Is He a False Prophet?—The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago, according to the “Crusader” (San Francisco), has delivered himself of the following prophecy:—”In fifty years Chicago will be exclusively Catholic. The same may be said of Greater New York and the chain of big cities from New York to San Francisco. Nothing can stand against the church. I would like to see the politician who would try to rule against the church in Chicago! His reign would be short!” We trust Archbishop G. Quigley is wrong, but unfortunately there are too many evidences of the rapid progress of the Church of Rome in political influence both here and in America to bring his prophecy well within the range of possibility.
A Note of Warning.—It would appear the Seventh Day Adventists, to whose views on the Sabbath attention was recently called in the Magazine, have been busily disseminating their books in some parts of the Highlands. Some years ago we called attention to this means of subtle propaganda when an agent canvassed for the sale of “The Great Controversy.” This time it was “Daniel and Revelation,” by Uriah Smith, that was made the vehicle of getting their erroneous doctrine into the homes of unsuspecting persons. These canvassers have always a plausible story to tell about the merits of the book they are selling, and quote the names of noted Reformers as a passport to the favour of the probable purchasers. The price of the books are somewhat stiff, even in these days of high prices, ranging from a pound upwards. We would respectfully warn our people to be on their guard against canvassers of this kind, and would counsel them to make a bonfire of the book or books they may have so unsuspectingly purchased. We hope in next issue of the Magazine to have an article dealing with the views of the Seventh Day Adventists.
Church Union Legislation.—The Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill, which amends the law relating to teinds and to the stipends of ministers of the Church of Scotland, and to the tenure of property and endowments of the Church, passed the second reading in the House of Lords on 1st April. The Lord Chancellor (Lord Haldane) has issued a memorandum showing amendments, the propriety of which should be considered before the Bill proceeds further. The Bill will, therefore, not be passed into law before the General Assemblies. It deals with very intricate financial arrangements, and is a further step in the legislation initiated by the Church of Scotland Act of 1921 towards the Union of the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church. Legislative action has also been initiated in Canada for the Union of the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregational Churches. There is strong anti-Union opposition in the Eastern Provinces by the Presbyterians. The legislature of the Prairie Provinces—Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta—has passed the Union Bills. At the time of writing, the anti-Unionists in the Nova Scotia legislature are offering strong opposition. In Ontario the Private Bills Committee, after a long debate, decided to have the Bill redrafted, so as to give the right to congregations to vote in favour of the Union before it becomes effective. In the event of a congregation voting for Union, the property goes with it, but if it refuses to enter the Union, then its property remains with it. The Bill has yet to come before the Federal Parliament at Ottawa, and before these notes appear it will have been discussed and passed into law or rejected. The Canadian Union is one of the strangest mixtures that has yet been devised by the wit of ecclesiastics.
Religious Instruction in the Ulster Schools. — The problem of religious instruction in the public schools of Ireland was rather a difficult problem, but the system adopted in the National Schools was carried on successfully until the setting up of the Irish Free State. In 1923 Ulster passed an Education Act, in which were embodied religious instruction regulations. Recently these regulations were objected to by a few in the Northern Parliament, who contended that the regulations did not make provision for religious education by the teachers. Mr Pollock, the Minister of Finance, in his reply, said that within the limits of the regulations now lying on the table it would be quite possible to ensure that the teachers would give religious instruction. He would give the assurance that if they remained within the four corners of the Act the Ministry was willing to enlarge or make more elastic the regulations to ensure that teachers will give religious instruction. He thought the Churches were beginning to be fairly well satisfied that the assurance was almost complete. He could not think that members would now desire to paralyse the whole Act, and he appealed to the mover and seconder not to proceed to a division. The Government motion was carried by 24 votes to 4.
Broadcasting.—The Aberdeen United Free Church Presbytery had a motion before it to appoint two members to the Committee in connection with broadcasting on the Sabbath. The motion was carried by a large majority. The Rev. Dr R. S. Sleigh, Gallowgate, Aberdeen, moved a direct amendment, but in doing so one could have wished that there was a little more plain speaking on this new menace to the observance of the Lord’s Day. It is quite right to object to it as a purely commercial move on the part of the Broadcasting Company, but the evils connected with it should have been unsparingly condemned. What with dance music on the Lord’s Day, and other music which even the most latitudinarian cannot describe as sacred (at times broadcasted), and sermons of a milk-and-water description (as those who have heard them testify), this new and wonderful invention is being prostituted to a bad purpose, and used by the devil as a new weapon to destroy the sanctity of God’s Day. Those who have any doubt about this have only to read the broadcasting announcements in the Saturday papers to learn what is being done.
A New Plea for Dancing.—Dr Guthrie, rector of St Mark’s Episcopal Church, New York, recently foolishly expressed himself in favour of dancing, and was rebuked by his bishop. The incident was the occasion of comment in a special article in a Chicago paper, sent us by a friend, in which the writer refers to David’s dancing before the Ark, and then adds, seeing people differ in their views as to what pleases God, therefore let those dance who want to and let those pray who want to, and God, who knows all, will accept the good intentions. If those who love dancing as at present practised were actuated by David’s religious joy we could understand the point of the reference to David, but as it is it has no point. Then, again, it is not what we consider pleasing to God that is to be given to Him, but what He considers pleasing. No doubt Cain thought he was giving that which was pleasing to God, but God thought different.