The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland

This General Assembly opened once more on Tuesday, the 21st day of May, 1963.

The Lord High Commissioner’s Address to the Assembly.

The Duke of Gloucester said that the Queen had commanded him to assure the Assembly once more of Her Majesty’s deep sense of its “unfailing loyalty and steadfast zeal for her service, and of her continued determination to maintain Presbyterian Church Government in Scotland.” The reference to the Queen’s determination to maintain Presbyterian Church Government in Scotland as Her Majesty, in law, is bound to do, runs counter to past and present indications within the ministry of the Church of Scotland of a desire for change and a tendency towards Episcopacy and even Romanism. The Duke also asserted that “the Church holds the eternal truth of God which time cannot change. Eternal truth cannot be changed to please passing whims and fashions.” This statement is indeed a basic and profound one as applicable to the true and faithful Church of Christ; and if appreciated by the Duke himself and the large concourse of ministers and elders before him must have constituted a severe rebuke to the modernism in doctrine which prevails in the Church of Scotland.

The Retiring Moderator.

The Rev. Dr. N. Davidson, before the actual Assembly began, preached in St. Giles’ Cathedral, and his theme was one which he is determined to proclaim, that is ecclesiastical unity. He spoke of disunity and said that we talked about the Church when in fact there were many Churches, each with its own kind of service and flaunting its own denomination. Dr. Davidson did not explain, as far as the report of his sermon goes, the Scriptural and spiritual meaning of “the Church.” His above remarks refer to the visible aspects of the professing Christian Church. But he uses the term “Church” later to suit his own advanced outlook, when he said: “Thank God the Church has begun to see in our time the evil of disunity . . . even the centuries-old barbed-wire barrier between the Roman Catholic and the non-Catholic Church has been lowered a little . . . This is perhaps the most significant thing in religious life in the twentieth century.” God-fearing and discerning Protestants who belong to Christ’s redeemed and regenerated “Church” disown the views of Dr. Davidson as welcoming the abandonment of a steadfast adherence to the Reformation and a drawing closer to the Roman Church. Dr. Davidson incidentally refers to “the non-Catholic Church.” He should have said the non-Roman Church. The spiritual and believing Church of Christ is Catholic—universal. In his sermon he also found fault with indifference in the Church, that is the Church of Scotland, and declared that there were those who like their names to appear on the Communion Roll, but only appear very occasionally in God’s house. This state of matters has existed to our knowledge for many years. And who is to blame for thousands of indifferent communicants who live on Sabbath as on the weekday, and have a positive distaste for the public worship of God? The leaders and clergy and Courts of the Church of Scotland. The Communion Rolls bear the names of unconverted, ignorant sinners, and their conduct is not subjected to Scriptural discipline. But Dr. Davidson did say that the Church’s power came from the presence of Christ in its midst. But he did not say that a backsliding and worldly branch or denomination of the Christian Church could not expect the presence and power of Christ in their midst.

Retiring Moderator’s Address to the General Assembly.

In this Address he makes it clear that he is not satisfied with the present “order” of things in his denomination; but that he is a clergyman out for change, not on the basis of God’s Word—the rule by which the godly churchmen of bygone days in Scotland were guided—but for the sake of change to suit the ecclesiastical “whims and fashions” of modern churchmen and laity and also the ancient and dark religious practices of the Papacy. He said: “We are called to do some radical rethinking in the patterns of our Church life, in our forms of Christian witness, our modes of evangelism, and our customs in public worship.” Patterns, forms, modes, customs! Does Dr. Davidson mean a return to Apostolic New Testament patterns, forms, etc., etc.? We know that he does not mean that; but he does not say out and out what he means. And he, with his contemporaries, at times make a great noise about contact with and impact upon “the man in the street.” What does “the man in the street” understand by empty words as far as lack of explanation is concerned? Little or nothing. The Rev. Doctor used an unusual and strange phrase. He said: “There was also a large amount of what might be called buried Christianity in the hearts and minds of many people.” Does the Doctor use the phrase “buried Christianity” as a change from the words “a spark of the divine”? Such expressions are always calculated to deceive the unconverted and the ungodly who are living in their daily practice without God, without Christ and completely devoid of the Spirit of Christ: yet they are made to understand that there may be a good amount of Christianity hidden away in their hearts. This is the deplorable type of teaching which causes thousands to be communicants and yet to live ungodly lives. The blind are leading the blind here. Dr. Davidson has with others said that this is a semi-pagan country; yet in his Address he waters down this view by stating that it is a superficial judgment. He said. “Beneath all the materialism, . . . moral rebelliousness and religious carelessness, there lay still in the great majority of men and women, a dim sense of the eternal realities,” etc. In other words, the ex-Moderator would have his hearers to accept that man is not totally ruined by the Fall and that he is much better spiritually and morally than he appears to be. No wonder that religion is at a low ebb in Scotland.

