The Lord High Commissioner for the year was Mr. John Buchan, M.P., the first son of the manse to hold this high office. Much was made of Mr. Buchan’s literary achievements in the realm of history and fiction. The latter, one would have thought, was not an achievement that added any lustre to the holder of the high office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The pomp and show at the opening of the latter Assembly, though shorn of much of its military trappings, is still very much out of keeping with what ought to characterise functions in connection with the meeting of a court of the professing Church of Christ. On Wednesday it was reported that the Maintenance of Ministry Fund showed a reduction of £9,480 as compared with last year. In 1931 the reduction was £3,300 as compared with 1930. It was pointed out that unless a special effort was made the £300 minimum salary would be jeopardised.
On the same day the strong anti-Semitic feeling in Germany was referred to, and on the motion of Lord Sands, who advised
caution in dealing with the situation, it was decided that an appeal be made to the German Protestant churches to secure their assistance that the suffering of the innocent should cease.
On Thursday the subject of Foreign Missions was discussed in the Assembly. The Convener, Rev. C. W. G. Taylor, in submitting his report, pointed out that the income over a period of years had fallen short of the expenditure by £20,000 each year. In 1930 the Assembly had authorised the Committee to wipe off accumulated deficits amounting to £53,000 from its available capital, and a new start was made. In 1931 the same story of deficit was repeated. It was this that influenced the Committee to bring forward certain proposals for reduction. The Assembly had, however, decided that these proposals in the meantime should not be carried out. The response of the Church for 1932 had been such that it had not been deemed necessary to put into operation the proposed measures of curtailment. In 1932 the income rose to £169,641 as compared with £151,491 in 1931. The deficit in 1931 was £24,776, whereas in 1932 it was only £3,514. Mr. Taylor went on then to say that he would fail signally in his duty as Convener of the Committee if he did not make it clear that the crisis which threatened at last Assembly was not over. There yet remained a heavy deficit of over £22,000 from the previous year. Until that was paid off they had to add £5000 annually to their ordinary budget, and that was a very heavy burden. But that was not the only or the greatest cause of anxiety. Their real anxiety was to know whether the great advance of 1932 was to be maintained. The increase last year was due almost entirely to legacies and individual donations. While they were deeply grateful for these legacies, it was not wise, in planning out work of this magnitude, to count on more than an average amount from this source, and last year the amount received was far above the average. Again, they knew that several large donations were given last year in response to the appeal specially made. He had no doubt at all that there would always be a considerable income from individual donations, but they knew that it might be impossible for many
who had freely given large sums in the past to continue to do so with the heavy financial burdens resting on them. Moreover, again and again he had tried to insist that the Committee should not be expected to carry on its work under the necessity of making special appeals to wipe off deficits.
On Friday an important debate took place when the report of the Committee appointed to confer with representatives of the Anglican communion was presented by Principal Martin. He made reference to the discussions which took place at the joint conferences. He spoke of the points on which the two communions differed and the points on which they were in agreement. He moved that the General Assembly learn with much interest of the harmonious spirit characterising the conferences held and of the steps taken towards reaching a better understanding between the conferring Churches; and reappoint the Committee, with instructions to continue conference and to report to next General Assembly. Lord Polwarth, in seconding the motion, said he hoped that the motion to be brought forward by Dr. Fleming would not be pressed, because it would seem to imply that they did not trust their representatives to make their position quite clear. To stop the work of the Committee now would be disastrous.
The Rev. Dr. Archibald Fleming, London, moved an addendum that, to prevent any possible misunderstanding, the Committee should respectfully inform the representatives of the Church with which it conferred that any agreement with regard to the Orders and Sacraments of the conferring Churches could only be based on the recognition of the equal validity of the Orders and Sacraments of both Churches, and of the equal standing of the accepted communicants and ordained ministers in each. He* was sorry, he said, that the occasion for moving the addendum had ever arisen. He had urged from the first, but without avail, that to initiate the conference at the present time was a great mistake. When so many matters of serious import confronted
*We are indebted to the “Glasgow Herald” for the report of these speeches.—Editor.
their recently united Churches, matters with regard to some of which there existed deep cleavages of opinion, it seemed rashly gratuitous to throw the apple of discord into the arena of their newly constituted union. He was not a member of last General Assembly, but he was present at the debate, and he was sure the prevalent opinion was such as he had described. That was his impression, and it was also his impression that the vote was turned at the last moment by the speech of Principal Martin, when he pressed upon the General Assembly that it would be an act of discourtesy to the Archbishop of Canterbury if they refused His Grace the conference for which he had pleaded.
