THESE notes only touch upon matters that may have some special interest for our readers, or that call for some critical comment. The general news of the Assemblies must be sought elsewhere.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
On the second morning of this Assembly (22nd May), a Communion service was held in St. Giles’ Cathedral, according to the ritualistic custom of recent years. Pastor Jacob Primmer, as he has done hitherto, rose before the beginning of the service, and in a loud voice, delivered the following protest:—”I, Jacob Primmer, in obedience to my ordination vows, and in loyalty to Christ, protest against the setting up in this church of John Knox of a Popish altar with a top of marble and carvings of Roman Agnus Dei (the Lamb of God) and angels; also against the use of a printed liturgy in this service; because they are illegal, being a violation of the Act of Union, 1707, and contrary to the constitution and usage of the Church of Scotland. So help me God.”
Our readers may understand what is to be expected in the future, when such Popish furniture and ritual are being introduced into the Church of Scotland. May Mr. Primmer be long spared to lift his voice in decided protest!
THE CRATHIE ALTAR.
Rev. Jacob Primmer appeared in support of his appeal against the deliverance of the Synod of Aberdeen in connection with his petition and complaint “against the setting up of an illegal, superstitious, and idolatrous Iona marble altar in Crathie Parish Church.” The Synod’s deliverance was “that the Synod find there is no cause for interference, and dismiss the appeal.” Mr. Primmer, in the course of a racy and pointed speech, said that their forefathers pulled down all the altars and images. They
determined to follow the Word of God and that nothing should be introduced into God’s Church but what was found in the Bible. He said that he had learned from a paper on the “Revival of Church Principles in the Church of Scotland,” by the Rev. James Cooper, D.D., that Crathie Church had been transformed. Here was a gentleman who knew the inner working of the whole thing, and he let the cat out of the bag and told what was meant by this. Professor Cooper further went on to say that “very properly the pulpit, formerly the only prominent thing in the church, is set to one side, and the holy table has the place of honour.” Mr. Primmer declared that the pulpit should be the prominent thing still, but that in Romish churches the altar was in the centre. It was said that the Kirk-Session approved of the shape and position, and were unanimous in the matter. They were unanimous about Aaron’s golden calf. They constructed it and worshipped it, but when Moses came on the scene everything was changed. (Laughter.)
Dr. M’Clymont, Aberdeen, spoke in support of the Synod’s decision, and said that the Assembly would not entertain the idea that because King George V. intended this Communion Table to be a memorial of his father, there was anything in this inconsistent with the proper celebration of the Sacrament. The Procurator (Mr. C. N. Johnston, K.C.) moved that the Assembly dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment of the Synod. Rev. Mr. Mackenzie moved that the Assembly sustain the appeal, forbid the minister of Crathie to use the memorial stone as a Communion Table, and enjoin him to dispense the Lord’s Supper from a table of the same material as that of the communicants. Rev. J. C. M’Gregor, Fordyce, seconded. What he wanted to know was where this stream of tendency was to carry them. The Procurator’s motion was carried by a large majority, only about fifteen supporting the amendment.
UNION WITH THE U.F. CHURCH.
The most outstanding subject before this Assembly was the proposed Union with the United Free Church. Lord Balfour of Burleigh presented the report of the Committee, and moved the following deliverance:—”The General Assembly receive the report and approve of the action of the Committee in transmitting to the representatives of the United Free Church their memorandum showing suggested course of procedure and of possible legislation with a view to Presbyterian re-union in Scotland. The General Assembly, recognising that the issues involved vitally affect the religious future of the country and are of the greatest importance to its well-being, commend the proposals made to the anxious and prayerful consideration of all members of the Church. The General Assembly re-appoint the Committee, with instructions to continue conference with the Committee appointed by the United Free Church, and to report to next General Assembly. The
General Assembly instruct the Nominating Committee to bring up at an early date the names of a small Committee to confer with the Committee as to the appointment of a Joint-Convener.”
