free ebook

Now available at www.fpchurch.org.uk. The pdf file is sized for ereader devices and tablets.


This timely publication bears witness to some of the important principles for which the Free Presbyterian
Church of Scotland stands. It outlines the historical and doctrinal reasons for her separate position
and seeks to provide basic teaching in relation to certain errors that are common in the Christian Church
today. Important constitutional documents and resolutions of Synod are included as appendices.

a wise servant

To my great regret, I never heard Rev. Fraser Macdonald preach except on cassette recording. If you have never listened go here. He was gifted by the Lord with abundance of utterance, a ready mind and the tongue of a ready writer.  "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver" (Prov. 25:11)."Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?" (Matthew 24:45)  That wise servant has entered into the joy of his Lord.  "The king's favour is toward a wise servant" (Proverbs 14:35).

One obituary notes:
"He was blessed with a rich, resonant voice; he had extraordinary command of vocabulary, pitch and cadence, and could move in moments from down-to-earth tender clarity to the majesty of the seis, the traditional, ringing chant of Gaelic preaching".

For more read here.

Sabbath Public Transport

Every so often the vexed question of Sabbath public transport raises its head. It's not always clear why since it is very clearly contrary to the fourth commandment to engage others to work on our behalf. A clear provision and consequence of the fourth commandment is that we cannot employ someone or make them work on the sabbath, 'the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates' (Exodus 20:10).

The use of public transport on the Sabbath is against Scripture because it is a commercial transaction taking place on the Sabbath requiring someone to work for a purpose other than that of necessity and mercy. The traveller is effectively hiring the transport and the driver and employing someone on the Sabbath. As Thomas Boston put it – this is a commandment that prohibits 'all handy-labour or servile employments tending to our worldly gain'.


The core matter is whether or not use of transport run for commercial gain on the Sabbath is a breach of the fourth commandment even when used in order to attend public worship.  For what it may be worth, a clear stand on this matter is neither novel nor unique. Noted leading ministers of the past such as J.C. Ryle, R. Murray M’Cheyne, James Begg and John Kennedy of Dingwall were staunchly united against public transport on the sabbath. It may be of interest to learn that Samuel Miller led the 1836 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in condemning sabbath public transport as tending to “disgrace the church of God” and making those who used it to be “partakers in other men's sins” More historical examples can be found here.

Engaging public transport on the Sabbath is “wrong on the part of the payee, because, without deference, implied or expressed, to what the Fourth Commandment prohibits, on the one hand, or allows, on the other, he, as a contracting party, carries forward into the business of the Lord's Day the same mercenary aims, the same working conditions, and the same contract terms which he lawfully and necessarily employs on the six days during which, God says, "thou shalt do all thy work" and wrong on the part of the payer, because, as the other contracting party, by availing himself of the service, and by paying the stipulated fare, he voluntarily, and for the most part, cheerfully accommodates himself to these aims and conditions and accepts these terms. Nor can any amount or species of motive serve to make it right”, ‘Statement in Reference to Churchgoing by Public Conveyances on the Sabbath’, Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, 1928.


It is quite clear that the paying traveller cannot remain guiltless in using this transport: 'Any use made of them on the part of an individual entails the giving by that individual of a certain proportionate moral and material contribution towards the support of the evil, thereby making him a party to it and involving him in the guilt of it.'

'This may appear in the case of some to constitute a hardship in so far as it precludes them from worshipping under conditions to which they had formerly accustomed themselves. The Synod believe, however, that in the end this will be found to be a hardship in appearance only; that the difficulty of it will be seen to have yielded to the forces of faith and faithfulness; and that the compensations of obedience to the truth and of preserving a conscience void of offence toward God and man are more than sufficient to counter-balance any amount of specious comfort foregone and of inconvenience suffered. "Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect to all thy commandments."




Chapter 11 of The History of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland 1893-1970, which can be viewed at http://www.puritans.net/news/FPCSchapter11.pdf outlines the reasons that the Free Presbyterian Church took this stand.

If we shy away from the difficult applications of the commandment it will in fact undermine the consistency of our whole approach and encourage people to search for loopholes where they wish to find them. How far does one push this particular open question? Is taking a Sabbath flight (run by a commercial airline) for the purposes of attending or perhaps leading corporate worship to be winked at too? How can one condemn the drivers, attendants, operators and owners of public transport run on the Sabbath who are employed by those who travel to corporate worship? If one form of employment in the realm of worldly gain could be permitted then, to be consistent, no type of employment on the Lord's Day can be made a matter of discipline. Having reached this point it is futile and contradictory to maintain any witness against breach of the Sabbath. “He who is not prepared to stand in a minority of one with a majority of millions against him, will not keep a good conscience respecting the Lord’s Day” (William Plumer).

To take refuge in the assertion that one would not travel by Sabbath public transport but could not condemn others for doing so is, as the Free Presbyterian minister Neil Cameron pointed out, a form of sophistry. “God’s Word says: 'Thou shalt not suffer sin on thy neighbour.'  The real meaning of such an argument is that the Synod should consent to allow their people to do that which they (these sophists) feel to be sin in their own conscience. If that be so why do they say that they would not do it themselves? Such arguments are devoid of any real force in face of the terms of the Fourth Commandment, and integrity of conscience.”

Baptism: Whose Children?

A debate exists among Presbyterians as to whether baptism or not ought only to administered to the children of parents who are communicant members. The debate rests upon some very crucial points such as the nature of the visible church and its membership and the nature of the profession that qualifies a person for membership in the visible church. The issue matters not just in its practical outworking but because it affects our view of the visible Church, its membership and the nature of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

The visible church and its membership
Separatism of the Independent and Congregational variety has tended to view the visible Church as solely made up of regenerated persons who are received into a gathered congregation (which is often the only kind of visible church they tend to recognise) as regenerated persons who have given some evidences of their experience to indicate that this is the case. Those who believed in the baptism of children were not always sure about what to do with them but regarded them as part of the visible church in a secondary sense or else did not regard them as in any sense within the visible church. The difficulty of applying baptism only to the children of the regenerate is that, apart from not knowing categorically who are and who are not regenerate, we cannot assume that the children of the regenerate are themselves regenerate. To say that children belong to the church but not in the same sense as their regenerated parents is to create two visible churches in effect. We will come back to this (DV) in a separate post at another time.

Scottish Presbyterianism, with the Westminster Standards, has distinguished between the church as viewed in its visible aspect and as viewed in its invisible aspect. There are not two churches but the same universal church can be viewed in these two aspects. They were careful in this regard because they could see that Scripture uses the word for church in a flexible way that may refer to the Visible Church or to the Invisible Church, or to both (although one of them is usually foremost). The context in which the word is found makes the interpretation clear. As James Durham notes, it is common to find references to both together, as “when an epistle is written to a Church, some things are said of it, and to it, as visible, some things again are peculiarly applicable to believers, who are members of the Invisible Church in it”. According to the Westminster Confession, the Invisible Church is the “the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all”—a number which no man can number and whose members are only ultimately known by God.

It is a fundamental mistake therefore to confuse the two together and require invisible evidences for a visible profession required for visible membership in a visible Church. We cannot look into men’s hearts. Thomas M’Crie summarises matters well in stating that “all who make a profession of the faith compose the Church considered as visible, while those among them who are endued with true faith constitute the Church considered as invisible. The former includes the latter; and it is sometimes spoken in Scripture under the one and sometimes under the other view”. The Lord Jesus Christ makes it clear that “many are called (visible Church) but few are chosen (Invisible Church).”

The order and government of the Church, as appointed in Scripture have nothing to do with the Invisible Church but rather concern the Visible Church. The Visible Church, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, “consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God”. Christ has entrusted it with “the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world” (25:3-4). The Scottish Presbyterian view was a vision of covenanted and discipled nations made up of parishes where the truth was taught and the ordinances administered rather than a gathered church.