But who brought the Archbishop of Canterbury there. He had tried in vain to get an answer to that question. He should have thought that before such a momentous step was taken the General Assembly would have been asked to say whether the time was ripe for taking it. He would go further, and say that although he had been present at the meetings of the General Assembly almost without break for well over 40 years, he had never known a dignitary—and still less the highest dignitary—of another Church being brought to speak in support of a motion, and that a highly controversial motion—that was before the Assembly.
The Archbishop discoursed with his usual ability, and it was inevitable that they should be told that it would be churlish on their part to refuse His Grace’s petition. It was true that the Archbishop had offered to come years ago, when he left it to the General Assembly to say when they thought the right moment had arrived; and Dr. Fleming submitted that it was for the General Assembly, and not for any individual member or members, to say whether the time had come for His Grace to be invited to come among them with his proposal.
The conference had met in the most absurd secrecy. Having read the Joint Committee’s report, he could understand the secrecy. They told them nothing because they had nothing to tell, but one consequence had been that all sorts of ridiculous rumours had got abroad, and he had read more than once in the English press that the basis of incorporating union between
the Church of England and the Church of Scotland had already practically been reached.
They had the joint report before them, signed by the Archbishop of York and their own representatives. Some of his friends had said to him within the last day or two—”You should just leave it alone; there is nothing in it, and the conferences are doomed to die a natural death, as those with the English Nonconformists are doing.” Personally he was against that policy of inaction for two reasons. First, he did not think it fair to the Church of England to leave the report alone. It was not fair that the Anglican Church should be left bemused by that ridiculous word “unrestricted,” and allowed to think there was nothing out of which the Church of Scotland—to whose Presbyterian constitution His Majesty the King had again sent an assurance of his homage and loyalty—was not prepared to be persuaded or cajoled.
It was said there was nothing in the report. That was nearly but not quite true. There was one thing in it, and that was to his mind a most offensive and insulting phrase. The Committee asked to be continued for another year for one purpose in particular—to consider further the question of admission of members of their Church to communion in the Church of England in “exceptional circumstances.” And their representatives had set their signature to that phrase! Since when had the old Church of Scotland, or the old United Free Church, or the old Free Church, or the old United Presbyterian Church developed that new and wholly uncharacteristic inferiority complex?
They could not leave out of sight the Archbishop of Canterbury’s cryptic but significant reference in the House last year to mediation between themselves and the Churches of Rome and the East. That reference, he thought, faithfully indicated the growing orientation of the Archbishop’s own Church towards the attitude which ignored and discounted the upturn of the Reformation. If it was in that direction they should have to choose, sooner or later, between the drift Romeward and the drift to the great Protestant Churches of the world.
They heard about the great world-wide Anglican Communion. Were they to forget there was a world-wide Presbyterian Communion, more numerous than the Anglican Communion, which looked to the Church of Scotland as its Meecca, and for leadership and every encouragement? Was it not time that they should consolidate their friendship with the great Churches in which Protestant and Reformation were not yet anathema?
They did not wish to be discourteous to the Church of England, but the highest courtesy and compliment they could pay a friend was to tell him frankly where they stood. He had innumerable friends in the Church of England, and he was not afraid of being misunderstood by them.
South of the Border they were getting on wonderfully well in Christian friendliness before those ill-starred conferences began. He trusted they might be left alone to the development of wholesome, unofficial fellowship. Let their friends renew their conferences so far as they saw fit on such subjects as those to which Principal Martin referred—wiping out the slums and creation of work centres for the unemployed, but let it be understood that the Church of Scotland held firmly to the position which the addendum indicated, that she abated not a whit her historic testimony of the Protestant position and the Presbyterian polity.
