“The Killing Times.”—The memory of those sad days for Scotland has been revived through the publication of a new volume of the Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, edited by the Rev. Henry Paton, M.A., and Prof. R. K. Hannay. It is a revelation of the cold-blooded and heartless policy of the Government towards the Covenanters, and abundantly vindicates Wodrow’s “History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland.” In a leading article the “Glasgow Herald” says:—”The Government’s cold statements of its policy and its measures create a repugnance which is irresistible. . . . The ferocity of the sentences is almost incredible.” Sir Walter Scott, who in his “Old Mortality” held the Covenanters up to ridicule, is rightly chastised by the leader-writer above quoted. “The humour,” he says, “is in the novel alone, for the Restoration Government took care that the records of real life should be painful and tragic.” Unfortunately too many in our day only know the Covenanters through the fictional writings of Sir Walter Scott, without knowing that his caricatures of these worthy men were so masterfully exposed by Dr MacCrie that Scott found it necessary to defend himself anonymously. We demur to the “Glasgow Herald’s” characterisation of the youthful and faithful martyr, James Renwick’s, manifesto as “fanatical.” The Revolution was a vindication of these miscalled fanatics. They were the true patriots of Scotland, and Scotland would do well to remember her last and saintly martyr.
Sabbath and “Sunday.”—In the brief report of the Assemblies it will be noticed that the name “Sunday” appears in inverted commas. In this way, while quoting the speaker’s words, we wish to show our disapproval of the pagan term. The common use of “Sunday” for Sabbath is one of Satan’s clever devices to keep the minds of men away from the true significance of the Sabbath.
Dancing at its Worst.—Dancing at its best, as carried on in our day, is a form of dissipation that wise people, to say nothing of Christians, should carefully shun. But when it descends to what took place recently in Oxford, under the auspices of the Oxford University Dramatic Society, one begins to wonder if such things are actually possible in a Christian land, in one of the towns of our foremost Universities, and by youths undergoing training there. The “Daily Mail” (London), in reporting this orgy of devilry, heads its report—”Hell’ Ball at Oxford.” It says there were 500 guests, and these were met at the entrance to the Town Hall by a party of red-clothed “devils,” led by Mr P. B. Moyniham, son of Sir Berkeley Moyniham, and were conducted into “Hell.” Over the doorway was the motto, “All hope abandon ye who enter here.” Moving red lights, ingeniously reflected from the ceiling, made the floor look like a fiery river. Round the fiery floor was an intense, eerie blackness, and but for the hilarious laughter of the dancers the place might have been a cave lit by black-red lanterns swung by unseen spirits. At one end of the hall was a band gathered round the “Gates of Heaven,” which were kept closed. Astonished and shocked reader! this is not an account of a cannibal dance, but of young men and women of a town renowned for its high intellectual life. The whole setting not only shocks every serious mind, but is a daring trifling with matters that should never be referred to but with the most solemn seriousness. It is on record that a worthy elder, while listening to a sermon in which the preacher time and again uttered the word “hell” in an unfeeling and harsh way, was overheard by those sitting near him say—”Ay, man, if ye got a dip into it for two seconds ye would have a little more feeling when ye spoke about it.” The light-hearted company that danced and laughed in the Town Hall of Oxford may have another day, unless God in His mercy save them, when the laughter will be absent and their dancing at an end, and hell such a reality that none of them dare mock at it.
Revised Prayer Book.—A momentous vote has been given by the Church Assembly of the Church of England. The total vote was 517 for the New Prayer Book and 133 against. The House of Bishops voted as follows:—34 for, 4 against—House of Clergy: 253 for, 37 against—House of Laity: 230 for, 92 against. This has been described as the most important decision
given by the Church of England since the Reformation. The matter now goes to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament who will decide whether or not the measure infringes in any way upon the rights of His Majesty’s subjects. If accepted by them it will then be presented to Parliament. We watch future developments with the keenest interest, for there can be no doubt but momentous decisions have been taken and are about to be taken.
Busy Scenes in Glasgow.—Such was the sub-heading of a recent item of news in the “Glasgow Herald.” The opening sentence read:—”Yesterday morning [Sabbath, 19th June] scenes at the Central Station, Glasgow, according to a railway official, were almost like a Fair Saturday. It was estimated that between the ordinary ‘Sunday’ services run by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company and special excursion trains about 7000 passengers left the city for various destinations. Of this number, 4000 travelled by the special excursion trains, which included two to Oban, two to Kirkcudbright, one to Stranraer, one to Arbroath, and another for the Clyde coast run in connection with a cruise to Brodick Bay.” The Scottish people, it would appear, have taken the hold of the bit in their mouths, and are determined to set at defiance the divine law, but retribution is awaiting them as surely as that awaiting the defiers of natural law. The Railway Companies tell us barefacedly that these excursions are run on the Lord’s Day to increase revenue, but God has His own way of scattering gain gathered in defiance of His holy law, and the Railway Companies may soon find this out. But whether they do or not, the fact remains that a great deal of guilt rests on them for providing cheap facilities to the godless trippers who make God’s holy day a day of pleasure and sport.
British Delegation to the Vatican.—The following report from “The Times” (12th May) will be of interest to our readers:—”Sir A. Chamberlain, replying to Viscount Sandon (Shrewsbury, U.), who asked whether the maintenance of a Legation at the Vatican was now regarded as a matter of permanent policy, said:—Yes, sir. His Majesty’s Government have no intention of withdrawing the Mission to the Holy See. Replying to Mr Thurtle, Sir A. Chamberlain said:—His Majesty’s Government found it convenient to establish this delegation at a time of great international trouble and diffi-
culty. To withdraw the delegation now would, I think, be an almost offensive course, which we should be slow to adopt. Apart from that, whatever views we may take individually about the Roman Church, there can be no doubt that the head of that Church represents a great force in the world and is venerated by many millions of his Majesty’s subjects. Mr Thurtle—May I ask why, as this delegation was sent at a time of abnormal circumstances, and the conditions have become normal, you should not, as a matter of ordinary policy, withdraw the delegation? Sir A. Chamberlain—I think certainly not. I think it would be highly impolitic. Sir H. Slessor (Leeds, S.E., Lab.)—Is it not a fact that the appointment of the delegation did not entirely arise out of extraordinary circumstances? Sir A. Chamberlain—Ordinary and extraordinary circumstances combined to induce the Government of the day to reach that decision.” It is nothing short of a scandal that notwithstanding the protests that have been made to the continuance of a British representative at the Vatican, that the Government should give permanency to the appointment. On the first appointment assurance was given that it was only a temporary appointment, and then without consulting Parliament it was made permanent. When statesmen shamelessly break their word, what honour or respect do they deserve?