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Address to the Assembly.

Dr. Ramsey received a great ovation from this professed Presbyterian Assembly when invited to address them. He made the following statement among others: In connection with the quest for Christian unity he said: “In that quest the Church of Scotland and the Church of England are determined to play their part; a part that needs to be more widely shared within the membership of both our Churches . . .” We would here ask any clergyman or layman in the Church of Scotland or in the Church of England to inform us of any one single, practical step which the Church of England has taken to forward in actuality the quest for so-called Christian unity between these two Churches. We know of none, no more than on the part of the Roman Catholic Church. But the Church of Scotland is being flattered and assailed to abandon her moorings such as they are to-day. Dr. Ramsey also said: “Our ecumenical discussions between the Church of Scotland and the Church of England are entering a new phase in which contact and discussion . . . is going to be far more widely advanced between our Churches.” To us, these words mean nothing, absolutely nothing as far as any change upon the views and practices of the Church of England are concerned. After referring favourably to the form of monastic vocation and monastic orders bearing witness to the “other-worldly strain in Christianity,” Dr. Ramsey mentioned the Iona Community and that such movements were very significant for Christendom. And so the propaganda proceeds apace from all quarters to loosen the ties which the Scottish people have with such as Knox. In these remarks we do not intend any criticism of Columba who came to Iona.

Discipline Criticised.

It seems that an Act of Assembly had been passed some years ago anent Communion Rolls. Those whose names appeared on Communion Rolls and did not attend Church and did not take Communion for three years or more, after due notice, were to have their names removed from the Communion Roll. Rev. George G. Campbell, Moffat, severely condemned the removal, during the last four years, of 24,000 members from Communicants’ rolls of the Church of Scotland. He declared this was because of an “outmoded form of discipline” which had caused the Church more harm than good. And so we have Dr. Davidson complaining of indifferent members and the Rev. G. Campbell here complaining at disciplinary measures being taken against those indifferent members. The discipline here referred to is no discipline at all, but a cutting off from membership on paper of those who have been living like heathen over a set period of three years. And yet Rev. G. Campbell mourns over the loss to the Church by this mode of discipline. He complained: “If you remove a husband from the roll, you lose a wife, etc.” In his further arguments, Mr Campbell said: “The man in the street may not know his Bible, but he knew the parable of the lost sheep.” Whatever Mr Campbell meant by this, we are sure that the man in the street knows how to go astray from God, from the public worship of God, and to treat with contempt Church privileges and sacraments which should never have been given to him in the first place. The penitent sinner is the one whose name can be put on a communion roll; and not the man who is ignorant of the Bible.

The Panel on Doctrine anent the Ministry.

The Church’s Panel on Doctrine prepared a statement on the Christian ministry to be sent to Presbyteries for comment and criticism. The statement deals with Apostolic Succession and says that it is properly related to the Word and Sacraments that are ministered. “Therefore, the emphasis is not on the persons or ministers in their succession, but upon the Word faithfully preached and the sacraments faithfully administered from generation to generation in a continued ministry.” The Archbishop who addressed the Assembly would not agree with this view of Apostolic Succession. The statement declares that “The minister is a man of God and must in his life and conversation conduct himself as such.” This view of the minister of Christ is foursquare with the Scriptures. Would that all who hold this Office in Scotland to-day were men of God and godly in life and conversation!

Assembly Letter to The Queen.

In this letter the Assembly write: “Your Majesty’s assurance of your intention to uphold the historic rights and liberties of the Church of Scotland has been noted with satisfaction.” It would seem that some members of Assembly have little regard for the historic rights and liberties of the Church of Scotland when they can so act as to further official fellowship with astute dignitaries of the Church of Rome in Scotland. Any rights and liberties which the present Church of Scotland still possesses as inherited from the Scottish Reformers are rights and liberties which the Roman Church would dearly desire to filch from the said Church, even by a long, protracted process of undermining the links with times of Reformation.

Inadequate Supply of Candidates for the Ministry.

