It was already fairly well known that the present Moderator of the Church of Scotland General Assembly was not very tolerant of the views of “fundamentalists”, even within his own church, and his non-support of those opposing the introduction of a Sabbath ferry to Tarbert ought not to have surprised anyone. Professor Davidson is reported to have said: “I am divided on this one because I don’t support this kind of Sabbatarianism as being central to the Christian faith. On the other hand, it is traditional to a way of life that the people wish to retain”. The Church of Scotland Presbytery of Lewis issued a statement disassociating itself from the Moderator’s remarks and pointed out that, among other things, they exhibited “a profound misunderstanding of Christian life in Lewis”. In our view, the Moderator’s remarks reveal a profound misunderstanding and ignorance of the Christian faith, full stop. Do the following statements give us any reason to believe that this man’s mind has been enlightened by the Spirit of God?: “Ultimately it is not tenable intellectually, if you are going to argue for some kind of totally inerrant Bible, it’s just not on. If you know anything about the whole history of the Bible and the way it has come down to us it is just not possible. . . . If you think then that the Christian faith believes that the world was made in six days, then you have got problems on your hands”. That he should give utterance to such views and not be taken to task for it is an indication of how doctrinally adrift the Church of Scotland really is and of how little place is given to the ordinance of ecclesiastical discipline within its pale. “We love the Lord’s day”, wrote the godly Robert Murray McCheyne, “because it is His. Every hour of it is dear to us — sweeter than honey, more precious than gold. It is the day he rose for our justification. It reminds us of His love, and His finished work, and His rest. And we may boldly say that that man does not love the Lord Jesus Christ who does not love the entire Lord’s day”.
— J. McL.
Caledonian MacBrayne and the Lord’s Day
Notwithstanding all the representations made to it to do otherwise, the Board of Caledonian MacBrayne have re-affirmed their decision to introduce Sabbath sailings this coming Summer on the Uig – Tarbert route. We believe that one man is mainly responsible for the Board’s intransigence — Mr Colin Paterson, its Managing Director. Mr Paterson is clearly anxious that the general public should know that he professes to be a Christian and that he is a member of a Church of Scotland congregation but, in our view, his actions belie his profession. He may be of good standing in his own congregation but we could not possibly have fellowship with a man of his views and we are thankful that we are not under the obligation of taking him to our bosom. The Moderator’s deplorable utterances were, no doubt, very encouraging to Mr Paterson and the other members of the Cal-Mac Board who are like-minded. In McCheyne’s day it was the majority of the Directors of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway who were determined, in a manner that shocked the God-fearing, to open the railway on the Lord’s day. This Christian minister, who would appear to have been of the meekest of men, trenchantly expressed his mind as follows and we may be sure that were he alive today he would be of the same mind with regard to Caledonian MacBrayne: “Unhappy men, who are striving to rob Scotland of this day of double blessing, ‘ye known not what ye do’ . . . Is it not possible that some of you may remember, with tears of anguish in hell, the exertions which you are now making, against light and against warning, to bring down a withering blight on your own souls and on the religion of Scotland. . . . Guilty men! who, under Satan, are leading on the deep, dark phalanx of Sabbath breakers, yours is a solemn position. You are robbers. You rob God of His holy day. You are murderers. You murder the souls of your servants. God said: ‘Thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy servant;’ but you compel your servants to break God’s law, and to sell their souls for gain. . . . You are moral suicides, stabbing your own souls, proclaiming to the world that you are not the Lord’s people, and hurrying on your souls to meet the Sabbath-breaker’s doom.”
— J. McL.
