tne "Declaratory Act" contains six clauses. The first sets forth the Divine love as the ground of the offer of salvation ; the second repudiates "the foreordination of men to death irrespective of their own sin ;" the third disclaims the inference that infants and those outside of the reach of the Gospel are lost; the fifth "disclaims intolerant- or persecuting principles," and allows its office-bearers "liberty of conscience and. the right of private judgment;" and the sixth reserves to the church authoi'ity to decide where such liberty is abused. It is on some, or all, of these six points that the old and new Free Churches have parted asunder. It is manifest that these interpretation clauses brought the church more into line with other evangelical denominations, and on that account they were obnoxious to a minority, chiefly in the Highlands and among the Gaelic-speaking churches. The right of the church to define its position was not at that time disputed, but two ministers and a number of students and individual members seceded from the church. The present dissentients, however, remained, and, as was urged in th* .House of Lords, thereby accepted the position. Though they remained, however, they made no attempt to conceal their hostility to the Declaratory Act, and they caused a good deal of unpleasant friction. To conciliate the malcontents, and in the supposed interests of peace, the church in 1894 made aD injudicious concession. It no longer required candidates for office to sign the Declaratory Act, but permitted them if they chose to subscribe to the Confession " simplici- 1 tur" — a step which has proved its undoing ; for this concession, which practically divided the church into two camps, was used in the House of Lords as an answer to the plea that the minority had legally accepted the situation. Our readers are aware of the effect of the decision of the House of Lords. The minority, which is now legally the Free Church, numbers twenty-eight ministers and congregations, 'all told ; all but four of the pastors are in charge of small Highland parishes, and they mostly preach only in Gaelic. Outside of their owd parishes, the property and invested funds over which they claim control come as an absolute gift, for they have not hitherto even supported themselves, but have been dependent to a large extent on the liberality of the brethren they have dispossessed. Besides the eleven hundred churches and manses which fall into their hands, they have to maintain divinity colleges with fifteen professors, and find the new professors and students. They have to administer missions at present earned on at an outlay of £50,000 a year, and fill — if they can — the places of over three hundred missionaries, with three thousand native assistants. The spirit animating the successful litigants may be gathered from the pulpit utterances of one of their principal spokesmen, Mr. M'Queen: — "The professors were now beginning to shriek and yell, and why? Because the doctrines of the Confession , of Faith were condemned, or because the Word of God had been mutilated ? No; but because they had lost every penny of their salaries. . . . He did not call the majority a church. It was a Noah's ark, full of clean and unclean animals, with the unclean element predominating, with the lower animals sinking low in the water and about to disappear beneath the waves. . . . No ; they would not give them a share. The Free Church could not part with one shilling of its funds or a stick or stone of its property. . . . He had held for years that it would be well to get rid of these principals and professors, and they had got rid of them, and a good riddance they were," etc. With such leaders, it is not surprising that efforts to bring about amicable settlement have failed. Tha minority — utterly unable to manage even for a day the enormous machine committed to their charge, offered to allow the ministers to remain in occupation till June of next year — on certain conditions, which it was found impossible to accept. One was, that no doctrine be preached during those nine or ten months contrary to the doctrines of the minority. Had the differences been on minor points this might not have been unreasonable, but they are fundamental. The head and front of the offending majority is, that they preach a " free Gospel," which for nearly two centuries has been known to the evangelical church of Scotland as "the marrow," from a quaint old book-title, "The Marrow of Divinity." On their part they stand for the hyperCalvinism of a century earlier. They knew full well in making the condition that ministers would not consent to be silent on a doctrine which many of them made the central theme of eveiy discourse. The uncertainty of the situation is worse in some respects than the sternest reality. For the time all the funds are tied up from use by either party. Every deed of trust will require to be scrutinised, and every step takeD on either side will be hampered by litigation. The "Wee Kirk," if it enters in possession, will be compelled by law to fulfil its obligations, and how can it do it? Even with the large iunds which it would have to administer, what can one congregation in Edinburgh do with fifty-five mere churches and manses, or the two Glasgow congregations with one hundred and three? Most large churches have a Bmall and troublesome element of "cantankerous" adherents. In some cases these have made overtures to the new Assembly, and have been recognised as " the church," but this has only exasperated the position. What is to become

of the colleges? — for the minority is absolutely destitute of qualified men to carry them on. What of the splendid mission work of the Free Church? Here, more than anywhere else, the irony of the position is apparent, for holding, as it does, the absolute and predestined damnation of the "heathen," the "Free Church," its evangelical opponents maintain, has no Gospel to preach to them. The Court of Session, it has been hinted, has something in reserve, and there are those who maintain that an appeal to the Act of Union would prove that the House of Lords after all has no jurisdiction. Even this desperate expedient may be resorted to. Fortunately for the United Presbyterian Church in New Zealand, the Declaratory Act has been incorporated in its constitution by Act of Parliament, and the liberty of conscience it has seen fit to accord to its office-bearers and members does not affect the security of its possessions.