The difference between the Congregationalist and Presbyterian views of the visible church and its membership are easily seen by contrasting the definition from the Westminster Confession with that of the Savoy Confession. The latter reads: “The whole body of men throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel and obedience unto God by Christ according to it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are, and may be called the visible catholic church of Christ; although as such it is not entrusted with the administration of any ordinances, or have any officers to rule or govern in, or over the whole body”. That is to say that the visible Church is simply the membership of particular congregations aggregated together without mutual government or any other mutual relationship. The London Confession of 1689 adapted this language but refused to speak of the catholic visible Church.

The Visible Church involves visible office-bearers administering the visible ordinances appointed by Christ to those who have a visible profession of the true religion as distinguished from the rest of the world. It is the means used to gather the Invisible Church. The Visible Church is a great house containing vessels of honour and dishonour (2 Tim. 2:20). It is Christ's vineyard (Is. 5:1), sheepfold (John 10:1-16), barn floor (Matt. 3:12), and dragnet (Matt 13:47). The Visible Church is also “the light of the world”. It is "the city of truth" and "the righteous nation that keepeth the truth" (Zech. 8:3; Is. 26:2). A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid” (Matt.5:14).

One may, however, belong to the visible Church but not to the invisible Church and vice versa. This mirrors the covenant of grace which has an outward administration and membership but also a real, inward, efficacious administration and membership by God’s grace and Spirit. There is therefore a right to church privileges in the eyes of the Church and a right to church privileges in the eyes of God

The nature of profession needed for initiation
The Confession speaks of those who profess the true religion as opposed to those who profess the false religion or indeed have no formal religion at all. It does not speak of those who truly profess the true religion but simply of those who make profession of it. It doesn’t say those who make a profession that they are regenerated but those who profess the true religion. This is an objective matter and something that can be tested. The language of the Confession echoes and reflects Scripture itself in passages such as 1 Cor 5:12 where the assumption is that ordinary hearers of the word (those hearing the letter read) were within not, without the visible Church. Those without were pagans not professing the true religion who could not be judged because they did not come under the word in any sense at all.

This is of course the nature of profession in the Old Testament Church. They avouched the Lord to be their God and entered into covenant with him (Ex. 19:5-6; Deut 26:17-19; Deut 27:9-10). Mostly this was done en masse (Deut 29:10-13; 2 Chron 15:9-12). All were received as disciples to be taught “they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words” (Deut 33:3). Gentile proselytes were admitted into the Old Testament Church upon making a serious profession of the true religion and expressing willingness to subject themselves to the institutions commanded by God.

Circumcision was for all who were born within the visible Church and whose parents had not been cut off from God’s people. In Joshua 5 we read of circumcision being administered to all of the children of the generation who perished in the wilderness.  They were circumcised as in covenant with God because born within the visible Church and part of the covenant community even though their parents ultimately gave no evidences of real grace or true faith.  The Lord speaks of the children of the visible church as having been born unto him Ezekiel 16:20, even though they were the children of rebellious parents, this did not cancel that external relationship. Esau was circumcised, even though we read that he was hated by God.

It is expressly commanded in Genesis 17:10 that every man child shall be circumcised. There was some restriction on this, certain conditions and tribes were restricted from coming into the congregation for several generations. It was, however, a default position that unless there were necessary restrictions the children of all within the visible Church making a serious profession should be circumcised. We would ask: where is the command and warrant now to restrict the breadth of this command under the New Testament? The tendency of the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace is to widen privileges, not restrict. Women and Gentiles are now brought onto the same footing in terms of formal admission into the visible Church and receiving the seal.

Sometimes the observation is made that circumcision automatically qualified someone for the Passover with the implication that the same standard ought to be equivalent for baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  Children were not automatically qualified for the Passover meal, however. There were conditions, moreover, under which the circumcised were restricted from partaking of the Passover. This might be defilement or being prevented by some matter such as being on a journey. (They were not debarred from circumcision for their children by this).

The equivalent to this in relation to the Lord’s Supper is worthy partaking, discerning the Lord’s body and self-examination (see Larger Catechism Q171). Something more than what is required for baptism is in view here. Someone may be eligible for baptism but not for the Lord’s Supper. If we compare Larger Catechism Q166 and Q171 we will surely see that this can in fact be the case. Indeed we never find in the New Testament that those who are given baptism are to examine and try themselves regarding their inward state and condition as is necessary for the Lord’s Supper; this is because the qualifications for both ordinances are different. The Supper is a seal of nourishment and growth in Christ not of initial engagement to be Christ’s.

The Reformed understanding of the sacraments following Calvin has generally distinguished between baptism as the sign and seal of entrance into the visible Church and the Supper as the sign of confirmation and growth. The Larger Catechism distinguished clearly in answer to the question 177 “Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ?” “A. The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ, in that Baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves”.

The tendency to view the two sacraments as almost mutually convertible will have a seriously detrimental impact upon the preciousness of the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace. One sacrament deals with our state in an objective sense, the other deals with our condition in a more subjective sense. This is why there are situations where even those that are regenerated cannot rightly and worthily partake of the Lord’s Supper, due preparation is required, it is not an automatic assumption that they must partake of that sacrament in whatever condition they may be found.

Baptism was instituted by Christ for discipleship; the commission was to disciple the nations. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19).That Commission can be rendered “Go, make all nations disciples”. As David Dickson notes, “those are made disciples whosoever are given up to Christ, to be taught and governed by him, whether by themselves or being brought be others who have power of them, as parents and masters are dedicated and consecrated to Christ, who has said of children elsewhere: “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not’. All those may and should be taken charge of, admitted into the Church as disciples, and baptized, for he says ‘Go, make disciples of all nations and baptize them’”. This was to be done by teaching and baptizing. It is evident that no one but God can make someone a disciple if we restricted the meaning of the word to those who are regenerated. It is clear also that nations as nations are to be taught and made disciples. Baptism was for the initiate disciples whether older or infants. What were they to teach? The gospel and the fundamentals of Christ and the Trinity but also the commandments of Christ to which disciples are to subject themselves willingly.

It is instructive to compare Pentecost with what we have noted of a people covenanting en masse with the Lord together with their children. Baptism was administered en masse on the basis of a sincere profession but we do not imagine that there was opportunity to interview all 3,000 individuals before baptism was administered particularly if their children were also baptised at the time.

Those who received the outward call of the word, professed belief in Christ and were willing to subject themselves to his institutions were baptised, together with their children. Theirs’ was the promise and therefore they received a seal of their right to that promise. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:38-39).

The profession accepted by the apostles for baptism is a straightforward profession of discipleship, and baptism took place speedily without any delay. The apostolic practice was that those who gladly received the word were baptised (Acts 2:41). As we know, this probably included Ananias and Sapphira who turned out to be other than their profession indicated. Likewise we read that Simon Magus believed the word and was baptised yet was still in the bond of iniquity (Acts 8:13 and 23). In the same chapter we read of the profession made by the Ethiopian Eunuch which was very basic and straightforward. “And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:37-38). The Philippian jailor was baptised “straightway” (Acts 16:33). The baptism of Saul of Tarsus may have extraordinary features in the background, particularly the way that Ananias was sent to meet with Saul, but, being administered without delay, it completes the picture in terms of apostolic practice in relation to baptism.
No evidences of grace were required in any of these situations. It is hard to imagine that even some of the most careless of kirk sessions would admit someone to the Lord’s table so quickly, solely upon this type of profession.

Confusion introduced by Subjectivity
Errors in relation to baptism mostly derive from trying to connect the ordinance with regeneration in some way, not just an ex opere operato baptismal regeneration position, but also a presumptive regeneration position, or a view that all elect children are regenerated at the time of baptism. There is also the view that in order for baptism to be real - regeneration must already have taken place prior to the ordinance being administered. This is of course the Anabaptist position. Baptism has its basis, integrity and validity in the subjective response of man rather than the objective promise of God. It is grace offered that is being sealed not grace received; a sign to grace not a sign of grace. It is the promise of God that is the basis for baptism. The integrity of baptism does not depend upon our subjective response.