Lord Balfour delivered a long and, from his own standpoint, able speech, in support of the deliverance. The motion was seconded by Dr. Wallace Williamson, Edinburgh, in a speech still more eloquent and telling. Rev. Malcolm M’Callum, Muckairn, Professor Cooper, Glasgow, and others, presented qualifying motions, the scope of which was that the Committee were rather hasty in sending such a memorandum to the U.F. Committee, and that they were to avoid action that would commit the Church in details until agreement on the whole question had reached the stage of report to the General Assembly. After some discussion and explanation, the qualifying motions were withdrawn, and Lord Balfour’s deliverance became the practically unanimous finding of the Assembly. Mr. M’Callum still dissented from the memorandum sent the U.F. Church.
FORMS OF WORSHIP.
Dr. Borland, Yarrow, submitted the report of the Committee as to Forms of Worship. Dr. M’Adam Muir, Glasgow, moved approval of the Committee’s deliverance, which sought to appoint a Committee with instructions to prepare forms of service for baptism, communion, marriage, and the burial of the dead, and to report. Sheriff Wallace seconded. He said that the Committee had not the slightest idea of making these forms compulsory upon clergymen. Professor Curtis, Aberdeen, moved that the Assembly discharge the Committee, and resolve that it was inexpedient at the present time to take action. He said that the proposal was an innovation of the first magnitude, that it would increase artificiality and formalism in the conduct of services, that it would not restrain irreverence on the part of ministers, and that it would increase dissent in the land, and estrange the mass of the people. Dr. Mair seconded.
In the course of the discussion, Dr. Wallace Williamson argued strongly against Professor Curtis, and strenuously advocated the adoption of a liturgy. In his ritualistic zeal he allowed himself to cast unfavourable reflections on the method of extempore prayer which has been practised in the Church since the Reformation. Dr. Williamson is considered one of the most eloquent speakers in the Established Church, but if his fervour is to be expended on the advocacy of dead Ritualistic and Romish forms, it will prove a curse and not a blessing. There is too much lifeless formalism and ritualistic observance in the Established Church already without an increase. Never were the Churches better attended than in the days when ministers prayed freely under the guidance and operation of the Holy Spirit, and it is absolute nonsense and bluff to say as Dr. Williamson said, in effect, that free prayer, among other things, has “driven” the masses from the Church.
Men may as well try to draw or bind an elephant with a rope of sand, as to try to draw or bind the people to the worship of the Most High by a string of dead forms of service.
We regret to observe that Dr. Curtis withdrew his motion. The Procurator moved that the Assembly instruct the Nominating Committee to reconstitute the membership of the Committee on Forms of Worship, and to remit the matter again to the new Committee. This motion was carried.
ST. CUTHBERT’S IDOLATROUS FONT.
Last year’s Assembly appointed a Committee to make enquiry as to the nature of this font, which the Rev. Jacob Primmer had appeared against at the various Church courts. The Committee now delivered their report, and Dr. M’Adam Muir moved the adoption of the following deliberance, which was proposed by the Committee:—”The General Assembly receive the report. Find, in terms thereof, that the font in question was presented to St. Cuthbert’s Church, Edinburgh, by a member of the congregation as a pious memorial of his deceased wife, and was accepted by the Kirk-Session and introduced into the church without any idolatrous intent; and that the bronze group by which the font is surmounted is not, and is not likely to become, an object of idolatrous adoration. Find that, in the whole circumstances of the case as disclosed in the report, it is unnecessary for the Assembly to take any action with reference to this particular matter. But, with reference to the general question which has been raised in this inquiry, the General Assembly, whilst cordially approving the reverent and becoming adornment of the House of God, direct and enjoin that caution be exercised in the introduction to churches, even for decorative purposes, of sculptural representations of sacred persons, or other symbols which may be deemed to be specially associated with the creature-worship or other errors of the Church of Rome.”
“With the view of giving effect to this injunction, and of maintaining the due relation of Presbyteries to churches and public worship, the General Assembly further enjoin ministers and kirk-sessions to see that plans and particulars of novel or unusual decorations or extensive alterations are submitted to the Presbytery of the bounds for approval, before the same are carried out, and they recommend this injunction to the consideration of all interested. Subject to these findings, the Assembly dismiss the petition and the appeal, thank the Committee and discharge them, and instruct the General Committee to defray the expenses incurred by the Committee in connection with their inquiry and report.”
Dr. Muir argued that if they were to remove the font with this group, they must remove a lot of other figures of a similar kind on stained glass windows throughout their churches.
