Report on Religion and Morals

BY THE REV. D. M. MACDONALD, PORTREE.

ANYONE who takes an impartial survey of the present condition of religion in our country cannot but come to the conclusion that vital Christianity is not making the progress that one would wish. The reason is not, as some allege, the inability of the Christian religion to meet the needs of the soul, but the unwillingness of sinners to embrace the Gospel of Christ with its priceless blessings. The changed lives of multitudes in many lands are conclusive proof of the power of the Gospel to make men live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present evil world. Indifference to the claims of Christ and open hostility to the Moral Law are manifested among all classes. When Jesus is given the supreme place in the soul obedience to his precepts will immediately follow, but so long as He is kept without, sin and Satan will reign within.

In regard to Sabbath observance, the Committee note with satisfaction that in some localities the people are realising more and more the importance of the Sabbath. The Town Council of Inverness are to be commended for the firm stand they made recently against granting the use of one of the public parks for Labour demonstrations on the Lord’s Day. They have, we believe, the majority of right-thinking citizens at their back, and they will be well supported in every effort they make for upholding the sanctity of the Sabbath. In one large English city the great majority of the ratepayers voted against sports and amusements on the Lord’s Day, and this would seem to indicate that many if they had their way would not permit such things on the Day of Rest. It is to be regretted, how-

ever, that travelling by car, ‘bus, trains and steamers is not on the decrease. Railway and steamboat companies have much guilt on them in connection with the facilities granted for Sabbath travelling. It is a Scriptural certainty that the Companies will not gain by this; lasting prosperity cannot be attained by disobedience to divine laws.

The Committee deplore the increasing sales of “Sunday” newspapers, so called. Determined efforts are being made to popularise these papers by making them panders to the lowest human instincts. Murder trials, with all the attendant details, sporting and betting news, and articles by writers who have no love for Christianity, form the substance purveyed to a careless public by the proprietors of these papers. Even in the remote North of Scotland circulars are being distributed asking people to become subscribers to such pestilent journals. We fully agree with the opinion of one who has condemned the “Sunday” paper in the following terms:—”It is an indefensible, intolerable curse. It exists simply and solely to swell the income of wealthy and greedy newspaper proprietors. A Christian ought to be ashamed to have it in his house. Is not a man sufficiently secularised by six days’ contact with the world, without dipping his mind on Sabbath morning once more into the muddy stream in which he has dipped himself on the preceding six days?” We would warn all and sundry against purchasing these papers.

Wireless concerts are now being followed on the Lord’s Day by wireless preaching. Some think that this should be encouraged, but it seems to us that it is just a subtle move to oust the means of grace from the life of the people. This can never be a substitute for worship. The command is, “Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together.” It is an imperative duty to assemble together for the public worship of God, especially on His day.

In every community there may be individuals who for personal gain will trample any law under foot, and it is quite apparent that there are many in our large towns and cities engaged in trade and unnecessary work on the Sabbath in order to enrich themselves. Many of these are Jews and foreigners who have no respect for the Christian Sabbath, and whose evil example is followed by some of our countrymen. It is high time that legislation should be passed prohibiting Sabbath trading and amusements. We may here state that the Germans of late seem to be leaving us behind in this

matter. They are awakening even to the value of evangelical religion, and with that comes a demand for the sanctification of the Lord’s Day. A few weeks ago, in the town of Dessau, a demonstration attended by 15,000 people took place with the single aim of urging on the German Government the necessity of sanctifying the Lord’s Day in Germany, and asking among other things that secular amusements on that Day should be declared illegal. This is good news to those who may feel depressed by the low condition of Christ’s cause at home and abroad. It may be the beginning of a new and Christ honouring era in the religious history of Germany.

Within the area of our Church’s activities attendance on the means of grace is on the whole good. In nearly all congregations there are some careless ones who need often to be reminded of their duty. Like the man in the parable, many are engrossed with their worldly affairs to the utter exclusion of the needs of the soul, and their plans are made without any regard to God’s claims, and the future is confidently monopolised as a period in which they are to eat, drink, and be merry, when perhaps without warning they are cast off in the midst of their flattering and delusive prospects. We would urge upon all who are remiss in the matter of church attendance and Sabbath observance to amend their ways, and we would enforce an exhortation in the well-known lines of Sir Matthew Hale :—

“A Sabbath well spent
Brings a week of content
And health for the toils of the morrow;
But a Sabbath profaned
Whatsoever may be gained,
Is a certain forerunner of sorrow.”

