All Free Presbyterian Church office-bearers at their ordination “sincerely own and declare” the Westminster Confession of Faith to be the confession of their faith. They own “the whole doctrine” therein contained to be “the true doctrine” and that to which they solemnly promise to firmly and constantly adhere. Ministers, in particular, undertake, to “assert, maintain and defend” the same, to the utmost of their power, as well “the purity of worship as presently practiced in this Church”. They also, of course, declare themselves as persuaded that “the Presbyterian government and discipline of this Church are founded upon the Word of God”, and they promise to “submit to the said government and discipline, and to concur with the same, and not to endeavour, directly or indirectly, the prejudice of subversion thereof”, but, again, to the utmost of their power, in their station, “to maintain, support, and defend the said discipline and Presbyterian government . . .” In view of “the dishonest and degrading manner in which the most solemn promises and engagements relative to subordinate standards” were being violated by many that held office in Presbyterian Churches, our Synod considered it appropriate, some years ago, to pass a resolution on creed subscription. It ends as follows: “The Synod expects of its office-bearers, as honourable men that whensoever they are conscious of having ceased to believe in any of these doctrines and principles, or to approve of the mode of worship, which they have vowed to maintain, they should lay down their office and not help to deprive the Church of its peace and purity; and finally it expects of the Church itself, through its courts, to see that in this connection its discipline is observed wheresoever in any case such honourable dealing does not appear to characterise any office-bearer whatsoever.”
In accepting the whole doctrine of the Confession we unreservedly adhere to that much controverted statement in Chapter 25 of the Confession: “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, the son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.” With the advent of the ecumenical movement that statement was viewed with particular aversion by those who were in favour of dialogue with Rome and, as is well known, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, a few years ago, went so far as to remove it altogether from its subordinate standards. Its Moderator can thus unblushingly welcome the decision of the Scottish Roman Catholic hierarchy to become full members of Action of Churches Together in Scotland (ACTS), the latest and most dangerous ecumenical body to be set up.
We do not believe that there are any office-bearers left in our Church who have any difficulty with regard to this statement but we have reason to fear that there are not a few in other Presbyterian Churches, over and above the Church of Scotland, who are more than ready to argue that the passages of Scripture which the Westminster divines applied to the Pope of Rome do not, in fact, apply to him at all. That is not, of course, a new line of attack. The Jesuit Ribera, as far back as the Sixteenth Century, invented the “Futurist” prophecy of an Antichrist who would appear “at the end of the age”. The passages of Scripture which the Reformers applied to the Papacy were too opposite for comfort and the introduction of the futurist view was a crafty device to divert attention from the real Antichrist, who was already in place, and, instead, bring into view a shadowy, indistinct figure yet to appear. It would be a bold man, in our view, that would take issue with the Westminster divines on this matter. The history of the Papacy down the centuries has but confirmed that they were right. In Scotland such notable divines as Cunningham and Chalmers agreed with them and for theological learning and spiritual discernment their little fingers were thicker than the loins of those who now take upon themselves to adopt a different view.
The APC’s Constitution, as is pointed out in the May 1990 Synod Statement, allows office-bearers belonging to that body to adopt the view that the Pope is not the Antichrist, if they so please. The Westminster Confession, together with the other documents which are declared to form their constitution, are accepted only “insofar as each and every one of these documents is consistent with the Holy Scriptures.” Our people should know that and be able to see for themselves how false the APC’s claim to be holding fast by the constitution of the true Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland is. We would expect a body, whose spokesman appears before a battery of microphones claiming to be “holding tenaciously to the Westminster Confession of Faith” and at the same time falsely accusing us of adopting “double standards” would itself be very clear in its presentation of what it believes. We are not aware of any statement hitherto made by the APC’s and which has been critical of Roman Catholicism. In one of their recent publications attention is drawn to the fact that the Apostle John stated that there were many antichrists but although the writer does refer to the familiar idea of “one pre-eminent antichrist” he fails to identify him. Is this a straw in the wind? “John looks for him”, says Wylie, “In the guise of a Deceiver. ‘Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many Antichrists.’ After this announcement of a special and great Antichrist to follow in the wake of those minor Antichrists that were already arrived, and were urging their claims on the attention of the world, he comes to look more closely at the giant who was to stand up after these dwarfs had passed away.” “Save us, O Lord,” wrote Chalmers, in his “Scripture Readings”, “from falling away, lest we share in the perdition that waiteth on the great apostacy. We hold the usurpation of Rome to be pointed at, and therefore let us maintain our distance, and keep up our resolute protest against its great abomination”. May that continue to be our attitude.