May we not say that this is the thing which should be done? It appears to us that there are many ministers in the Established
Church decorating their buildings for the ultimate reception of the “Beast” in all his gaudy trappings and ceremonies.
Dr. Ferguson, Logie, moved the insertion of a clause declaring it advisable that the Kirk-Session should remove the bronze group. Mr. J. H. Stevenson, elder, seconded the amendment.
Professor Curtis, Aberdeen, moved the following motion:—”The General Assembly gratefully appreciate the generous desire of the donor to beautify the church while erecting a domestic memorial; and cordially recognise that the introduction of the bronze statuary was not prompted by any idolatrous motive. But, while completely exonerating the donor and the recipients from all suspicion of idolatrous or Romanist purpose, the Assembly cannot view with complacency the use in the church, in conjunction with the administration of one of the sacraments, of a Roman Catholic symbol so notorious, associated as it has been for centuries with the gravest doctrinal error and devotional abuse; repudiated, as it was, by the fathers of the Church in the Reformation; and avoided till now by the unanimous consent and unvarying policy of the Church of Scotland. The General Assembly, in all the circumstances of the case, in order to protect the Church from serious division and disastrous controversy over the introduction into places of worship of such sculptured emblems as figures of the Madonna and Child, crucifixes, and the like, deem it expedient and necessary to require and instruct the kirk-session of St. Cuthbert’s to have the said sculptured ornament of the font withdrawn from the church, and instruct the Presbytery of Edinburgh to see that this be done without delay. With the view of maintaining the due relation of Presbyteries to churches and public worship, the General Assembly further enjoin ministers and kirk-sessions to see that plans and particulars of novel or unusual decorations or extensive alterations are submitted to the Presbytery of the bounds for approval before the same are carried out, and they recommend this injunction to the consideration of all interested. Subject to these findings, the Assembly dismiss the petition and the appeal, thank the Committee and discharge them, and instruct the General Committee to defray the expenses incurred by the Committee in connection with the inquiry and report.”
Professor Curtis said his feeling was that a grave wrong had been done to the respected donor of this monument in the precipitate acceptance of it, notwithstanding the practical certainty that it would stir deep issues.
What was wrong with this memorial from their Scottish Presbyterian point of view? The manner of its introduction deserved, he thought, some stern characterisation. It was urged in defence that this represented the figure not of the Virgin Mary and the Child Jesus, but that it represented maternity. Even if it did, was maternity, as maternity, the sole symbol for the decoration of a Christian font? (Hear, hear.) If it were pleaded as appropriate, he claimed that fatherhood had the same claim to
be represented at the font that maternity had. He would resent the intrusion of a new symbol in the decoration of their fonts. Dr. M’Adam Muir was anxious to dissociate himself from the æsthetic merits of the figure. They might take it that the one thing about which the Church of Scotland was agreed regarding this figure was that it was ugly. (“Oh, oh.”) It was structurally absurd. Even as one drew near, it was more like a watering trough for horses than a font for baptising children. (Cries of “Oh,” and dissent.) It was disproportionate to its purpose. A few drops of water were to be sprinkled from it on the child’s face; and it was 10½ feet high, and the figure decorating it was life-size; and worst of all, the figure sat there for admiration. To him one of the painful features in this ornament was the fact that in the centre panel in the front of the font there was a personal portrait represented. What would they say if they, who had but two sacraments recognised by them, were confronted with the gift of a communion table in the centre panel of which, facing the whole congregation, there was a portrait of any mortal? This was a thing that touched him exquisitely, touched him to the very roots of his nature.
Commenting on the emphasis placed on the fact that the figures were copies of a group by Michael Angelo, Professor Curtis said it was not a great thing to creep between the knees of a giant, a Colossus, and feel they were safe. He took exception to any such suggestion that because Michael Angelo was the author of the original, it was beyond criticism on religious grounds. Who was Michael Angelo? He was a man whose works were redolent of a conception of God and His Son and His work in providence and the history of the world which none of them could accept. It was his genius that had left the picture of Almighty God as a grey-haired old man; the picture of Jesus Christ as a great Titan-bodied athlete; the picture of Moses as a prophet and transmitter of the law as a horned, brutal monster. (Cries of “Oh.”) He said this to show they were in danger of an entirely indiscriminating adoration of the work of an admittedly great artistic genius. Whether they liked it or not, this was a Madonna and Child. It was recognised as such by the outside world. He chanced to read only the previous day those words—”We rejoice that our Lady has again a footing in St. Cuthbert’s. . . . We have travelled a long way since Knox and the rascally multitude tore down and smashed the images of the saints in the ancient Scottish churches. They are being restored again. . . . Our Lady and St. Cuthbert’s will yet do wonders for poor old Scotland.” He need not explain the source of that quotation. (Cries of “Name.”) Professor Curtis explained that it was from a Catholic journal. The question, he proceeded, was, were they going to license this and similar figures in their churches? By their action they were that day legislating; they were making it impossible for the effective disciplining of any
similar figure. Was it a trifle for which the Reformers laid down their lives?
If a man came to him in the name of fine art, and said it does not matter whether you introduce these things or not in the twentieth century, he answered that history showed them it did matter, and he appealed to the experience even of themselves as Protestants, whether there was not a real and grave danger, by introducing into their churches the individual creations of artists, of stereotyping in the minds of their children and simple folk visions, ideas, conceptions of sacred persons which were unworthy. In the apse of St. Cuthbert’s Church there was over the stained-glass window, with a representation of the crucifixion of the Lord, a florid figure of Christ—a large figure set up in view of the congregation, with a sceptre in one hand and an orb of power in the other, the crown on His head, and the clouds rolling beneath His feet. Were he sitting as a member in that congregation, how could he bring his little son to sit in that congregation, and Sunday after Sunday look up and see before him a representation of the Lord and Saviour as far removed as reality could possibly be from historic truth and from the theory of His sovereignty—His kingship—which He died in order to implant within their hearts? (Hear, hear.) He felt this was no merely antiquarian issue they were dealing with. They were face to face with the whole burden of their responsibility as to how Presbyterians were to handle sacred things; whether they were to open the walls of their churches to the individual presentations of our Lord and, it might be, of God, His Father; whether they were to have representations of His crucifixion; whether they were to have these thrust on their attention Sunday after Sunday whether they would or not, stereotyping these conceptions of sacred scenes—compelling them against their will to remember them. He believed the day had come when the Church must face this question. (Applause.)
Mr. W. Whitelaw (elder), Nairn, seconded the motion.
Rev. A. MacLellan, Glasgow, who made a motion in favour of no action, said that the whole objection had come from one who was going about broad Scotland stirring up strife from Edinburgh to Crathie. They had been too courteous to Mr. Primmer in the past. (Hisses and interruption in the spectators’ gallery.) Rev. J. A. Ireland, Coatbridge, criticised the references to the Roman Catholic Church as misrepresentations, when a member asked him if he was pleading in defence of Roman Catholicism. He maintained that the bulwarks against creature-worship were far more conspicuous in the Roman Catholic Catechism than in the Shorter Catechism. (Cries of “Oh!”) Personally he did not think much of those forefathers who had been referred to, especially of that period which had given them the opinion of Roman Catholics that prevailed in many quarters.
Rev. J. S. Mackenzie, Little Dunkeld, moved a further motion,
deleting the deliverance from the report, and ordering the immediate removal of the figures. This motion was seconded. Dr. Gordon Murray, Aberdeen, proposed that the references to the Roman Catholic Church should be removed from the deliverance, and his proposal was seconded by Professor Cowan, Aberdeen, who said that neither the Pope nor General Councils have definitely asserted that they ought to worship the Virgin. Dr. M’Adam Muir agreed to alter the terms of the deliverance, so that instead of the words beginning with “creature-worship,” etc., they would substitute the words “specially associated with doctrines not accepted in the Church of Scotland.”
When the vote came to be taken, the Committee’s deliverance, as amended, was carried by a majority. A number who voted in the minority recorded their dissent, including Lord Balfour of Burleigh. There was considerable discussion and disorder as to whether this was a judgment on the merits of the case as between Mr. Primmer and the Church Courts. At length, it was ruled that it was such a judgment, and the moderator intimated to Mr. Primmer that the Assembly dismissed his petition and that the matter was at an end.
This Assembly was closed on Friday the 31st May, with an address by the moderator (Dr. Dill), who, we are sorry to say, appears to be a great admirer of short sermons and ritualistic forms of worship.
