A Sad Sight.—Dr Harvey, Moderator of the U.F. General Assembly, has been in the Highlands, and in a small village in Ross-shire he saw the saddest sight he had seen in the North. It was four churches—one had not been opened for years, another was only opened the Sabbath he was there, a third had 17 worshippers, and a fourth had only nine members. They wanted Union to blot that kind of thing out of existence he said. Dr Harvey had better take a leaf out of Principal Rainy’s book, in case he may find the empty churches multiplied instead of lessened by a headstrong but blind policy. It is one of the ironies of the ecclesiastical situation in the North that the men belonging to the Church whose leaders caused these divisions should be deploring them without laying the blame at the door of those who were the real transgressors in this matter.
Romanism in a Non-Conformist Pulpit.—One usually associates the Romeward movement with the Ritualists in the Church of England, but there are Ritualists among the Congregationalists of England. Their leader is Dr Orchard, of King’s Weigh House, London, a notorious Romaniser. The other week the “Daily News” had an article with the heading, “Dr Orchard’s Mass.” In a recently published tract he writes:—”We can therefore hold that Rome is the true Church, but that all orthodox believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic faith really belong to her.” In this tract the hope is expressed “that the Mass will one day be discerned by all Christians to be the one thing that matters, and the doctrine of Transubstantiation the basis of a sacramental philosophy which illumines many mysteries.” The moral outlook of these men is a mystery to us. The obtuseness of their conscience with a peculiar kind of religiousness which keeps them clinging to the emoluments of a Church whose very foundations they are seeking to destroy cannot be made to square with any Christian ethical standard. Why have they not the common honesty to clear out, and thus give a demonstration to the world that they consider their beliefs worthy some sacrifice?
Modern Religion.—The London “Daily Express” recently published a series of articles by modern writers of standing in the literary world on the all-important subject of religion. The series was headed “My Religion,” and the newspaper in announcing them said—”In a time of uncertainty to whom should we go for direction? . . . We go to the men whose study is mankind, whose gift is expression, and who themselves learn from the ponderings and experiences of us all.” Having delivered itself thus, the management of the “Daily Express” went to such men as Arnold Bennett, Sir Conan Doyle, Israel Zangwill, men who have won their spurs in the field of fiction, and asked them to guide us in such a momentous concern as religion. There was no calling to mind of that never-to-be-forgotten invitation by One who did not mock the needs of men when He gave it wide as the world and time:—”Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The plan followed by the “Daily Express” no doubt was a clever move on the part of the management as an advertisement of their paper, but for any practical beneficial results, the very names of the writers doomed the result to utter failure
ere the articles were written, and those who wasted time reading them will have the satisfaction of knowing, if they did not know before, what a barren, withered thing the religion of these writers is. It is one of the signs of the times when it is recognised in certain quarters that their opinions on such an important subject is worth putting on paper.
The Right to Think for Oneself.—In a reference to the part he played in the famous Tennessee trial, Mr Scopes said that his willingness was due to the training given by his father, in which he was taught “to think for himself.” This raises an important question — Does the right to think for oneself imply that a man may think whatever he pleases? The “Presbyterian” has well said — “There is some truth and right in this utterance, and when wisely and soberly used, it may be productive of great good, but when carried to a false extreme, it is most vicious and dangerous.” In supernatural matters, for instance, thinking for oneself independent of God is not simply undisguised vanity, but daring presumption. If God has spoken and made known to us the way in which man was created no rights of man permit him to set at naught God’s Word.
Life and Letters of Sir William Robertson Nicoll.—The life of this noted journalist has recently appeared. As the editor of the “British Weekly,” “The Bookman,” and other publications, he attained to a very high place in religious and literary journalism. Son of the Free Church minister of Lumsden, he himself held charges in the Free Church until his health broke down. He then went to London, and began his remarkable journalistic career. In his “Life and Letters,” by T. H. Darlow, there is much light thrown on the career of this remarkable man, possessed with gifts of the most varied kinds. We confess to a kind of feeling of perplexity as to what one is to think of him after reading this biography. A great admirer of the mystics, yet a sworn friend to the Old Testament critics, those dwellers in the sandy wildernesses of theological thought; dreading the dangers of the higher critical views, especially in regard to the New Testament, yet throwing the shield of his influence over the enemy as he entered the gate, an admirer of such men as Father Stanton and yet occasionally frequenting Strict Baptist chapels, very religious in his own way, but seeing no inconsistency in attending the theatre or cinema and hobnobbing with actors and dramatists. Literature had led captive
Nicoll’s mind, and it was all the same to him whether it was sober history or fiction provided it was good literature, and he exercised a very bad influence over thousands of young ministers by encouraging them to make use of fiction in illustration of Bible truths. Literary form was one of the gods he devotedly worshipped, which blinded his own eyes and the eyes of many who were foolish enough to follow him in this idolatry of literature.