During the past year the Law Courts have revealed that a good deal of crime and immorality exists throughout the land. Fraud and embezzlement have been frequent, while divorce cases have been very numerous. Since the war, covetousness and greed have been manifest amongst high and low, leading many to commit crimes that have brought them to disgrace and ruin. There appears to be a growing indifference to the sacredness of the marriage bond, and if this continues our country will steadily decline from the high position it has occupied in the past. Another evil that does not appear to be decreasing is the sin of social impurity, and a sad feature is that many do not seem to realise

the sinfulness of these evils. They are looked upon with indifference, and this sin is in some measure due to the silence of the pulpit throughout the land on matters which the public should be warned against. If the professing Church were doing its duty conscientiously and vigorously, in seeking to awaken, and direct public opinion, in opposing all that is intemperate and unclean in thought, word, and deed, effective progress would be made in morality, and the people would be aroused to a consciousness of the evil of sin in all its forms.

Literature of a degrading and inferior type is on the increase. Vast quantities of such mental pabulum are being disseminated all over the land with bad consequences for the young generation. Once a taste for this reading is acquired the mind cannot relish anything else, because the habit of thought becomes paralysed. To indulge in this type of reading is a wanton waste of time, and we would strongly warn young and old to shun all such literature.

Ignorance and superstition may often go hand-in-hand. When the Bible is not read in the home superstitious practices and foolish notions of all kinds will become prevalent. It is now the fashion to wear charms and mascots against misfortune, as if such puerile objects could preserve us from evil. To many it might be said as of old—”These be thy gods, O Israel!” Even in the enlightened town of Inverness there appears to be a good deal of latent superstition, as the scenes that took place at the Wishing Well of Culloden on the first Sabbath of May prove. The desecration of the Lord’s Day on this occasion was so unseemly that one individual maintained that it would be far less sinful to allow a Labour meeting to be held than to permit disgraceful scrambles for ‘buses bound for Culloden. This reminds one of Satan rebuking sin. What an absurd idea that drinking the water of this well will bring “good luck,” as it is called! The wonder is that some are not already suffering from serious illness as the result of drinking water laden with germs from the coins dropped into it. If those who went to Culloden had studied carefully the Fourth Commandment and obeyed it they would have found that far more beneficial than ‘bus driving and drinking the polluted water of the “Wishing Well” on the Lord’s Day. We would direct their attention and that of others to a well whose water satisfies for ever and imparts eternal salvation to all who drink of it. Jesus said—”If any man thirst, let him come unto

me and drink.” The fountain of life in Christ Jesus is free to all.

It is to be regretted that betting and gambling continue unabated throughout the country. The bookmakers cover the country with a network of advertising and agencies. The same newspapers which publish reports of presbyterial protests contain columns of racing news with betting odds and tips. A new development of the gambling mania—the public whist drive—attained such dimensions as to justify a prosecution in Glasgow, followed by a conviction for gaming. Card-playing in any circumstances is a foolish waste of time, and there is a strong moral objection to undertakings with the lure of big prizes which obviously appeal to the cupidity of players. The main evil, however, centres in betting on horse-racing and football matches now indulged in to an alarming extent by men, women, and even by children.

The Committee would here record its uncompromising hostility to the betting tax imposed in last year’s Budget. This tax is on credit betting only, and does not legalise street betting. Recognition of other forms of the practice will soon be demanded. The result will be to increase the volume of betting, create a new vested interest, which will obstruct reform and root this evil more firmly in the nation’s life.

It is satisfactory to learn that efforts are being made to censor cinema films in order to safeguard the morals of the young. The need was so great, said one speaker at a conference held lately, that there could be no room for diversity of opinion. A Bill is now before Parliament having for its object a national censorship of films, and this will have the cordial sympathy of all sensible people.

Another matter that calls for drastic dealing is the teaching given in Communistic “Sunday” Schools. One hesitates to make use publicly of the vile material poured into the susceptible minds of the poor children, but in the interests of truth and righteousness it must be done. In a children’s magazine, published under Communistic auspices, the following questions and answers occurred:—”A little child shall lead them.” Lead whom? Why, the capitalists to slaughter. What child? Why, the child of the workers who belongs to the children’s section of the Young Communistic League.” Some of the Ten Commandments of the Communistic schools are as follows:—Commandment II.—Thou shalt not be a patriot, for a patriot is an international blackleg. Com-

mandment V.—Thou shalt teach revolution. Commandment VII.—Thou shalt wage the class war. This is a specimen of the hymns taught to little children:—

“We, the rebel children, sing
“Perish every Court and King,
We have the world to save and win
In the Revolution.”

And here is a most pitiful illustration of what is going on in these schools. A little girl of eight years was actually overheard uttering the following prayer:—“Down with the Kings! to hell with capitalists! down with the patriot, who is an international blackleg! There is only one god—the Red Flag of Liberty.”

There were, said a lecturer on this subject, comparatively few Communistic “Sunday” Schools, but their propaganda was being spread in the streets of every large city. He pleaded that the time had arrived when the subject must be taken out of the political sphere, and our own Government would have to interfere to see to it that certain men coming into this country preserved the laws of the country, or that they should be told to get out. It appears that legislative action may now be taken against the disloyal and blasphemous teaching of these schools.

With regard to Temperance, the general opinion is that drunkenness is becoming less common. This, no doubt, is partly due to the high price of intoxicating liquor and to the spread of information on the harmfulness of excessive drinking. It would appear that high taxation has the effect indirectly of helping sobriety. In the United States total prohibition is so far on trial, and it remains to be seen whether it will really prove a success. It is a great experiment by 110 million people, and since it was started no country has been so prosperous. The opinion of many is that this is owing, not to its having the gold, but to its not having the drink. Local option in Scotland has certainly been a success. There is positive evidence to show, in spite of the drawbacks of clubs and shebeens within and the comparative ease of obtaining liquor from without, it has been an inestimable blessing to many a home and numerous individuals.

It is interesting to note that the drink bill of the nation for the past year was £301,000,000. The expenditure per head in England and Wales was £7, and in Scotland about £5 14s. From an industrial point of view 1926 was one of the most tragic years in our history, owing to the general strike, which caused a

great deal of suffering and poverty, yet in spite of this the amount spent on drink was only slightly less than in the previous year. These figures contain no ground for satisfaction, and no nation can afford to indulge in such wasteful expenditure. It has been well said that when we consider the moral and spiritual loss—a loss that can never be estimated in figures—caused by habits so inimical to individual and collective well-being, the folly and the waste become more evident still.

Romanism and Ritualism are steadily progressing, especially in England and some parts of Scotland. It is satisfactory to note that there are evidences of an awakening on the part of Protestants to the dangers of Roman Catholic expansion. On the other hand, there has been no relaxation of effort on the part of the various agencies at work for the advancement of Romanism. The controversy over the Revision of the Prayer-Book in the Church of England reveals the strength of the Anglo-Catholic party in the National Church across the Border, while the revolt some time ago of fifteen clergymen in the diocese of Birmingham by persisting in Romish practices in defiance of the instructions of their Bishop and the support given by the English Church Union, show how deep rooted the reactionary movement is.

In Scotland it is happily true that the Romish Church finds conditions less congenial to her aims, but that does not lessen her efforts, and the leaders of that Church are alert and quick to seize every opportunity that comes in their way. One of the chief objects of the papal authorities is to preserve the exclusiveness and promote solidarity of the Roman Catholic population in Scotland. It is now easy for their children to be kept separate and apart for educational purposes from children of other religious persuasions in schools maintained entirely at public cost. In some places efforts to bring Roman Catholic children into the ordinary public school have been strenuously resisted. From inquiries made among those who administer parochial, municipal, and philanthropic funds, the conclusion reached was that out of all proportion to their numbers the Irish Roman Catholic population in Scotland are a heavy financial burden upon the community. In Glasgow, where they number about 25 per cent. of the population, it is estimated that they account for about 70 per cent. of the relief funds disbursed. The situation is a grave one, and the Committee feel that steps should be taken immediately to check Irish immigration into Scotland.

*

During the past hundred years Romanism has made great progress in our country. Modest in its claims to begin with, it stood before the nation as a humble suppliant seeking privileges which were gradually granted, with the result that it was now in a dominant position which was calculated to undermine the freedom of this country. It has succeeded in getting removed from the Statute Book nearly all the far-seeing Protestant safeguards provided in the Constitution. The latest move in this direction was the passing by Parliament in a hurried and surreptitious manner of what was astutely called the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, which repealed almost all the Protestant safeguards against the encroachments of the Papacy reserved in the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, on the ground that they were “obsolete” and were never enforced. Here we had a weapon ready to hand, the use of which Rome, in its wisdom, had abstained from provoking, but which had now through foolish indifference and criminal want of foresight been thrown away.

It is to be hoped that Protestants will awaken to their danger, and realise that they have to deal with an intolerant Church, which has been described as “an ecclesiastical and political system which constitutes the most formidable combination that ever was formed against the liberty, reason, and happiness of mankind.”

In concluding this report the Committee desire to record the goodness of God to us in the past as a nation, notwithstanding our sins and shortcomings, and they would acknowledge while there are some tokens that Gospel principles have still a hold of the heart and conscience of the nation, there are many things in our national life provoking God’s displeasure, and there is great need of an outpouring of the Holy Spirit to bring us to repentance and humility.

We would urge upon our people to be earnest at the Throne of Grace, pleading with the Lord to overthrow Sion’s enemies, and to establish truth and righteousness among all the nations.

A rich man would be ashamed of himself, if a poor beggar boy should claim such a relationship as the meanest Christian may claim to God. Oh, what a mercy it is to be enabled to say, “Our Father who art in heaven.”—Rowland Hill.

When once we are made to hate sin, we may be sure there is a Divine change.—Rowland Hill.

The Religion of Freemasonry and the Christian Faith.

I.

THE discussion at last meeting of Synod on Freemasonry has awakened widespread interest and a good deal of hostile criticism. The press gave great publicity to the discussion, and the Clerk of Synod has received letters and newspaper cuttings from all quarters, including England, on the subject. The matter also called forth a considerable number of letters to the public press. The discussion at the Synod came under review also of the Most Worshipful Grand Master Mason of Scotland (Lord Blythswood), who made reference to it in a speech in connection with a Masonic function in Thurso. Less exalted officials of the Lodge also referred to the matter and got over any disturbance our discussion made on their minds by saying we were an obscure and insignificant body, and anything we said was immaterial. Still, notwithstanding all the obscurity and insignificance of the Free Presbyterian Church, the discussion that took place at the Synod must have found a weak point in the armour since it raised such an outcry. In fact the scene witnessed at Ephesus was to a certain extent re-enacted, for a cry has gone up against us because we attacked the Craft, and its spokesmen, while trying to belittle us, evidently feel that the Craft is in danger. Some of the criticisms in the press were too flippant to be worthy of notice; others were beneath contempt. This was true of an ill-mannered and contemptible piece of journalism in the “Forres Gazette,” which, in reporting the Synod’s discussion, cross-headed it, “Highland Bigots Exclude Freemasons.” Then the editor introduced the Synod discussion with the words, “The Free Presbyterians, the narrowest sect in Christendom, ministered to by Highlanders who persist in the belief that bicycles and motor cars are the invention of the Evil One, met in Inverness last week.” We challenged the editor to prove his statement, and on his failure to do so, told him plainly what we thought of him as a false witness-bearer.

On an entirely different plane were the criticisms in the “Ross-shire Journal,” the “Northern Scot,” and the “John O’ Groat Journal.” The former was made from the Masonic standpoint, and the latter from that of a friend of the Masons. We offer a word of criticism on the “John O’

Groat” leaderette, as it presents certain plausible but fallacious arguments that have been used widely against us. “It is perhaps chiefly,” says the leaderette, “on this latter account [the open Bible] that the Order is so obnoxious to the Roman Catholic hierarchy; but that Freemasons should be similarly consigned to ‘outer darkness’ by our good friends the Free Presbyterians is singularly inexplicable. Verily extremes meet.” This is, to say the least of it, a very unfair criticism of what took place at the Synod. (1) There is nothing in the Synod’s discussion indicating that Free Presbyterians consigned the members of the Craft to “outer darkness.” The discussion certainly indicated that our communicants should have nothing to do with the Craft, and we hope to show that there is abundant reason for assuming that position. (2) It is not because the Lodge has an open Bible that the Vatican has condemned it; for, if that were the reason of condemnation, it rests on very flimsy ground, as any place given to the Bible by the official religion of the Lodge is not worth speaking about. (3) It is quite true that the Popes from 1751 onwards condemned Freemasonry. This is notably the case in Pope Leo’s encyclical—”Humanum Genus”—issued in 1884, but it was because the Vatican looked upon continental Freemasonry as an opposing church, and hence it was condemned not because of the Christlessness of its official religion, but because it did not acknowledge the Church of Rome as “The” Church. The Reformed Churches were condemned on the same ground. The Free Presbyterian contention is that the official religion of the Lodge is Christless, and therefore all those who acknowledge Christ as their Lord and Master (and we expect our communicants to do so) should have nothing to do with it. But it might be further said that even though the Popes denounced Freemasonry for the same reasons as the Free Presbyterians this did not say that “extremes meet” is a justifiable inference. Recently the Pope condemned, through his Foreign Secretary, immoral and obscene literature, and a recent issue of the “New Age Magazine” (Washington), a prominent Masonic monthly, has joined in the praiseworthy campaign of helping the crusade against this kind of literature which has been a curse to America, but no one would be justified in saying that because of this, extremes meet—Rome and Freemasonry. We have dwelt at some length on these points because the arguments referred to have been so extensively used against us as if they admitted of no answer; whereas,

