THE following letter was written by the Rev. D. Macfarlane, Dingwall, to the editor of the North Star on 18th May, 1908:—
SIR,—An agitation against the Confession of Faith has been going on in the Churches for many years. The United Presbyterian Church took the lead in the movement, and relaxed its relation to the Confession by adopting a new Formula. The Free Church, in 1892, followed in the down-grade, and cut its connection with the Confession and substituted in its place the Declaratory Act as its new creed. The Established Church is labouring hard to get rid of the Confession. What is the cause of this agitation? This is a reasonable question to ask. The cause is not to be found in the Confession itself, for that subordinate standard of the Church is founded upon the Word of God, and agreeable thereto. The cause must then be looked for elsewhere. The cause is to be found in the men who are opposed to the Confession, and not, as is alleged, in the Confession itself. It is these men that need to be changed, and not the Confession. There are two classes of men who seek the abolition of the Confession: first, those who have adopted Arminian views, contrary to the teaching of the Confession; second, Romanisers in the Protestant Churches, who are doing their utmost to undo the work of the Reformation in order to set up popery again in our country. They know that, so long as the Westminster Confession of Faith stands as the creed of the Church, they cannot accomplish their project. Hence their effort to get rid of the Confession. The making of a new Catechism has the same end in view.
It is ominous that, in connection with the agitation against the Westminster Confession, there is a movement for what is called
“The re-union of Christendom,” i.e., the gathering of all Christian denominations into the Church of Rome under the Pope as their head! There are societies in the Established Church and in the United Free Church working for this end. The “English Church Union,” of which several clergymen of the Scottish Episcopal Church are members, has the same object in view. The “co-operation” among the various Churches with a view to union, advocated by the Established Church in these days, is intended to prepare the way for this universal union, which we are sure shall never take place. All this accounts for the persistent agitation against the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Confession was intended to be a bond of union between all in the three kingdoms who adhered to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Union on that basis is union in the truth. But any union formed or contemplated at the expense of throwing away that Scriptural document is a union founded on error. It appears to me that those who struggle to get rid of the Confession are actuated by the same spirit as those spoken of in the second Psalm, who cried, “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us” (verse 3). But if they persist in their obstinacy, let them remember that “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall He speak unto them in His wrath and vex them in His sore displeasure” (verse 4-5).—Yours truly,
D. MACFARLANE.
The Forthcoming Roman Catholic Eucharistic Congress.
IF an illustration be needed of the influence which Rome possesses in the London daily Press, such may be found in an article which appeared in the Daily Telegraph of Thursday last, headed in large type, “Catholic Church in England. Remarkable Congress. Stately Ceremonial,” and which occupied a column of prominent type. The audacity of Rome’s claim to be the “Catholic Church” at once arrests attention, and should open men’s eyes to the folly, not to say madness, of making concessions to a power which is always grasping for supremacy. “In the early days of next month,” says the Daily Telegraph, “London will witness the most notable gathering of Roman Catholics that has ever been seen in this country. The absolutely unparalleled nature of the assembly rests upon two main facts. The first is that in the person of Cardinal Vincent Vannutelli the occasion will bring to London probably the first Papal Legate who has ever set foot in England since the days of Cardinal Pole, “the Cardinal of England.” The second is that, apart from the Papal Legate, there will be eight other Cardinals in London at the same time.” We
attach more importance to the first of these facts than to the second, for we do not know that very much harm would accrue to this country if the whole College were to exhibit themselves in London. When we remember the character of one of the most prominent members of the College in recent years—we refer to Antonelli—we do not think there is much to be feared from an invasion of Cardinals. At the same time, we would not forget that the pomp and display which are associated with the “Princes of the Church” do prove a snare to a certain type of mind.
The despatch, however, of a Papal Legate is a piece of impertinence, and the man, when he arrives, should be treated with the contempt that he deserves. The Telegraph describes the Cardinals as “distinguished and active members of Rome’s world-wide hierarchy.”
“Each of the Cardinals in attendance,” we are informed, “will be accompanied by his own suite. The Pope’s Legate, indeed, will have his own special retinue, which will include one of the Pope’s ecclesiastical chamberlains and two lay chamberlains.” How utterly alien is the whole spirit of this Congress, apart altogether from its central object, the glorification of the Mass, from the spirit which pervaded the Church in Apostolic days! How astounded would the Apostle Peter be if he were suddenly to appear on the scene at Westminster Cathedral when Cardinal Vincent Vannutelli was pontificating, and be told that the proceedings were in his honour! We can believe that the denunciations of the Apostle under the circumstances would be a death-blow to the Papacy.
The assembling of this Congress is undoubtedly a call to all professing Protestants in the British Empire to awaken from their indifference and to assert their principles in no uncertain tones. From the Church of England as such, alas! we fear not much can be expected in the way of effective protest, for its guiding spirits are too fond of copying Romish methods, as the recent Pan-Anglican Congress has shown. The true-hearted members of the Church of England can, however, do their part in maintaining a resolute opposition to Rome, as our Reformers did in the sixteenth century; they can resist all Popish aggression in Church and State, even if it involves sacrifice; they can seek to spread by all the means in their power a knowledge of the history of the Papacy and of the dark deeds for which its Popes and Cardinals have been responsible; and, above all, they can direct attention to the warnings contained in God’s Holy Spirit regarding the Man of Sin and the Babylon of the Apocalypse.
By keeping separate from all Romish and Romanizing associations and by joining themselves more and more with godly Nonconformists the loyal sons of the Church of England can in a prayerful spirit do much to resist the incoming flood of Popish errors which threatens to overwhelm this Protestant nation.—English Churchman.