Division in the Reformed Presbyterian Synod

The franchise and the oath

Hutchison writes that the question of voting “first came before the Synod after the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, by which, for the first time, many members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church became entitled to vote in the election of members of Parliament.” Keddie quotes the Synod’s decision of 1833, that “the exercise of the elective franchise … is a direct recognition of the Constitution, in virtue of the political identity subsisting between the representative and his constituents, and is therefore inconsistent with the enjoyment of the privileges of this Church”. MacPherson adds that “it was certain that some had been disregarding the injunction.”¹

Hutchison writes that in 1858 the Synod unanimously passed three resolutions, the first of which held that “as members of our Church cannot sit in Parliament themselves, neither can they consistently sit there by their representatives, or commission others to do for them what it would be unwarrantable and immoral for them to do in their own persons.” A fourth resolution, which “insisted upon the exercise of discipline to the extent of expulsion”, was withdrawn. Dr John Cunningham, the Synod’s missionary to the Jews in London, resigned, and in 1859 “formally separated himself from the fellowship of the Church”.²

In 1861, on an Overture [formal proposal] from the Presbytery of Dumfries, the Synod appointed a committee. The motion it adopted, as Hutchison prints it, said that a committee ought “to inquire into the soundness of the views hitherto prevalent among us, as to the political identity between a representative and his constituents, and as to what is implied in the Oath of Allegiance; and that in the meantime Sessions [the minister and elders of each congregation] be not required to take disciplinary action where difficulties are felt in regard to these points, or where diversity of view obtains”, though “members of the Church are earnestly recommended to abstain from voting at elections and otherwise.” Hutchison writes that the committee consulted lawyers and members of Parliament, and its report was presented to the Synod of 1862 by the Rev. John M’Dermid of Glasgow.³

In May 1862 the Synod sent down to Presbyteries and Sessions an Overture whose deliverance, as Hutchison prints it, read: “the Synod, while they abstain from any judicial sanction of the opinions given above, recommend the members of the Church to abstain from the use of the Franchise and from taking the Oath of Allegiance, yet feel that they have no warrant from the Word of God to visit members taking the Oath in this sense, or exercising the Franchise, with the infliction of ecclesiastical penalties to the effect of suspension and expulsion from the privileges of the Church.” Keddie writes that “only two ministers and five elders registered their dissent.”⁴

Those opposed formed, Hutchison writes, “The ‘Reformation’ Association in connection with the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland”, whose object “was to circulate literature in defence of their position”. Keddie lists its five published reports of the Synod’s debates, from 1859 to 1863.⁵

The Synod of May 1863

“In ordinary course”, Hutchison writes, “the Supreme Court met in May, 1863.” Keddie gives the day and place: “When Synod met in the First RP Church, Great Hamilton Street, Glasgow on May 7, 1863, it was reported that all the presbyteries and a majority of the sessions had registered their support”. Couper’s list of Moderators gives, for May 1863, John Graham, D.D. Hutchison records that “the greater part of two days was occupied with the debate”.⁶

The motion, moved (Keddie writes) by the Synod Clerk, the Rev. John Kay, read in part: “The Synod, therefore, in accordance with these Reports, enacts that, while recommending the members of the Church to abstain from the use of the Franchise and from taking the Oath of Allegiance, discipline to the effect of suspension and expulsion from the Church shall cease, and earnestly enjoin upon all under their charge to have respect to this decision, and to follow after the things which make for peace, and things whereby one may edify another.”⁷

The amendment, moved (Keddie writes) by John McDonald, an elder in the Third Reformed Presbyterian Church, Glasgow, read: “The Synod, on mature consideration, reject the Overture sent down from last meeting of Synod to Sessions and Presbyteries, and resolve to adhere to the principles of the Reformed Presbyterian Church clearly set forth in her Testimony, and faithfully to maintain the same both in doctrine and discipline.”⁸

Hutchison records the vote: “For the motion, 46; for the amendment, 11; no vote, 7.”⁹

The protest and the minority Synod

Hutchison writes: “When the result was announced, the Rev. W. Anderson rose and read a paper in which he protested against the decision, declined the jurisdiction of the Court, and claimed for himself and those who adhered to him all the rights and privileges of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland. Leaving the paper on the clerk’s table, he withdrew, accompanied by two ministers and several elders. A few weeks later they were joined by another minister who had abstained from voting.”¹⁰

William Anderson had been minister at Loanhead since 1820. Couper writes that when the decision was made “by the Synod of 1863, they [minister and people] immediately repudiated connection with the majority and aided in constituting the minority Synod.” Keddie writes that Anderson’s protest called “a meeting of a reconstituted RP Synod for the following day, May 8, 1863”, and that it was rejected.¹¹

Naismith counts “three ministers, soon afterwards joined by a fourth, and several lay elders”, and writes that the majority “included about nine-tenths of the members of Synod”. Hutchison writes of “the withdrawal of four ministers with their congregations and a portion of several others”, and MacPherson also counts four.¹²

Keddie, in his history of the continuing (minority) Church, records that its Synod “was constituted on May 8, 1863 as a continuation of the original succession of Synods since 1811 and immediately adjourned to reconvene a month later”, and that when it met in Glasgow on 2 June 1863 the Church “was regularly organized, with eight congregations and two nominal presbyteries.” He judges that “the majority had retained the allegiance of some 85% of the people.”¹³

Two accounts

The two sides judged the decision differently. Hutchison, who entered the Free Church in 1876, writes: “The action of the Synod in this crisis stands in no need of apology. It maintained the old protest against acknowledged national evils”. Keddie writes that by it “the central practical ‘distinctive’ of the Covenanting Church was thereby reduced, at a stroke, to a matter of opinion”.¹⁴