The Committee concerned with Education for the Ministry reported that the intake of divinity students fell far below the number required if the work of the Church was to be adequately maintained. It was observed by one member regarding the congregations from which candidates for the Ministry were coming, “These Churches,” he said, “on the whole are evangelical.” So by implication the speaker further said: “If we are not producing ministers, we are not preaching the kind of gospel that can call forth ministers.” Apart from the serious and spiritual question of converted men being called by the Lord, through His Word, to the holy office of the Ministry—the Church of Scotland have a great problem with hundreds of congregations to provide with Christian ordinances and no men to fill the vacant places. But a graceless ministry has been a heavy plague upon Scotland for many years now; and the want of a God-sent ministry is an indication of the divine displeasure for manifold sins by the people of Scotland, among which sins there ranks high, the rejection of the pure gospel for generations now, and that on the part of multitudes.

Report of Special Committee on Baptism.

This Committee had taken ten years to prepare a long document on the Doctrine of Baptism and presented it to the Assembly for adoption as an Act of the Church. Rev. Dr. D. P. Thomson, Crieff, moved a counter-motion to the effect that the Assembly merely take note that the work on the Doctrine of Baptism has been accepted by a majority of Presbyteries as a valid statement of the Biblical and Reformed Doctrine of Baptism as contained in the primary and subordinate standards of the Church, etc. His objections were that the work failed to be simple, clear and unambiguous. It was for the post-graduate school of theology to study and not for the plain, ordinary minister or the man in the pew. We have seen a part of this work in past years and it must now be a rather long theological treatise. Rev. Dr. Thomson also opposed it being made an Act on account of a minority of 30 per cent. of the members of Presbyteries having moved disapproval. This was an impressive minority, he said. The Rev. Professor T. F. Torrance, Convener of this Special Committee, replied. He asserted that the main points in the doctrine occurred again and again in Calvin’s own words. It was not something that had been done lightly or inadvisedly. The Professor’s exposure of three types of opposition to the Report was revealing. He said: “There was one type which rejected it because it did not teach baptismal regeneration.” We assume from this that there are those in the Church of Scotland who believe in that dangerous and erroneous view of baptism. He further stated: “There are people in the Church who disagree with it because they agree with the Bishop of Woolwich—because they do not like the basic question of incarnation.” Of course readers may remember that the Bishop of Woolwich wrote and published the heretical book “Honest to God.” We may pause here to interpose the remark that the more we survey the proceedings of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the more we discern, not unity, but disagreement, on many issues within her borders; albeit the prevailing theme of the Church leaders in their prominent addresses is unity with other Churches.

Ministers’ Stipends.

Discussion on ministers’ stipends arose after the acceptance of an Overture on the question. The Overture suggested that the stipend should be appropriate to the needs of the ministry rather than the resources of the individual congregations; and that there should be a fixed minimum on ordination, rising by regular increments, etc. It was said that stipends range from £900 to £2,000 a year and this aroused critical and heated comment during the debate. The spiritual integrity of a man receiving a call to a vacant charge was unnecessarily tested by disparities in stipends, one speaker suggested. A drastic survey of the whole stipend system was to be undertaken. Some of the ministers who took part in the debate spoke wisely, as in the case of Rev. J. T. Lang, Bridgeton, Glasgow, who said: “It was essential that the ministry be maintained, but he did not agree that it must be maintained at a standard of living higher than was necessary.” Mr Lang said that he was on the minimum stipend and had a family of five.

The Church and Nation Committee Statement on the Use of the Lord’s Day.

