The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)

The Commission of January 2000

The Commission of the General Assembly met at Edinburgh on 19 and 20 January 2000. The records of both bodies place these events on 20 January 2000. The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) records the Declaration of Reconstitution as an Act of its Commission at Edinburgh on that day. The other body’s Commission, at Edinburgh the same day, recorded an “Act anent [concerning] Suspension of Ministers withdrawing from Church”.¹

The account of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)

The Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) gives this account: “At the Commission of Assembly in January 2000 a division occurred because a majority was determined to act in a way that was against the constitution or ‘rule book’ of the church, which all office-bearers must uphold. A number of ministers and elders signed a ‘Declaration of Reconstitution’ in which they pledged themselves to continue the Free Church in a constitutional manner.”²

Of its name it says: “We use this title to distinguish, solely for purposes of administration, the reconstituted Free Church of Scotland from any residual body claiming that title. We remain the Free Church of Scotland.”³

Its paper on the Right of Continued Protest, commended by the General Assembly in 2013, states: “The immediate cause of the Division of 2000 was the unlawful suspension for contumacy [refusal to obey a church court] of ministers who had acted as office-bearers of the Free Church Defence Association … and who, in that capacity, had refused what they regarded as an ultra vires [beyond its powers] instruction from the Commission of Assembly to disband the Association.”⁴

The same paper gives its account of the day: “On 20th January 2000 when the Commission considered the Report of the Libel Committee the then Principal Clerk of Assembly advised the Commission that in his view they had no power to proceed with the libels [formal charges] at that point. The Commission rejected that advice. They went on to find the libels relevant and they also, although under no obligation to do so, proceeded to serve them.” Those served were, it says, “now administratively suspended from all the duties of the ministry”.⁵

The accused office-bearers then, the paper records, “submitted a document of Declinature [refusal of the court’s jurisdiction]”, which ends: “… we call upon all members of this Commission who wish to remain loyal to the constitution of the Free Church of Scotland to assemble in the Magdalen Chapel in the Cowgate of Edinburgh at 9.45pm to continue in a constitutional manner the present Sederunt [sitting] of the Commission.”⁶

The Declaration of Reconstitution

The Declaration is recorded as an Act of the Commission at Edinburgh on 20 January 2000. It was signed by twenty-two ministers and eighteen elders, and a Supplementary Declaration was provided for those not present that day.⁷

It begins: “We the undersigned Ministers and Elders of the Free Church of Scotland, Considering that the constitution of the said Church is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the Westminster Confession of Faith as approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1647, the First and Second Books of Discipline, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Claim, Declaration, and Protest of 1842, the Protest of 1843, the Act of Separation and Deed of Demission executed in 1843”, the Formula and Questions put to office-bearers, “and the Acts of Assembly of the Church of Scotland prior to 1843”.⁸

It then sets out its grounds under three heads. Under the first, it charges that “Commissioners exercising a majority in voting in the General Assemblies and Commissions” had “of late years applied in an arbitrary and tyrannical way the resolutions of its General Assemblies and Commissions, establishing these as ultimate rules of conduct”, contrary to the Confession of Faith, chapter XXXI, section IV, and chapter XX, section II. It gives these instances, “inter alia [among others]”:⁹

• “deeming it censurable to refuse to obey instructions of a Church Court which are in violation of the Word of God and the constitution of the Free Church of Scotland, regardless of whether obedience could be rendered in conscience or not”;
• “bringing disciplinary processes against ministers and elders in respect of matters which have not been declared censurable in Scripture”;
• “treating as potentially contumacious any suggestion to revisit an administrative decision of the General Assembly … and instituting disciplinary processes against ministers who called for such review”;
• “appointing general assessors to a Presbytery in order to impose the will of the General Assembly and its Commission on the will of the substantial majority of the Presbytery conscientiously expressed”.

Under the second, that “Commissioners purporting to exercise lawful judicial authority in the name of the Free Church of Scotland have breached fundamental principles of equity and natural justice”, contrary to chapter XIX, section V of the Confession: among other instances, by “imposing requirements on ministers and office-bearers additional to their ordination vows”, forbidding them “to hold office in an association professedly aiming to assert and defend the constitution of the historic Free Church of Scotland”.¹⁰

Under the third, that the same Commissioners had “adopted findings and conducted procedures at variance with, and subversive of, the principles of church discipline” set out in “the Form of Process enacted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1707”: among other instances, by “conducting disciplinary processes against ministers before the Commission of Assembly as a court of first instance”.¹¹

From these it concludes that the persons concerned “have ceased to constitute authoritative courts of the historic Free Church of Scotland.” The signatories “claim our right and profess our duty, according to our ordination vows thereanent [on that matter], to administer discipline and government consistent with the requirements embodied in the constitution of the Free Church of Scotland”.¹²