the fallacy that renders them invalid is so apparent that we are surprised they were ever used by those of sound common sense.

We may here state that the Free Presbyterians are not the first to take up this attitude to Freemasonry. The Reformed Presbyterian Churches of Scotland, Ireland, and U.S.A., the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America, the largest of the Protestant denominations in the States, together with 30 other denominations, have declared that Christians ought to shun the Lodge. Even General Booth, who cannot be charged with narrow-mindedness, says:—”No language of mine could be too strong in condemning any Officer’s affiliation with any Society which shuts Him outside its temples; and which in its religious ceremonies gives neither Him nor His Name any place. . . . The place where Jesus Christ is not allowed is no place for any of our Officers.” He further adds:—”From this time it will be contrary to our regulations for any Officer to join such a Society.” We mention these facts, not because we are in sympathy with the denominational positions of those mentioned above, but simply to show that the religion of Freemasonry was barred by Protestants long before the Free Presbyterians uttered a word against it. Besides, there are thousands of true Christian men in all the Churches that have shunned the Lodge simply because of the Christlessness of its religion.

A question of some importance has to be settled before proceeding further, viz., “Is Freemasonry a religion?” Some Masons boldly affirm it is not a religion, others as boldly affirm that it is. We believe the latter have the best of the argument. Dr Fort Newton, in his “The Builders,” which has passed through sixty editions in ten years, says plainly—”Masonry is not a religion, but it is Religion.” Mark the emphasis on this sentence. Many other statements asserting Masonry to be a religion might be given, but the fact that it has prayers, a ritual, an altar, and professes faith in a divine Being, who is designated the Great Architect of the Universe all point clearly in this direction. E. L. Hawkins, the author of “A Concise Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry” (1908), in an article in Hastings’s “Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics,” calls this in question inasmuch as, he says, “religion is a system of faith in and worship of a divine Being.” Now, the foregoing falls within this definition, and the following taken from the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Scotland clearly establishes that Masonry is a religion. “A Mason,” so reads the Constitution, “is obliged by

his tenure, to obey the moral law; and, if he rightly understands the art, he will never be a stupid atheist nor an irreligious libertine. He, of all men, should best understand that God seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh at the outward appearance, but God looketh to the heart. A Mason is, therefore, particularly bound never to act against the dictates of his conscience. Let a man’s religion be what it may, he is not excluded from the Order, provided he believe in the Glorious Architect of heaven and earth, and practice the sacred duties of morality.” Surely this comes within Mr Hawkin’s definition of religion. But what kind of religion is it? We hope to answer this question in a succeeding article by showing that it is non-Christian and, in fact, rises no higher than Deism—a religion which Jew, Mohammedan, Confucian, or Unitarian might accept.

But before concluding this article, a word or two of criticism of certain expressions used in the article of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Scotland quoted above may be permitted. We deny without hesitation that “of all men a Mason should best understand that God seeth not as man seeth” as going directly in the face of the plainest teaching of Scripture—”the natural man receiveth not the things of God.” These are spiritually discerned, and it is only the man taught by the Spirit or regenerated that can understand them, and to say that a man because he is a Mason should know that God seeth not as man seeth better than a spiritually enlightened believer is to place the religion of the natural man above the supernatural religion of the Lord Jesus. The “natural man,” however excellent his moral character may be, and however manifold his virtues may be as a Mason, cannot receive the things of God because they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned. Further, how can a Christian, who is loyal to his Lord, countenance a Society whose religion rises no higher than this—”Let a man’s religion be what it may, provided he believes in the Glorious Architect of heaven and earth?” This is not the religion that acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who is God over all blessed forever—the true Christian religion.