Last year the Church and Nation Committee in their statement on observance of the Sabbath proposed the acceptance of a freer mode of conduct and indulgence in recreations as on other days, their proposals clearly departing from the teaching of The Confession of Faith. Their statement was sent down to Presbyteries and the Law and Administration Committee. The question was raised as to whether the Committee’s views were an interpretation or an alteration of the Confession of Faith. At this year’s Assembly it was made known that the views of the Church and Nation Committee were a departure from the teaching of the Confession of Faith; but in the view of the Panel on Doctrine the substance of the faith was not affected. Presbyteries in the north and west of the country were critical of the proposals for laxity in conduct on the Sabbath; and an Overture from the Presbytery of Caithness, presented by Rev. W. N. Scott, Wick, carried the discussion against the Church and Nation deliverance. Mr Scott said last year’s decision took old people by surprise and left young people troubled. Many of them feared that the report was strengthening the hand of those who had shamelessly commercialised the Lord’s Day. The report had not increased the world’s respect for the Church but had rather diminished it. This latter statement of Mr Scott’s is indeed true, and applies to all the foolish efforts of the modern Church to compromise with worldlings who have no spiritual regard for the Christian Church in any case. Rev. Donald Macfarlane, Inverness, brought the discussion to a head by moving that the Assembly recall last year’s deliverance and instruct the Church and Nation Committee to revise the Report after conferring with the Panel on Doctrine. He averred that there was growing doubt about the legality of the present position and that this had got the Church into its present difficulties on this vital question. The following notes on this debate have been contributed by Rev. D. MacLean, who heard the debate:—
“He also pointed out that there had been no expression of what must be acknowledged to be a minority point of view. Mr Macfarlane argued that minorities had in the past been responsible for saving the Church from falling into doctrinal error and their views should not be ignored. He was supported by Rev. David Torrance, Bathgate, who alleged that the former statement by the Committee was not only contrary to the Westminster Confession but contrary to the Word of God. The value of Mr Torrance’s speech was that he insisted that the keeping of the Lord’s Day must be tied to the fourth commandment.
“The usual arguments about the Sabbath being a Jewish institution were aired as though such a view had any biblical value, especially since the Saviour said in the clearest possible way that ‘the Sabbath was made for man’ not for the Jew, although, the Jews, being the custodians of the divine oracles had the privilege of the Sabbath among them. One of the speakers who pursued this line of argument appealed to the Assembly to avoid the charge of hypocrisy. What possible justification could there be for locking up the swings in a children’s playground and then going home to watch television? The answer to this is that neither of these things should be done. Several other speakers spoke against the former deliverance from various points of view and one of the ministers made it quite clear that he considered the Westminster statement of the Sabbath to be the mind of the Lord on the point.
“Although the decision of the Assembly represents a momentary set-back for the Church and Nation Committee’s viewpoint, there were ominous signs that the new statement is unlikely to be much of an improvement when it appears. Professor T. F. Torrance, who is a prominent member of the Panel on Doctrine said in his speech that the Westminster Confession statement on the Sabbath was ‘quite wrong’ and neither Biblical nor Reformed because it was founded in the light of nature and the law rather than on justification through the righteousness of Christ. This strange confusion of ideas ignores the simple fact that the Lord’s Day now keeps in remembrance the resting of the Lord of glory from the great work of salvation. The step being now taken to interfere with the Confession of Faith will have very serious repercussions all round. It would seem, therefore, that while there has been a set-back to the anti-Sabbatarians, other issues may now be raised of a much more far-reaching nature.”
On the result of this debate, the Convener of the Church and Nations Committee, Rev. J. R. Gray, spoke somewhat unadvisedly. He told reporters that he tried to have the debate continued until the evening as a large number of members had left the Assembly that afternoon for a Garden Party at Holyrood. He said: “We were left with a handful of members, including those of the Lord’s Day Observance Society who had been specially summoned to wait and vote. The decision reached is quite unrepresentative of the Assembly.” Rev. Mr Gray is a man who should have known better than to express such views because he lost the day. He should have seen to it, if he could, that Church business should not be interfered with to such an extent by a worldly garden party. It seems that a garden party on a weekday even can affect the conduct of the affairs of the Church and annoy Rev. Mr Gray, the anti-strict Sabbatarian.

The Ne Temere Decree.