Calvin anticipates an objection in the Institutes, "Therefore you will ask do the wicked by their ingratitude make the ordinance of God fruitless and void? I answer, that what I have said is not to be understood as if the power and truth of the sacrament depended on the condition or pleasure of him who, receives it, That which God instituted continues firm and retains its nature however men may vary; but since it is one thing to offer and another thing to receive, there is nothing to prevent a symbol, consecrated by the word of the Lord, from being truly what it is said to be and preserving its power, though it may at the same time confer no benefit on the wicked and ungodly".

In 1 Corinthians 7, the apostle Paul addresses a vexed question. The issue there is to do with whether a believer should divorce their pagan unbelieving spouse on the grounds that the marriage is not sanctified. Pagan Gentiles were unclean but Christian Gentiles were not, they had a covenant holiness which extended to their children who were also in the covenant and within the visible Church. If the covenant root is holy, so also are the branches. “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy” (1 Cor 7:14). Paul is not speaking of a real holiness here but of covenant holiness, dedication and separation to God and his service from the world, and as the word partly signified in the Old Testament, being acceptable for presentation to God in his temple. The language reflects that which is spoken of Israel in the Old Testament, they are a holy nation. It is profession of Christianity as opposed to paganism that is in view here. Baptism puts a visible difference between those within the Church and those that belong to the world. As RL Dabney puts it, we must treat all baptized persons as bona fide members of the visible church unless their membership is legally severed or else accept the Anabaptist theory of the church. We cannot treat them as pagans and heathen.

The need for Objectivity
This is where we return to the visible profession that must be assessed by those admitting to the ordinance of baptism. They must inquire as to the knowledge and profession of the truth made and ask whether or not there is anything that they are aware of and obvious to them that would contradict the reality of a serious visible profession. Rather than disposing of the matter rapidly by the simple test of whether the person is or is not a communicant member a session must take each case on its merits and deal sensitively but thoroughly with the individual using it as an opportunity to counsel and exhort them. We are told of a danger of creating hypocrites if we proceed on this method of administering baptism, we do not believe that to be the case since there is no claim to prior regeneration and on a serious profession there is every hope that the vows will be fulfilled and blessed to the parent themselves. It is surely a sin, however, says Rutherford to break the bruised reed and quench the smoking flax of one who wishes to profess Christ openly and secure a blessing for their children but whose self-examination does not lead them to coming forward to seek acceptance for the Lord’s Supper.

SRS Historical Journal Volume 3

You can now purchase Volume 3 of the Scottish Reformation Society Historical Journal and previous volumes here.

Contents of Volume 3 (2013)

‘John Knox and the Destruction of the Perth Friaries in May 1559′
Douglas Somerset

‘The Covenanters, Unity in Religion, and Uniformity of Church Government in the 1640s: Presbytery by Coercion or Co-operation?
Jeffrey Stephen

‘The Scots Church in Rotterdam – a Church for Seventeenth Century Migrants and Exiles. Part I’
Robert J. Dickie

‘Alexander Shields, the Revolution Settlement and the Unity of the Visible Church. Part II’
Matthew Vogan

‘The Attitude of James Begg and The Watchword Magazine to the 1872 Education Act’
Andrew R. Middleton

‘The Witness of the Kames Free Presbyterian Church, Argyllshire’
Norman Campbell

‘Movements in the Main-Line Presbyterian Churches in Scotland in the Twentieth Century’
John W. Keddie

‘The Sabbath Protest at Strome Ferry in 1883′
Norman Campbell

Willison's Recommended Sabbath Reading

Virginia is for Huguenots: Willison's Recommended Sabbath Reading: John Willison  (1680-1750), Church of Scotland minister, has the following reading advice for Christians in his "A Treatise Concerning the Sanctification of the Lord's Day".

Public consultation on Bill to legalise gay marriage in Scotland

A crystal clear warning from Rev. David Campbell, Convener of the Religion and Morals Committee of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland in a video news item here.

Some of the 20th Century Attempts at Union

The principles of the presbyterian view of unity and schism were firmly applied in 1893. The fathers of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland witnessed many sad and serious defections in doctrine, discipline and worship but it was only once they were compelled to sin that they separated. This point came when it was clear that they would be compelled to administer the Declaratory Act and thereby breach the ordination vows that they had made to God that they would assert, maintain and defend the truth. They could not discipline those who adhered to and preached Declaratory Act doctrines. They could not refuse to license, induct or ordain them, indeed they could not be confident of who did or did not make mental appeal to the Act.

The doctrinal constitution of the Church had been changed. As Thomas McCrie observed: “When a church once reformed and faithful not only departs from what she had professed and received, and persists in this by a series of public acts, but ...adopts doctrines inconsistent with her former scriptural profession and engagements, and imposes these by the perverted exercise of authority and discipline, separation from her communion is lawful. When the public profession and administrations of a church have been settled conformably to the laws of Christ, and sanctioned by the most solemn engagements, if the majority shall set these aside, and erect a new constitution sinfully defective, and involving a material renunciation of the former, the minority refusing to accede to this, adhering to their engagements, and continuing to maintain communion on the original terms, cannot justly be charged with schism”.

The FP Church maintained the constitution of the Free Church of 1843 while there was now a new body maintaining a different constitution. Rather than joining with the body maintaining the Free Church 1843 constitution, the minority of 1900 continued the new Declaratory Act body with the changed constitution and eventually in 1906 they decided to repeal the Declaratory Act. There was no doubt an opportunity here for them to agree terms with the FP Church.

It has been said that the repeal of the Declaratory Act by the Free Church removed any basis for a separate FP position. The Declaratory Act had only been removed as a "dead law" and not as a real defection - this was untrue and dangerous.   In fact the very repealing Act erected a barrier (still maintained) against union by recording a constitutional rejection of the Free Presbyterian position in 1893.  This directly inferred the Free Presbyterian separation to be sinfully schismatic. This provided an insuperable obstacle that would have required the Free Presbyterians to cast away the testimony raised in 1893 for a constitution that implicitly condemned their actions as schism. This was something that was not only part of their constitution but something concerning which they had vowed their approval to God. To dissolve the Free Presbyterian Church within the Free Church would have been sinful because it would imply that 1893 had been sinful.

In his first paper on union, Rev. Kenneth Stewart made reference to this fact and acknowledged that "the Free Church made a very bad mistake in claiming that she had ‘always adhered’ to her Confession – that is, that she had adhered to it in the intervening years between the passing of the Act and its repeal (1892-1905)". He notes that "the insistence on including this claim helped to scupper reunification".  He goes on "However, it is hard to avoid the impression that, later, it seemed to be the case that FP’s would work hard to find reasons for remaining separate even if they didn’t immediately seem to spring to mind". This is unsubstantiated, there was sufficient in the condemnation mentioned above to prevent union. JR Mackay wanted the phrase deleted by the Free Church; he did not get this but still joined. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Free Church overtures for union were largely opportunistic.

No one (whoever they might be), however, who had vowed their approval of the Deed of Separation m(1893) could abandon this constitution for a constitution that condemned clear statements of that Deed (and therefore constitution) without sinning. The FPs believed that the constitution had been changed legally but that the effect of this was that it created a new body with a new, altered constitution. They were now being asked to abandon the true representative of 1843 for a body whose constitution now condemned the separate position adopted in 1893. 

To reiterate the matters already discussed, the fundamental issue was that it would have been sinful for the FPs to have returned because the FCS had a constitutional condemnation of 1893 and while no one was going to impose that on individuals it meant that they would have been abandoning the truth for a constitution that implicitly condemned their actions as schism. To return would have been sinful because it implied that the 1893 separation had been sinful. 

Unity: Real or Synthetic?

This post also appears on www.ourconfession.org - an online meeting place for folk who profess to be reformed in doctrine, worship and practice. It picks up on current discussions and debates in relation to issues of unity.

