A Correction
In a recent issue it was stated in a Note and Comment upon the memorial service held in Westminster Abbey for the late Mr A. Bevan, M.P., that a number of years ago Keir Hardie was buried in the Abbey and that the Christianity which he repudiated in his life was forced upon him in his death. A friend has kindly corrected this by reminding us that it was Thomas Hardy, the novelist and atheist, who was buried in the Abbey and upon whom the above observation was made by evangelicals at the time. It is said that Keir Hardie before he died intimated his devotion to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Roman Catholic Plays Knox
At what is called the Edinburgh Festival, Mr Leonard Maguire, a Roman Catholic, and well-known actor, played the part of John Knox in a play, “Mary Stuart in Scotland,” which was staged at the Church of Scotland Gateway Theatre. He stated that he took the part as a professional actor. The Archbishop of the R.C. Church in Edinburgh and St. Andrews would not make any comment on the matter. It is to us deplorable enough that the Church of Scotland runs such a theatre, and in line with such worldly activities it is not surprising that they should permit a Roman Catholic to assume the character of John Knox, the Reformer. Even the Press made headlines of this and revealed surprise at such a choice. Some modern churchmen revel in the ludicrous.
English Judge Opposes Easier Divorce
Last September Sir A. Pellow Marshall, an English divorce judge, addressed the annual meeting of the American Bar Association in Washington. He said: “The provision of the Matrimonial Causes Act permitting divorce on the grounds of cruelty has come to be regarded as an escape route from a marriage that has broken down and where no other matrimonial offence exists.” Among other causes for divorce in this country he mentioned the following: “Moral law had been forced into second place. Christian virtues, abstinence, discipline, unselfishness, patience and humility are at a discount.” The learned judge spoke from observation, knowledge of cases and a wise view of the terrible undermining of the marriage bond which proceeds apace in professedly Christian Britain today. Men and women are away from Biblical doctrine and teaching and have no right conception of the true Christian nature of the divinely ordained institution of
marriage and the vows and obligations involved in entering into this relationship. Marriage and family life according to Christian principles constitute one of the main foundations of a moral and stable society. But the law of the land permits the dissolving of the marriage bond on grounds that are not sanctioned by God, and which are calculated to encourage married persons to seek divorce and to devise circumstances to obtain it. This state of affairs has over-burdened the divorce courts and brought misery to multitudes.
Ministers Promote Dancing on Sabbath
Local ministers in Hawick have been organising a “Youth Club” in the Town Hall on Sabbath evenings. At the end of October they were finding that attendances were falling off. In passing we may observe that “Youth Clubs” on Sabbath do not seem to have but a temporary attraction for present-day youth. We wonder if they just go back to the street corners? But the ministers of Hawick did not give up the efforts for youth on this account. Through Rev W. Grant Anderson, minister of Hawick Old Parish Church, they requested the Town Council to allow dancing at the Sabbath night gatherings of young people. This request was granted. So the church and civil magistrates join in leading present-day youth to ignore God’s law and the claims of God therein. This, of course, is the grievous trend of modern times. