The Church of Scotland Bill.
The second reading of this Bill was moved by Mr. Munro, the Secretary for Scotland, in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 22nd June. Mr. Munro pointed out that the two negotiating Churches—the Established and the United Free—had, by overwhelming majorities, adopted the principle of the Bill. When he stated that doctrine, discipline, and worship remained unaltered, he was on more debatable ground. In his speech Mr. Munro announced that another Bill would be introduced dealing with the endowments and temporalities of the Church of Scotland. The second reading was supported by Mr. A. J. Balfour. The Bill was criticised by Mr. MacCallum Scott, who said that unless the temporalities were dealt with in this Bill, which alone could make union possible, the Bill would be known as “Munro’s Folly.” The Bill, he said, was a complete break with the Revolution Settlement, and gave the Church of Scotland power to abandon its Presbyterianism if it saw fit. Mr. Scott’s amendment was seconded by Mr. J. Johnstone (Renfrew, Coalition-Liberal), a United Free Church elder, who, in reply to Mr. A. J. Balfour, said that the divisions of the Scottish Church in the past were not without their compensations to the spiritual life of Scotland. The amendment was set aside without a division, and the second reading was agreed to. The Bill passed the Committee stage on the 31st June with a few alterations, and the third reading at the middle of July, and is given in another place of the Magazine, with the alterations and omissions then made. The Bill, as amended, has now been placed on the Statute Book.
The Terrible Russian Famine.
Russia is suffering from a terrible famine. The Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons the other week, said:—“In the Russian famine we were witnessing one of the most terrible devastations that had afflicted the world for centuries. The reports from our Trade Commissioner in Moscow showed that in the districts bordering the Volga, normally the richest in Russia, the crops had completely failed, and it was estimated that 35,000,000 people would require relief. The inhabitants of the stricken territory were moving in large masses in different directions, some towards Turkestan, some to Siberia, some to Poland. Only 20 per cent. were able-bodied; 30 per cent. were children. The condition of the children was pitiable. Many had been abandoned by their parents.” The heartrending accounts that have been recently published by the newspapers would move a heart of stone. The Bolshevist rulers of Russia imagined that they could rule without God, and through their godless rule they have brought a mighty country to ruin. Accompanying the famine is its usual attendant—the plague—and the condition of the people is pitiable in the extreme.
A Strange Saying.
At a meeting of the Catholic Bible Congress, held recently at Cambridge, Canon William Barry advocated the advisability of the Church of Rome adopting the Protestant Revised Version of the Bible. “If you are to convert England,” he is reported as saying, “you must convert it by means of the Holy Scripture.” One cannot help wondering if these words are reported correctly, for surely Rome has changed if one of her dignitaries looks to the Bible as a means of conversion to a faith that has deceived millions. The truths of the Bible when applied by the Holy Spirit will lead from, rather than to, the Church of Rome. The Canon may find himself in trouble if things are as they used to be in the Church of Rome.
Surrendering to the Enemy at the Gate.
Recently a series of meetings have been held in the Castlegate, Aberdeen, addressed by some of the city ministers. One of the speakers was the Rev. M’Intosh Mowat, minister of Ruthrieston Parish Church, Aberdeen, who, on being asked if he believed in the Virgin Birth of the Redeemer, frankly confessed he did not in the orthodox sense. This is neither the time nor the place to offer a defence of a fact which, after all, is only one in a series of miracles in connection with the most miraculous life the world has ever known, but it is disconcerting to find that the unbelieving criticism, which has for years been served up in theological treatises and magazines, is beginning to poison the minds of the younger ministers, even as to those doctrines which were most firmly believed among us. Reason itself might teach that it is folly to yield one outpost after another to the enemy; that instead of strengthening the citadel, it is only weakening it; and that once the enemy gets his opponent retreating, he will push forward with renewed and intensified vigour. One waits with interest the development of the above case before the Church Courts, for though Aberdeen has always been a home of that Laodiceism so dear to the heart of Moderatism, yet there are men in the city, such as Prof. Cowan, whom one would expect would have something to say on the matter. The Confessional teaching on this doctrine, which Mr. Mowat accepted at his ordination, is plain and simple enough, and need leave no dubiety as to what it means.
“Smooth Stones Out of the Brook.”
Dr. Baxter, whose work, “Sanctuary and Sacrifice,” did noble service in combating the higher critical views of Scripture, has dealt in a very trenchant manner, in the April number of the Princeton Theological Review, with the unconcealed attempt to foist the higher critical teaching on our national schools in the syllabus drawn up by a Committee, consisting of Established and United Free Church representatives and members of the Educational Institute of Scotland. This article has been reprinted, and a short notice of it appears in this issue.
Still on the Down Grade.
Owing to pressure on our space we were not able to call attention to certain matters dealt with by the larger Churches at their General Assemblies, but there is one matter which we consider it necessary to refer to. In the General Assembly of the United Free Church, the Rev. Dr. Maclellan drew attention to a tract entitled, How do we regard the Bible? issued by the Social Problems Committee of the Church and which, he said, had given pain to many. The tract has such questions as—”Do we approve of all the moral sentiments expressed in the Bible?”—”Do we regard the Bible as infallible history?”—”Do we agree with the opinions of St. Paul?” and the answer given in each case is—”No.” Dr. Maclellan moved that the Assembly dissociate itself from the view expressed regarding the Scriptures in the tract, and regret that such a publication should have been issued under the authority of a Committee of the Assembly. It was pointed out that the motion was a vote of censure, not only on the author of the tract, but on the Committee, and Dr. Maclellan was induced to withdraw it. Matters have reached a critical stage when the supreme court of a Church is more concerned for the author of a tract that barefacedly shakes the confidence of its readers in the integrity of the Word of God than for the honour of that Word itself.