There is a synthetic substitute for real unity within the visible Church. It is created within the parachurch through organisations formed for evangelical or reformed unity. Many of these parachurch organisations go as far as to have representatives and delegates from denominations and to all appearance may be like a council of churches. This is however a substitute for real, organic unity.The irony is that such bodies (including NAPARC and ICRC) actually facilitate schism rather than union and inadvertently serve to undermine presbyterian principles. Mark Hausam writes of this scenario on his blog:

‘The Christian churches today are in a deplorable state of division. One of the things that hinders the resolution of these divisions, or lessens the motivations of those in the church to work diligently for the sort of reform that would lead to their elimination if followed through, is a sense of complacency held by many in Reformed churches today. Many people will confess that there are divisions, and that we ought to work for their elimination, but they are lulled into thinking the situation better than it is by the feeling that we don't really need to have organic union among all the churches of Christ. Just as congregationalists/independents lull themselves into security regarding the disunity of the church (and thus split into thousands of mini-denominations) by their erroneous doctrine that church power does not extend beyond the local congregation (so that they hold that gatherings beyond the congregational level have only advisory and not binding authority), so many Presbyterian/Reformed people today have been lulled into security by the sense that the organic unity of the church need only extend up to a certain level, and after that we can adopt the model of the independents.’

Reformed churches have grown so comfortable with fraternal relations that they think that they can settle down with it as the real thing. The irony is that holding out for real union and unity rather than mere fraternal relations is dismissed as narrow, exclusive, separatist, etc– perhaps even schismatic according to a false understanding of schism. Actually striving for something more than fraternal relations is the bigger, more principled and more catholic (in a good sense) vision and position. When the Westminster Divines were offered a synthetic unity by Independents, to them it was no option at all and one which they roundly denounced as schism.

There are also inherent contradictions in synthetic unity because it means that you must recognise multiple denominations with very different standards and contradictory claims, including both sides of a division (as though there had been a no fault divorce). The main contradiction, however, is what we might call ‘pretend recognition.’ Mark Hausam describes this in another contribution:

‘Whenever there are multiple denominations, each denomination, by virtue of its existence separate from other denominations, is making a two-pronged statement: “We possess legitimate authority, and other denominations don’t.’

To recognise other denominations whilst in reality sayingby our actions that they have no legitimacy is a mere pretence. All these non-denominational structures look like what Baptists and Congregationalists do with their parachurch associations. It's not presbyterianism. This point is made by Carl Trueman:

‘I do not think that evangelical unity is particularly important or something to which we should aspire. Christian unity is; but Christian unity, if it is to be achieved this side of glory, will be a churchly unity. Evangelicalism is a non-churchly category. It does not organize churches. It does not ordain people. It does not disciple people. All these things are done by specific churches in specific places under specific leadership (both in terms of structure and personalities). The church is a creation of God; the parachurch is not. And Christian unity, if it is ever to be achieved on earth, requires churches talking to each other as churches. Being a pessimist, I myself doubt that such unity will ever be achieved this side of glory; but formal churchly interaction is the necessary precondition even for making it hypothetically conceivable.

In fact, to the extent that evangelical groups see themselves as instruments of moving churches along towards the achievement of true Christian unity (as opposed merely to providing support for churches and a forum for limited co-belligerence), to that extent they are playing a trick with gospel-centred smoke and mirrors. If we see Christian unity as something achieved by such parachurch coalitions, then what we are really seeing is a church unity which is essentially independent in ecclesiology and baptistic in practice. Every single evangelical group of which I am aware which sees itself as the key to real unity ultimately defaults in practice to privileging Baptist independency. That is, of course, absolutely fine for the Baptist independent; but if one is Presbyterian or paedobaptist by conviction, such ecumenism amounts to being told “Abandon much of what you hold dear and everything that makes you different to us and - hey presto! - we have unity. Oh, and by the way, if you are not prepared to do that, remember whose fault it is that we are still hopelessly divided.'

Trueman’s points are well made, but churches talking to each other would have to go beyond the kind of fraternal relations where we exchange greetings but always avoid the issues that divide. In that way we can keep up a charitable schism for ever.

Unity: Real, realisable and future

Real, organic unity may seem impossible to achieve. Doubts about the possibility of unity are, however, misplaced when it is promised in Scripture. We are to believe that the Scriptures prophesy of a time in the latter days when the visible Church shall be entirely united in time,‘to serve him with one consent’ (Zeph 3:9). ‘Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion’ (Isa 52:8). George Gillespie believed Scripture on this: ‘Brethren, it is not impossible, pray for it, endeavour it, press hard toward the mark of accommodation.’. Christ's prayer will be answered:‘That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us’ (John 17:21). ‘They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea’ (Isa 11:9).

This is something to be looked for by faith: ‘Thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down, not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken’ (Isa 33:20). There shall be one people of God even as they have one king. ‘I will make them one nation ... and David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd’ (Ezek 37:22, 24). ‘And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one’ (Zeph 14:9). Christ as king shall gather his Church into a visible unity. ‘He shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the enmity of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim’ (Isa 11:12-13).

lift up your voices

“Serve the LORD with gladness: come before His presence with singing” (Ps. 100:2).

First, you must know that singing is not a neutral matter in which you may or may not engage. Rather, it is God’s command. As we have shown you before, God requires this from you and desires to be served by you in this manner. Consider these and similar quotes and impress them upon your heart as being mandatory. Begin to engage in this duty with an obedient heart; break open your mouth and your closed heart will open as well.

Secondly, God has created this ability in the very nature of man. This is to be observed in children of three or four years old. Take note of how they walk around the house while singing at the same time. Observe how even in nature the birds in their own way already praise their Creator early in the morning by way of singing. If you go outside in the morning, or if you have birds in your home, you will hear it. Will the birds and small children rebuke you, and would you, who have the greatest reason in the world to sing joyously, be dumb and silent?

Thirdly, it is the work of angels, for they glorify the Lord in song (cf. Job 38:7; Luke 2:13-14; Rev. 5:11-12), and it is the work of the church upon earth and in heaven: “And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Rev. 5:9); “And they sung as it were a new song before the throne…and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth” (Rev. 14:3); “And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are Thy works, Lord God Almighty” (Rev. 15:3). If you have no desire to sing, then what will you do in church and in heaven? Furthermore, if you are desirous to magnify the Lord with an eternal hallelujah, you should presently begin upon earth.

Fourthly, God is particularly pleased when His children praise Him in song. There where the Lord is sweetly praised in song, there He will come with His blessings. “But Thou art holy, O Thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel” (Ps. 22:3). It is noteworthy to consider what transpired at the dedication of the temple. “It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one…that then the house was filled with a cloud…so that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of God” (2 Chr. 5:13-14). When Jehoshaphat, together with his army, lifted up their voices in joyous exclamation and song (2 Chr. 20:22), the Lord defeated their enemies. When Paul and Silas sang praises unto God in the middle of the night, the doors of the prison were opened and the bands of all the prisoners were loosened (Acts 16:25-26). Therefore, if you are desirous to please the Lord, and delight in having the Lord visit your soul and desire to experience His help, then accustom yourself to singing.

Fifthly, singing will move a heart which frequently remains unmoved during prayer. It can be that while singing the tears will drip upon the book. Have you not frequently experienced this? Have not you been stirred up by hearing the singing of others? Others will therefore also be stirred up by your singing. The Papists in France knew this, and therefore they strictly forbade the singing of psalms and meted out cruel punishment for this—even prior to massacring the church. Therefore, no longer be silent, but lift up your voices—in spite of the devil and all the enemies of God—to the honor and glory of your God, as this has done you too much good already (and still does) than that you would refrain from thanking the Lord with songs of praise. You must furthermore do so in order that you might stir up others to serve the Lord with gladness. It will then become manifest to all natural men that godliness is a joyous rather than a grievous life, and they will become desirous for this as well. And if you sing, sing with understanding, with a fervent desire, conscious of the presence of the Lord (and thus reverently), with a modest demeanor, and with both inner and external attentiveness, so that it may all be becoming before the Lord and to the edification of others who surround us.”

- Wilhelmus A’Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service HT: Building Old School Churches Blog

the religious factor in the decline of the Gaidhlig language

Significant resources are expended (sometimes controversially) in the promotion and hoped revival of Gaidhlig in Scotland. The observation has often been made by Highland presbyterians that there has been a studied neglect of and sometimes hostility to the role that the Church has played in sustaining Gaidhlig on the part of those who are seeking to promote the language. Of course some think that increasing use of English in worship is a key reason for the decline of Gaelic. No doubt the issue has its own complexities.

A recent thesis by Nathan Philip Gray ‘A publick benefite to the nation': the charitable and religious origins of the SSPCK, 1690-1715 makes the following significant conclusion to its study of the society and its work in the Highlands:

The absolute numerical decline in Gaelic speakers in Scotland can be associated with the
decline in the importance of religion. As members of the reformation societies insisted that Sunday was to be preserved from the performance of trade and business, so Gaelic was held to be the language of religion and the home, and English the language of commerce and worldly
employments.

As Highlanders migrated or emigrated they continued to keep a sense of community by using the Gaidhlig language for home and church.

The ultimate isolation of Gaelic within religion and community life meant that when society became more integrated and secularized, it was the final stage in the language’s overall withdrawal.

It remains true, however, that due to efforts in evangelism and education, 'for a period in the nineteenth century, Gaelic paradoxically experienced a new period of vitality through its religious and domestic orientation'.

"Reformed Scottish Presbyterianism: Reunion in the 21st Century?" – A Response

This paper responds to a brief document entitled "Reformed Scottish Presbyterianism: Reunion in the 21st Century?" prepared and made publicly available by Rev. Kenneth Stewart of Glasgow Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

Mr Stewart's paper seeks to "suggest a possible way forward ... in the reunification of all those Presbyterian Churches in Scotland which adhere to the doctrine, worship and government … as prescribed in the Westminster documents." It discusses the question of disunity and introduces proposals for overcoming this in relation to formal union of various denominations in Scotland.

This response considers the topic to be important and of significant concern. It is largely, however, a critique of the principles, assumptions and conclusions of Mr Stewart's paper while concluding with a positive alternative.

Discussion elsewhere in relation to the Kenneth Stewart paper has been limited but there has been a vigorous set of comments here.
 

Samuel Rutherford: an introduction to his theology #2

A word cloud of the text of Samuel Rutherford: An Introduction to His Theology (see table of contents below). This book can now be purchased from Reformation Heritage Books for $22.

Strangely, for someone who had a significant role in shaping one of the most important theological documents of modern times, Rutherford’s theology has fallen under comparative neglect. It offers, however, a valuable key to understanding the original intentions and context behind the Westminster standards.

Too many of Rutherford’s works are long out of print and were never reprinted after his lifetime; similarly his Latin works have never been translated into English. It would be immensely satisfying to think that this volume might encourage scholars, readers and publishers to invest in realising the goal of reviving these long obscured writings. It is hoped that the varied approaches contained within this collection may help to point to the richness and the rigour of this underestimated theologian and to stimulate further research and interest in Rutherford and his theology.

The General Table of Contents is as follows.


Chronology of Samuel Rutherford’s Life and Times

Revaluing Rutherford’s Theological Contribution
Chapter 1 Introduction: Samuel Rutherford Redivivus
Matthew Vogan
Chapter 2 Samuel Rutherford’s Theology in its Historical Context
San-Deog Kim

Rutherford and Practical Theology
Chapter 3 Samuel Rutherford and the Theology and Practice of Preaching
Matthew Vogan
Chapter 4 The Two shall become One Flesh: Samuel Rutherford’s ‘Affectionate’ Theology of Union with
Christ in the Song of Songs
Guy Richard
Chapter 5 Samuel Rutherford’s Polemic against Antinomianism in Christ Dying, and Drawing Sinners to Himself
Matthew Vogan
First Extract from Rutherford: The Influences of the Life of Grace

Rutherford and Covenant Theology
Chapter 6 Samuel Rutherford’s Contribution to Covenant Theology in Scotland
D. Patrick Ramsey
Chapter 7 Samuel Rutherford and the Preached Covenant
Sherman Isbell
Second Extract from Rutherford:
The Covenant of Life Opened

Rutherford and Ecclesiastical Theology
Chapter 8  Introduction to Samuel Rutherford’s The Due Right of Presbyteries
Sherman Isbell
Chapter 9  Samuel Rutherford on The Eldership of Matthew 18:17 and 1 Corinthians 5:4: The Ministerial Assembly of Elders Holds the Power to Bind and Loose
Richard Bacon
Third Extract from Rutherford:  A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbyterie in Scotland

Rutherford and Political Theology
Chapter10 Samuel Rutherford on Civil Government
David McKay
Chapter 11  Samuel Rutherford and Liberty of Conscience
Crawford Gribben
Fourth Extract from Rutherford:  A Brotherly and Free Epistle to the Patrons and Friends of Pretended Liberty of Conscience

Rutherford and the Covenanted Reformation
Chapter 12 A Half Reformation: English Puritanism  according to Samuel Rutherford
Michael Brown
Fifth Extract from Rutherford: Testimony to the Covenanted Work of Reformation, in Britain and Ireland

Whose Faith Follow

A valuable little blog called Footsteps is establishing an excellent resource to "support young people who respect the Bible and want to understand more about how to live rightly in an unsympathetic environment".

The motto of the blog is 'whose faith follow…' John Owen comments on this part of Hebrews 13:7 that follow means “to imitate” "This remembrance of our guides is prescribed with reference unto the duty of following their faith: “Whose faith follow;” — ‘So mind them and their work, in preaching the word of God, as to follow or imitate them in their faith'". "It is such a following as wherein we are fully conformed unto, and do lively express, that which we are said to follow. So a scholar may be said to follow his master, when, having attained all his arts and sciences, he acts them in the same manner as his master did. So are we to follow the faith of these guides". He qualifies this: "No mere man, not the best of men, is to be our pattern or example absolutely, or in all things. This honor is due unto Christ alone". This is wrapped up in what Paul goes on to say "Considering the end of their conversation Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever." Is the whole goal and tendency of our life here to point to the unchangeable, never enough admired Altogether Lovely One?

This endeavour will have done valuable work for God in this generation if it encourages this spirit in a rising generation.

The Temple

ON MR. G. HERBERT'S BOOK INTITLED THE TEMPLE OF SACRED POEMS, SENT TO A GENTLEWOMAN

Richard Crashaw (1613?–49)

Know you fair, on what you look;

Divinest love lies in this book,
Expecting fire from your eyes,
To kindle this his sacrifice.
When your hands untie these strings,
Think you’have an angel by th’ wings.
One that gladly will be nigh,
To wait upon each morning sigh.
To flutter in the balmy air
Of your well-perfumed prayer.
These white plumes of his he’ll lend you,
Which every day to heaven will send you,
To take acquaintance of the sphere,
And all the smooth-fac’d kindred there.
     And though Herbert’s name do owe
     These devotions, fairest, know
     That while I lay them on the shrine
     Of your white hand, they are mine.

William Cowper said of them "I found in them a strain of piety which I could not but admire"
George Herbert himself said "they are a picture of spiritual conflicts between God and my soul before I could subject my will to Jesus, my Master". He was "desirous (thorow the Mercy of GOD) to please Him, for whom I am, and live, and who giveth mee my Desires and Performances".

Scotland must be rid of Scotland

"Ye that are the people of God, do not weary in maintaining the testimony of the day, in your stations and places; and whatever you do, make sure an interest in Christ, for there is a storm coming, which will try your foundations. Scotland must be rid of Scotland before the delivery come."
- Some of the last words of James Renwick on the scaffold


Robert Wodrow "I do not doubt but Mr Renwick's meaning might be, that a great many of that wicked persecuting time behoved to be so far swept off the stage as to make Scotland, as it were, a new people and nation. But I think likewise that martyrs at their death, and even ordinary believers that die under the administration of an abundant entrance, do not themselves know the full extent of their own impressions, or the expressions they make use of under them ; and many times after providences make the best commentary upon them".

The Lord hath removed Scotland’s crown, for we owned not His crown

The Lord hath removed Scotland’s crown, for we owned not His crown...Our gold is become dim, the visage of our Nazarites is become black, the sun is gone down on our seers; the crown is fallen from our heads; we roar like bears. Lord save us from that, “He that made them will not have mercy on them” (Isa. xxvii. 11). The heart of the scribe meditateth terror.


