Prayer for a Dead Cardinal.
There is no such office as Cardinal, even hinted at, in the New Testament or in any part of Scripture, yet the Roman Church has sixty-one men holding this office, invented long ago. Cardinal Griffin, of Westminster, London, who died at the beginning of August, held this office which was unknown to the Apostles. He was the only one in Britain and the day he died, the Pope, as he is called, in Rome, offered special prayers for the soul of the poor Cardinal. With all his high-ranking office in the Roman Catholic “set-up,” and irrespective of the statement of Archbishop Grishaw, Birmingham, in a panegyric, that Griffin was “a great and holy priest”; yet a Mass, as it is called, was sung for him and prayers offered for him at his funeral, on 28th August, after his soul had been in Eternity more than a week. If the Roman Church is Christian and if its doctrine is Christian and if the Cardinal was a Christian, then what lacked the Cardinal at and after his death? If he went to heaven, there is nothing but perfection of holiness and happiness there, and there is no need to pray for such. The Word of God teaches that true believers upon the Lord Jesus Christ go immediately at death to heaven to be with Christ. They need no prayers for their benefit any more. But Griffin, according to the unscriptural, dark delusion that there is a middle place between hell and heaven, called purgatory, went there in the view of his deluded fellow Roman Catholics. According to the late Rev. Joseph Di Bruno, D.D., of the R.C. Church, “Purgatory is a state of suffering after this life, in which those souls are for a time detained which depart this life after their deadly sins have been remitted as to the stain and guilt, and as to the everlasting pain that was due to them, but which souls have on account of those sins still some debt of temporal punishment to pay. . . . In purgatory these souls are purified and rendered fit to enter into heaven.” And Dr. Di Bruno also states, with R.C. characteristic vagueness when required, “As to the place, manner, or kind of these sufferings, nothing has been defined by the Church.” What a subtle smokescreen to hide behind when challenged for definite statements for purgatory! The Doctor further writes: “The Catholic belief in purgatory rests on the authority of the Church and her apostolic traditions,” etc. What a miserable foundation! We know that there are parts of Scripture which R.C. theologians quote and interpret as teaching the reality of purgatory. They do not quote Scripture as to when exactly and in what manner souls get out of purgatory. Poor dupes left behind in the world have to pay for prayers and Masses to be said for the deliverance of their friends out of purgatory. For how long? Oh! that is for the Church and the priest to decide. The fact is, it is a money-making scheme. We wonder how much money Cardinal Griffin left in his will for Masses to be said for his poor soul to be delivered out of the fires of purgatory. We wonder how much money his relatives will continue to pay to the coffers of the Pope for this useless purpose. The Apostle Paul desired to depart and to be with Christ. Stephen, when dying prayed: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts vii. 59). And Jesus, of course, was in heaven. Yet all this superstition of a Requiem Mass for the Cardinal was broadcast over the B.B.C.; and Church of England and Government dignitaries present at this on the funeral day. The Press mentioned the dead Cardinal’s throne. What throne had Peter and Paul while serving the Lord Jesus in the Gospel? None, of course. And yet from a throne to purgatory goes “a great and holy priest” of the Roman Church. What a farce! Of course, there is a hell as well as a heaven: on this the Scriptures are clear.
Persecution in Colombia Confirmed.
The fact of the persecution of Protestants by the Roman Catholic Church, in Colombia, South America, was for a time revealed only in Protestant religious periodicals and such like publications. The public were left to believe or disbelieve these reports from the Protestant side. But we consider it quite significant respecting this deplorable campaign of persecution, that the public and reliable Press of this country have recently seen fit to publish unprejudiced reports confirming the fact that Protestants have been persecuted, their Churches destroyed, their schools closed, and many evangelicals killed. For instance, on 21st August, last, the Scotsman of Edinburgh published a copyright article by J. Halero Fergusson, covering a whole column of the paper, with a sub-heading, viz., “Anti-Protestant Church Campaign.” We are not to recapitulate parts which we have before noticed in these pages on this matter, but will just quote briefly from the above article, its opening sentence: “The survey of the Evangelical Confederation of Colombia, published recently, merely confirms what is already known, that Protestants are being persecuted in rural areas.” So thus we have confirmation, if confirmation was needed, of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is a persecuting organisation when in power, over against a non-Roman Catholic minority; and R.C. Archbishop Grishaw, of Birmingham, had the audacity and nerve to describe the late Cardinal Griffin as a “genuine product of the true democracy of the Catholic Church.” True democracy! forsooth!
MacQueen Memorial Church and the Free Church.
Since the former minister of the MacQueen Memorial Church, Inverness, joined the Church of Scotland, this congregation which possessed and worshipped in St. Mary’s (Gaelic) Church, Church Street, Inverness, has split into two parts. This occurred after the congregation by one vote over a necessary two-thirds majority, decided to approach the Free Church for admission thereto. It appears that the majority, however large ultimately, made application, on 8th August, 1956, to the Commission of the Free Church of Scotland Assembly, sitting at Inverness, for admission to that Church. The application was made because, as stated, it was felt that it was not right that they (the majority) should remain in the wilderness. The leader of this group said that they claimed to have a right to the Church building, according to the terms of the title. The minority, we understand, are worshipping in a hall. The Commission of the Free Church Assembly decided to admit this majority group into their Church, the decision to be subject to an investigation by the local Free Church Presbytery. What this Presbytery thinks of having two Free Church congregations in Inverness, remains to be known.