(To be continued.)

Unless you live in Christ, you are dead to God.—
Rowland Hill.

The Oaths of Secret Societies*

1. THE oaths and obligations binding to the unknown, which Secret Societies require of entrants are unscriptural. The members are pledged “ever to conceal” and “never to reveal” things that they are about to learn, things of which they are ignorant at the time of swearing. The Bible condemns such a pledge or oath—”Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then shall he be guilty in one of these” (Lev. v. 4). When Christ’s most trusted disciples, James and John, sought to pledge Him to the unknown in the words—”Master, we would that Thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.” He enquired, “What would ye that I should do for you?” (Mark x. 35-36). On this point [the Doctrinal and Practical Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church] says:—”All such societies, in requiring an oath of secrecy before the matters to be kept secret are known, require the candidate for admission to yield up his own judgment and conscience to the keeping of the Lodge, and to swear to God that he will keep secrets which he might afterwards, in the exercise of an enlightened judgment and conscience, feel solemnly bound to reveal. No man can come under such an obligation without sinning against God and against his own soul” (Chap. xii., sec. 15). Moreover, it is degrading to one’s manhood. Drunken Herod took his oath

* The above extract is taken from the Rev. Samuel Kennedy’s “Christ, Lord of All,” a prize essay on some of the distinctive principles of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. As some of our readers may be aware, the Reformed Presbyterian Churches in Ireland, Scotland, and America, in their Doctrinal and Practical Testimony state plainly that “those who administer and those who take an oath unnecessarily, or on trifling occasions, or in connection with unscriptural associations, are guilty of profaning the name of God.” President Adams, of U.S.A., said about the oaths of Secret Societies:—”Even a cannibal would be ashamed of them,” and again—”I am prepared to complete the demonstration before God and man, that the Masonic Oaths, obligations, and penalties, cannot by any possibility, be reconciled to the laws of morality, of Christianity, or of the land.”—Editor.

to perform that which he knew not, surrendered his manhood, and it made him the murderer of John the Baptist.

1. The Confession of Faith, chap. xxii., says:—“A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth . . . to swear, vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name (of God), is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as, in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God under the New Testament, as well as under the Old, so a lawful oath being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken. . . . Neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just. . . . A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be taken with the like religious care.” The Doctrinal and Practical Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, chap. xiii., sec. 2, says:—“Oaths are to be sworn only for weighty reasons, and with due solemnity and reverence. Those who administer and those who take an oath unnecessarily, or on trifling occasions, or in connection with unscriptural associations, are guilty of profaning the name of God. Secret brotherhoods, being in themselves unscriptural associations, are sinful, and, having no right in any case to administer oaths, are, consequently, guilty of additional sin in assuming this right; and, in addition to its being sinful to join such associations, it is sinful to take an oath administered by them.” “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain” (Exod. xx. 1). Secret Societies have, therefore, no right to administer an oath to, or to require an oath of, their members; and their doing so is a profanation of God’s ordinance of the oath and contrary to the Word of God. The officers of the State and the Courts of the Church of Christ, acting in the Name and by the authority of Him, who is the fountain of all power, alone have the right to administer oaths, and even they only when the object to be served is one of seriousness and importance.

It is utterly impossible the carnal world can love the holiness and spirituality which exist in the real Christian.
—Rowland Hill.

The General Assemblies.

THE General Assemblies of the Established, United Free, and Free Churches met at Edinburgh on Tuesday, the 24th day of May. The Established Assembly opened with the usual preparatory ceremonial. The new Moderator was the Rev. Dr Norman Maclean, a native of Skye. The Moderator of the United Free Church was Dr Weatherhead, and of the Free Church, Rev. Alexander Dewar, missionary, Cape Colony, South Africa. Dr Weatherhead addressed the Assembly on “Our Church To-Day,” and Mr Dewar dealt with the subject of Christian Missions among the natives of Africa. On Friday the Moderators of the Established and United Free Churches made the usual moderatorial visits, and delivered speeches in which the coming union figured prominently. The day of chief interest was Monday, 28th May, when the Joint Report of the Joint Committee appointed by the two Churches was presented. The motion adopting the Report in the Church of Scotland Assembly was practically unanimous, though some speakers made it quite clear that there was no heartiness among the people for Union. While in the United Free Assembly it was adopted by 675 votes to 126. Lord Sands, in presenting the Report to the Assembly of the Established Church, said that while there were still differences between the Churches, the work of the Joint Committee had made it clear that there was no difference which could possibly be held to justify separation. Principal Martin, in presenting the report to the United Free Assembly, made reference to a communication from the United Original Secession Church, in which they say that they had not been uninterested spectators of what had been going on. “It had led them,” reported Dr Martin, “to consider afresh the position which they had occupied, and they found in the position which had now been reached by the Church of Scotland that which entirely satisfied the claims upon which they had hitherto stood aloof. He did not wish to make too much of this. This was not an approach initiating Union negotiations, but it undoubtedly looked that way, and, in any case, it was a strong confirmation of the view taken up by those of them who held that the Church of Scotland had attained to a position which left no obstacle in the way of an incorporating Union between them and the non-conforming, evangelical Presbyterian Churches in the land.” If this is a correct statement