Meddling Prelates
The part played by Cardinal Hume and other Roman Catholic Church clerics in the proceedings which led up to the release of the “Guildford Four” (four Irish people imprisoned for pub bombings) is well known. Now it is the release of the “Birmingham Six” (who were found guilty of a similar crime) that is being sought, and foremost among those campaigning on their behalf are, again, Roman Catholic Church dignitaries. Prominent among them are Archbishop Winning of Glasgow and Archbishop Daly, the newly appointed head of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. We are left to wonder if these gentlemen have access to sources of information not available to others when they so emphatically speak of the conviction of these bombers as “a massive injustice” (Winning) — “a disgraceful and horrendous injustice, which raises the most serious questions about the conduct of the Police and the judiciary and the entire system of justice” (Daly). Our Police officers are not infallible. We, however, believe that for honesty and competence they are second to none. The same may be said of our judiciary and it ill becomes clerics, who belong to the Church which set up the Inquisition and which, to this day, has not truly expressed repentance for all the evil and excesses which it perpetrated in its name, to speak so disparagingly of them. Is it possible that these men think of themselves as having some sort of divine right to pronounce on these matters? Maybe. Pope Pius IX’s 1864 Encyclical states, inter alia, “The civil power is inferior and subordinate to the ecclesiastical power, and in litigated questions of jurisdiction should yield to it.” Cardinal Manning, speaking in the name of the Pope, says (in “Sermons on Religious Subjects,” 1873): “I acknowledge no civil power: I am the subject of no prince, and I claim more than this, I claim to be the supreme judge and director of the consciences of men; I am sole, last, supreme judge of what is right and wrong. Moreover, we declare, affirm, define and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation to every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
— J. McL.
Sabbath keeping
Several local papers in the Highlands have been carrying features to raise the profile of the “Keep Sunday Special” campaign. However, the laudable aim of promoting the keeping holy of the Lord’s Day is clouded by some unhelpful statements, for example: “The Lord’s day is not the Jewish Sabbath. Jews had thousands of rules for the latter, and classified the work that was forbidden under 39 heads. Jesus rejected the pettifogging man-made rules of the Jewish tradition. We must not be guilty of confusing the Old Testament Sabbath with the New Testament Lord’s Day.”
This statement serves only to confuse the subject further. The impression is created that the Old Testament Sabbath was the same as the Jewish Sabbath with all its “pettifogging man-made rules”. This was not so. The Old Testament Sabbath was a creation ordinance which was re-stated when it was enshrined in the Ten Commandments, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” It is therefore part of the abiding moral law of God. Under the ceremonial law, the Jews had further observances with respect to the Sabbath commandment, which were fulfilled in Christ’s redemptive work, which are no longer binding. Further, the Jews added their traditions to this.
It is therefore quite inadequate to conclude that we must not confuse “the Old Testament Sabbath with the New Testament Lord’s Day.” The Old Testament Sabbath as it stands as the fourth commandment of the Moral Law is still binding in New Testament times, and by the Lord’s example it is to be identified with the Lord’s Day. “Q.59. Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly Sabbath? Answer: From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly Sabbath; and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of world, which is the Christian Sabbath.” (Shorter Catechism).
The view that tries to put an essential difference between the Old Testament Sabbath and the New Testament Lord’s Day, by attacking Jewish Sabbatarianism, was promoted by the Church of Scotland in the 1960s (see History of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland 1893-1970 pp272-274) This view has contributed to the lax views on Sabbath observance which now threaten to remove any restraints upon Sabbath trading in England and Wales. In an attempt to win the public to Keeping the Sabbath Special, the divine command is being played down and family life is being played up. It is questionable whether this attitude will have any force to prevent the deregulation of the Sabbath laws. As in the Warnock debate, if one uses the wrong authority and employs only arguments that appeal to the public, then once the weakness of these arguments has been exposed one loses the whole campaign.
— D. M. B.
The Free Church and Purity of Worship
An article entitled “Praise in Public Worship” in the December issue of The Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland raises again the question of that body’s position on purity of worship. The author of the article, Mr Andrew Fraser, says of the Free Church, “We are not committed to exclusive psalmody as such.” And hymns? “What about what we call hymns? Are they totally ruled out? Not necessarily.” Once again we are left wondering what the true position of the Free Church of Scotland is on this important question. Their College claims to be “Committed to the historic Reformed Faith” and the historic Reformed Faith in Scotland from the beginning did not permit the singing of hymns in the public worship of God. Lovers of the truth and of the Reformed Faith would welcome an unequivocal declaration from the Free Church on this matter if only to dispel the suspicion that the ground is being prepared for further departures from the Free Church’s avowed testimony.
— D. J. McD.