Protestant Meetings in Scotland.
A series of important Protestant meetings were held during last month in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other towns in Scotland. These were addressed by Rev. Dr. Robertson, Venice, a writer who has done so much to enlighten the British public on the evils of Romanism. Dr. Robertson came as far north as Inverness, where he addressed a large and an enthusiastic meeting. Mr. John Kensit also had a large meeting in the Synod Hall, Edinburgh, presided over by Rev. Prof. Kennedy Cameron, when reference was made to the elder Mr. John Kensit’s death. It is to be hoped that these meetings will help to enlighten the people of Scotland on the dangers of Romanism and Ritualism. It is to be observed, however, that the class of people who attend these meetings are, as a rule, already interested in the subject and antagonistic to Rome. The difficulty is to reach the big mass who Gallio-like care for none of these things.
Mr. John Redmond’s Fair Speeches.
One can scarcely recognise in the Irish leader the man who said on Irish and American platforms things that are conveniently kept in the background for the present. Even taking it for granted that Mr. Redmond is sincere in the promises he is making of toleration to the Protestant minority he forgets that he is not the arbiter of his Church’s policy, and the real crux of the question is admirably brought out by Lord Ashtoun when he says:—”It is very well known that the fate of any Home Rule proposals by the government will be mainly affected by the question of civil and religious liberty for Irish Protestants and Loyalists. Personally, I do not believe that any suggested securities will be of any practical value. It cannot be too frequently repeated that religious liberty for Protestants is a religious question, and that, therefore, it will be decided, not by Nationalist Members of an Irish Parliament, but by the Church of Rome, i.e., by her Hierarchy and priesthood. We have, therefore, to deal, not with the laymen, but with a Church which still avows herself to be the bitter and unrelenting foe of religious liberty for Protestants, and has always acted on this theory whenever she has had the chance. Already she has vastly too much political power in Ireland. Is it wise, or common sense, to give her more?”
St. Andrews University
St. Andrews University is the subject, says the Bulwark, of our leading article, or rather the subject is the pretence that for St. Andrews and other such educational blessings we ought to feel an abiding affection for the Papacy. We have tried to state our obligation at its true proportion. But there is an aspect of the Papal claim worthy of note. We are reminded by a highly esteemed correspondent that the Bull, confirmatory of Bishop Wardlaw’s College in St. Andrews, was a Bull from Benedict III., who was an anti-Pope. He and Gregory XII. were, by the Council of Pisa, declared “to be notorious and incorrigible schismatics and heretics, and guilty of plain perjury; which imputations being evidently proved, they deprive them both of their titles and authority, pronounce the Apostolic See vacant, and all the censures and promotions of these pretended Popes void and of none effect.” After deposing the two rivals the Council elected a new Pope, Alexander V., so that for a time there were three Popes each refusing to abate his claims. It was during the time of this triple scandal, after the Council had deposed him, that Benedict XIII. sent the Bull to St. Andrews, for Wardlaw was espousing his side. The subject is dealt with on pp. 18-23 of Dr. Hay Fleming’s “Reformation in Scotland.” It is hard to understand how modern Romanists can attach importance to Benedict’s Bull. Such virtue as it conferred on the University was imaginary; any stability possessed by the new College was because of the inherent good of its purpose and plan. The Pope was a transitory being, denounced as unworthy by his rivals and by the Council of Pisa. The anti-Pope was a nobody on the theory of apostolic succession, and yet St. Andrews prospered without an apostolic blessing. It flourishes now without the countenance of the Pope, whose alleged apostolicity makes him regard St. Andrews as the seat of much evil. A little mild reflection in this vein might have saved the College authorities from cheapening themselves to be anxiously civil to the Vatican.
Is it Reconciliation or Betrayal?
At a recent meeting of the English Congregational Union tremendous enthusiasm was evoked by the statement of Dr. Forsyth that there was now a truce between him and Rev. R. J. Campbell of the City Temple. Mr. Campbell, it is true, made a statement which evidently was accepted by most of those present as a declaration of his belief in the Deity of Jesus of Nazareth, but after his vain excursions into the unsatisfying regions of bold and daring speculation, we cannot though we would fain believe it for his own sake that he has realised that Jesus alone can satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart. The path he mapped out for himself was certainly not a path leading to the Cross, and the daring and blasphemous utterances on matters of vital interest to every Christian cannot be easily forgotten. There were days in the history of English Congregationalism when Mr. Campbell’s magnetic influence would not blind men to higher interests. Congregationalism gave to England a Goodwin and an Owen, and to America a Jonathan Edwards.
Uncalled for Interference.
A circular has been sent to us by the British Women’s Temperance Association affectionately urging on all Ministers and Sessions of the Churches of Scotland the desirability of arranging for the supply of unfermented wine in the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Far be it from us to discourage those who are doing what in them lies to combat the giant evil of drunkenness in this country. While we cannot personally agree with those who advocate total abstinence as a principle binding the consciences of all Christian men and women who may be practising temperance along quite as scriptural lines (though not total abstainers), yet we would not find fault with those who, feeling it as a matter of conscience, have become total abstainers, any more than we would dare to condemn the Nazarites, the Sons of Rechab or John the Baptist whom the Lord so signally blessed. But we must emphatically protest against the uncalled for interference of the above Association in regard to the wine used at the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s table is not the table of devils, and we simply do not believe that any man or woman who had a right to sit at it ever rose from it to pursue a drunkard’s career. The real evil is not in the wine used, but in the careless and loose manner in which almost all classes without grace or the fear of God are allowed to sit at the Table. Let them first purge out the old leaven, and we have absolutely no fear of the consequences.
Harvest Thanksgiving.
During last month the subject of fixing a date for the Harvest Thanksgiving was discussed in the Presbyteries of Caithness (Established, United Free, and Free). A number of the speakers at the Established and United Free Presbyteries coolly suggested that the week-day observance should be done away with as it was observed chiefly as a holiday for pleasure. Surely one day in three hundred and sixty-five is not too much to ask of this pleasure-loving and godless age to give to God as a day in which they may return thanks to Him for crowning the year so liberally with His goodness. We refer to the above Presbyteries and speakers not because of their importance but because the utterances of the latter are symptomatic of the age. We call attention to a note under another heading to a finding of the Northern Presbytery at a recent meeting.