of affairs it appears to us incredible how the Original Seceders can regard the present attitude of the Church of Scotland to the Westminster Standards as satisfactory. There must be something wrong somewhere.

On Monday, 30th May, Dr Wauchope Stewart, in giving in the report on the revision of the Church Hymnary in the Established Assembly, made a reference to the Metrical Psalter. He suggested that the Committee be authorised to discuss with the Praise Committee of the United Free Church and of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland the proposal to issue a revised Metrical Psalter to serve as a companion volume to the Revised Hymnary.

On the same day Dr White presented the report of the Committee on Church and Nation. Dealing with the question of Irish immigration, Dr White stated that the Committee had had two conferences at the Scottish Office. One of the points discussed was the Department’s difficulty in controlling immigration, and, indeed, their difficulty in securing reliable statistics on the subject, although he understood an endeavour was being made to deal with the question. They had also discussed the urgency of something being done to lessen the hurtful influence of this uncontrolled immigration on Scottish standards and Scottish customs of a people who tended to remain for the most part un-Scottish in ideas and ideals, a people who were educated apart, and tended to remain apart. The Committee urged upon the Government the importance of appointing a Commission to inquire into the whole situation, and to consider what regulations, if any, were necessary to protect and preserve the national unity, to protect Scottish labour, and to protect the Scottish standard of living. They dealt with this important question entirely from the racial point of view. The religious factor did not enter into their discussions. No one had objection to immigration from the Irish Free State: what they did object to was unregulated immigration. The country must be given time to assimilate the new elements, as uncontrolled immigration was always a menace to the homogeneity of a community, especially if it continued alongside the emigration of young and energetic native-born citizens.

The modern mania of union irrespective of all scriptural claims was shown in the Report given in to the United Free Assembly on Monday, 30th May, by the Rev. Dr Forgan, Convener of the Committee on Faith and Order. In referring to the proposed world

conference on Faith and Order, Dr Forgan said preparations had been so far completed that the conference was to be convened at Lausanne from August 3 to 21. No fewer than 87 Churches throughout the world had agreed to send delegates, and these would number about 500. The Greek Orthodox Church would be included, but the Roman Catholic Church had held aloof all along, although expressing much sympathy with the conference. There would be no commitments of any Church in the findings or the results that might be come to. These would be circulated in the various Churches for their information and consideration, and for such action as they might think fit.

On Tuesday in both the larger Assemblies the subject of Sabbath Observance was referred to. The Rev. Dr Boyd Scott said that if the tendencies increased which were all about them to-day it did not require a prophet to announce that in a few years the first place in that Assembly’s deliberations would be occupied by that question. The situation beyond the precincts of the Church was very grave, increasingly distressing, and even alarming, and yet, while that was bad enough, it seemed to him that it would not be altogether unbearable and not altogether unhopeful if within the boundaries of the Scottish Church they had something like a solid phalanx of loyal devotees to the vows they assumed in the way of loyalty to the Lord and the weekly celebration of Our Redeemer’s Resurrection. But, alas! they did not even have that, and he thought the ministers and elders should voice quite frankly that loyalty of their people to the Lord’s Day was, taking the country all over, a distinctly diminishing loyalty.

Mr A. B. Keay, Glasgow, suggested that there should be added to the Committee’s deliverance a sentence deprecating the facilities now offered by the Scottish railway companies for the desecration of the Sabbath by railway travel and the publicity given to “Sunday” trains. It was agreed to accept the suggestion. Mr Keay said that they ought to raise their voice against excursions and against such extensive advertising of cheaper fares on “Sunday.”

