The Reunion of Christendom
VI.—Church Union in Scotland
2 [In accordance with our promise last week we are glad to publish this article by Lord Sands on the Union of the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church Of Scotland.—En. Spectator.]NO domestic event of our times has so moved Scotland as did the Union 'of the' two ' great Presbyterian Churches in the first week of Oaciber. People flocked • .. to Edinburgh from the remotest part of the country as did the Jews of old from all parts of Palestine to' a great feast at Jerusalem. The 'vast hall of Assembly seated for 12,000 was filled, not Merely for the actual ceremony but for all the four 'meetings of the Assembly. Most moving, perhaps, of all was the unpremeditated item in the proceedings, the raising of the metrical version of the 133rd Psalm by the crowd which thronged the High Street when the two processions coming from their respective halls met to enter St. Gilee Cathedral together: .• To the publicist the proceedings certainly suggest the question why events have taken a course in Scotland *0 different.- from that taken hi Ireland and Wales, the 'course into which forty years ago it seemed to many, including Mr. Gladstone (albeit apparently. with some reluctance and misgiving imi his case), matters in Scotland were surely drifting. Thirty-six years ago a measure was aetually introduced by the Government to suspend the -Creation of new vested interests in the Church of Scotland in anticipation of early disestablishment and disengwment. . The best answer to this question is to he found in the Consideration that, whereas for reasons -which have their - root in history, the existence of the State Clcurehes in Ireland and in Wales were regarded by many as an offence against national sentiment, the contrary was the case in Scotland. Even Burns, whose sympathies were certainly not ecclesiastical, protested in vigorous lines against any interference with "the kettle o' the Kirk and State." It is a source of pride to Scots that the first act of the Sovereign on his accession to the throne is to take the accession oath for the security of the Church of Scotland. Again, a Scot who belonged to another communion might have to render a reason, and he might have a very good reason for his own ecclesiastical allegiance, but no Scot the world over had to render any reason for being a member of the Church of Scotland.
Another contributory cause of the happy issue was that the initiative in the matter was taken by the Church which was supposed to occupy a position of peculiar privilege. The Church of Scotland was not content with the position of beau i poss. identes. The old policy of an invitation to those who had separated to " return " was wisely abandoned. Union must be on the basis not of absorption but of fusion on equal terms and with mutual acknowledgement of continuity with the Church when still undivided. Another factor was that the leaders of both Churches were judiciously content to belie the inveterate tradition of their countrymen of harking back to old quarrels and old catchwords. The new policy was pithily illustrated by the late Dr. Reith of the United Free Church when he said :— "If we begin to, discuss as to who was to blame for the Dis-
proposition in regard to the Disruption in which we may all agree, that whoever was to blame for the Disruption he is now dead.
The union has not rendered necessary as regards either Church any change, not even a small change, in any matter of doctrine, or of worship, or of Church government. Separation for many generations had wrought no divergence in these. The difference which had led to separation concerned none of these things, but matters of ecclesiastical polity in relation to the State. Even here the orginal differences were not fundamental. It was rather that the one party felt the grievances so strongly that they were constrained to separate themselves from the State, the other party deemed acquiescence preferable to a rupture with the State. These considerations might suggest to the outsider that with the State no longer stubborn the negotiation of union must have been an easy matter. But this view is a mistaken one. Minor differences may sometimes be easily reconciled in the case of churches which did not have their origin in separation the one from the other. But differences which led to the extreme step of separation are on a different footing. To brush them aside as unimportant or obsolete seems like a disowning of past history and a dishonouring of spiritual ancestors. Those who separated are naturally disposed to attach supreme importance to the grounds which led to separation, however microscopical or merely theoretical changed circumstances may seem to others to have rendered them.
It would be beyond the scope of this article to attempt to explain in detail what were the difficulties and how they were met. But the two chief ones may be indicated in a word. The first was the alleged State control of the Church. This has been met by the recognition by Parliament in the Act of 1921 of the lawfulness of certain Articles, framed by the Church of Scotland as declaratory of her constitution in matters spiritual, which affirm the spiritual autonomy of the Church.
The second difficulty was in regard to the ancient endowments. None of the Churches which separated from the Church of Scotland and afterwards came to be amalgamated together as the United Free Church had any objection to the Church's enjoyment of these endowments as at the date when they separated from her. They were recognized and claimed as the patrimony of the Church. But, as was not unnatural, the theory gradually established itself among many who had dis- possessed themselves of any participation therein, that these endowments were State property, of which the State Church was meanwhile permitted the enjoyment, and that so long as this arrangement subsisted the clergy were State paid, and the Church was beholden to the State. This difficulty was solved by the Act of 1925, whereby these endowments, with the Church fabrics, glebes, and manses, were made over in absolute property to the Church. These are now vested in trustees for the Church, subject to no control save that of the Church Itself, on a footing similar to the property of any other corporation.
Church union in Scotland is a matter of practical and profound interest to Scotland, and much might be written as to the significance of the change and the tasks and the opportunities of the reunited Church. But has the union any significance beyond Scotland ? There are, I think, at least two ways in which it seems to have such significance. The Articles framed by the Church of Scotland and scheduled to the Act of 1921, in so far as they affirm the spiritual freedom of the Church and define the relation of civil authority to the Church, have attracted wifiespread attention throughout the world, in England, in Wales, in Canada and Australia and on the Continent of Europe. These Articles cannot here be explained or discussed, but they are undoubtedly a contribution of value towards the solution of a problem which has exercised the Church since the days of Constantine.
Another contribution which Scottish Church union makes to the Christian world is the exemplification of the old proverb that even in Church union "Where there's a will there's a way." Doubtless the outside world is not in a position to appreciate the difficulties which faced the Churches when they began these nego- tiations, and caused many, probably the great majority at the time, to regard the task as hopeless. Outsiders must be content to take it from those who understand the matter that the difficulties were very formidable. One difficulty, indeed, the outside world can appreciate, viz., that in Scottish Presbyterians, those who conducted these negotiations had to carry with them perhaps the most stubborn people in the world and the people of the most tenacious memories in all matters of ecclesiastical dispute. But a solution was found. The one-time arch-disestablisher on the one hand, and the rigid upholder of the status quo as sacrosanct on the other, came to be so impressed by the urgent call for a peaceful reunion in the spiritual interests of Scotland, that they laid aside their swords and forgot their shibboleths and were content to endeavour to find a more excellent way on the lines of forbearance, conciliation and Christian brotherhood. If one were to choose a text as embodying the policy, the pursuit of which, under wise and patient guidance, has surmounted every difficulty, it should be "Bear ye one another's burdens."
SANDS.
[We have already published in this series an introductory article by the Rev. A. S. Duncan-Jones, "The Anglican Position" by the Bishop of Middleton, "The Orthodox Point of View" by Archbishop Germano!? of Tliyateira, " Reunion and the South Indian Scheme" by the Rev. J. Scott Lidgett, " The- Rotium Catholic Point of View" by the Rev. Leslie J. Walker, and "The South Indian Proposals and the Church of England" by Dr. Sparrow Simpson. Next week we shall publish an article on "The Missionary Aspect," by the Rev. W. Paton.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
