Sir Oliver Lodge on the Resurrection.—When one reads the speeches of some of the leading scientists it passes one’s knowledge the amount of nonsense they can pack into a few sentences. Sir Oliver Lodge, whose excursions into the realm of spiritual things are too often characterised by want of sanity, recently, in one of his Halley Stewart Lectures, advised his hearers to “think about the grave as little as possible.” “I have,” he continued, “never been to see my boy, Raymond’s, grave in France. He has asked me not to. He said—”I take no interest in that grave. I never was in a grave in my life.” If people would get over that trouble about interment and about lying there for centuries waiting for a general resurrection—all that kind of medieval superstition—they could begin to regard death as more like what it was—an adventure, an episode that was bound to come, something that we might be ready to welcome when it came, and not to be afraid of.” It is inexpressibly sad that such nonsense should come from the lips of a distinguished scientist, and that he should daringly arraign the doctrine of the resurrection of the body as medieval superstition.
A True Comparison.—”Life and Work,” the monthly organ of the Church of Scotland, has the following striking contrast between ancient ways of giving to the cause of God and modern. The ancient method is that recorded in I. Chron. xxix. 6-9—”Then the chief of the fathers and princes of the tribes of Israel, and the captains of thousands and of hundreds, with the rulers of the king’s work, offered willingly. And gave for the service of the house of God of gold five thousand talents and ten thousand drams, and of silver ten thousand talents, and of brass eighteen thousand talents, and one hundred thousand talents of iron. And they with whom precious stones were found gave them to the treasure of the house of the Lord, by the hand of Jehiel the Gershomite. Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly, because with perfect heart they offered willingly to the Lord.”
The Modern Method.—”Life and Work” does not exaggerate when it describes the modern method as follows:—”Then the congregation met, the minister presiding, to consider how they should raise money for the building, enlarging, repairing, or decorating of their Church, and for the propagation of the Gospel at home and abroad. As only a few would offer willingly, the majority resolved to organise all manner of entertainments, including raffles, palmistry, and lucky tubs.
comic sketches and fancy dress parades, dances to the accompaniment of a jazz band, and whist drives with handsome and tempting prizes annexed thereto. Then the people rejoiced that they had made so much money at so little cost, yet with so much amusement to themselves and to a host of outsiders who hadn’t a scrap of interest in either Church or Gospel: and they presented it to the Lord.” Whether this worldly method can be rightly described as giving to the Lord is another question. But the above picture is faithfully drawn by one who has evidently full knowledge of what he describes.
Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—This Bill, having passed the third reading in the House of Commons, has also passed the second reading in the House of Lords, and by the time these lines are in print may have passed into law. The opposition offered to it in the House of Commons was everything but what true Protestants would like to see. Sir Archibald Sinclair, M.P. for Caithness and Sutherland, was one of the Scottish members who opposed the Bill, though it would have pleased us better if his opposition was more virile. The Archbishop of Canterbury gave his support to the second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords. “The Christian’s” comments on the situation are worth quoting:—”Among nominally Protestant M.P.s,” it says, “indifference is the prevailing note; among Roman Catholics, there is, of course, enthusiasm for the papal cause, and among the other members—agnostics, ‘nothingarians,’ and so on—the favoured attitude is one similar to the gentleman who exclaimed—’A plague on both your Houses.’ In such circumstances it is small wonder that the Protestant position is largely deserted before the fight begins. As to the Relief Bill, now in question, the position has been pertinently summarised by the ‘Morning Post’:—’It is not, perhaps, wholly fanciful to connect the proposed repeal with the demand for alterations in the present Book of Common Prayer, embodied in the Measure now being considered by the National Assembly of the Church of England.’ The Roman Catholic policy in England is assuredly an effective one, even though it is also ingenuous: ‘Let us break the law; we can then proceed to get our illegalities legalized by Act of Parliament.’!”