UNITED FREE CHURCH.
The moderator (Dr. Whitelaw) in his opening address took as his text, “Watchman, what of the night?” (Isaiah xxi. 11.). Some of his remarks were to the point. He made mention of the secularisation of the Sabbath as an ominous feature of the times, and said it was not quite certain that the Church of to-day took sufficient account of the three giant forces which Scripture said were always in the field against her—the world, the flesh, and the devil, and that she had not allowed herself to half believe that these three mighties were either long since dead or had materially changed their character. Dr. Whitelaw has written in defence of the inspiration of the Scriptures, but we would have liked to have seen a much stronger note of witness against the inroads of theological error than he gives in this address. His remarks on “theological unrest” and “no whittling down of the cardinal doctrines of the gospel” are presented in too lame a fashion.
Rev. Charles Robson submitted the report of the Committee on Statistics. He said that he did not wish to strike an alarmist note, but the figures indicated a situation which, if not critical, was alarmingly near being critical. His predecessor last year had reported a decrease of 715 in membership, but he had to report one of 2,021. There was no doubt that emigration to some extent accounted for the decrease, but it did not account for everything. In the list there were down as removed without
certificate as many as 9,036 members. That was not satisfactory reading. There was one cause for gladness—an increase this year of 216 in the number of those joining by profession of faith.
Rev. J. D. Robertson, Leith, moved the deliverance on Romanism and Ritualism. Rev. W. Muir, B.D., Glasgow, seconded. He said that nobody should give the impression that the Church of Rome was making progress. Protestants were not losing and Rome was not conquering. Mere denunciation was not sufficient. The only criticism was to show how the work could be better done. Rev. W. Muir was lecturer last winter for the Scottish Reformation Society, which is too much under United Free influence. Such misleading utterances as above are fitted to do much harm. Rome is making secret, stealthy progress when Presbyterian ministers allow themselves in this fashion to lull the just alarm at its advancement in our country. It may be losing hold in some continental nations, but not in Great Britain. Its advance under the form of Ritualism in professing Protestant Churches is progress of the most subtle and dangerous kind.
UNION WITH ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
Dr. John Young moved the following deliverance on the above subject in this Assembly:—
“The Assembly receive the report, with thanks to the Committee, especially the Conveners. The Assembly learn with satisfaction that interest in the cause of Presbyterian re-union in Scotland has been deepened by the publication of the report on conference with the Committee of the Church of Scotland submitted to last General Assembly. The Assembly receive, with cordial appreciation of its far-reaching importance, the ‘memorandum showing suggested course of procedure and of possible legislation with a view to Presbyterian re-union in Scotland,’ presented at the request of the Committee of the Church of Scotland. The Assembly recognise the obligation to give deliberate and sympathetic consideration to matters which vitally affect the relations of the Churches to one another and to the State, and which so deeply concern the religious interests of the country. The Assembly trust that the members and office-bearers of the Church will continue to take that thoughtful and prayerful concern in the issues involved which their importance demands, and which is indispensable to their settlement. The Assembly resolve to re-appoint the Committee, with instructions to confer with the Committee appointed by the Church of Scotland, and to report to next Assembly.” Sir A. H. L. Fraser seconded the motion.
Professor Orr, Glasgow, Dr. R. A. Watson, Dundee, and others submitted amendments which laid emphasis on State connection as a barrier to union. After discussion, Professor Orr modified his motion, and it was agreed to add it to the deliverance running as follows:—“With instructions in conferring on the memorandum to regard as a primary question how far agreement is possible on
the subject of State relationship in harmony with the principles of the respective Churches, and report to next Assembly.” Dr. Watson refused to withdraw his amendment, which insisted on “absolute disestablishment.” The vote was taken, and Dr. Young’s motion was carried by an overwhelming majority, only thirteen voting for Dr. Watson’s amendment.