Dr. Fleming’s addendum was carried by 382 votes to 369.
Principal MacGregor then moved as an amendment that the General Assembly, conscious of the urgency of many questions in Scotland, could not approve of the maintenance of a Committee for the indefinite consideration of matters the solution of which was not even distantly in sight; accordingly that the Assembly do not reappoint the Special Committee, at the same time declaring their hearty desire for the prosperity and extension of their sister Church.
Principal Macgregor said he was not insensible to the claims and catholicity, of Christian unity in their land, but his contention was that the wrong road had been taken by the Committee. What had impressed him after last Assembly was the number
of men who had voted with the majority who said to him that the Church had been brought into a position in which it never should have been, but it had been brought into that position, and in courtesy they must continue.
There had been an extremely bad bit of Church leadership. Incontestably, a blunder had been made last year, and because they made that blunder the Church was to continue bound and hampered. What he pleaded for was that the Assembly, in all courtesy and with all reasonable Christian consideration, should do everything possible to recover its freedom. They had been entangled by an unfortunate decision and the Committee certainly during the year had done nothing to justify the decision.
Referring to the history of events which had led up to the visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the General Assembly, the Principal expressed the hope that the Assembly would ever jealously watch against encroachment by a Committee upon the administration of its policy.
The Committee’s report was worded so as not to alarm them. It was just another kind of soothing syrup to persuade some of them, if they were infantile enough to imagine it, that nothing of gravity was going to happen. The Committee, the Principal protested, did not look like work. Conferences had been going on in England for many years, and what had really been done by those conferences? They were furnishing excuses to the Church of England for delaying to face the fundamental questions. In the background there might be other prospects, but the immediate situation was that the Church of England had now drawn the Church of Scotland into those leisurely negotiations that were to go on and on through the years.
In conclusion, he said that they ought to have co-operation in public matters. They had already done something, but it would be well that the attention of the Church should be definitely drawn to the question so that there should be more constant co-operation in the public interest.
When put to the Assembly Dr. Macgregor’s amendment was rejected. It is evident from the foregoing discussion and the
votes that the Church of Scotland is much divided. There has evidently been bad leadership and the Church has been dragged into troubled waters. While Dr. Macgregor’s amendment was stronger than Dr. Fleming’s, yet the addendum should do something to bring the matter to an issue between the two Churches. At present these seem to be playing with important issues.
On Tuesday, 30th May, important matters came before the Assembly. Agreements with the Scottish Universities were submitted by the Committee on the Training of the Ministry, and approved by a large majority. In the afternoon Professor Main submitted the report of the Committee on the Place of Women in the Church. The deliverance was as follows:—
(1) The General Assembly receive the report, and thank the Committee for its work, especially the convener, the vice-convener, and the Clerk. (2) The General Assembly resolve to transmit the report to Presbyteries, instructing them meanwhile to send to the Committee not later than 15th December next their opinions with regard to (a) the renewed recommendation of the Committee that there is no barrier to the appointment of women to the Deacons’ Court on the same terms as men, (b) the recommendation of the Committee that the barrier of sex ineligibility to the eldership be removed, and (c) the view of the Committee that the request contained in the Petition of the Woman’s Guild—namely, that a number of women representatives of the Woman’s Guild and the various women’s associations and interests of the Church be permitted to sit in the General Assembly and its Commission with the status of corresponding members—i.e., with the right to take part in any debate, but without the privilege of a vote—is reasonable in the circumstances, and its recommendation that it be granted as a temporary measure. (3) The General Assembly note, with regard to the crave that the barriers to the ordination of women to the ministry be removed, and the Committee was unable to reach a clear decision, and was not prepared to recommend that women should become eligible for ordination to the ministry of the Word
and Sacraments; and resolve that farther discussion of this crave be reserved until further progress is made with regard to the question of admission to the Deacons’ Court and the eldership.
Professor Main said the report had been already severely criticised by the great newspapers. He held that it was a straightforward document. The original petitioners had mentioned three craves. The first was the diaconate. The Committee said, Yes, you are right. Women should be made members of the Deacons’ Court on the same terms as men. The second was the eldership. The Committee, said, Yes, by a majority we see no reason why women should not become eligible for the kirk session, and they said that after considering the practical matters at which they had hinted last year.
The third crave was the holy ministry. There their answer was straightforward once more. They said “No” by a majority of the Committee. They felt, however, that certain progress should be made in enlarging the position of women in the Church. The report mentioned two lines—(1) the line of the Order of Deaconess, and (2) women preachers, the training of women to be evangelists as they were being trained for the foreign field. That was their opinion. The Assembly had asked for it, and they had got it. Here was a matter on which the mind of the Church should be elicited, and after that the General Assembly could declare its mind, and if that were favourable to the petitioners, then constitutional means should be taken to make its approval practical. Let it be done in an orderly fashion.
It was the decision of the Committee that it would not be wise to send the three matters down to the Presbyteries. They wished first things first. Time and reflection were needed. Two years ago he had not believed in women being made eligible for the eldership, and to-day he did believe in it. He had been impressed by the arguments from the foreign field and by those from the home field.
The Committee had stated that they had not been able to come to a “clear decision” on the eligibility of women to the ministry. There were, roughly, three views:—(a) That it would not be
proper to make women eligible for the holy ministry because it would be a breach in ecclesiastical tradition; (b) that in principle women should be made eligible, but that there were practical considerations which made them feel that they could not vote for it; (c) that there was no difficulty whatsoever, and that women should be immediately welcomed into the ministry of the Church. Here was what happened—(a) and (b) were more than (c). Valuable information, he said, had been given in the appendices, and if it were the will of the Assembly that this matter go to the Presbyteries, he trusted that it would be of considerable use. They had mentioned the Deaconesses and the women preachers; these might be regarded by some as stepping stones to higher things, or they might themselves be the higher things, but the matter was for the future. With regard to the Woman’s Guild petition, they believed that it was reasonable and consistent with the best policy of the Church, and they sent it to the Presbyteries hoping that they would give it their most favourable consideration.
The Rev. Dr. J. B. Burnett, Fetteresso, moved that the whole question be remitted to the Presbyteries for consideration and remit to next Assembly. This amendment was defeated. The Rev. E. S. Gunson, New Monkland, moved that the Assembly take no further action in the matter. He pled with the Assembly to pause and go no farther. This amendment was also lost when put to the vote. The Rev. James Francis, Greenock, moved that “the General Assembly resolve to grant simpliciter to women complete equality with men in the Church.” He argued that the Committee had bungled—they had given neither help nor guidance. The amendment received very little support in the Assembly. Another amendment by the Rev. Dr. M. S. Dickson, Old Monkland, refusing the request that women should become eligible for ordination to the ministry of the Word and Sacraments was defeated.
The whole discussion of the subject in the General Assembly revealed an attitude of uncertainty. It is quite evident there is strong sympathy with the movement in the Church of Scotland, and that the Committee’s deliverance accepted by the Assembly
is only a half-way resting-place for a further move forward to give women ultimately the right of ordination to the ministry. This seems to be definitely the goal. As it is the Church of Scotland has taken a big step forward from the position occupied by the historic Church of Scotland, and if her Presbyteries approve and the Assembly accept the finding of the Committee as to ordination to the diaconate and eldership, a question as to her right to Church funds might justly be raised in the Civil Courts.
On Wednesday, 31st May, an addendum brought forward by the Rev. J. W. Stevenson, Coulter, on the Church’s attitude to war caused considerable discussion. The addendum was as follows:—’The General Assembly believing that the Church is committed to the divine method of combating evil, explicitly revealed in the life and death of Christ, affirm their conviction that modern warfare cannot be sanctified in the name of Christ nor used for His purposes, and, while recognising the sincerity of those who took a different view, urge the members of the Church to renounce all active and willing participation therein.’ In view of the fear and suspicion which still ruled the policies of the nations, and in absence of any substantial reduction in armaments, they must recognise as a Church their duty to give a moral lead in advance of secular opinion. They had been inclined to shelter behind a defence which might be relevant to Government and State, but which was quite irrelevant to a fellowship of those pledged to the standards of Christ. Their standards were not the standards of the world. This was the most fundamental issue of our time. In this issue of war the Church was being challenged. If they failed her, they would fail all along the line. For the Church negative pacifism was not enough.
The Rev. Professor W. P. Paterson asked the Assembly to think very seriously and to think twice before they admitted a motion which, although it excited the sympathy of many of them, would be tantamount to an abandonment by the Church of Scotland of its traditional attitude on this subject. It was highly
inexpedient that the Assembly should in a vote, perhaps to some extent dictated by sentiment, take up a position of flat contradiction to that which was embodied in the authoritative documents of the Church, and which would mean the abandonment of their traditional position, and deliberately bring about their identification as a national Church with the Quaker position. It was finally decided to remit the addendum to the Church and Nation Committee.
The Rev. Dr. Millar Patrick, Edinburgh, in submitting the report of the Committee on Public Worship and Aids to Devotion, mentioned that gramophone records were being prepared for circulation illustrating the types of church music and showing the way they should be sung. Dr. W. P. Paterson, in seconding the deliverance, suggested that they might have a day in their churches on which their chief business was to remember those who had passed into the unseen. Dr. Whitelaw expressed a warning against the Committee going too far in the publication of printed prayers. If this went on unchecked they might not be very far away from the day when their young ministers would simply cease to take trouble to fit themselves for extempore prayer altogether. He was told there was even now among some students a certain laziness on the subject of extempore prayer; that they were hoping that printed prayers would provide them with what they required during their ministry.
The report of the Committee on the restatement of the Church’s faith was submitted on the same day by the Rev. Professor H. R. Mackintosh. They were making real headway, he said, but they were still some distance from the point of presenting the Assembly with a document. He would not even hold out a promise that a document would be ready for next Assembly. The work was being done by a Sub-Committee, which had still to report to the Committee itself, and at that stage there might be long and searching debate. They were doing everything they could to expedite procedure. Professor Mackintosh moved the deliverance, which was seconded by the Rev. Neville Davidson, Dundee, and accepted by the Assembly.
The Assembly concluded its sittings on Thursday, 1st June, by the usual moderatorial address.
FREE CHURCH.
On Wednesday forenoon, 24th May, the Report of the Sustentation Fund was submitted. It was moved and seconded that all ministers upon the Platform of the Equal Dividend receive £250. The General Treasurer (Mr. Rounsfell Brown) moved an amendment that the Equal Dividend be £247, but with the proviso that £3 additional be given to those ministers whose whole income fell short of £260. This change was advocated because last year the Committee had not made ends meet. They had finished the year with a debt of over £600. Even if that be ignored the Fund through reduction of interest would be down by over £400. The ministers had already received £200 each for 1932. There was no money out of which to pay the remaining £50 or £47 except the income of this year, but that would not be sufficient. True the Committee might again draw upon the Reserve Fund, out of which they had taken £600 last year. To do that would mean that the people of the Church were to be urged to give more and more, while the ministers were to decline to suffer any reduction. The Depute Treasurer (Mr. J. W. Baxter) seconded, explaining as he did so that the amendment was distasteful and painful to the mover and seconder, but that they had felt shut up to this act of prudence. After some discussion the amendment was defeated.
On Thursday Mr. Roderick Cameron, Vice-Convener of the Committee on Public Questions, apologised for the brevity of the Report, but explained that the Convener (Rev. A. M. Ross, Moderator) had compensated for this in his moderatorial address. Mr. Cameron referred to the disregard which is increasingly being shown in the North of Scotland for the divine gift of the Sabbath. Government responsibility for this is heavy, beginning with the Prime Minister, from whom, as a north-country Scot, better things had been expected. The Government attitude is reflected in the attitude of Road Transport Boards, who have
licensed most objectionable motor excursions, totally regardless of pleas to the contrary. The Rev. P. Chisholm submitted an addition to the Deliverance for making more express its call for defence of the Sabbath. Reference was made to the Bill for closing shops on Sabbath promoted by the Lord’s Day Observance Association and the Shop Assistants’ Union, and certain of its defects were pointed out. One of the speakers said he would like to see an Act passed to prevent any person being compelled, under pain of dismissal, to work on the Sabbath. The General Treasurer pointed out that no man could be lawfully dismissed for refusing to work on the Sabbath, but it was wondrous easy to find other reasons for dismissal.
