Belshazzar the King.—The Higher Critics, wise in their own eyes above the writers of the Old Testament, have confidently asserted that Daniel made a mistake when he spoke of “Belshazzar the King.” Belshazzar was the eldest son of Nabonidus, who was the last native King of Babylon. Assyriologists and conservative scholars pointed out that there was evidence from the cuneiform inscriptions that Belshazzar was the eldest son of Nabonidus, and that he was commander-in-chief of the army that took Babylon. These matters have been thoroughly discussed by Dr Pinches and Doctors W. H. Green and Dick Wilson. Now it would appear from a note by the Rev. Charles Boutflower, in the August number of the “Expository Times,” that monthly arsenal of British Higher Critical learning, that evidence is now to hand that Belshazzar was really King when Babylon was taken. Mr Boutflower, whose Danielic studies have made him a convinced defender of the book of Daniel, has pointed out in this note that direct evidence of Belshazzar’s kingship has recently been brought to light. In a poem written in cuneiform and in the Babylonian language, which has been transliterated and translated by Mr Sidney Smith, of the British Museum, in his “Babylonian Historical Texts,” it appears Nabonidus, the father of Belshazzar, retired to Tema in the third year of his reign, and according to the tablet he entrusted to Belshazzar the sovereignty. If this inscription is correctly read, then we have further confirmation of the historicity of Daniel, and another blow is struck against the contentions of the Higher Critics. Biblical archaeology is step by step driving back the forces which so confidently boasted that all the learning was on their side.
Protestantism in Italy.—“The English Churchman” gives the following quotation from the “Christian World”:—“The position of Protestants in Italy may, indeed, at any moment become tragic—if wild and whirling words really presage corresponding action. In Mussolini’s own paper an astounding article has been reprinted in which the Holy Inquisition is glorified without stint. The article speaks of the ‘barbarous principles’ of Protestantism, and referring to the endeavours by any and every means to stamp out the new doctrine in bygone days, goes on to say that ‘so inquisition, tortures, wholesale slaughters appear to us now as truly heroic acts, accomplished for the greatest glory of God.’ The extermination of the Huguenots in France is specially mentioned as a meritorious act! What does all this portend?” We have pointed out in these Notes before that Fascism was too closely linked with Romanism to bode well for Protestantism. The strong hand of Mussolini will be used as far as it suits its purposes by the Church of Rome, and then Mussolini will have to submit to the Church.
Wembley Not to be Opened on Sabbath.—The strenuous effort put forth to have Wembley opened on the Lord’s Day has failed. The Board of the British Empire Exhibition decided, after further investigation, that it was impossible to open the Exhibition on Sabbath. The Lord’s Day Observance Act barred the opening of the Amusements Park, and there were other difficulties in the way on which Sabbath desecrators had not reckoned. It is encouraging to know that the law of the land has some check on law-breakers, though it is to be deeply regretted that God’s law does not get the same honour from men.
Territorials and Sabbath Training.—The London correspondent of the “Scotsman” says that an attempt is being made to enable Territorials to indulge in shooting on the Sabbath. The intention is that ranges should be open for both class firing under regimental supervision and for individual practice. The Territorial Associations are to be circularised in due course and invited to give the proposal their support. During the War many things were done as works of necessity which were no works of necessity at all, but the War Office will find it hard to give any appearance of necessity to the above projected most reprehensible practice, and we trust instead of gaining recruits that it will have the opposite effect. Our objection to this new move, however, is not so much that it may interfere with recruiting as that it is a direct violation of God’s law by one of the great State Departments and we trust that those who love the Lord’s Day, whether Territorials or not, will oppose this new movement.
The Pan Presbyterian Alliance.—The Alliance met this year at Cardiff. It is made up of representatives from almost all the Presbyterian Churches of the world. One of the fullest accounts we have read is that given by Dr Jenkins, of Princeton, in two successive numbers of “The Presbyterian.” Modernism has unmistakably shown its cloven foot in the Alliance. To use the words of the Editor of “The Presbyterian,” “It appears to us that it was a constant manifestation of radical disagreements rather than a union or alliance of Presbyterian Churches. Sometimes there is advantage in debates by opposing sides and convictions. But when these differences become so radical, persistent and general, it seems like folly to pretend any kind of an alliance. It is more properly termed controversy. There is a growing conviction that the difference between the various Presbyterian bodies in Europe and America have become so diametrical that alliance of any kind is impossible. Some of the Presbyterian denominations mistrust the Alliance, and have abandoned it.” After reading Dr Jenkins’ account it does appear strange to us that the more orthodox Presbyterian denominations can countenance the Alliance any longer.