This Assembly was closed on Thursday, 30th May, with an address by the moderator on “The Character and Work of the Church.” We give the following quotation on the subject of negotiations for union with the Establishment:—”In both the private and the public discussions it has been made plain that before intelligent and final judgment can be given by this Church, explanations will be needed upon such points as these:—(1) Whether the Memorandum means that the reconstructed Church shall continue to be a State establishment in the ordinary and familiar sense of that expression, or only that before Union is consummated the Enabling Act shall dissolve the present connection between the Church of Scotland and the State, without prejudice to the question whether some special State recognition of a purely declaratory sort might not subsequently be given to the United Church; (2) if the latter idea be correct, whether or not the United Church shall be expected to approach Parliament to solicit this recognition; (3) what is signified by incorporating the new Church’s constitution in an Act of Parliament, whether it means nothing, in which case what use it will serve, or something, in which case again what that something is; (4) whether the Memorandum contemplates that the United Church should possess civil jurisdiction, by which is understood that its courts should be constituted courts of the realm, having certain magisterial authority, or whether its jurisdiction shall be purely spiritual; (5) whether it shall continue to be a State-endowed Church, supported as the present establishment is by the teinds; or whether, after satisfying all life interests by commutation or otherwise, the State is to cease acting as paymaster, and the Church’s funds are to be exclusively in the Church’s control; (6) whether the U.F. Church must commit itself beforehand to the condition that the teinds shall not even in part be secularised, or merely say that she shall acquiesce in whatever determination of the teinds is made by the State; and (7) whether it is proposed that the U.F. Church shall hand over its denominational and congregational property to a Parliamentary Commission to be administered in the same way as it is suggested should be done by the teinds. I am not meanwhile indicating my own judgment as to how these several points should be resolved; I am merely stating that on all of them light will require to be cast to allow this Church’s Committee, and much more, to enable the Church at large to arrive at a calm, deliberate, and intelligent judgment, as to whether a possible basis of Union could be extracted from the Memorandum. That this light will be forthcoming, as a result of
the winter’s conferences, I have no manner of doubt; and my sincere desire and fervent prayer is, that such an amount of agreement may be reached as will warrant both Churches to go forward to complete the reconstruction of the Scottish Protestant and Presbyterian Church.”
FREE CHURCH.
The moderator (Rev. William Fraser, Strathpeffer) delivered a sound and useful opening address on “What is the Church?” and it would be good if the general views of truth expressed in it were heartily endorsed and carried into practice by the whole body which he represents.
There was considerable discussion in this Assembly over financial matters. Exception was first taken to an increase by the Finance Committee of the General Treasurer’s salary from £250 to £400. It was held by some that the increase of this salary and others in the Treasurer’s department was sheer extravagance and disproportionate to the amount paid to other servants of the Church, while special objection was taken to the fact that the increase was made without the sanction of the General Assembly. Ultimately a motion was carried by a majority, approving of the advances, but regretting the liberty that had been taken by the Committee, and forbidding further increases of salaries to officials without the consent of the Assembly. One or two discussions also arose in connection with the Sustentation Fund. Two ministers (former Free Presbyterians) condemned the system of “Special Arrangements,” whereby some ministers are paid at a less rate than others—some as low as £100 per annum. One of them said that there was “unfair discrimination between ministers on special arrangements,” while another declared that the system was a “dishonourable” one and ought to be swept away. The writer of these notes passes no judgment upon the exact merits of these discussions. All that he is disposed to remark is that they suggest a variety of reflections to those who are closely acquainted with the Church history of recent years.
THE PSALMODY REPORT.
Major Greig submitted the report of the Psalmody Committee. He said that it was the Moody and Sankey hymns, namby-pamby productions, that had pulled the Psalmody down from its lofty position. But over Scotland just now there was to a certain extent a reaction. Free Churchmen did not want—and all Presbyterians should not want—high-class anthems and high-class singing. Mr. R. Reid, Killellan (elder), moved as an addition to the report that the Assembly having learned that in one of their congregations the precentor taught his music class anthems and solos, forbids this to be done in the future in any congregation. Mr. J. Buchan, Nairn (elder), complained that some of their congregations had choirs, and was surprised that ministers and
sessions encouraged these things. Mr. Reid’s addition was rejected by 38 votes to 23. At a subsequent diet, Mr. W. R. T. Sinclair, Edinburgh (elder), complained that too much countenance was being given to Episcopalian holy days. He was surprised to find that their offices were shut on Christmas-day and Good Friday.