They resolved to declare “that the Free Church of Scotland is separate from all church courts seeking to impose acts and findings contrary to the constitution of the historic Free Church of Scotland”, and claimed “still to be the true bona fide representatives of the original protesters of 1843 and to be carrying out the objects of the Protest more faithfully than the majority.” They declared that “we hereby disassociate ourselves from any residual subsisting body claiming the title of the Free Church of Scotland”.¹³

The Declaration gives the name: “That meanwhile, to distinguish the reconstituted Free Church of Scotland (solely for purposes of administration) from any residual body claiming that title we may be called the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)”. It reserves the ministers’ rights in “the pension and other funds of the Free Church of Scotland”, and their rights to “the property and funds of the Free Church of Scotland, including but not limited to churches, manses, halls and other heritable properties”.¹⁴

It closes: “The subscribers call to witness the Christian people of this land, and of the Reformed fellowship throughout the world, that this action is not lightly entered into. It is taken in sorrow at the enforced parting from brethren with whom we have had fellowship in the Lord, but also in defence of truth and justice and of the historic principles and practice of the Free Church of Scotland.” If any residual body “is prepared to return to the constitution and standards of the historic Free Church of Scotland, and to practise and adhere faithfully to the same, we will see it as our duty to seek reconciliation with our brethren within that body.” It is dated: “In witness whereof these presents are subscribed by us at Edinburgh on 20th January 2000 before the undersigning witnesses.”¹⁵

In 2001 the Church listed the Declaration and the Supplementary Declaration among its Historical Documents, with the Claim of Right of 1842 and the Protest of 1843.¹⁶

The record of the other body

The other body’s Commission of Assembly, at Edinburgh on 20 January 2000, recorded that twenty-two ministers had “intimated that they no longer recognised the authority of the Commission of the General Assembly, and the withdrawal of themselves from the Commission, thereby separating themselves from the Free Church of Scotland”. It suspended them sine die [without a set term] “from the whole duties of the ministry”, dissolved the pastoral tie of those in charges, and directed that payment of stipend cease. The Act names twenty-two ministers.¹⁷

At its General Assembly in May 2000 that body endorsed the findings of its Commissions concerning the Free Church Defence Association, among them a “Finding on Relevancy of Libels, 20th January 2000” and a “Finding on Secession, 20th January 2000”. It declared that the Commission, “in dealing with the Free Church Defence Association (FCDA), acted in accordance with the Acts and Constitution of the Church”, and noted “that by refusing to submit to Findings of the Commission, and especially by separating as they did from the Church before the prescribed procedures for redress of complaints as to the competence or lawfulness of the Commission’s findings had been exhausted, those who separated acted contrary to the constitutional procedure of the Church as set out in the Practice, page 86, and that their course of action was thereby procedurally flawed.”¹⁸

That body continues under the name Free Church of Scotland, and publishes its Acts of Assembly to the present.¹⁹

Remembered

In May 2013 the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) commended to the Church a paper on the Right of Continued Protest, sending it to Presbyteries “for their guidance in examining students on their knowledge of the causes of the division in our Church arising from the events leading up to and including the year 2000.”²⁰

On 19 May 2025 the General Assembly, at Glasgow, resolved to “note the 25th anniversary of the sad events of 2000, express thanks to the Almighty for His gracious provision over these years and seek His grace to serve Him humbly and faithfully in the coming years”.²¹

The Assembly’s Committee on Assembly Arrangements & Nominations had written in its report: “This year marks the passing of a quarter century since the sad events of 2000.” It added: “Whilst the years have rolled by, we believe that the stand taken at that time for the Headship of Christ is as relevant and pressing as ever it was.” At Glasgow, on the evening of 20 May 2025, the General Assembly heard an Address “to commemorate the 25th Anniversary of the Division of 2000” by the Rev. Murdo A. N. Macleod.²²

A History of the Division of 2000 is being prepared for the Church. In 2026 the Committee on Publications reported that “Further proofreading is ongoing”, and that once all legal considerations have been addressed “the work will be ready for presentation to the General Assembly for publication.”²³

The Right of Continued Protest: the remit of 2011

In 2011 the General Assembly drew the attention of Presbyteries, the Training of the Ministry & Admissions Committee and the Seminary to “the importance of ensuring that each Candidate for the Ministry has a clear understanding of and commitment to the constitution and fundamental principles of the Free Church of Scotland and that in particular he has demonstrated a clear understanding of the principles involved in the division of 2000”.²⁴

It instructed its Legal Committee “to prepare a document without delay on the Right of Continued Protest as a Biblical principle and how this principle was denied by the Free Church of Scotland in 1999, the document to be forwarded to the Clerk of the Training of the Ministry & Admissions Committee and to all Presbytery Clerks for their guidance.”²⁵

