The alleged offence
It is clear that the alleged offence is made to relate solely to the findings
of the Commission on 7th October. It would seem a legitimate defence to question
the basis on which these findings were reached, and the competence of the Commission
to reach them. Did they, for example, consider the published aims and principles
of the FCDA in finding that they were pursuing a divisive course, etc? If so,
what did they find in those aims and principles that were in any way inconsistent
with the government and discipline of the Free Church of Scotland? Is it competent
in any case for a Commission of Assembly, without delegated power, to find that
office-holding in a particular body is incompatible with office-holding in the
church, and so, in effect, to change the terms of ministerial communion and
alter the ordination vows enacted by a General Assembly? And since the ordination
vows are part of the constitution, is it allowable even for a General Assembly
to change them in the face of dissent from a minority, and so to appear to challenge
a principle established in 1900?
Failure to relate charges to breaches of Scripture or of church standards
The major proposition of the Libel follows the Form of Libel set out on page
238 of the Practice. However, the model form makes no reference to contumacy,
but only to "theft/drunkenness/fornication/heresy". This follows previous editions
of the Practice (going back to Moncreiff) where specimen libels are set out
covering these four types of scandal. Of course, the Practice does not suggest
that these four scandals are exhaustive, nor indeed that contumacy cannot be
regarded as censurable. At the same time, however, there is some justification
for the view that contumacy, in the sense of alleged disobedience to a Church
Court in a matter not related to what is a scandal in the moral sense, was not
in view when the Form of Process was prepared. The inference is that contumacy
in the sense in which the term is now being used was not seen as a censurable
offence in itself, unless it was related to a moral scandal of the types instanced.
(See for example Chapter I.4 of the Form of Process which states: "Nothing ought
to be admitted by any Church judicature as the ground of a process for censure,
but what hath been declared censurable by the Word of God, or some act or universal
custom of this National church agreeable thereto".) What is now being done is
to specify an offence of contumacy in a sense not provided for in the Form of
Process and to force it into a structure which was designed to deal with essentially
moral offences. Certainly these offences can include schism and separation (Chapter
VI.1) in addition to what are normally regarded as moral scandals. But even
these necessarily imply departures from the doctrine, worship etc of the church;
nowhere does the Form of Process suggest that disobedience to the decisions
of church courts, without reference to the context in which that disobedience
is offered, or the justification for such decisions in terms of the constitution,
is in itself censurable. In other words, contumacy in the sense in which the
term is now being used appears to be a novel offence in terms of the Form of
Process, and not amenable to prosecution under it.
The Scripture passages quoted in the Libel
Hebrews 13:17
The first quotation, from Hebrews 13:17, was clearly directed at members of Christian congregations in reference to their ministers, rather than at ministers in reference to church courts. Calvin's comment is apposite: " I doubt not but that he speaks of pastors and other rulers of the Church, for there were then no Christian magistrates; and what follows, "for they watch for your souls", properly belongs to spiritual government. He commands first obedience and then honour to be rendered to them. These two things are necessarily required, so that the people might have confidence in their pastors, and also reverence for them. But it ought at the same time to be noticed that the Apostle speaks only of those who faithfully performed their office; for they who have nothing but the title, nay, who use the title of pastors for the purpose of destroying the Church, deserve but little reverence and still less confidence. And this also is what the Apostle plainly sets forth when he says, that they "watched" for their souls, - a duty which is not performed but by those who are faithful rulers, and are really what they are called.".
Even granting that the passage could cover relationships to church courts, John Brown's comment is apposite: 'They (the Hebrew Christians) were not to obey them with a slavish , implicit respect to their authority, but they were to obey them from an enlightened regard to Christ's authority. …….He may urge on you unpalatable truth - he may utter sharp reproofs; but recollect, he has no choice; remember he is "a man under authority". Put the question, Has he said anything that Christ has not said? If he has, disregard him; if he has not, blame him not, - he has but discharged his duty to his Master and to you; and recollect, you cannot in this case disregard the servant without doing dishonour to the Master.'
