Dr Barnes in Trouble.
Dr Barnes, Bishop of Birmingham, whose notorious modernistic utterances we have time and again criticised, is a thorough-going anti-Ritualist. He has set his face against encouraging Anglo-Catholicism or the Romanising movement in his diocese. For this he has got into trouble. A four years’ warfare has culminated in an extraordinary crisis. A service of writ was served on him at the suit of the trustees of the patronage of St Aidan’s, Small Heath, whose nominee, the Rev. G. D. Simmonds, to the vacant benefice he has refused to institute. Mr Simmonds refused to give the Bishop an assurance that he would accept the regulation of the Prayer Book or, alternatively, of any revised Prayer Book which might become lawful, etc. Mr Simmonds refused to give the assurance, and so Dr Barnes refused to institute. We wish Dr Barnes well in his battle with the Romanisers, and especially in this case in which his fellow-bishop of Truro, a rank Romaniser, is one of the pursuers. At the same time, owing to his Modernism, we feel Dr Barnes is like a man going into battle grasping a sword of lead in a wooden hand.
Intellectual Dishonesty.
Mr Alfred Noyes, the poet, who recently apostatised to Popery, has written a letter to the “Times” castigating Dr Barnes for his defence of Modernism while waging war against Anglo-Catholicism. Dr Barnes, writes Mr Noyes, “has suggested, in a sermon at Westminster Abbey, that young men of intelligence (as a consequence of the scientific annihilation of the creeds) may now be ordained in his Church without scruple as to the formulated doctrines which they are solemnly pledged to maintain. The implication is clear. This is the position, then. A man who accepts all the essentials, and believes in the Godhead of the Founder of his religion, may be punished and driven out of his Church for an excess of devotion. On the other hand, a man who disbelieves in those essentials may become a Bishop and punish those who do believe in them. He may wear his lawn-sleeves, and make any mental reservations he likes along the road of negation; and he is still to be credited with a monopoly of the desire for truth.” This, rightly adds Mr Noyes, “is the appallingly illogical position to which intellectual dishonesty has brought England.” So far so good, but Mr Noyes, as the “Christian” points out, does not seem to realise that Dr Barnes has not a monopoly of intellectual dishonesty. The Anglo-Catholics, working from an opposite angle, are as intellectually dishonest as the Modernists. Both are attacking the Protestant faith, while carefully clinging to the emoluments. Both merit the contempt of all honest men.
A Bad Record.
In the January issue of the “Expository Times” Prof. J. M. Powis Smith, of the University of Chicago, has an article entitled “The Contribution of the United States of America to Old Testament Scholarship.” It deals with the contributions of scholars of the Higher Critical School, and ignores the splendid contributions made by such American scholars of the Conservative School as Profs. W. H. Green, Dick Wilson, Allis, and others. This method of meeting foemen worthy of their steel is a recognised rule of their school when they are confronted with the facts of real scholarship. One would have thought that such men also as Prof. Kyle and Prof. Keyser might have received mention in a paper dealing with the contribution of the United States of America to Old Testament Scholarship.
The King’s Message to the Pope.
The list of greetings, says the “Morning Post,” sent by European Sovereigns and Ministers to the Pope on the occasion of his jubilee includes a message from King George, dated from Buckingham Palace. The King’s message, translated from the Italian text of the “Osservatore Romano,” reads: “I learn with great pleasure and interest that the 20th of this month marks the fiftieth anniversary of your ordination, and I feel that I cannot let that happy occasion pass without offering to your Holiness my sincerest congratulations on so happy an event, together with my best wishes for your well-being and happiness. I ask your Holiness to accept these felicitations as a new assurance of my sincerest friendship and of the respect and esteem which I hold for the person and character of your Holiness.” That a professedly Protestant Sovereign should send such a message to the Pope is almost incredible, and the only explanation is that the Scriptures are being fulfilled in this unseemly haste on the part of Protestant sovereigns to send congratulations to the Pope on the slightest pretext.
The Paisley Calamity.
