THE General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, the United Free Church, and the Free Church met at Edinburgh on Tuesday, the 19th May. The Rev Dr White was Moderator of the Church of Scotland; the Rev. Dr Harvey of the United Free Church, and the Rev. Professor Moore of the Free Church. The proceedings of the Assemblies were opened with the customary moderatorial addresses. As there were certain matters dealt with by the three Assemblies from their respective standpoints, such as the Union, the Education Act and the Observance of the Sabbath, we will pass briefly in review certain of the points raised when these were under discussion and then proceed to review special matters dealt with by the three Assemblies.
The Union question was decidedly the most important, which came up before the two larger Assemblies. Two motions were brought forward in the Church of Scotland Assembly, one by the Moderator, in which approval of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill (now an Act of Parliament) was expressed; the other motion was moved by Lord Sands in which particular reference was made to the Union with the United Free Church. Dr Gordon Mitchell moved an amendment to Dr White’s motion expressing regret at the passing of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill as unconstitutional and in violation of the Treaty of Union (1707); the amendment received only six votes. In the United Free Church Assembly after a debate which lasted for about three hours the Assembly adopted the deliverance of the Committee on Conference with the Church of Scotland, in which it is asserted that in view of the stage reached in the Union negotiations between the two Churches that a statement prepared by the Committee be sent down to Presbyteries, Kirk-Sessions, and Congregations, with instructions that Presbyteries report to the Committee by 31st January, 1926, and that the Committee report to the General Assembly of next year. The Rev. James Barr, the Socialist M.P. for Motherwell, who owes his seat in Parliament to the combined Roman Catholic and Socialist vote, moved an amendment to the above maintaining that the Acts of 1921 and 1925 had not removed the obstacles that stood in the way to Union. Mr Barr in his speech held out the threat of continuing a separate Church should the Union become an accomplished fact, but, as in our experience, brave and strong things said by men have not always materialised, we will give credence to such statements when they are carried into practice. There have been too many ecclesiastical wrecks strewing the course of recent ecclesiastical history to keep us from laying undue stress on strong words merely. Mr Barr received 104 votes for his amendment; last year the opposition numbered 138. The Union was referred to in the Free Church Assembly in the Claim of Right Report. It was stated that this Claim had been presented to the Legislature and a protest made against the transfer of patrimony secured at the Revolution Settlement and guaranteed by the treaty of Union to a body which considered itself free from that Settlement, yet willing to enjoy its benefits. The question of the Union of the two great Presbyterian Churches of Scotland is one of vast importance to the people of Scotland. If it was real spiritual unity in the truth which was striven after one could understand the significance of certain passages of Scripture being quoted which are so often on the tongues of the advocates of the Union, but when one sees the glaring, unabashed shamsness of men who but a few years ago voted with Principal Rainy for the disendowment and disestablishment of the Church of Scotland now signifying approval of legislation that places at the disposal of the prospective new Church vast sums of money which one would have thought by their impassioned utterances they would not have touched for worlds, one’s faith in the honesty of ecclesiastics is rudely shaken. Besides, the legislation that has passed through Parliament paving the way for Union is of such a kind that even though everything else was right it is hard to see how the new Church can look for God’s blessing.
Another subject which engaged the attention of the three Assemblies was the Education (Scotland) Act of 1918. There is a decidedly increasing opposition to this very unjust Act, and it is interesting to notice that the larger Churches are awakening to the injustice perpetrated on Protestants by the provisions made in it for the compulsory teaching of Roman Catholicism in the transferred schools. In the course of the discussions it was mentioned that according to baptismal figures the Roman Catholic Church now took its place after the Church of Scotland for numbers. In the United Free Assembly the Rev. Alexander Dale, Holytown, asserted that they ought not to teach even in a predominantly Protestant school what would hurt the Roman Catholic conscience, and they ought not to teach in a predominantly Roman Catholic school what would hurt the Protestant conscience. He did not wish to see antagonisms and prejudices maintained. Fortunately, this modern experimenter of serving two masters found no support. In the Free Church Assembly the Rev. John MacNeilage, after his wont, used strong language in referring to Lord Alness who saw the Act through Parliament. Still we feel that Mr MacNeilage is nearer the core of things at times than those who resent his blunt outspokenness, and Lord Alness’s connection with this Act will ever be regarded by his Presbyterian countrymen as the betrayal of Scotland in this matter to her enemies.
The subject of Sabbath observance received prominent attention at the Assemblies. The extraordinary advance in Sabbath desecration has awakened even those who were at ease in Sion. In the United Free Assembly Mr Keay, Glasgow, called attention to the anti-religious influence of the “Sunday” newspapers, and in doing so laid a batch of 12 different papers of this type purchased at a Glasgow newspaper stall and circulating in that city. Some of these proclaimed unabashedly communistic, revolutionary ideas, both as to the state and religion. When the subject of Sabbath observance came up in the Free Assembly the Scottish Churches Manifesto was adversely criticised. This criticism was not received in the best spirit by those belonging to the Free Church who had a hand in drawing up the Manifesto. One would naturally have expected that as the criticisms pointed out manifest weaknesses in the Manifesto they would have been well supported by all the members of the General Assembly.
When the deputation from the Presbyterian Association of Canada appeared before the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland asserting that it was their intention to continue the Presbyterian Church in Canada they met with rather a cool reception, and a motion was carried which expressed feelings of true regard by the Church of Scotland to the anti-Union Presbyterian Church and its Union mongrel—Presbyterian—Methodist—Congregational Church. Breadth of sympathy may be a beautiful thing at times but in this case, while we hold no brief for the anti-Unionists of Canada such a motion is ludicrous. The United Free Church had sent a message of welcome to the Canadian Unionists, and when the Presbyterian deputation appeared before the U.F. Assembly the Moderator had to do a piece of ecclesiastical tight rope walking and his efforts evidently pleased the Assembly, for the same men who had sent a message to the Unionists loudly cheered the anti-Unionists. Such is consistency. In this connection it may be noticed that in the Free Church Assembly when an amendment was moved by the Rev. John MacNeilage to instruct the delegates to the Pan-Presbyterian Council “to protest on Presbyterian principles against the proposed inclusion within the Alliance of the new United Churches of Canada,” it received the support of only seven members. The delegates to the Council were Profs. Maclean and J. R. Mackay, and to say the least of it the Assembly ought to have supported the above amendment.
Among other subjects discussed by the Assemblies of the Established and United Free Churches was the proposed new Hymnary. Since the larger Scottish Presbyterian Churches abandoned the divine manual of praise they have been restlessly seeking for an improved Hymnary which they have not been able to attain. The present draft new Hymnary has met with severe criticism by a goodly number, and one may risk the prophecy that in a few years it will be regarded as unsatisfactory as its predecessors.
Complaint was made of the fewness of candidates for the ministry in the larger Churches and various reasons were given for the present situation. At one time it was affirmed that the rigidity of the Presbyterian creed accounted for this, but that excuse can no longer be advanced as the creed of the Established and the United Free Churches is sufficiently wide to satisfy elastic consciences. Dr Norman Maclean made the novel but ridiculous suggestion that where Gaelic-speaking ministers could not be obtained for vacant Established Churches the places might be supplied by wireless through “loud speakers.” We have heard of “wooden” preachers but Dr Maclean evidently believes in “sound” preachers and all sound at that.