SCOTTISH CHURCH UNION

Otago Witness, Issue 3148, 15 July 1914, Page 36

SCOTTISH CHURCH UNION

DEBATE BY GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. (Fhom Oub Own Coeeespondent.) LONDON, May 29. Tho preliminary proposals for the consolidation of Scottish Presbyterianism on p- the basis of a National Church, came tins t week before the General Assemblies ot tho ev rjhurch of Scotland and the United tree % Church in Edinburgh, when the report ot the respective Union Committees wcio I- adopted by large majorities In both , Assemblies the question of Church Union Soccupied the attention of crowded houses. $ In the General Assembly of the Established Church there was submitted a rep port containing the proposed draft constitu•l:. tion for a United. Uhurch of Scotland. It was proposed to send the report down to K presbyteries and kirk sessions, and also to the United Free Church. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the convener of the Union Committee, moved the adopi tion of the report. He said the Constitute tion was intended to become ..a concordat £ between the churches themselves, and it did not touch the duty of the State. If left to themselves they would get along very well with tho State as they stood. Up to the present time no difference whatever had U been disclosed between the churches as to |y its being tho duty of the State to recognise m. all branches of the Church, and to protect V them in the exercise of their spiritual tunci: tions. Turning his attention to the draft U articles containing the doctrinal testimony of the. Church Lord Balfour of Burleigh S. said the dominating opinion both in their church and the United Free Church was : against adding to the number of stereotyped documents of doctrine already in existence. With regard to freedom in theological speculation there was no fundamental difference between the churches. It vyas almost f v unthinkable that two churches having so U much in common, working in the same Bjr fields at home and abroad, coming so near C to each other in so many essential points, fe could stand much longer apart when views I alike of patriotism and religion were summoning them in the name of God to close 1 -\jp the ranks of the divided host in tho face, fc of the common foe. . ii; The Rev. M. M'Callurft, Muckairn, moved a long amendment, in which ho proposed |? to remit back the report .with instructions to ; frame a new article in the constitution reV cognising the priesthood of the people, and ® the Divine Sonehip, and also to assert more strongly the right of the people. this V motion was seconded, and several other i amendments wore-submitted, but were after-

w wards withdrawn. The Rev. Dr Wallace Williamson, a forfl nior Moderator, appealed to the Assembly to »ao forward in their great and noble work, and to do what was best for Scotland in a broad, reasonable, generous, and patriotic ’.a division Lord Balfour of Burleigh’s jnotion was carried by an overwhelming % In the Assembly of the United Free Church, the Union Committee, whoso meuthpiece was the Rev. Dr John Young, Edinburgh, proposed a motion expressing satisfaction with the deep interest with which I the subject of reunion of Scottish Presbyterianism was regarded throughout the Church, and reappointed the committee to i continue the conferences. Dr Young saul I that whatever document might come to them in the future from the Church of Scotland, : ifc would be an important historical docu- | ment of national concern, and it would reV ceive most courteous consideration ns well &as candid criticism. Speaking of the work of the conferences, he said thev had not £ been debating theories about Church and ; .State, but examining a-particular State inetitution, rooted and enmeshed in the sys- |' tern from which their fathers felt themselves S compelled in conscience, to separate, and to ■: -which, as far as he could discover, there was no inclination in any part .: ci their Church to return. —(Cheers.) H T'hey had throughout the conferences S'- been clear, explicit, and unmistakable in their attachment to the great principle of . the equality of the churches in the eye | of the law, but they had now reached a k stage that needed patience and selfhrestramt.. • Their brethren of the Church of p Scotland had undertaken a task bristling with serious risks affecting their own pi Church. The duty of the United Free f v Church was plain—to wait calmly for any I document the Church of Scotland! might put

k.' before them, as a tentative, imperfect, a.nd 1 unfinished document solely as a basis for further conferences.. Provost Morrison. Montrose, seconded, i£; The Rev. Dr Whitelaw, Kilmarnock, a % former Moderator of the A ssembly. moved an amendment instructing the committee to I' make clear to the Church of Scotland Oommittoe that any plan of union, to. bo just ' arnd satisfactory to tho United) Free Church, £ must provide not only for the complete | spiritual freedom of the Church, hut also k for the equality of all churches before the fit-.civil law. k Dr Young’s motion was carried by an K overwhelming majority. |k WHAT THE SCOTSMAN SAYS. 6 | The Church of Scotland and the'United I Free Church resolved in their General ■Assemblies (says the Weekly Scotsman) to k. go on in the path of reconciliation and of ■s re-union. The manner in which these high debates .were conducted was worthy of the I': great traditions of the historic past, and h full of hope for the future. Whatever V may be thought or said in the isolation . o? ’ the inferior courts, yet. when tho ■ Churches assemble in their high courts. Sand the appeals of religion and patriotism are worthily made, the pettiness of the ■ individual is submerged in the great corporate life of the Churches. Proposals may k: be made in Presbyteries that documents be not transmitted from one Assembly to I another, but all such _ proposals find no voice to support them in the General Asl. seriiblies. The atmosphere which the union movement has already ushered in is yof such a geniality that the old watchk words of passion are already forgotten. IvA. -few years ago the attention of the If''Assemblies was fixed on the gulfs that 1 separated them ; to-day the thought that I exercises the Assemblies is how, in the I words of Dr Wallace Williamson, to throw

sufficient Christian love and charity into those yawning chasms that they may disappear. The burden of responsibility in the past year lay with the Church of Scotland. To it fell the task of formulating articles amending its constitution in such a manner as would meet the ideal of spiritual freedom common to both Churches. These drafted articles were submitted, not as final, but as a basis for further discussion. Though there was to be ample room for ' discussion in the future, a minority of 16 dissented, and submitted a report of their own. They were concerned about doctrine, and about national religion. Their ideal of the Church is that “it is its duty-as national constantly to seek the support and aid of the State.” But in reality the difference between the minority and the majority reports was but a difference on minor points of detail. Lord Balfour of Burleigh acted .wisely in proposing that both reports be sent down to Presbyteries for discussion, along with an explanatory statement. This course the General Assembly adopted. In so doing the Union Committee showed that they have no desire to drive the Church of Scotland. The final word in the union negotiations rests with the Presbyteries of the Church. It is for them now to express -their minds on the articles submitted to them as a basis for further conference. There is no reason to doubt that they will address themselves to the task in that spirit of statesmanship of which the General Assemblies have set a worthy example.