Samuel Rutherford

Westminster Assembly

I hesitate to correct a correction to a factual error in the review recently posted since we appreciate the suggestion that the extracts in The King in His Beauty could be of daily devotional use.

My understanding, drawn from a number of reliable sources, is that the Westminster Assembly first of all met in the Lady Chapel (built by Henry VII) in Westminster Abbey.

During the winter of 1643 they moved to the warmer surroundings of the Jerusalem Chamber, where they remained. Robert Baillie gives a first hand report: "The like of that Assemblie I did never see, and, as we hear say, the like was never in England, nor any where is shortlie lyke to be. They did sit in Henry the 7th's Chappell, in the place of the Convocation; but since the weather grew cold, they did go to Jerusalem chamber, a fair roome in the Abbey of Westminster, about the bounds of the College fore-hall, but wyder"

The Jerusalem Chamber is the setting for the historical painting depicting the Assembly, which while anachronistic in some respects is accurate in this. There is a useful review by Rowland Ward here. He concludes: "There is a certain artistic licence in that men who were not actual members are included, such as Baxter, Owen, Cromwell and Milton. nIt might seem strange that this picture of an Assembly dear to Presbyterians should have been conceived by an Independent who claimed too much for his party, be painted by a Roman Catholic convert, and represent that which Presbyterians of the time opposed as inimical to the reformation of the British church. But that’s how it is in God’s providence."

St. Margaret's was the location for the services held in connection with the Fast Days of the Westminster Assembly and the Fast Days appointed by the Long Parliament. It was here, rather than in the Houses of Parliament, that the Divines preached before the Parliamentarians. The King in His Beauty states that Rutherford preached before the Long Parliament and that the Westminster Assembly met in Westminster Abbey.

Review of The King in His Beauty

The King in His Beauty: the Piety of Samuel Rutherford.  Ed. Matthew Vogan. 184pp. N.P. Pbk. ISBN 978-1-60178-125-3. 
This selection from Rutherford’s writings conveys to the believing reader a sweet savour of the loveliness of Christ. Whether counselling suffering saints or exposing this world’s vain glory, he always leads us to Christ as the only resting place for our souls. We could do far worse at the close of each day than read, meditate 
on, and pray over one of these extracts. One factual error needs a mention: the Westminster Assembly did
not meet in Westminster Abbey but in St. Margaret’s, next to it.                                  
J.M.B.


SGU Magazine Peace & Truth 2011:4

blogs to add to your reader

A new blog Assert, Maintain, Defend gives Analysis and Comment from the Religion and Morals Committee of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The title refers to the ordination vows of office bearers to assert, maintain and defend the doctrine, worship and government of the church. Here is an important public means of carrying that out faithfully.

Welcome back to the Virginian Hugenot - we've missed your posts.
Book lovers take a look here. If you're interested in apologetics go here.
Students of the puritans can keep up to date here.
Go for a presbyterian experiment here.

I haven't forgotten the old favourites...keep up the good work.

Samuel Rutherford: an introduction to his theology

Samuel Rutherford was perhaps the most influential religious writer in post-Reformation Scotland. He is famous for his Letters but his theological writings have been strangely neglected. This diverse collection of essays examines the breadth of his theological contribution. Several extracts from his writings are also included.

A preview is available here where it can also be purchased.

spiritual jubilee

The Archbishop of Canterbury's recent sermon on the Jubilee thanksgiving was a rather depressing exercise in pulling down the spiritual in Scripture to the level of mere civic duty rather than using the occasion to speak of true spiritual values and realities especially the glorious gospel of the blessed God.

The Bible speaks of a year of jubilee every fifty years when debts were to be cancelled and those in bondage were to go free. No doubt if we had more of the spirit of this in our temporal affairs Britain would be a better and a fairer country. The Lord Jesus Christ spoke of the Jubilee as pointing forward to His own person, work and gospel (Isaiah 61 and Luke 4).

We could speculate what the Puritan Thomas Watson might have said if he had the opportunity afforded to the Archbishop. He refers in fact quite often to the jubilee.

He might have begun to consider the great kingship of the King of Kings and how he is able to proclaim a spiritual jubilee. He would first show the grievous bondage of sinfulness and misery that is ours due to sin and the Fall in four things. "1. Under the power of Satan. 2. Heirs of God’s wrath. 3. Subject to all the miseries of this life. 4. Exposed to hell and damnation"


"See here our misery by original sin; enslaved to Satan. Eph 2: 2. Satan is said to work effectually in the children of disobedience. What a sad plague is it for a sinner to be at the will of the devil!...If the devil bids a man lie or steal, he does not refuse; and, what is worse, he willingly obeys this tyrant. Other slaves are forced against their will: 'Israel sighed by reason of their bondage,' Exod 2: 23; but sinners are willing to be slaves, they will not take their freedom; they kiss their fetters.

Let us labour to get out of this deplorable condition into which sin has plunged us, and get from under the power of Satan. If any of your children were slaves, you would give great sums of money to purchase their freedom; and when your souls are enslaved, will ye not labour for their freedom? Improve the gospel. The gospel proclaims a jubilee to captives. Sin binds men, but the gospel looses them. Paul's preaching was 'to turn men from the power of Satan to God.' Acts 26: 18. The gospel star leads you to Christ; and if you get Christ, then you are made free, though not from the being of sin, yet from Satan's tyranny. 'If the Son make you free, ye shall be free indeed.' John 8: 36. You hope to be kings to reign in heaven, and will you let Satan reign in you now? Never think to be kings when you die, and slaves while you live. The crown of glory is for conquerors, not for captives. Oh get out of Satan's jurisdiction; get your fetters of sin filed off by repentance."

He might warn solemnly that "in hell, there is no year of release when the damned shall go free! (Mark 9:44). Have people lost their reason—as well as their conscience! They never think—what their sins will bring them to. Though now sin shows its beauteous colors—yet in the end it will bite like a serpent!"


Here in hell "sinners shall be upbraided by their own conscience. This is the worm that never dies, a self-accusing mind. Mark 9: 44. When sinners shall consider that they were in a fair way to the kingdom; that they had a possibility of salvation; that though the door of heaven was strait, yet it was open; that they had the means of grace; that the jubilee of the gospel was proclaimed in their ears; that God called but they refused; that Jesus Christ offered them a plaister of his own blood to heal them, but they trampled it under foot; that the Holy Spirit stood at the door of their heart, knocking and crying to them to receive Christ and heaven, but they repulsed the Spirit, and sent away this dove; and that now, through their own folly and wilfulness, they have lost the kingdom of heaven; a self- accusing conscience will be terrible, it will be like a venomous worm gnawing at the heart".


For the true believer, however, "the day of judgement will be a day of jubilee". More than this: "Death's coming is sooner than Christ's personal coming—and then begins the saint's blessed jubilee". Heaven is "an eternal jubilee; when you shall be freed not only from the power but from the presence of sin". "They shall weep no more, suffer no more. They shall be taken off the torturing wrack and laid in Christ’s bosom. The people of God shall not always be in the iron furnace; a year of Jubilee will come". "This is the great consolation', the Jubilee of the blessed which shall never expire."

"A pardoned soul needs not fear death. He may look on death with joy, who can look on forgiveness with faith. To a pardoned soul, death has lost his sting. Death, to a pardoned sinner, is like arresting a man after the debt is paid; it may arrest, but Christ will show the debt-book crossed in his blood. A pardoned soul may triumph over death, ‘O death! where is thy sting? O grave! where is thy victory?’ He who is pardoned need not fear death: it is not to him a destruction, but a deliverance; it is a day of jubilee or release; it releases him from all his sins. Death comes to a pardoned soul as the angel did to Peter, when he smote him, and beat off his chains, and carried him out of prison; it smites his body, and the chains of sin fall off.

Let us not be content however without the evidence and sense of pardon. He who is pardoned and knows it not, is like one who has an estate bequeathed to him, but knows it not. Our comfort consists in the knowledge of forgiveness. ‘Make me to hear joy.’ Psa 51: 8. There is a jubilee in the soul when we are able to read our pardon. To the witness of conscience God adds the witness of his Spirit; and in the mouth of these two witnesses our joy is confirmed. O labour for the evidence of forgiveness!"