Dr Sutherland said he did not think it was wise to protest against running “Sunday” trains, when so many of their ministers and elders and office-bearers were using these trains on “Sunday.” (Cries of “No.”) Did any one deny the fact, and that they were using the tramcars and ‘buses on “Sunday”? He thought they should be consistent.

“Sunday” trains had come to stay, and nothing they could do would remove them.

We believe Dr Sutherland stated a fact when he said many of their ministers and elders were using Sabbath trains, but because evil is done that is no reason why it should be continued. It is owing in a great degree to such ministers as Dr Sutherland that Scotland is in its present deplorable position in regard to the Sabbath.

In presenting the report of the Education Committee, Dr W. Mackintosh Mackay said that the present Education Act only permitted religion to be taught in the schools, with the exception of the Roman Catholic and Episcopal schools, where it was mandatory. They desired to have it mandatory in the other schools as well. The Educational Institute would not help them in the matter, but gave no reason for so acting. Sir Henry Keith objected to any change in the Education Act on this matter. A motion was ultimately carried which regarded the suggested amendments to the Education Act as untimeous.

Dr Philip, Longforgan, reported on spiritual healing. Sheriff Orr characterised the report as disappointing, inasmuch as the Committee, after three years of investigation, seemed to indicate that there was no such thing as spiritual healing.

In the Free Church Assembly, on the evening of the opening day, the Welfare of Youth report laid great stress on the loss of parental control over children, and the extreme difficulty of training children amidst the prevailing conditions of life.

The Rev. R. M. Knox spoke on the work connected with the National Council of the Y.M.C.A. The Rev. Kenneth Macrae called attention to the issue of a modernist paper by the Y.M.C.A. in India, and also to the worldly amusements carried on under the auspices of the Association, and moved in view of these things that no representatives be sent to the National Council. He was seconded by the Rev. George Mackay, Fearn, and supported by Mr Campbell, Kiltearn. Dr Alexander Stewart was of opinion that instead of adopting Mr Macrae’s method, they should try to improve the Y.M.C.A. by sending Free Church representatives. The Rev. W. Fraser, Govan; Mr Kenneth Macrae, Ardelve; and Mr A. MacNeilage also spoke against sending representatives. The latter said the broad road was being pleaded for. He was afraid of the broad road, but he was not the least afraid of the narrow way. Other speakers, such as Colonel Rounsfell Brown, Rev. D. Mackenzie,

Nairn; Dr Christie, Tarbert, advocated what Mr MacNeilage not inappropriately termed “the broad road.” On a show of hands Mr Macrae’s motion was carried. This was a decision in the right direction, we believe, and one can only wonder that it was not unanimous.

On Wednesday afternoon the Assembly received delegates from America and the Continent. Among the representatives from the American Continent was Dr Laird, of the United Church of Canada, and Mr MacEachern, of the Presbyterian Church of Canada. Dr Stewart, in referring to these two representatives, said—”They did not discriminate between these two great Churches. With regard to their recent history, as on all other questions which were of a controversial character, the Free Church, of course, had their own opinions and formed their own judgments, but tonight their personal prepossessions were in a state of suspended animation.” It looks more like a case where any animation there was being strangled by the suspension. The character of the United Church of Canada in her teaching is such that it should be made quite clear that Churches which profess to hold by the great evangelical truths cannot receive her representatives officially. Even the Continuing Presbyterian Church of Canada is very far from what the defenders of purity of worship would like it to be.

As was to be expected, owing to a missionary being in the Moderator’s chair, much attention was given to Foreign Missions. The Free Church in its efforts to evangelise is adding to its responsibilities. The Committee are at present in debt to the extent of £3000, but an effort is to be made to wipe out this and enable the Committee to fulfil its obligations. Dr George Morrison, ex-Moderator of the United Free Church Assembly, addressed the Assembly, giving an account of his visit to South Africa. What changes since 1900 or 1905!

On Friday the Assembly proceeded to the appointment of a Principal in place of the late Rev. J. D. Macculloch, D.D. The Rev. Dr John Macleod was appointed to the post.

Two outstanding addresses were delivered at the Assembly, one by Professor Machen, Princeton, and the other by Dr Duncan Blair, Glasgow. The latter dealt with Sabbath Observance.

We had much better fear the commission of sin itself, than the punishment that sin deserves.—
Rowland Hill.