The debate on this Roman Catholic decree was something new for this Assembly and especially when the decree was considered because of strong objections to it, inside the Assembly. Again, it was surprising that this matter was raised when so much friendliness between Church of Scotland leaders and R.C. priests has been evident of late. The substance of the Ne Temere decree is as follows: It declares that no marriage of a Roman Catholic is valid unless celebrated before a priest. Also, it refuses to permit a mixed marriage unless the non-Roman Catholic partner promises in a written statement to have the children of the marriage baptised in the R.C. Church, and brought up in the knowledge and practice of the Roman Catholic religion. The sworn statement concludes thus: “All this I promise and swear to observe in the Holy Name of God and in witness of this my sworn promise I sign . . .” This matter was brought up by the Church and Nation Committee. The decree was declared by the Assembly to have no legal standing and was described as “wholly obnoxious,” and the Assembly agreed by a large majority to urge the Government to make representations to the Vatican to have the decree withdrawn. It was said that the decree leads to the breaking up of homes, sometimes in very cruel circumstances. The Assembly declared that it should be made plain to all members of the Church of Scotland, and to young people especially, what was involved in marriage with a Roman Catholic. Of course we may remark here that the Church of Scotland are right in again giving such a warning. They did so in 1947. This has been done repeatedly by others and by Protestant Societies in Britain and elsewhere. It was stated that no member of the Church of Scotland had any moral right to make such a promise. But young people of both sexes in our land do make this promise in order to get the partner of their choice, having no true religious convictions of their own. The Assembly also stipulated that those who had signed the Ne Temere undertaking should realise that it could not be spiritually and morally binding in view of their prior promises as members of the Church of Scotland. This view-point is not so simple to understand. A member of the Church of Scotland, who professes to be an informed Christian, in signing this decree before marriage, does so with “open eyes.” If not, such cases are what we fear they are, persons who are members in full communion in the Church of Scotland and are not converted and enlightened believers and so see no difficulty in promising to bring up their children as Roman Catholics. It is past time for the Church of Scotland to speak out in exposing the whole range of evils bound up with the R.C. Church, instead of fraternising with that Church, and then when deplorable cases of broken homes arise involving Church of Scotland members, cry out against the iniquitous decree of Rome. Rev. W. D. Maxwell described the decree as “wholly obnoxious and an affront to Reformed Scotland.” Rev. Mr Maxwell is Vice-Convener of the Church and Nation Committee, and would do well to bring up (D.V.) next year a whole list of things within the R.C. Church which are “wholly obnoxious” in the light of the Word of God and the Reformed faith of Scotland, and thus deal a blow at the Romeward trend within his denomination. Rev. Dr. Nevile Davidson, former Moderator of Assembly, asked the Assembly whether it could possibly contemplate sending to the Roman Catholic authorities, a document which encouraged the breaking of a promise, solemnly made in writing. We did not read that Dr. Davidson said anything by way of criticism of this evil decree. Rev. J. Maycock said he was sure that a promise obtained under duress had no ethical value in any case. We leave this subject with the observation that those who do wrong and see their error and repent of it sincerely, may cease to keep such a promise involved in the Ne Temere decree.

A New Church Hymn Book.

The Assembly approved a proposal that a new Church hymn book be prepared in conjunction with the Presbyterian Churches of England, Ireland and Wales. The Committee on Public Worship are to undertake this task. The Rev. Thomas H. Keir, Convener of the Committee on Public Worship and Aids to Devotion, said the issue was controversial. He said the present hymn book was published in 1927, and the very mention of the year took them back to a different world. The present hymn book was good enough for its time. And so the case for a change was argued out. A youth organiser said that many young people found it difficult to understand the worship of the Church in the idiom of the Church Hymnary. It seems the repeated cry is for change when men are not relying on the unchanging Word of God. Good and satisfying it is for those who know and love the Psalms of David, the divine manual of praise for the Church of God—a manual which never changes and does not require to be replaced, having the stamp of divine inspiration throughout from Psalm 1 to Psalm 150.

Roman Catholic Talks with Members of Church of Scotland.

The Assembly gave overwhelming approval to the continuance of informal meetings with Roman Catholics by ministers and laymen of the Church of Scotland. It was the expressed view that such meetings would improve relationships and promote better understanding between the two Churches. Rev. Thomas M. Doun, Duthill, Carr Bridge, moved against the deliverance which set forth the above views on this vexed question and for the deletion of this particular section of the deliverance. His speech, in our opinion, was good in places, but his expressed opposition to these meetings was intermingled with statements which revealed a lack of forthright condemnation. For example, he said that deletion of this particular section would help to remove perhaps unfounded but nevertheless real suspicion which existed in the minds of many of their members. The Assembly should prefer to await the results of these meetings before expressing approval. Mr Doun certainly made a point which many are determined to ignore, viz., “Despite all disclaimers to the contrary, it had been made plain by the Roman Catholics, who initiated these meetings, that their sole purpose was to promote the return of non-Roman Catholics to Romanism.” We do not think the Roman Catholics in Scotland have been “letting out” their attitude as described by Mr Doun; but it was made plain by leaders of the R.C. Church at the time of Dr. Craig’s visit to the late Pope. Church of Scotland leaders are just turning a deaf ear to and ignoring the facts as stated by Mr Doun, and that wilfully and with determination. Is this supreme design of the R.C. Church less “obnoxious” than the Ne Temere decree? The Lord alone can deliver these confused and deceived leaders of the Church of Scotland who are wandering in a wilderness wherein there is no way.

