SIR, —You are correct in your view of this case. As
you tersely put it, the United Free Church has been denuded of all its property because it presumed to think. Almost uni- versally—with the exception of the Scotsman, whose character- istic bitterness towards the leaders of the Free Church all along has been as consistent as it is amusing—the Press of the country has taken your view, notably in Scotland the Glasgow Herald, Dundee Advertiser, and Aberdeen Free Press.
It is also the view of the United Free Church ministers and its leading laymen, expressed both individually and in the Dr. Hunter appears to contradict himself. For example, his point is that "it is not the case that the decision forbids any Church toalter its own creed at its own discretion.' " Yet a few lines further down he says that what the Judges regarded as violated in the trust was "the principle of Establishment, and unqualified adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith." The Free Church, that is, had moved away from the Establishment principle contained in the Confession, and generally, by the Declaratory Act of 1892, from unqualified adherence to that Con- fession. It modified its creed—in other words, presumed to think as a corporate body—and finding another Church to which it closely approximated, united with it. Had it never made any alteration, it would have been free to unite with, or absorb, another body.
Dr. Hunter, however, affirms that the Established Church of Scotland "has this great freedom, that the decisions of its own courts are final on all matters affecting doctrine, discipline, or worship." He is making a vital mistake. No doubt individual ministers do hold pretty much what views they like, as witness the " Scotch Sermons " and the Presbyterian ritualistic move- ment. But let the Established Church of Scotland modify its attitude to any statement of the Westminster Confession, and, should any one object, it will lose not only its property,.but also its status as the National Church. The United Free Church is now, indeed, free, but the Established Church is doubly tied by the decision. Henceforth every minister, probationer, and elder in that Church who signs the Confession is bound to every line in it, and, according to the Lord Chancellor, is not honest if he signs with any mental reservation. Dr. Hunter will perhaps remember —he will correct me if I am wrong—that in the Assembly of the Established Church recently there were strong protests when the legal advisers gave it as their opinion (and Lord Lindley emphasises their view) that the Church could not alter the Con- fession in any part unless the State released her ; and that, on hearing this, two of the best-known leaders in the Church declared that that was to take away spiritual independence, the most splendid word of the Church of Scotland. The truth is that the Established Church has been placed in an acutely difficult position; and, indeed, it is in this fact that the hope for the reconstruction of Scotch Presbyterianism lies.
I may add that Dr. Hunter has also fallen into a blunder, ex- cusable only in a layman, when he says that the Law of Patronage was the "operative cause" of the "great Secession [sic] of 1843." Patronage was not the cause, but the occasion, of the Disruption. The cause was that the Civil Court said to the Church : " You are not at liberty to act, even in a spiritual matter, such as ordination, as you conceive to be right. We can enjoin you, ministers of the State Church, to ordain an individual to the cure of souls." Tho majority of the Assembly declined; and it was the violation of the right of the Church to decide this spiritual matter for itself which caused the Disruption.
In view of what he writes as to the attitude of the Scotch Judges, Dr. Hunter's praise of the judgment of Lord Robertson, who is understood to be the son of a Scotsman, is curious. But there are two opinions both on the matter and spirit of Lord Robertson's judgment, and perhaps the less said the better.
—I am, Sir, &c., G. ELMSLIE TROUP.
Previous page