But then what would become of the MacQueen Memorial Church Building, a building which may not be fully free of financial debt as yet? Then after the Commission of Assembly, this majority group advertised Sabbath services for 12th August, under the extraordinary heading, “MacQueen Memorial Free Church”; and the minority group advertised their services for the same Sabbath under the two-fold heading, “Free Presbyterian Church of 1893—MacQueen Memorial Congregation.” Evidently, these two notices appeared in the same paper, one above the other, the Free Church Moderator to preach in the first and an ex-Free Church minister to preach in the second.
The following week, we understand, the now Free Church group dropped from their advertised heading the words “Free Church.” Had they been too precipitate in assuming a title including the words “Free Church”? Did they stand to lose something of a material kind by abandoning the title of the minority? The leader of the minority has said, inter alia, “We have no intention of surrendering the Church or the manse to anyone. Now we would like to make it quite clear here, from the point of view of the true and only Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, which this magazine represents, that (a) We have, of course, nothing whatever to do with the MacQueen Memorial congregation and Church building, in Inverness; and (b) We have everything to do with the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland Manse property, in Broadstone Park, Inverness (where Rev. A. D. MacLeod has been residing) according to the Court of Session’s final decision in the Manse case. We were held by Lord Cooper as having done nothing by way of violating or resiling from the Constitution of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, in the MacQueen case. Only that the followers of the late Rev. E. MacQueen, were also held as keeping to the aforesaid Constitution also, from which opinion, we privately and strongly disagree from an overall view of the case. But the late Mr. MacQueen’s followers, now the minority group above-mentioned, were in possession of the Manse by having a person resident in it. As legal judgment stands, let it be clearly understood that the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has a full claim upon and right to this said manse also.”
Strange as it may seem, that was the way the Court of Session decision left the matter. And if, as had been hinted, the group which applied to be received into the Free Church has an eye on this manse, then let them think again, and cast aside such an impertinence. We think the Free Church got more than enough property after 1900; and the Free Presbyterians, the rightful heirs of the 1843 Disruption Church, got neither money, nor manses then. The manse, at Broadstone Park, Inverness, paid for by true Free Presbyterians of the past, on principle, apart from possession of “stone and lime,” must not fall into the hands of the Seed of the Declaratory Act Free Church. And a final point: no action can be taken regarding this manse property by any parties, without full legal consultation with the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. If the MacQueen Memorial majority group are to be established as a separate Free Church congregation in Inverness, with the right to call a minister, they will have to look for a new manse to house that minister.
Suez Canal Conference.
The London Conference on the Suez Canal situation had ended, and at the time of writing a special committee, headed by Mr. Menzies, Australia, is in Cairo to confer with Colonel Nasser, Egypt. The disappointing and sad thing is, that this committee went by air to Cairo, on Sabbath, the 2nd of September. Why could they not have left on the Monday and begin consultations on a Tuesday? This wilful disregard of the Lord’s Day does not augur well for success in this committee’s work. Events up to date confirm this view.
A Clarification on behalf of Free Presbyterian Church.
At the Free Church of Scotland Commission of Assembly, met at Inverness, on 8th August, 1956, when the majority of the MacQueen Memorial congregation of Inverness, applied to be received into the Free Church, speeches of welcome were made by Rev. Professor R. A. Finlayson and others. Among other things, Professor R. A. Finlayson said, “They gave a special welcome to the congregation of the Free Presbyterian Church, believing, as they did, that no point of doctrine or practice separated us from them” (vide Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland, September, 1956). Now for the benefit of many who may read the Free Presbyterian Magazine and Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland, at home and abroad, who are not in possession of detailed information regarding the MacQueen Memorial Congregation and also the Free Church, we shall herewith make some observations.
Although the MacQueen Memorial congregation called itself by the designation “Free Presbyterian Church of 1893” since its inception by the late Rev. E. MacQueen, when he left the Synod and the true organised Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, which this magazine represents, the said congregation has been a completely separate entity from the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland and has never been recognised in any way by the Synod or any of the other Courts of the Church. As a matter of plain fact, it is really incontrovertible that the late Rev. E. MacQueen designedly formed a separate Church of his own, designated the “Free Presbyterian Church of 1893.” This was quite a different Church from the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (1893-1956), as presently subsisting with its Synod, Presbyteries, etc. Now Professor Finlayson, as quoted, refers to the MacQueen Memorial congregation as a congregation of the Free Presbyterian Church.