Nicoll Witnessing Against Dangerous Views.—When “The Encyclopædia Biblica” was published, Nicoll began to realise the seriousness of opening the gates to the newer learning. Writing to Dr Denney, he warned him of controversies ahead far more grave than those raised over the Old Testament. Of Dr Bruce’s article on Jesus, he says Bruce, to his mind, had abandoned the contention that Jesus was sinless. “Christ he believed,” he writes, with a touch of cynicism, “to have been a very good fellow, almost as good as Alexander Bruce, though less enlightened.” In reference to Moffatt’s “The Historical New Testament,” he says in another letter, Moffatt is “the first among the Presbyterians of our Church [who] calmly yields the crucial points on the New Testament, and makes the admissions as if they were of no consequence. A student like Moffatt goes on quietly yielding this and that, and does not see what his admissions mean for the working Church. But he needs, and others need, to be told it. Men ought to know what is at stake in these controversies.” Yet notwithstanding all this, alike in the “Expositor” and in the “British Weekly,” Nicoll opened the door wide for the very men who were the ring-leaders of the new views, and which to-day have well-nigh sucked the vitality from the Churches which accepted them.
The Menace of Modernism in the China Mission Field.—A missionary writing in the “Sunday School Times” (Philadelphia) makes the following disquieting statement:—”Much has been said and written during the last few years regarding the missionary situation in China. It is well known by the readers of the ‘Sunday School Times’ that liberalism, or more properly speaking, rationalism, was becoming so prevalent among the missionary body that the Bible Union of China was formed five years ago, and missionaries who hold to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity were called to rally around its standard of absolute loyalty to the Word of God, and to the Person and work of the Lord Jesus
Christ. It may not be so well known that up to the present time only about twenty-eight per cent. of the missionaries have joined the Union. This does not by any means signify that the remaining seventy-two per cent are all rationalists. For different reasons many thoroughly orthodox missionaries have not seen fit to identify themselves with the movement. The fact that some of the missionaries feel that their Boards are not in sympathy with the Union may have deterred some from joining it. It would seem a safe assumption, however, that at least half of the missionaries in China hold rationalistic views more or less pronounced in character.”
A Protest Against Modern Fashions.—One of our elders has written us protesting strongly against the “immodest and odious fashion” of young and middle-aged woman cutting off their hair. “My opinion is,” he writes, “that those who are guilty of it are dishonouring the Word of the Lord: ‘But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her’ (I. Cor. xi. 15). There is a craze among many young women, and also among some who cannot any longer be called young, to follow every new fashion, however ridiculous it makes them appear and however contrary it may be to the Scripture. In the case of some of the young, parental authority is flouted and the fashions of the gay world followed as more consonant with their light-headed notions. Those professing godliness should be guided by the rules of the Word of God and for those who are not making such a profession this is the best guide for them also.
Carmelite Nunnery Set up in Edinburgh.—Paragraphs appeared recently in the Scottish press announcing that Cardinal Bourne was to come North to instal the Carmelite Sisters with special ritual in their new nunnery. It was also intimated that on the two previous days before the installation the premises would be open for the inspection of “Catholics and non-Catholics.” The installation took place on 30th September with due ceremonial. One of the most outstanding of the Carmelite nuns was Theresa de Cepeda, better known as Saint Teresa, and whose praises were so loudly sounded by Dr Alexander Whyte in St George’s. Rome is intending to reap where the seed was so assiduously sown by a minister who professed to have unbounded admiration for the Puritans, while he praised such Roman Catholic notables as St Teresa and Cardinal Newman.