Gospel Book Mission to the Army and Navy.—In his 53rd Annual Report, Mr Brider, 21. Firfield Street, Totterdown, Bristol, gives a very encouraging report of the work done by this excellent Mission. 1264 parcels of sound literature have been sent forth to the
various naval ports and military stations. “In spite of the deepening apostasy and departure from the truth,” writes Mr Brider, “manifested on all hands, it is a cause for rejoicing that there is a good demand for such literature amongst the men of the sea.” Sometimes it looks a very hopeless and thankless task this distribution of sound literature, but Mr Brider has found, as others have found, that it holds true, “Cast thy bread upon the waters; for thou shalt find it after many days” (Ecc. xi. 1). We commend the work of this Mission to the prayers of our readers, and any other help they can give. At the conclusion of his Report Mr Brider says:—”As my friends know, I do not possess any private means, neither do I take anything from the Mission fund, but am wholly dependent upon the Lord for our personal support.”
Lord Inchcape and Foreign Missions.—Lord Inchcape appears to be one of our great captains of industry who is being very successfully employed by Satan for the advancement of his kingdom. About a year ago his lordship gave utterance to very unscriptural views of the Sabbath in the “Glasgow Herald,” and received, as he deserved, a very severe trouncing. This excursion into a field which his lordship had no right to enter evidently did not teach him a lesson, for we find him in a recent speech going out of his way to attribute to missionaries the present state of things in China. Now, we hold no brief for the missionaries in China—there are some of them from the standpoint of Christianity who would be better at other work—but to charge without any qualification a band of men who have made great sacrifices for the cause of Christ as many noble missionaries in China have done is a wanton, cruel, and wicked thing to do by one occupying such a position as Lord Inchcape does.
A Distinguished Scientist on Evolution.—Prof. J. A. Fleming, D.Sc., F.R.S., read a paper on “Evolution and Revelation” to the Victoria Institute. Dr Fleming’s distinguished position in the world of science cannot be ignored by the Evolutionists, and his bold challenge of the claims of Evolution as set over against the Bible must command attention. Dr Fleming had already dealt with this subject in a booklet published by the Religious Tract Society, under the title, “Evolution and Revelation” (price 1s net). His paper was a powerful indictment of the simian origin of man. The marked differences between the anthropoid apes and man were clearly set forth, and a vindication of the Biblical account of man’s creation were marked features of the professor’s paper.
A Strange Pastoral Letter.—The Glasgow Presbytery of the Established Church have addressed a pastoral letter on Sabbath observance to the several congregations within their bounds. The letter is an extraordinary production coming from a Church Court on such a subject. Church members are reminded of their duty “by regular attendance at divine worship—where circumstances do not make it impossible—at morning service.” The Presbytery believes “it is not out of keeping with the true spirit of its observance that such opportunity should be taken advantage of, so long as the nature and obligations of the day receive due recognition.” Our readers will be surprised to learn that “the opportunity” referred to by the Presbytery is the necessity of recreation so insistently demanded in modern times—the Presbytery indicate further what they mean when they say that such recreation should be taken advantage of so long as the nature and obligations of the day receive due recognition. Even the “Glasgow Herald,” which cannot be charged with strict Sabbatarianism, offers the following criticism of the Presbytery’s unaccountable deliverance:—”The Presbytery, it is true, insists that the obligations imposed upon those who profess the Christian faith must come first, but was it advisable on their part to countenance latitude in regard to the claims of people for Sabbath recreation? There never was a time when recreation filled so large a part of the life of the people as it does to-day, and it is likely to do so without any encouragement from the Church to extend its sphere over the seven days of the week. It is open to question whether this display of broadmindedness, as it may be regarded by the man who holds aloof from public worship, will bring more people within the influence of the Church.” Some of the clerical members said they would not read the letter to their congregations, and it is regrettable that there were so few of this mind. We hope to return to this pastoral letter in next issue.