The reader of the Monthly Record of the Free Church, without adequate information, might well conclude that here was an unusual case of one of our Church’s congregations entering the Free Church of Scotland. The facts already given dispose of that fallacy and the wrong impression given by the Professor, who ought to have known the true position. It is well known, for instance, that the MacQueen Memorial congregation, in Inverness, was frequently supplied on many Sabbaths in the past by Free Church ministers. And it is equally well known that Free Church ministers are never invited to preach in the pulpits of congregations within the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. We state this as a matter of simple fact, for clarification, and not necessarily to instigate controversy. And yet the Professor welcomed this congregation as “of the Free Presbyterian Church.”
And further, the Professor expressed himself in reference to the Free Presbyterian Church thus: “. . . Believing, as they did, that no point of doctrine, or practice separated us (the Free Church)* from them” (the Free Presbyterian Church).* Like statements with the above are made now and again from the Free Church side, purporting to make out to Free Church people and others that there are no existing fundamental differences between that Church and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. But of course, we at any rate are cognisant of differences, and we are entitled to our opinion and entitled to state them, if only for a clarification of the position, and the information of even Free Church people. Now, for example, the booklet written by Rev. Kenneth MacRae, Free Church minister of Stornoway, on the Resurgence of Arminianism, does indicate, to say the least of it, that there are grave fears among a number of Free Church ministers and people, that Arminian teaching goes forth from some Free Church pulpits. No such charge as yet has been raised against Free Presbyterian preachers. There is nothing here wherein to boast but we should be humbly grateful to the Lord that the widespread inroads of Arminian doctrine and its influence does not obtain within our borders.
* The designations in brackets are ours.—Editor.
Further, an overture of 1952, to the Free Church Assembly, from their Presbytery of Skye and Uist, craving that the practice cease, wherein Free Church ministers conducted services in the Church of Scotland and of Church of Scotland ministers conducting services in the Free Church, was opposed by a majority and rejected. Professor Finlayson said then that the spirit of the overture was alien to the New Testament presentation of the Gospel ministry, etc. And so the Free Church still agrees to and permits Church of Scotland ministers to be invited to preach in her pulpits. Any Free Presbyterian schoolboy knows that this practice would not be tolerated in our Church. We know too much about the unscriptural doctrines and practices of the Church of Scotland and many of her ministers; and Free Church ministers and lay people ought also to know if they don’t! Last summer, Rev. Dr. Leslie Hope, the minister of the Church of Scotland, Renfield Street congregation, Glasgow, was invited to preach in the Dornoch Free Church. We know this displeased some of that Church. And so differences continue to exist between the two Churches, with some Free Church people dissenting within their Church against things which obviously separate us.
Recently, we received a signed copy of an open letter addressed to a Free Church minister, by an adherent of that Church, severely criticising the minister for taking part in this year’s Keswick Convention. This Convention, in the past at anyrate, was noted for the promulgation of doctrine, clearly out of line with the Confession of Faith. We do not countenance this Convention. And on the question of practice relative to the Sabbath, the Rev. William MacLeod, Free Church, Dornoch, presided on a Sabbath, at a British Legion service, in the Church of Scotland Cathedral, Dornoch, in 1951, after which there was a parade led by two pipe bands and a march past, etc.
Such conduct indeed, revealed then, what shocked not only Free Presbyterians but some Free Church people as well. But Rev. William MacLeod is the Principal Clerk of the Free Church Assembly, and as such, he spoke also when the MacQueen Memorial congregation was welcomed, and in referring to his Church, said: “They had cause to thank God that their testimony in Scotland was bearing fruit.” Imperfect as the Free Presbyterian Church may be, in the light of the pure Word of God, we shall have nothing to do with a testimony which bears the fruit of British Legion dedication services and pipe bands on the Lords’ Day. We thus are separated by conflicting views on aspects of Sabbath observance.
To revert to the Free Church Monthly Report of the Commission of Assembly already alluded to, Professor Finlayson spoke of references “to the past history of the Free Presbyterian Church” by a minister who left the Free Presbyterian Church, and who is now deceased. He quoted that minister as having said to him: “… I see very clearly now that many of the things we did then were of the flesh.” And there Free Church readers are left to conjecture as to what things were done by the Free Presbyterian Church, in the past, which were of the flesh. However dark and obscure the content of this quotation is, one thing is certain in our serious and considered opinion, the repeated refusal of the Free Presbyterian Church in past years to consider the matter of collaboration or union with the Free Church, was not of the flesh. The longer we live and learn, we trust we appreciate more and more, the continued distinctive and clear testimony of the Free Presbyterian Church on the side of Scriptural doctrine, worship and practice, for ourselves and those coming after us, albeit the divine Head of the Church knows our imperfections and fallibility in relation to His honourable service and Cause of Truth. One thing, among many, we value, and it is this: Our people are not plagued with ministers and laymen from other denominations ascending our pulpits, whose spiritual standing and doctrine are unknown and uncertain; nor are our people tried with ministers who are as much “at home” in a Church of Scotland pulpit and the atmosphere of a modern Church of Scotland congregation, as in their own. “Can two walk together except they be agreed?”