The views of a Constitutionalist
Some of the finest Christians of the Free Church have begun to complain, 'I have lost hope for my Church'. Some go on to argue that those who would stand for the truth as set out in the Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland must separate. What shakes us is who is telling us this. These are the sentiments of some of our best men. Sickened by the 'downgrade', they are leaving. They believe that the Constitutional Free Church is finished. But what is the Constitution of our Church?
The Constitution of the Free Church is to be found in the following documents: the Westminster Confession of Faith; the Questions and Formula vowed and signed by every office-bearer in the Church; The Claim, Declaration and Protest of 1842; The Protest of 1843; The Act of Separation and Deed of Demission of 1843. Other important documents explanatory of the constitution are: The First and Second Books of Discipline; The Larger and Shorter Catechisms; The 1707 Form of Process; The Directory for the Public Worship and The Form of Presbyterial Church Government. That, in basic form, is the Constitution of the Free Church and it is a priceless inheritance for which we should be willing to contend long and hard.
Some of the best members of the Free Church groan at violations of that Constitution: censure without trial, claims of 'conspiracy' without examination, committees overstepping their bounds, and attacks on ‘purity of worship’. All these warn of 'downgrade' and of the need for the Constitutionalists’ call to renewed zeal in steadfastness. But should we not leave the Free Church in the face of such persistent violations?
There are two answers to this question. Both have been and are held by godly men whom we must respect. One is called the 'de facto' answer the other the 'de jure' answer. The 'de facto' men claim that we must leave a denomination when the Constitution has been substantially breached. They argue that the Constitution is rendered useless by malpractice. On the other hand the Constitutionalists like James Begg, John Kennedy and Hugh Martin claimed that the Constitution of the Free Church cannot be altered in the face of a dissenting minority. This means that the only way a modernising party could change the Constitution is by wearing down, sickening off and driving out the godly Constitutionalist from his own house. But as long as one Constitutionalist remains the house is secure.
Therefore the Constitutionalists fought for truth. From the middle of the Nineteenth Century through to the turn of the Century they fought. Again and again they protested, complained, exposed and unmasked the wrongs of the day. Modernising brethren resisted them but they fought. The state courts ruled against them but they fought. They fought because they were right and had they not fought there would be no Free Church today. The axiom of the Constitutionalists’ argument was, and is, that the written constitution is pre-eminent.
The General Assembly, whether plenary or representative, has only an administrative authority. At no time can any court of the Free Church lawfully alter the Constitution of the Church while there remains a dissenting minority. Constitutional enemies must drive them out before change can come. As a faithful Constitutionalist in the Free Church - and there are yet many - you are called on to get behind faithful ministers of the Church and 'war a good warfare'.
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 Pre- General Assembly Issue]