Church Unity.

Rev. Professor W. S. Tindal submitted the Report of the Inter-Church Relations Committee; and the secretary of the Committee spoke of the work regarding Anglican-Presbyterian relations. He spoke of success at conferences. There were on the agenda for further discussion: the meaning of unity, the meaning of validity as applied to ministerial orders, the doctrine of holy communion, and the meaning of Apostolic Succession. To take the last point mentioned by Rev. R. Barbour, surely the time is long overdue when Church of Scotland theologians should have made up their minds about this point, so tenaciously held by the Church of England, and so absurd and untenable in the view of reasonable and intelligent students of the Bible and the New Testament and the history of the Church from Apostolic times. As far as the discussion on this matter affects the Church of England representatives, it will be a question of bringing over the Church of Scotland men to accept their view of Apostolic Succession, involving no ordination without a bishop. Professor Tindal told the Assembly of relations with other Churches in Scotland. He said the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland had remitted to a committee the matter of conference with the Church of Scotland and to report next year. The United Free Church were to discuss the suggestion of entering into conversations with the Church of Scotland. The Methodist Church were at the stage of selecting representatives to enter upon informal talks with members of the Church of Scotland. Conversations with the Congregational Union were to be resumed after a pause of two years. And the Free Church of Scotland was not left out by Professor Tindal. He reported on relations with the Free Church of Scotland and pointed out that while this Church had expressed disagreement with the Church of Scotland on findings re Sabbath observance and meetings with Roman Catholic clergy, they had received an address from Professor Stewart (the Moderator of the Church of Scotland Assembly), and had referred to points of agreement which they hoped would grow in number. Our readers will perceive here that Professor Tindal looks upon Professor Stewart’s visit to the Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland as something more than merely a “courtesy visit.” From the foregoing notes it can be seen that the “grand design” is to link up and draw together all the Churches in Scotland and then draw them under the wing of the Anglican Church. And the Roman Church is prepared to wait until there will be a large scale apostacy from the Protestant faith to the bondage of the Papal fold. There was one Scottish Church which Professor Tindal did not mention, and that was the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. And as a Church we have nothing to boast of; but as we may boast in the Lord who has until now kept us in adherence to the Word of God and the practice thereof according to New Testament and Apostolic example, and in line with Reformation principles, and in adherence to the doctrine and practice of the Church of Scotland in its best days and to all that the Disruption fathers stood for in 1843. Thus we have been kept to this present day from compromising our principles and stand. This is all of the sovereign kindness of the Lord from 1893 until now.

The Moderator’s Closing Address.

Rev. Dr. James S. Stewart, the new Moderator of the Assembly, took as the subject of his closing address, “Repent and Believe.” In reading the press report of this address, which we have reason to conclude was a full report, references to the spiritual and evangelical nature of repentance and believing were conspicuous by their absence. At the very outset Dr. Stewart admitted that as a Church they were not making anything like sufficient impact to-day on the man in the street. And in reading the thoughts expressed and the language used in this address we are not surprised that the man in the street is not affected by or interested in the utterances of such as Dr. Stewart and many of his brethren. We do not discount intellect or literary skill; but the following excerpt from the address will indicate our point: “Can you measure Christ? Have you a calculus for the Cross? Have you an equation for the power of the resurrection? Have you a standard gauge for the Holy Spirit?” Among other things he asserted that the impact of the Church was felt outside the Church walls altogether because Christ was there. “. . . in the angry criticism of multitudes who never darkened the door of a Church, it was His (Christ’s) voice that was echoing still.” This point he developed when he said: “Surely we do not imagine, when we send missionaries into unevangelised territory, that Christ has not been there before them.” If Dr. Stewart refers to territory where heathen are who never heard the gospel until missionaries brought it to them, then we must differ from him as to fundamental facts in such a case. Such are, before the gospel came to them, without God, without Christ, and without hope in the world. Christ was not there as Saviour before the gospel came. Although in the way of Christ’s providential government—Yes. But then it is for the Moderator to explain to the man in the street exactly what he means, when he addressed the Assembly. He referred to the unsearchable riches of Christ, and that God bears the sins of the world, and alluded to the grace of the eternal, freely offered in the living Christ. If these truths briefly stated by the Moderator were preached and taught throughout the Church of Scotland, as explained and set forth in detail throughout the Word of God, then Scotland would not be in such a low and pitiable state religiously as it is to-day.