"Rainy wi'oot the Principal". XVIII.
In 1889 Principal Rainy travelled to Australia to represent the Free Church of Scotland at the jubilee celebration of the Australian Presbyterian Church. He left a Free Church apparently at peace. He returned to find that peace had been shattered.
Rainy knew that there were some men in the Free Church of Scotland who wanted to alter the Free Church's relationship to the Westminster Confession. Some of them, including the famous theologian James Denney, wanted to replace the Confession entirely, preferring some short statement or affirmation of faith. It was pointed out that there was no real reason why the Westmister Confession should not be replaced - after all, the WCF itself had replaced the Old Scots Confession. Had not Rainy himself said in his Delivery and Development of Christian Doctrine that it was, "not the right only, but the duty, of the Church and every branch of it, to hold confessions and subordinate standards subject to correction"? (P. 275)
But Rainy had also said, "it is not a reasonable assumption to start with, that the confession of a Church should need much or frequent alteration." (P. 276) He told those who wanted to change the Confession that they could not count on his support in the Assembly. They could in fact only expect him to organise opposition to them.
Without Rainy's support the revisionists felt weak. With Rainy's threat of opposition they felt helpless. His absence in Australia gave them the perfect opportunity. Rainy was absent from the Assembly for the first time in years. The revisionists sent in a number of 'overtures' on revision of the Confession to the Assembly.
There was a fierce debate, and the Assembly decided to appoint a commission to look into the matter. When Rainy returned he found that the commission had been appointed in his absence - he could do nothing to stop it. He also found that the Constitutionalists, those who believed that the Confession should not be changed, had accused two college Professors of heresy. This was the Dods-Bruce case, when Alexander Balmain Bruce and Marcus Dods were accused of teaching heresy in their books. To Rainy's relief the two men were wiser than Robertson Smith, and it turned out ruce's book The Kingdom of God had been misunderstood - he had been suspected of agreeing with a statement that he had quoted as incorrect (the passage was removed from all subsequent editions of the book anyhow). Dods was willing to apologise and lie low.
Rainy was a statesman. He disliked arguments and, while he himself believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, he was unwilling to brand as a heretic those who disagreed with him. He disliked change, but when circumstances forced his hand, he acted.
In 1891 the commission of Assembly reported back on the question of the Confession. They had identified three possible options: 1. Revise the Confession. This would have split the Free Church in two. 2. Leave the Confession unaltered and relax the formula of subscription to the Confession required of ministers. This was less risky, but it might have the effect of injuring Church discipline. 3. Pass a declaratory Act resering to the Free Church the right to determine which doctrines did or did not enter into the substance of the faith.
The Assembly chose the third option. In consequence two ministers, a number of students, and several thousand members left the Free Church to form the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, protesting that the Confession had really been discarded by the Free Church. Rainy was relieved that more had not gone, but he was concered that so many had.
It was 1893, the fiftieth year of the Free Church of Scotland, and twenty years on from the failed union of 1873. Time was ripe to re-start union talks.
How those talks were re-started we shall see, God willing, next time.
Rainy knew that there were some men in the Free Church of Scotland who wanted to alter the Free Church's relationship to the Westminster Confession. Some of them, including the famous theologian James Denney, wanted to replace the Confession entirely, preferring some short statement or affirmation of faith. It was pointed out that there was no real reason why the Westmister Confession should not be replaced - after all, the WCF itself had replaced the Old Scots Confession. Had not Rainy himself said in his Delivery and Development of Christian Doctrine that it was, "not the right only, but the duty, of the Church and every branch of it, to hold confessions and subordinate standards subject to correction"? (P. 275)
But Rainy had also said, "it is not a reasonable assumption to start with, that the confession of a Church should need much or frequent alteration." (P. 276) He told those who wanted to change the Confession that they could not count on his support in the Assembly. They could in fact only expect him to organise opposition to them.
Without Rainy's support the revisionists felt weak. With Rainy's threat of opposition they felt helpless. His absence in Australia gave them the perfect opportunity. Rainy was absent from the Assembly for the first time in years. The revisionists sent in a number of 'overtures' on revision of the Confession to the Assembly.
There was a fierce debate, and the Assembly decided to appoint a commission to look into the matter. When Rainy returned he found that the commission had been appointed in his absence - he could do nothing to stop it. He also found that the Constitutionalists, those who believed that the Confession should not be changed, had accused two college Professors of heresy. This was the Dods-Bruce case, when Alexander Balmain Bruce and Marcus Dods were accused of teaching heresy in their books. To Rainy's relief the two men were wiser than Robertson Smith, and it turned out ruce's book The Kingdom of God had been misunderstood - he had been suspected of agreeing with a statement that he had quoted as incorrect (the passage was removed from all subsequent editions of the book anyhow). Dods was willing to apologise and lie low.
Rainy was a statesman. He disliked arguments and, while he himself believed in the inerrancy of Scripture, he was unwilling to brand as a heretic those who disagreed with him. He disliked change, but when circumstances forced his hand, he acted.
In 1891 the commission of Assembly reported back on the question of the Confession. They had identified three possible options: 1. Revise the Confession. This would have split the Free Church in two. 2. Leave the Confession unaltered and relax the formula of subscription to the Confession required of ministers. This was less risky, but it might have the effect of injuring Church discipline. 3. Pass a declaratory Act resering to the Free Church the right to determine which doctrines did or did not enter into the substance of the faith.
The Assembly chose the third option. In consequence two ministers, a number of students, and several thousand members left the Free Church to form the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, protesting that the Confession had really been discarded by the Free Church. Rainy was relieved that more had not gone, but he was concered that so many had.
It was 1893, the fiftieth year of the Free Church of Scotland, and twenty years on from the failed union of 1873. Time was ripe to re-start union talks.
How those talks were re-started we shall see, God willing, next time.
Labels: Principal Rainy
posted by Highland Host at 1:38 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home