f His
mercy to bee saved, the which also in due time He calleth to integritie
of life and godly conversation to make them a glorious church to
Himselfe."[140]

[Sidenote: Unmeasured Language.]

Probably, however, the main argument against recurring to the old
Scottish Confession of 1560 is that derived from the unmeasured language
of vituperation in which it, as well as the contemporary forms of
recantation[141] required of priests at that date, indulges when
referring to the teaching of the members of the pre-Reformation church.
No doubt it might be deemed sufficient proof of this to subjoin the
examples furnished in chapter xviii. on the "Notis" or marks by which
"the trewe Kirk is decernit fra the false," where the old church is
designated the "pestilent synagoge," "the filthie synagogue," and "the
horrible harlot, the kirk malignant"[142]--the last words no doubt meant
as a translation of the Vulgate rendering of Psalm xxvi. 5, _ecclesiam
malignantium_,[143] translated "the congregation of evil doers" in our
authorised English version. But I may add, in corroboration, that in
chapter xxi. on the true uses of the sacraments, the papists are charged
with having "perniciouslie taucht and damnablie beleeved" the
transubstantiation of the bread into Christ's natural body and of wine
into his natural blood,[144] and that in the last chapter the language
of Rev. xiv. 11 ("the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and
ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his
image") is adduced in proof of the ultimate fate of those who delight in
superstition or idolatry.[145]

The same unrestrained spirit is shown in some contemporary Confessions,
notably in the earliest Danish one, the framers of which seem to have
kept closer to Luther than to the more gentle Melanchthon: but however
excusable it may have been in the fierce battle then forced on them,
there can be no doubt that the calmer and more measured language of the
later Confession is a decided improvement on the statements of the
earlier one; and I do not hesitate to say that, with the simpler formula
of 1693-94 recently restored, and the explanatory act which accompanies
it--emphasising the distinction between matters of minor importance and
the great doctrines of the faith--the position of the ministers of our
church in these respects is as nearly what it should be as is that of
the ministers in any of the allied Presbyterian churches.