On 26 May...

On 26 May 1892, the Free Church General Assembly passed the Declaratory Act anent the Confession of Faith. (For previous posts in this series see here and here). The Constitutionalists opposing it dissented from it in the strongest of terms. They stated that “the Church is left without any definite, fixed or authoritative standard of doctrine”. Some have tried retrospectively to justify the decision to remain under the Declaratory Act until 1900. The following questions and answers deal with these assertions.

8.Was it not simply a "relieving Act"?

This was a phrase coined in 1894 by Dr Rainy to appease conservatives.  The phrase reveals the whole problem.  The Act relieved office-bearers from confessing and subscribing to certain doctrines in the Confession of Faith that they otherwise must subscribe to. These were, however, doctrines embedded in the very constitution of the Church. The fact that it was a relieving Act did not nullify the damaging fact that it violated the Constitution of the Free Church by destroying the meaning of the Confession and Formula. It is noteworthy that the dissent tabled by the remaining Constitutionalists in 1894 acknowledged that the Declaratory Act had been confirmed "as a law of the Church, binding upon the Church courts in the administration of discipline".

9.Was it not possible to have remained in the Free Church without being "under" the Act as individuals?

This is a mistake.
a). Take for instance a presbytery that refused to licence a student who wished to appeal to the Declaratory Act.  The decision could be appealed against and the Presbytery would undoubtedly have been ordered by Synod or Assembly to give the student his legal right of recourse to the Act. They would have had to proceed to licensing.  This proved that noone could avoid obedience to the Act.
b). As Presbyterians each individual was responsible for the actions of the Church as a whole. When a Presbyterian Church by a competent majority changes its creed and constitution, the party opposed to this change has no alternative but to separate from the majority. In a Presbyterian Church each office-bearer discharges his vows to maintain the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith not simply as an individual but as a member of a Church.  The Free Church departed from the whole doctrine of the Confession so far that it was impossible to discharge these vows.  A presbytery is unable to assert, maintain and defend the truth when it does not know and is not permitted to enquire whether or not the students that it licenses make mental appeal to rank heresy (the Declaratory Act).
c). The individual may not have been compelled to accept the doctrines of the Declaratory Act but if his congregation were more swayed by the official position of the Church his preaching would they listen to the "minority opinions" that he expressed in his preaching?
d). The individual was compelled to allow others to accept the doctrines of the Declaratory Act.  As an Act of the Church the Declaratory Act was obligatory and the individual was bound to recognise and acknowledge its operation. It is as sinful to give liberty to others to believe false doctrine as to believe it oneself.

10. Was there therefore any way to refuse to administer the Declaratory Act?

There was no way to refuse to administer the Act and those who believe that the Free Church preserved a right of continued protest are mistaken since either this principle was not important to them or they were happy to deny themselves continued protest.  The terms of their dissent in 1894 as referred to above show that they were concerned that administration of the Act was in fact binding upon them. Either way, it was impossible for those who remained to continue to fulfil their ordination vows or to exonerate their consciences.

11. What was Rev. D. MacFarlane's response?

Rev. D. MacFarlane read a protest at the 1893 Assembly after the passing into law of the Declaratory Act. Stating that since the Act was now retained in the constitution of the Free Church, the Church "ceases to be the true representative of the Free Church of Scotland".  MacFarlane added, "neither my conscience nor my ordination vows allow me to act under what has now been made law in this Church".

12.  Why did the Free Presbyterian Church never repeal the Declaratory Act?

The Free Presbyterian Church made a complete break with the Declaratory Act Church in taking up a separate position and therefore never had this Act on its statute book, so there was no need to repeal it.

For more on the intricate questions surrounding the constitutional issues of separation in 1893 as against 1900 see 1893, 1900 and Church Authority.

AV4Schools

Schools in England will be sent copies of the King James Bible from this week to mark its 400th anniversary. Every state primary and secondary school in England is to receive a copy of the King James Bible.

Around 24,000 Bibles are being distributed to schools this week by the Department for Education to mark last year’s 400th anniversary of its publication. The Bibles, which have been published by the Oxford University Press, are accompanied by a letter from Michael Gove.

Education Secretary Michael Gove, described it as the most ‘important book written in the English language’. ‘The King James Bible has had a profound impact on our culture. Every school pupil should have the opportunity to learn about  this book and the impact it has had on our history, language, literature and democracy.’

Diarmaid MacCulloch, professor of the history of the Church at St Cross College, Oxford University, said the King James Bible ‘represents the culmination of a century of Biblical translation in the first golden age of modern English literature’.


The Right Reverend John Pritchard, Bishop of Oxford and chairman of the Church of England Board of Education, said: ‘This is a fitting way of marking the seminal contribution this version of the Bible has made to our culture. It symbolically places the King James Bible at the heart of the educational process which it inspired.’


Professor David Crystal, author of Begat: the King James Bible and the English language:

'However one sees the King James Bible – whether as inspired text, great literature, cultural identifier, or political stimulus – the fact remains that it has played an unparalleled role in influencing the oratorical and literary style of many writers in English and shaping the expressive character of the language as a whole. Young people are fascinated by the history of their language, when it is presented to them in a vivid and lively way, and to hear the biblical stories that led to such idioms as "salt of the earth" and "fly in the ointment", or (at a younger level) "no room at the inn" and "the land of Nod" is an excellent way of broadening their linguistic horizons and developing their appreciation of the expressive range of English. Having the text easily available will help make this happen.'

There are plenty of teaching resources to help...more...more...more...more

competing presbyterian denominations

A recent blog post counts up 11 Presbyterian denominations in Scotland. Another blog analyses shrewdly the reasons for this.

Should we be indifferent about the increasing number of competing presbyterian denominations? How does this relate to the unity of the visible Church emphasised in Scripture? This booklet addresses the sensitive area of schism in order to draw some applications for the contemporary context with help from the biblical views of older presbyterian writers. Available here as a free download.

one visible Christian church and its government

David Dickson commenting on Psalm 47:9 shows that the visible Church can, should and will be one in its government throughout the world.

'As there is a necessity of the union of Jews and Gentiles in one visible Christian church, because it is promised and prophesied that it shall be so; so there is reason to wish for the more evident union of them, that they may be as eminently consociate as ever the Christian churches were, either in the Apostles' time, or in the Christian emperors' time, in a general assembly or oecumenical council; because there is at least a possibility of an oecumenical council, or a general assembly of Jews and Gentiles in this world under Christ their King. This place makes it plain, because after it is foretold that there shall be such a union of all the people of the God of Abraham, Jews and Gentiles, as their princes shall be gathered together, he takes away the chief ground of a great objection which may be made from the discord and disagreement of the princes of the world; some of them being averse altogether from the Christian religion, some of them from the true religion of Christ, and all of them almost dissenting one from another, and warring one against another; whereby now for many years the gathering of an cecumenical council hath not been possible. He meeteth this objection in the text, saying, for the shields of the earth belong unto God, that is, the hearts and power of all the kings of the earth are in the Lord's hand, and he hath the disposing of shields, armies, and ammunition, with all their commanders and rulers in the world, and therefore can make them serviceable for the nearest conjunction and union of his visible church, which can be for his glory in this world, as he sees fit, how and when he will.'



We need to recover the worldwide vision of the Second Reformation divines. Rutherford and Gillespie stressed on several occasions the ideal of an ecumenical Council of national churches. It is important to bear in mind the remarks of James Walker:
'The visible church, in the idea of the Scottish theologians, is catholic. You have not an indefinite number of Parochial, or Congregational, or National churches, constituting, as it were, so many ecclesiastical individualities, but one great spiritual republic, of which these various organizations form a part. The visible church is not a genus, so to speak, with so many species under it. It is thus you may think of the State, but the visible church is a totum integrale, it is an empire. The churches of the various nationalities constitute the provinces of this empire; and though they are so far independent of each other, yet they are so one, that membership in one is membership in all, and separation from one is separation from all . . . This conception of the church, of which, in at least some aspects, we have practically so much lost sight, had a firm hold of the Scottish theologians of the seventeenth century.' Dr. James Walker in The Theology of Theologians of Scotland. (Edinburgh: Rpt. Knox Press, 1982) Lecture iv. pp.95-6.

