English Visitors to Scotland and the Sabbath.—One of the dailies had a paragraph recently announcing that owing to the dullness of the Scottish Sabbath, as felt by English visitors to Clyde resorts, the Dunoon Town Council had decided to allow band performances in the Castle Gardens on Sabbath afternoons; while Kirn and Hunter’s Quay lawn tennis clubs have agreed to open their courts for play on God’s day. Scotland saw other days when she was not ashamed to abide by her Sabbaths and when she could look the world in the face without a blush of shame though taunted with her narrow Sabbatarianism and the gloom of her Sabbaths. It is so no longer. Our Southern neighbours are imposing on us their ideas of how the Sabbath should be kept, or to put it more correctly, should not be kept, and what with the English management of the railways, English influence in the press of the great journalistic combines, it is not to be wondered at that English tourists should follow up the advances thus gained by breaking down as far as they can the last vestige of Scottish Sabbatarianism. As a nation our Scottish forefathers defended their rights on the field of battle and on the scaffold, and were unsubdued but we, their worthless descendants, are bartering
for pleasure and gain that which cost them tears and blood.
“The Old Scottish Sabbath Passes.”—Such is the sub-cross heading of an article which appeared recently in the “Daily Record” (Glasgow). The writer glories in the fact, which is all too apparent to friend and foe, that the Sabbath is passing in Scotland. The title of the article is:—“Railway Trips Killing Grim Old Scots Sabbath.” The writer, who has about as much respect for the Ninth Commandment as he has for the Fourth, says that “‘Sunday’ was a day of drawn blinds, hushed streets, and only absolutely necessary labour” less than 20 years ago in villages near the large cities. “No cooking was done, and the only wear was stiff sarks, dark suits, and square, hard felt hats for the men, and sombre gowns for the women.” This gentleman is either drawing on his imagination or is deliberately mis-stating facts. There has been a great change in the wrong direction in Sabbath-keeping within 20 years, but the Scotland described above exists only in the lively imagination of the journalist. The drawn blinds, the gloom of the Scottish Sabbath, the restriction of the propensities of frolicksome youth have been so often delated on by those who hated the Lord’s Day that we need not wonder that a new adjective has been commandeered into the service of the anti-Sabbatarian. The “grim old Scots Sabbath!” How little do those who hold such views know of the holy joy that multitudes of God’s redeemed had on this holy day. Thousands of them could join with the Psalmist in saying:—“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” Theirs was real joy, not the kind that finds expression in the laughter of fools, which is like the crackling of thorns under a pot, making a great noise but doing little good and leaving nothing but ashes behind. From the wells out of which such joy flows we have no hesitation in saying that such writers as the above, however facile their pens may be, are as ignorant as the uncivilised heathen. When it is remembered the Lord of the Sabbath was designated an “austere man,” it is no wonder His holy day should be described as grim. The same power that suggested the one inspired the other, which, needless to say, was not heavenly. We have not benefited religiously by the invasion of our country by the English press and English management of the Scottish railways. No doubt our press was far from what we would have wished it to be as far as its support of Sabbath observ-
ance was concerned and the same could be said about the Scottish railways, but since the introduction of the papers of the great English press combines and the passing into English hands of the management of the Scottish railways there has been a marked deterioration in regard to Sabbath observance. During last summer it is estimated that 330,000 persons, according to the “Daily Record,” took advantage of the Sabbath excursion trains. The L.M.S. and the L.N.E.R. are the transgressors as far as Scotland is concerned, and in the article already referred to the writer says:—”Both companies are experiencing a growing demand for ‘Sunday’ excursion facilities, and their arrangements will accordingly be on a larger scale this year. The L.N.E.R. alone expect to run about 300 special half-day excursions from Glasgow and other points within their Scottish southern area between May and September . . . . These figures show that the traditional Scottish ‘Sunday’ has passed.” Yes, and is the mad hunt for pleasure and sport that characterise so many of the Sabbath-breakers an improvement even from a worldly point of view on the older order of things? The pleasure-seekers who have commandeered God’s Day for their unholy purposes should not forget that there is a world of wisdom enshrined in Sir Matthew Hale’s lines:—
A Sabbath well spent brings a week of content,
And health for the toils of to-morrow;
But a Sabbath profaned, whate’er may be gained,
Is a certain forerunner of sorrow.
“A Day May Come.“—”It is surely conceivable,” said Cardinal Bourne in a sermon preached at Cambridge at the beginning of May, “that a day may come when an English Sovereign will feel unable any longer to declare himself to be a faithful Protestant.” After this deliverance he put in a plea for liberty of conscience for the King of England. The drift of the sermon shows plainly the fond hopes cherished by the Roman Catholics in this country. But to hear a prince of the Roman Church, as they are styled, expatiate on the virtues of liberty of conscience while advocating such for an English Sovereign reveals a state of mind in which important issues have become confused, or which is incapable of grasping the elementary facts of the principle pled for.
The Church Assembly and the Revised Prayer Book.
—The new Prayer Book has passed successfully through the Church Assembly. The vote was 396 votes for and 153 against. The majority is considerably smaller this
year than last, the vote then being 517 for and 133 against. The measure now goes before the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, and it is anticipated the Committee will place the Measure before Parliament. Should the measure be again rejected by Parliament the rejection will probably cause a great upheaval in the Church of England and a cry for Disestablishment; whereas if, on the other hand, it is passed, as we sincerely hope it will not be, it will mean the breaking away from the Church of England of many of those whose Protestantism was not a name but a reality. By the time these lines are in print the measure may be again on the way to face the Houses of Parliament.