On Thursday evening the Foreign Mission Report was submitted. Dr. Stewart referred to the difficulty experienced by the Committee in getting men teachers, and he felt this was a standing reproach to the Free Church. The finance question also troubled them, but he was not going to be pessimistic as the debt on the Foreign Missions Committee was less to-day than it was this time last year. The Vice-Convener (Mr. D. M. Smith) made reference to the difficulty of getting ministers to visit Canada.
The Report on the Training of the Ministry Committee was submitted by the Rev. Norman Campbell. They had five students (one of these had offered himself to go to India) ready for licence. Seven students were in their second year of divinity, and eight in their first year (two of whom are from the Evangelical Church in Ireland and two from the Free Presbyterian Church of Australia).
The Lord High Commissioner, Mr. John Buchan, M.P., visited the Assembly and gave a short address. He made reference to a saying of the Marquis of Montrose. We cannot say that the Assembly of the Free Church was the most suitable place to quote the Marquis in a commendatory way. His idea of going back to the things of the Reformers took a somewhat circuitous route and plunged Scotland in bloodshed. Though the Lord High Commissioner has in his life of Montrose published to
the world his admiration for his hero, others equally competent have passed another and juster verdict, we believe, on his meteoric career. When the Commissioner and his party had left the hall the Rev. Professor Maclean gave in the Report on Union. It was rather a melancholy utterance, in which the Convener bemoaned the failure of the Committee’s efforts to bring about a union with the Original Secession Church. This Committee has had a somewhat inglorious career. Last year the Convener intimated to the General Assembly that the Free Presbyterians refused to have anything to do with these union negotiations, and they were smitten hip and thigh by Dr. Maclean for standing aloof. “The shame of the refusal was theirs,” he said, “and the serious responsibility for a continued separation must be borne by them also.” While these words were being uttered strange things were being said in the O.S. Synod, and later on the Reformed Presbyterians emphatically said, “No union.” This year the O.S. Synod followed suit, but both these Churches escaped the castigation the Free Presbyterians received. Dr. Maclean, of course, makes no hiding of the keenness of his disappointment at the complete failure of the negotiations. All has ended, to use his words, in a “real tragedy without parallel, in his judgment, in the sad but heroic pages of Scottish Church history.” The rock on which the union vessel (the Original Seceders and Free Church) was wrecked is said to have been the name “Free Church.” Surely there must have been more than this, and, if we understand the report of the O.S. Committee to their Synod aright, it indicates there was; but, if it was only the name, it seems surpassing strange that the Free Church which made such professions of friendship and desire for union would allow this to stand in the way, though there might be some legal difficulties to face. The deliverance of the Committee with an addition by Mr. D. M. Smith to the effect that the remit be continued, but so far only as concerns the question of co-operation with the other Churches referred to in the remit, was carried. An amendment brought forward by the Rev. Murdo Macrae, Kinloch, and seconded by the Rev. Andrew Sutherland,
to the effect that negotiations take end was lost. For the benefit of our readers we give the report of the O.S. Negotiating Committee:—
“Your Committee,” the report stated, “naturally expected that a neutral name would be aimed at, as showing to the world that such a union had taken place, and suggested the title the Associate Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The brethren of the other Committee, having no suggestion of their own along this line, put forward their own title, ‘The Free Church of Scotland,’ which they ultimately extended to the rather cumbrous designation, ‘The Free Church of Scotland (with which is incorporated the Original Secession Synod).’
“Your Committee expressed two objections to its adoption. First, such a title, they maintained, at once raised the question not of union as at the outset had been contemplated, but of absorption, and with that matter they had no power to deal under the terms of the original remit from the Synod. The word ‘incorporated’ in the proposed name lay outside the scope of negotiation for union.