The Right of Continued Protest: the finding of May 2013

The Assembly of May 2013 came to its finding on the Report of the Legal Advice & Property Committee. It welcomed “the completion of the revised edition of the document on the Right of Continued Protest”, and thanked “all those who have contributed to the work, especially Mr Maurice Grant and Rev. John Macleod (Duthil-Dores, Rtd.)”.²⁶

“While recognising the document has no constitutional status for the Church and is therefore not binding on office-bearers, the General Assembly forward it to the Training of the Ministry & Admissions Committee and Presbyteries for their guidance in examining students on their knowledge of the causes of the division in our Church arising from the events leading up to and including the year 2000. Further they commend the document to the wider Church.”²⁷

Its Preface states that it was prepared by the Legal Advice & Property Committee “at the request of the General Assembly and in consultation with Presbyteries”, and that it “does however seek to demonstrate that the right of continued protest, denied at the time of the division though exercised freely at earlier times, has its basis in the principle of the Headship of Christ as taught in Scripture and in the confessional Standards of the Church.”²⁸

The Right of Continued Protest: what the document sets out

The document runs to sixty numbered paragraphs in five parts: continued protest “established from Scripture and the subordinate standards of the Free Church of Scotland”; continued protest “in action”; continued protest “denied”; “some guiding principles”; and “conclusions”.²⁹

Part I opens: “The right of continued protest is not explicitly stated in Scripture. However, that does not mean that it is not a Biblical principle.” It links the right to “the principle of Christ’s Headship over His church which is taught explicitly in Scripture”, citing Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:18 and Matthew 23:8, 10, and draws on the Westminster Confession (chapters 1, 20, 25 and 31), the Larger Catechism on the fifth commandment, and the Questions and Formula put to office-bearers.³⁰

Part II gathers examples from Scottish church history. It writes that “the protest of Thomas Boston and others in 1722 against the condemnation of the ‘Marrow’ was not allowed to be either read or recorded, and in 1733 the refusal of Ebenezer Erskine and his brethren to withdraw their protest was made the ground for their suspension from the ministry.” It goes on to Dr George Cook’s protest of 1841 against the deposition of the Strathbogie ministers, the Protest read on 18 May 1843, the protest of Dr James Begg and others in 1867, during the first negotiations for union with the United Presbyterian Church, the protests against the Declaratory Act from 1889 to 1894, and those of 1898 to 1900 against the union of 1900.³¹

It sums up: “The picture emerging from the above is that the right of protest was fairly liberally exercised in the pre-1900 Free Church.” And: “What is noteworthy is that whether exercised before or after an Assembly finding, the right of protest, including its continuing element, was not disallowed to members of Assembly, nor made the basis of disciplinary action against them.”³²

Part III is the document’s account of “the events of 1999/2000”, quoted above. It ends with the view it opposes. In October 1999, it records, the then Principal Clerk of Assembly said of the protesting minority: “The Church has given a decision and they must now decide, and it is the only honourable thing, that they themselves should have decided between whether they can accept the decision of the highest Court in good conscience or whether they feel duty bound to leave.” The document answers: “That is clearly not the principle which has characterised Free Church practice in the past”.³³

Part IV defines the right: “Protest may be defined as the right and duty of members of the church’s highest court to oppose decisions of that court which are contrary to Scripture and the scriptural constitution of the Church.” It adds: “The ‘right of continued protest’ is not a novel idea devised to justify the stand made in 2000.” Of a court that denies the right it says: “Any resulting separation would not be the fault of the protester but rather of the majority who had acted magisterially rather than ministerially under Christ. This was basically the situation which precipitated the division of 2000.”³⁴

Part V draws these conclusions:³⁵

• “The right of protest has its basis in the foundational doctrine of the Headship of Christ which is explicitly taught in Scripture and in the subordinate standards of the Church.”
• “The right of protest has been a long-recognised right within the Reformed Church in Scotland and has been exercised particularly when important issues affecting the character and constitution of the Church have been at stake.”
• “The right of protest has a continuing aspect which carries with it not only the right to continue protesting within the Courts of the Church but also to campaign outside these Courts to gain acceptance of the position expressed in the protest.”
• “The continuing character of the right of protest was freely recognised by General Assemblies of the Free Church in the Nineteenth Century when protesters were free both to submit renewed Protests and to campaign outside Church Courts without fear of being disciplined.”
• “Conversely, General Assemblies and Commissions of the Free Church in the period leading up to the Division of 2000 denied the right of continued protest in either of its forms and proceeded unlawfully to discipline and eventually to suspend those who sought legitimately to exercise it.”
• “Experience of the right of continued protest in the Free Church of the 19th century provides benchmarks for its use to relieve the conscience, to act consistently with the ordination vow, to safeguard the constitution and to preserve the unity and peace of the Church.”