Not since the Tay Bridge Disaster in 1879, which some of our older readers remember, has there fallen on Scotland such a heart-rending calamity as the news of that which was received with stunning effect at the end of the year of the tragedy at Paisley, when seventy children lost their lives. The story of how the disaster happened has been told in the press of the country, and need not be repeated here. The Home Office has with commendable promptitude instituted an inquiry as to how the tragedy occurred. The law authorities have also taken action and placed the manager under arrest. All this is in the right direction, and we must await the decisions of these authorities as to where the culpability lies. We are among those who, on religious grounds, believe that the cinema is not the place for grown-ups, to say nothing of children, yet the heart-rending nature of the tragedy moves the heart to its depths as one thinks of the little company whose lives were so suddenly and tragically cut short. There are mothers in Paisley who will never look on a picture-house without a pang of sorrow.
The Beatification of the Jesuit, John Ogilvie.
Rome long ago learned the fine art of advertising, and of late, with impressive ceremonies, she has been making her appeal to the faithful and to sentimental Protestants in the beatification of Roman Catholic English so-called martyrs. These “martyrs” suffered not for their faith but for their disloyalty to Queen Elizabeth. Much has been made of the execution of the Jesuit, John Ogilvie, who was put to death for treason in the reign of James VI. A gallant effort has been made by his Roman Catholic apologists to make out a case for martyrdom, but in this they were successfully countered by a series of well-informed letters in the “Glasgow Herald.” Notwithstanding the real facts, Ogilvie was beatified, and to the faithful in the Church of Rome he is now the Blessed John Ogilvie. If he went to Heaven it does appear somewhat ridiculous that Rome should be so long in recognising his beatification, but if he did not the ceremony held recently in Rome with magnificent splendour will not help him much.
The Trouble in Palestine.
Dr W. M. Christie, the Scots Kirk, Haifa, has recently contributed to the “Glasgow Herald” a series of well-informed and informative articles on the troubles in Palestine. The real agitators, according to Dr Christie, are those belonging to immigrant communities from Morocco. He says in his early days at Safad (1889-1895) he often heard it stated that “these 10,000 Moghrabiye (Morocco) Arabs in that Moslem quarter, living in a state of barbarism, constitute a real danger to the town.” It was members of this community that attacked the Conder-Kitchener party in 1877, and left Kitchener (afterwards the famous soldier) for dead among brambles with a scalp wound, and it was they who in August massacred the Jews, looted their houses, and burned their quarter. Other forces at work are thus indicated by Dr Christie: “Then there is the ‘effendi’ class, which has not been sufficiently distinguished from the ‘Arabs’ during the recent events. They claim to represent the followers of the Arab invaders who came into Palestine in 636 A.D., and although they have no valid evidences perhaps the claim is on the whole correct. They possess much land themselves, and have an interest in most of that occupied by the Arab peasantry. They reside mainly in the cities, and, having something of education, are able to influence and control the illiterate toilers on the soil for either good or evil. They are all “politicians” of a kind, but their every purpose is associated with personal gain. It is mainly through their making themselves real estate agents that the Jews have been able to acquire so much land.”
Papal Influence at Work in Palestine.
In his third article Dr Christie makes a very significant statement, which we quote at length: “But the movement owes more to outside influence than even to the ‘effendis.’ They themselves are being encouraged and supported from outside. We indicated some months ago the attempt that was made in 1918-19 to get the Jews to throw the mandate for Palestine into the hands of France. We also showed how there was a propaganda in favour of its transfer to Italy. It is more and more becoming an open secret that there is a section of the Papacy behind the whole movement. Palestine is, if possible, to become an appendage of the Papal State. ‘The Pope is a king, he ought to have some place. He has great possessions in Palestine; why should he not have a leading interest there?’ That is the plausible logic. Then it was publicly stated in Jaffa at the beginning of November: ‘In a month there will be peace, for the Pope will be the man in authority.’ In full agreement with this position there has been founded a ‘Moslem Catholic Society,’ which is said to be in opposition to a Jewish-Protestant Association, which latter, however, does not exist. The badge of this society is a Latin Cross inserted in the Moslem crescent. It is made into scarf-pins and other ornaments, which are never used by the peasantry, but form part of the equipment of the city European-clothed Arab.” Dr Christie is not the first to attribute to the Vatican such a policy, but coming from one so thoroughly conversant with the condition of things in Palestine his statement is of the greatest importance.