THE SCOTTISH CHURCH CASE.
f To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—In the recent argument before the House of Lords, much of the time was occupied with the question of the right of Churches to adjust their creed as occasion required. Nothing is more certain than that at the Disruption Chalmers regarded this as a right which could not be challenged. A significant incident occurred on July 13th, 1843, within less than two months of that event. The occasion was the bicentenary of the Westminster Assembly. Chalmers was in the chair, and gave a thrilling address. A paper was read by Dr. Harper, of Leith, on "The Value and Uses of Subordinate Standards." After "vindicating the systematic statement of principles and belief on which those who agreed with each other as brethren, associated together in acts of Christian fellowship, without at all attempting to supersede the sacred Scriptures as the sole 'rule of faith," Dr. Harper "pointed out the great danger of making creeds authoritative standards of religious belief," and . this statement he followed up by urging "the importance of subjecting the subordinate standards to a calm review at periods favourable to the under- taking, a review not in the spirit of men given to change, but
in the spirit of men who know, and are forward to acknow- ledge that no work of human prudence, learning or piety, is perfect so as to be unimproveable." At the close, Chalmers expressed his great delight at the able argument of Dr. Harper on subordinate standards, and his hope that it would be put into a permanent form. Nothing could be more admirable or temperate than the language of Dr. Harper, and it was accepted without dissent and as a matter of course by the illustrious chairman and by the great and representative meeting. The same evening Dr. Candlish had occasion to give his
views. Some of . his points are especially worthy of note. Circumstances may arise, he said, which throw such doubt upon the language of Confessions "as an index or exposition of belief now as to compel the Church to adopt new creeds in new phraseology" :— "The Confession adopted by any Church is not to be regarded as essentially fixed and stereotyped in all ages. On the contrary, these Confessions ought to be regarded as expressions of the mind of the Church at the time,--as the very subsisting mind of the
them.
society declared from time to time, and brought to bear with special emphasis on the prevailing errors of successive ages. In this point of view we are called upon to maintain that Confessions, adopted by a fallible Church, are capable of enlargement and correction—that additions may unquestionably be made to them, and alterations made upon them, not for the purpose of changing the truth of God or the Church's faith, but for the purpose, it may be, of bringing out that faith more explicitly, and in more pointed contradiction to errors prevalent at the time. And here it occurs to me to remark, that as the Church is not a voluntary association, but a Divine institute, subject to God, and having no authority over conscience,—having no right to do as she pleases, but only to carry out the will of God—the Church is not entitled to take her stand simply upon her Confession, as if that were the ultimate judge in any controversy that may arise. If the Church were a mere voluntary association, or mere society of individuals, associated spontaneously for certain purposes, on certain terms, then the Church might be entitled to take up peremptory ground and say, 'You will not consent to our terms, and, therefore, we will not admit you into our society.' But if the Church be a Divine institute, appointed and ordained by God, then she is bound to act on the principle, that all have a right of admission to the Church, unless she can show cause to the contrary from the Word of God. Hence, beyond all doubt, if an allegation be made by any individual to any Church, that certain points in her Articles and Standards are contrary to the Word of God, she is bound to listen to the allegation, she is bound to look into the matter, and she is also bound, if she is satisfied that the Articles are erroneous, to make the required change. She is not at liberty merely to take her stand upon the undoubted privilege of a voluntary association, and say, 'We are entitled to associate ourselves on any conditions we choose, and if you do not like our conditions, you need not join our Society.' No, the Church, as a Divine institute, as the Church of the living God, is bound to open her doors to all believers. The Church is bound always to act as if she were the sole Church of all Christendom ; and if any man alleges that there are errors in her standards, it is not enough for her to say, These are the conditions of our fellowship, and if you disapprove of our conditions, disown our fellowship.' No, he has a right to our fellowship, unless we can show that the conditions which exclude him are lawful and scriptural."—(For extracts, see Witness, July, 1843.)
Such was the Free Church view of the right and duty of the Church, if need be, to adopt new creeds in new phraseology, or to enlarge, to correct, and to adapt her public professions to the circumstances of the times, and to the promulgation of heresies and misunderstandings, as she was led by the teach- ing of her Head. One fact further may be mentioned. It is interesting to find that before Dr. Candlish spoke Dr. Charles Brown had taken occasion to refer to a certain bareness in the statement of the Standards in regard to the free and un- limited offer of Christ to sinners in the Gospel. "Consider- ing the vast importance of this matter, and its prominence in the Scriptures, I should be disposed very humbly to say that there was a certain want of fulness with reference to it in the Westminster Standards,—negative, indeed, and comparative, rather than positive and absolute."—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
