THE FREE CHURCH CASE IN SCOTLAND.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR."] SIR,—In the Spectator of August 6th you have a leader on the above case, a case which is causing so great turmoil in Scot- land, and which gravely affects all non-Established Churches in the three kingdoms.
I venture to traverse some of the statements in your leader, and, in view of the importance of the case, I hope you will allow me to say why. For one thing, you speak of the United Presby- terian Church as older than the Free Church when the two entered into the Union of 1900. That is not the case. The Free Church came into existence at the great Secession of 1843 ; while the United Presbyterian Church was formed in 1847, through the junction of two bodies which had seceded from the Church of Scotland about a century before—viz., the Secession Church and the Relief Church. The remarkable fact is that, though the action of the Law of Patronage was the operative cause for all three secessions, the Free Church in 1847 never thought of uniting with the other two, the reason being that the latter had become voluntary in principle—i.e., had become opposed to the principle of Establishment—while the Free Church affirmed that principle then most strongly. This fact was one chief ground on which the argument for the decision proceeded.
In the second place, it is not the case that there was little opposition to the Union of 1900. Steps towards such a union were taken as far back as 1864; but at that time the opposition was numerically strong. The strength of the opposition, together with the adverse opinion of the best lawyers in Scotland—an opinion running on much the same lines as the recent decision of the House of Lords—caused the negotiations to be broken off in 1873. They were not resumed till 1896, when the first generation of Free Churchmen had almost passed away, and the original principles, though embodied in the constitution of the Church, were less strongly held. It is true that when the final vote came to be taken, the numbers for union were overwhelming ; but it is not the blame of the dissident minority, nor of the Judges in the House of Lords, that the majority of the Free Church thought to place themselves by a vote above the law of the land.
In the third place, it is not the case that the decision forbids any Church "to alter its own creed at its own discretion." Though the statement is qualified in the succeeding sentence by a reference to the property involved, it is still too absolute. More than one of the Judges, in giving judgment, expressly guarded himself against being supposed to decide on a matter of doctrine or to infringe liberty of conscience in any Church or individual. What was decided was that in 1843 Trusts were formed in terms of the constitution of the Free Church that certain elements in that constitution were vital and fundamental in the estimate of the original trustees—in particular, the principle of Establishment, and unqualified adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith—and that the Trust had been violated by the trustees, who had handed over the property to a new set of trustees and for behoof of a new Church, composed to a considerable extent of those who entirely rejected the principle of Establishment and who qualified their adherence to the Confession of Faith. It is noteworthy, indeed, that most of the Judges fought shy of the doctrinal points, refusing to follow Mr. Haldane into his wandering mazes of discussion of the antinomies of predestination and free will, and laying chief stress on the changed attitude towards the principle of Establishment. The Lord Chancellor was bolder, though his quotations from the opinions of the Council of Con-, stantinople and the Council of Jerusalem show more of the vanity of recondite learning than of any aptness to the matter in hand. To Scottish readers the most luminous and the best informed judgment has been that of Lord Robertson, whose dispassionate discussion made the decision inevitable,
Comment has very naturally been directed to the fact that the law-courts in Scotland and England have been diametrically opposed in their judgments. The reason is not far to seek. In England, so far as I have been able to learn, ideas of spiritual and independent jurisdiction in a Church are vague and feebly held, while ideas of the sanctity of property and of trusts are held very strongly. In Scotland, on the other hand, ideas of spiritual freedom and independent jurisdiction are held so strongly that all our Judges are unwilling to interfere with any Church acting within its own domain, and when its actions affect only its own property or discipline. Even the Church of Scotland, fettered, as some suppose, in belief and action by its relations with the State, has this great freedom, that the decisions of its own courts are final on all matters affecting doctrine, discipline, or worship. There is no Court of Arches in Scotland.
Permit me, finally, to express, what thousands outside of the United Free Church are expressing, my deepest regret at what may be the practical consequences of the decision. Just and right as the decision may be, it is a disaster to the interests of religion that the work of a great Church, with an honourable record for liberality and efficiency, should, whatever now is done, be paralysed for years to come. It is the desire of all lovers of Scotland that out of the deplorable confusion there may emerge something better than a rejuvenated Free Church, and that is, a reconstruction of Scotch Presbyterianism.
—I am, Sir, &c., DAVID HUNTER. Galashiels.
Previous page