A constitutional Act

The debate in 1892 around the Declaratory Act related to its constitutional nature. This is well discussed in an anonymous letter to the Glasgow Herald in September of that year. Archibald McNeilage appears to have taken similar views in a separate letter to the same newspaper.

Donald Beaton wrote much later on the subject: "The founders of the Free Presbyterian Church, while holding that the majority in passing the Declaratory Act were acting ultra vires, inasmuch as a use was made of the Barrier Act for which it was never intended, at the same time asserted that the Declaratory Act, being inconsistent with the Confession, violated the Constitution of the Free Church. In taking up positions seemingly at variance, there was no inconsistency. Both positions were tenable and consistent with the real facts of the situation created by the ecclesiastical policy of one of the astutest ecclesiastical leaders Scotland ever had, though, alas! his gifts were prostituted to a bad cause." For more on the constitutional aspect of the Act see here.

We can resume the questions that we began in relation to this Act in a previous post.


4.Was it not only a mere Act and not part of the constitution?

The Declaratory Act was not just a resolution adopted by the Assembly; it was passed by a majority of presbyteries under the Barrier Act in 1893.  The Barrier Act makes provision that no proposal of the Assembly shall be regarded as a standing law and constitution of the Church without the consent of the majority of presbyteries. It follows that the Declaratory Act being passed under this Act formed part of the constitution, thereby changing it (by adding to and taking from the Confession of Faith).

5. Was it not beyond the powers (ultra vires) of the Free Church to change its constitution?


A Church has no right to change its constitution in the face of a dissenting minority and remain the same body - it is ultra vires. A Church can of course change its constitution unanimously and remain the same Church, particularly if there is nothing contradictory in the new constitution. What happens when a Church does change its constitution through the appropriate legal means but without entire unanimity? It ceases to be the same body that it was and the dissenting minority instead become the true representatives of the original body. This is what happened in 1893 and why the FP Church was now the true representative of the Free Church of 1843.


6.Did the Formula (ordination vows) not have to be changed before the Constitution was altered?

The Act had to be a law before it could be subscribed to. Putting the Act into the Questions and Formula did not make it a law - it was already in force. The failure to change the Formula was a political ploy to achieve the desired outcome without upsetting the minority.  It was the Church's Act and it ensured that anyone could accept the doctrines of the Act without hindrance. It was found to be impossible for anyone to subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith and add an explicit rejection of the Declaratory Act.  James Macdonald, Dornoch inserted this kind of rejection of the Act into his subscription (1893) but the Synod of Caithness and Sutherland ordered that it be removed from the records. The fact that the Formula was unchanged was due to a lack of honesty which would have required subscription to these doctrines if the Church was convinced that they were true.  The Declaratory Act also emptied the Formula of all meaning.  It was no longer possible to have any complete assurance or definite indication as to the views of ministers and office-bearers. The truth was that it was the Formula itself that was a dead letter and not the Declaratory Act.  Furthermore by the Act the Free Church sanctioned the sinful dishonesty of vowing full subscription while having mental reservations.


The idea that the Act was inoperative because the Formula had not changed is not valid.  Men were availing themselves of the Declaratory Act in subscribing the Formula and the Constitutionalists were powerless to prevent this or even detect it, and so unable to keep their ordination vows.  Maurice Grant recognises the weakness of the argument in relation to the Formula. “In their Reasons for Dissent at the passing of the Declaratory Act in 1892 the Free Church constitutionalists specifically stated that the Act 'must be regarded as a new law of this Church, which alters the relations of the Church to the Confession of Faith, by substituting for the doctrines therein embodied the statements made in the Act, as the future standard of orthodoxy in this Church' (Minutes of Free Church General Assembly, 1892). The argument that no change had been made in the Questions and Formula is in any event something of an academic one, since the Assembly of 1894, in what was presented as a relieving Act, stated that 'those who are licensed or ordained to office in this Church, in answering the Questions and subscribing the Formula, are entitled to do so in view of the said Declaratory Act'. Thus, though the Questions and Formula themselves were unchanged, the facility for an ordinand to take advantage of the Declaratory Act when answering and subscribing them was specifically written into the law of the Church. It is best therefore to look elsewhere for a satisfactory vindication of the constitutionalists' position” (The Heirs of the Disruption in Crisis and Recovery 1893-1920).


7.Was the Act not just a dead letter on the statute book?

No, because protests against the Act (e.g. in the Synod of Glenelg) were not permitted by the General Assembly (1893).  This showed that individuals were bound by the Act even in their consciences since it was impossible to protest against it in order to clear the conscience.  An overture by Rev. Angus Galbraith, Lochalsh (Free Church minority 1900) to the same General Assembly recognised this fact by observing that it was clear that it was not "optional for them to receive or to reject this Act". He went on to say that it "was very small comfort to be told that this Act was not intended to interfere with their personal beliefs when they learned that it regulated their creed and public testimony as a Church". Dr. Rainy responded with an indication of the real force of the Act, emphasising that "the Act has set forth the Church's understanding of the range of opinion which is open in this Church in its own understanding of what is involved in the acceptance of the Confession of Faith by our ministers and elders...as long as it lasts, no doubt it is authoritative."

The Declamatory Act

declamatory (dɪˈklæmətərɪ)

merely rhetorical; empty and bombastic

The above is a good definition of the Free Church Declaratory Act of 1892 which, as noted here, is 120 years old in May. It declaimed against the Westminster Confession of Faith. It was mere empty rhetoric designed to encompass and deceitfully hide a wide variety of errors in opposition to the precise theology of the Confession of Faith. In a phrase they "destroyed the integrity of the Confession of Faith". The only unobjectionable and non-declamatory word in the Act was the first one, "Whereas". It was, as BB Warfield described it, "a bungling piece of work".


In History of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand, Rev. John Dickson writes:

A creed is only a light-holder; to declaim against it is to act like the savage [sic] who, walking through the streets of London at night, complained that the lamp-posts were an obstruction to traffic. 

See here for more on exactly how the Declaratory Act was guilty of subverting as well as declaiming against the Confession of Faith. 

1.What was the Declaratory Act?

It was officially called "Act Anent Confession of Faith" and was passed by the Free Church in 1892. It stated that its purpose was "to remove difficulties and scruples which have been felt by some in relation to the declaration of belief required from" office-bearers, ministers, probationers etc. In other words some seeking office in the Church could not (although ordination vows explicitly required it) affirm that the "whole doctrine" of the Westminster Confession of Faith was their personal confession of faith.  The Church sought a way to get around this.  The Declaratory Act allowed men to assent publicly to the same vows of strict and full subscription but privately they could make secret appeal to the Declaratory Act's qualification of the confession.

2.What was the motivation for the Act?

The motivation for the Act was to permit students who held views contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith in terms of evolution, higher criticism, Arminianism etc. to subscribe in a qualified way to the Westminster Confession of Faith without abandoning such convictions.  It was also intended to facilitate union with the United Presbyterian Church who had passed their own Declaratory Act that was practically identical to the Free Church 1892 Act. 

3.What was the effect of the Declaratory Act?

By the Declaratory Act the Free Church "destroyed the integrity of the Confession of Faith as understood and accepted by the Disruption Fathers and their predecessors" thereby overthrowing "the fixed Doctrinal Constitution of the Church" (Rev. James S. Sinclair). The Church's relation to the Westminster Confession of Faith changed from entire acceptance to modified acceptance. The Church's declaration was that it "maintains, holds" doctrines that were actually subversive of the Confession while "disclaiming" certain crucial confessional doctrines. This amounted to an additional creed.  The Church was also giving approval and shelter to the false doctrines named above and those who held to them. Rev. James S. Sinclair said: "The Free Church in order to please the fickle tastes of carnal men has traitorously lowered the standard of accepted truth, and weakened down the saving doctrines of the Gospel, so that they shall be powerless for any spiritual good to this or future generations".