UNION WITH THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
Rev. Finlay Macrae submitted an overture from the Synod of Glenelg, the scope of which was, that steps should be taken to further the policy of reconstruction and to secure union with the Established Church and the United Free Church on the basis of the Establishment principle, with a view to obtain the temporal benefits necessary to maintain ordinances in the Highlands. It held forth that this reconstruction was “one of the chief grounds of the action of the present Free Church in prosecuting their appeals in the Courts of Law.” Mr. Macrae explained that the overture was not fully discussed in the Synod for lack of time. The F.C. Record reports that “the terms of the overture were emphatically repudiated in every clause and one by one by Professors Bannatyne and Kennedy Cameron and Mr. A. MacNeilage,” while on the motion of the last, it was unanimously passed from. There was also “a petition for a joint theological training of the students of all the Churches,” but no one appeared in support of it, and it was at once passed from.
UNION WITH FREE PRESBYTERIANS.
Rev. D. Macdougall, Ness, spoke in support of an overture from the Presbytery of Lewis, asking the Assembly to appoint a Committee to consider any difficulties which may still be in the way of a union between this Church and the Free Presbyterian Church, and the best means of overcoming such difficulties. Mr. Macdougall admitted that since the overture was sent forward, circumstances had emerged which rather militated against its expediency at the present time. Rev. Ewen Macleod moved that, while fully sympathising with the spirit of the overture, to take more active steps meantime would not be fitted to promote the end in view, and considered it premature to grant the prayer of the overture. Rev. D. Munro, Ferintosh, seconded. Mr. A. MacNeilage moved a deliverance to the effect that the Assembly had, by Acts and Resolutions, removed the obstacles to union, and had recognised that the testimony of the Churches was identical. To these findings the Assembly cordially adhered. As the result of them the Assembly had already received honoured brethren of the Free Presbyterian Church. The door was wide open. They had removed all the obstacles they knew of, and he had no knowledge of anything further that they could do. Mr. C. M’Kessack (elder) seconded, and Mr. MacNeilage’s motion was carried by a considerable majority.
We reserve for another article the full discussion of the subject of union here opened up. Meantime we feel bound to remark that, should such a thing as union ever come within the bounds of desirability or possibility—a very large supposition—Free Presbyterians would repudiate with just indignation the idea of ever joining with the present Free Church through the door of compromise by which some of their brethren have already entered. Such a suggestion is only adding insult to injury. We desire to be as courteous as possible, but we must frankly tell Mr. MacNeillage that if he knows no obstacles it is because he is wilfully ignorant, and that his statement is the reverse of candid and straightforward.
During the discussion of the subject of “Religion and Morals,” Mr. W. Macinnes, Broadford (elder), referred to the need of looking to themselves. He took exception to the many favourable things that were said about the Highlands at a previous meeting. He spoke of sales of work as evidence of decay in spiritual life, and the need of humiliation on account of these and such things as solo singing and anthems. The congregational meeting should be conducted like a prayer meeting. He hoped that by next year a movement would be taken to put a stop to these things. Several members took exception to some of Mr. Macinnes’s remarks, among whom were Revs. S. L. Orr, Glasgow, and Norman Campbell, Dingwall.
On Monday, the 27th, sympathetic reference was made in the Assembly to the death of the Rev. Murdo Mackenzie, Inverness, who was described as “the most outstanding preacher in the ministry of the Free Church.” Mr. Mackenzie, who was seventy-seven years of age, was in failing health for some time back. He was at one time minister of Kilmallie, but about thirty years since succeeded the Rev. George Mackay, D.D., as minister of the Free North Church, Inverness. The Assembly was closed on Tuesday, the 28th, with an address by the moderator.
Doctrines of Grace Encouraging.—How is it possible for any reasonable being to suppose that the doctrines of grace have a tendency to make people melancholy? Is it distressing to be told that God has made provision for the absolute salvation of all who believe in Christ? Is it discouraging to be assured, on infallible authority, that the gate of heaven is thrown wide open for the admission of all comers? ‘Tis true that none come except they are drawn by God’s Spirit, but, ’tis also no less true that those are drawn who come, and that all who come shall be graciously received (John vi. 37-44). It is the doctrine of salvation by works that tends to dishearten such as seek the kingdom of God, the doctrine which says God will not receive you unless you make yourself holy first: when every truly converted man knows that he can no more make himself holy than he can raise the dead.—Toplady.