“Second, your Committee pointed out that the adoption of the title would either alter or weaken the attitude of the Secession towards the Church of Scotland, as set forth in the historic appeal now 200 years old—‘We hereby appeal to the first free, faithful, and reforming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.’ To drop that appeal, with which the whole story of the Secession Church has been associated, was an issue which your Committee could not contemplate without the knowledge and sanction of the Synod.
“On these matters the two Committees could find no way of reaching closer approximation, and it was resolved to bring the whole case before the supreme courts of the respective Churches.”
The resolution adopted stated that since the Free Church Committee had, in the course of the conference, changed the issue from that of open and honourable union between the two Churches to that of incorporation of the Secession in the Free Church, and taking into account that the Free Church Committee insisted on imposing
their own Church title on the united body, or such a title as left the fact of union inadequately expressed, the Synod felt that it had no other course than to instruct its Committee to withdraw from the conference, and decided accordingly. It was further resolved that the Committee on General Union be continued, and that in the case of the Free Church it fulfil its remit to consider, if necessary, co-operation with that Church.
It seems strange to us that the O.S. Committee took so long to see that absorption was one of the planks of the Free Church in these union negotiations.
The Report of the Highland Committee was given in by Dr. Maclean. He made reference to the Highlander’s readiness to imitate not only the speech and dress but the conduct of his Southron neighbours. He uttered a note of warning to young ministers and old to deal carefully with the question of amusement, lest the young be turned away from the Church. We do not know what Dr. Maclean had particularly in view when he gave this warning, but from the place given to amusement in the social life of to-day, and unfortunately in so many of the Churches in Scotland, we think it would have been more in keeping with apostolic teaching for Dr. Maclean to admonish ministers, both young and old, to give heed to the Pauline admonition:—”Speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: that the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the Word of God be not blasphemed. Young men likewise exhort to be sober-minded. In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you” (Tit. ii.).
The Assembly closed its sittings on Tuesday, 30th May.
UNITED FREE CHURCH (CONTINUING).
The General Assembly of this Church met in Glasgow on 6th June, under the moderatorship of the Rev. A. Johnston Millar, Edinburgh.
On Wednesday, 7th June, the Report of the Law and Advisory Committee was presented in the afternoon. Mr. Peter Chalmers said they had come to an end of the long drawn out negotiations with the Church of Scotland regarding the property belonging to congregations that voted against the Union in 1929. These delays had been contributed to very largely by the policy adopted by the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland left its Committee in a hopeless position to effect speedy and satisfactory settlements. The settlement of property questions on purely equitable ground seemed to be regarded by the Church of Scotland as an act of condescension. That attitude of legality killed the spirit of generosity. Generous treatment had been promised to their Church, but that promise proved to be a hollow mockery. £12,894 had been raised for Church buildings during 1932. In the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Dr. Hall had spoken as if his Church had overflowed with a spirit of generosity to the United Free Church, but it was pointed out in the Assembly of the latter that Dr. Hall’s statement that 33 congregations, which by a majority had voted against the union, 30 had received their property, was not a correct statement of the situation. Dr. Hall, it was said, was playing on the credulity and ignorance of his Assembly when he quoted these figures.
The Report of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting came in for severe criticism. It was pointed out that while it was satisfactory that lotteries on a large scale were condemned, that it was most regrettable that raffling at bazaars should be recommended as lawful.
In a Report of the Committee on the Tenure of the Pastorate submitted on Friday, 9th June, the question of the length of pastorates was raised. One half of the Committee was for
abiding by the present order of things—the others were for a change. It was finally decided that the matter be sent back to the Committee for further consideration and report.
Mr. James Morton moved a resolution renewing the testimony of the Assembly regarding the sanctity of the Lord’s Day and deprecating among other things the institution of flying carnivals on the Sabbath. So far as he could see, he said, the Church of Scotland had shown a united front in connection with the recent air pageant at Renfrew, but it was a united front of silence. He failed to find that any deliverance had been made by the Church of Scotland against the desecration of the Lord’s Day that occurred on what was called Assembly Sabbath. He thought the time had come when the Church should protest as loudly as possible against that desecration of the Sabbath Day and against the action of the Corporation of Glasgow in utilizing the windows of its tramcars to advertise the attractions of the air pageant. The Assembly closed on Friday, 9th June.