THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12653, 6 September 1904, Page 3

THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

A GREAT CASE. THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S DECISION. . [FROM OUR OWN CORBESrOSDEH*.] ■•'"] / London, August 6. A law ease of stupendous character, alike in its dimensions and in the vast interests, both religious and financial, that are affected, has just been determined by the highest tribunal in the land—the House of Lords. The decision was given on Monday in this week. It will be read with keen interest in' every part of the world where the Presbyterian form of religion exists. I may explain that the appellants are the minority. of the- Free Church of Scotland, who refused to go into union with the United Presbyterian Church, and the respondents are Lord Overioun and the other trustees of the, United Free Church, the title which the united churches have taken. The allegation that the union was a violation of the principles of the Free Church opened up not only questions as to these principles, but as to the constitution of the Church of Scotland, from which it seceded ! ♦«- 1843 and therefore the ecclesiastical history of the Kingdom from the time, of John Knox was reviewed. The Free Church of Scotland, of course, dates from that " ecclesiastical convulsion" of 1843, the Disruption, when 470 of its ministers, after the long controversy known as "The Ten Year*' Conflict abandoned their churches, manses and the' benefits of a State church rather than surrender the claim they made to spiritual freedom. They and those who adhered to them formed a body under the distinctive name of the Free Church of Scotland, which became a powerful organisation, possessing many churches in the large towns and at least on© church in nearly every parish in Scotland. In the year 1900 by a very large majority, the Church decided to unite with the United Presbyterian Church, which represented earlier secessions from the .Established Church, and came into ™ union with 500 or 60 charges and about <SUU,UOO communicants. The appellants are 24 ministers of the Free Church, who, out of a total of 100. protested against the union with the United Presbyterians, and contend that they are entitled to the property of the -tree Church of Scotland, by which name they continue to describe themselves on the ground that the union was a violation of the principles of the Free Church. They urged that the Free Church bad sacrificed its principles, because at the time cf the Disruption the founders of the Church asserted that a rightly-constituted establishment was right and proper, and that in consummating the union in 1900 the Free Church had modified the Calvinism of its : confession by proclaiming Arminianism. "rgument was delivered before the Lord Chancellor, Lord Macnaghton. Lord Davey, Lord James of Hereford, Lord Alverstoiie 1 I (the Lord Chief Justice), Lord Robertson, Lord Lindley. The counsel were:— appellants: Mr. H. Johnston. K.C., Mr. bati yesen, K.C., and Mr. J. R. Christie. For ; the respondents: The; Dean of Faculty (Mr. J Asher, K.C.), Mr. R. B. Haldane, K.C., Mr. O. J. Guthrie. K.C., and Mr. R. L. Oi-r. In one of the lengthy reports of the case which have appeared in the leading London papers it is remarked:ln the course of the arguments questions of a kind rarely raised, even in tha ecclesiastical courts, were discussed. The nature of much of the argu-ment-in. this remarkable case may be gathered from what was submitted in connection with this doctrine of free grace. Mr. Haldan',*, the distinguished Scottish counsel, quoted the passage from the Confession of Faith: "Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace, whereby he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith m Him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe." The whole scheme of this chapter, the learned counsel contended, was that God entered into a covenant. i Lord James: How can He enter into a covenant with the predestined? The number of predestined is certain and definite. Mr. Haldane: Because the doctrine of predestination is not to be understood anthropomorpliically, but as something, which occurs above the forms of space and time, and i in which the freedom of the individual is [to be reconciled with its relation of identity ■with God as an absolute spirit. In the knowledge of God, which is infinite and not subject to time, the number of the predestined is definite, end it is within the scheme of the Creator, because He contains al! creation within Himself. That is one side of the antinomy. The other side is that thereby no violence is offered to the will of the creature, but his responsibility is asserted. 'Lord James: It is no doubt my fault, but I cannot. follow your meaning. Mr. Haldane said he could not expect to make intelligible in half-an-hour the who!© system of philosophy of Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, or what the Church termed a mystery. The Lord Chancellor: Putting your proposition in plain terms, which I think is a little obscured by metaphysics, it is this— that Arminius on one side and Calvin on the other, if they had only been good metaphysicians, would have understood that they did not mean what they said, and that they misunderstood each other.

The judgment given, however, did cot settle any of these metaphysical problems raised, but simply determined the secular merits of the most important problem which has presented itself in Scottish ecclesiastic il history. The Lord Chancellor said the appellants complained of a breach of trust, the trust being for the benefit of the Free Church of Scotland, and the breach of trust alleged being the use of certain property hold for behoof of the Free Church for another and a different body, namely, the United Free Church. There could be no doubt in his opinion of the purpose of the trust. It was for the maintenance and support, of the Freo Church of Scotland. Equally the question, what was the .Free' Church of Scotland in 1843? could;. hardly admit of doubt. Neither could there bo any doubt of. the principles arid - faith of those who came out of the Church of Scotland and described themselves as Free Church. r. Their name was significant. They claimed .to be- still the Church of Scotland, but freed from interference of the State in matters spiritual. It : was to the persons thus describing themselves that the funds in dispute were given, and until the union of 1900 no difficulty was heard of as arising in administration of the trust. As the identity of the new body with the Free Church was now. disputed, ft became necessary to consider what constituted the identity of the original body. Speaking generally, one would say that the identity of a religious community described as a Church must consist in the unity of its doctrines. If that were so, there was no lack of material from which to deduce the identity of the Free Church of Scotland. Its founders loft their claim, declaration, and protest to stand for all time as a clear exposition both of their reasons for leaving the Church of Scotland and as a profession of their faith as the true Church of Scotland, though separated from the establishment. In the controversy which had arisen a court of law had nothing to do with the soundness or unsoundness of a particular doctrine. Ihe court bad simply to determine the original purpose of the trust. He found conclusive evidence that, originally, at all events, the views of the founders of the trust were in favour of the establishment principle. J. he Free Church asserted the right and the duty to maintain and support the establishment of religion, while the United Jfresbytenan Church assarted that Christ's ordinance excluded State aid. Each of them, therefore, treated the question as one of religious belief and obligation, and not as'one from which religious duty might be excluded. After most careful examination of the ramus documents submitted, he could not trace the least evidence of cither of the two Churches having abandoned their original views, it was not the case of two associated bodies of Christians in complete harmony as to their doctrine agreeing to share then funds, but two bodies each agreeing to keen their separate religious views where they differed and agreeing to make their formularies so elastic as to permit those who accepted them to do so according as their respective consciences would admit. It became but a colourable union, and no trust fund devoted to one form of faith could be shared by another communion simply because hey said in effect that there were some parts of this or that profession which they would agree not to discuss. For all these reasons he thought the judgment of the Court Imlow should be reversed and he moved accordingly.