Matthew 18:17
The consensus of major commentators is that the whole thrust of the Matthew 18 passage is to do with a private wrong or injury done by one professing Christian to another. Thus John Gill: "This rule respects sins committed by one brother against another, either in word or deed; or such as are of a private nature, and which one only, or at least but few, are acquainted with". Calvin is even more emphatic: "There is an obvious limitation in the words of Christ; for he does not simply, and without exception, order us to advise or reprove privately, and in the absence of witnesses, all who have offended, but bids us attempt this method, when we have been offended in private.....it would be absurd that he who has committed a public offence, so that the disgrace of it is generally known, should be admonished by individuals; for if a thousand persons are aware of it, he ought to receive a thousand admonitions." Similarly modern commentators such as Hendriksen. The procedure for public offences, as Calvin points out, is dealt with in other passages (such as I Cor.5 and I Tim. 5.19-20). Certainly, the imposition of a church sanction ought to carry the same weight irrespective of whether it is for a private or public offence. (Calvin: "We ought to have no intercourse with the despisers of the Church till they repent"). But what is envisaged in the Matthew 18 passage is clearly excommunication (or in terms of the Form of Process, the "greater excommunication") i.e. the same as is envisaged in I Corinthians 5. The Form of Process, however, enjoins that even in the case of deposition the sentence should only be accompanied by the lesser excommunication, i.e. suspension from church privileges. To suggest therefore, as the Libel does, that contumacy in the terms complained of exposes a man to the same consequences as one who has been punished with the greater excommunication (which the Form of Process always presents as a last resort) is to do violence both to the Scripture passage and to the laws of the Church.
There is another important aspect to this. As is well known, the Matthew 18
passage has been endlessly prayed in aid by the majority in the church to resist
attempts to bring libels before the church courts to deal with a manifest public
scandal. It is clear that this proceeds on a misunderstanding of the purpose
of the passage. However, taking the libellers' view for the moment as correct,
if the assertion in the Libel is to be sustained it would be incumbent on the
libellers to show that they have followed through the detail of the Matthew
18 passage in relation to every individual who is being libelled. If they are
unable to do this, it would seem to offer a strong argument against the relevance
of the Libel. And are the libellers seriously suggesting that, merely by removing
his signature from a page, a man can be transformed from a "heathen" to an accepted
brother in Christ?
The Confession Passage
There then follows a quotation from Chapter XX of the Confession of Faith. It
is easy of course to quote such passages in isolation. Chapter XX is a harmonious
whole, dealing both with Christian liberty and liberty of conscience. It also
states (in section ii): "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left
it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary
to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship, so that to believe
such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray
true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute
and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also".
And, just as appositely, Chapter XXXI, section iv states: "All Synods or Councils
since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many
have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice,
but to be used as an help in both". In the quote given in the Libel, the terms
"lawful power" and "lawful exercise of it" are of course important. Also relevant
is the statement in the Claim, Declaration and Protest of 1842 (another constitutional
document of the Church ) that church government is "ministerial, not lordly,
and to be exercised in consonance with the laws of Christ, and with the liberties
of his people." This ties in with the statement in the Practice (page 82, paragraph
4) "Although the General Assembly is invested with the power of regulating the
whole action of the Church in its Synods, Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions, still
it is not regarded as having any lordly or absolutely binding authority. It
is expected to act ministerially under Christ, and to carry out such rules as
appear to harmonise with his own instructions in his Word."
Quotations from ordination vows
The Libel proceeds to reproduce two questions from those put at ordinations
and inductions. The point can fairly be made that what is promised in the ordination
vows, as is clear from their terms, is submission to the doctrine, worship,
discipline and government of the church [i.e. in its constitution] and not to
the directions of majorities in specific General Assemblies or Commissions (which
indeed would be inconsistent with Chapter XXXI of the Confession quoted above).
The commitment as to refraining from divisive courses has of course to be taken
in the same context.
Any comments or questions please E-Mail
me or Rev William Macleod the
Editor.
[Back to Reformed Christian Pages][Back
to Free Church Foundations][Back to the Information
Service]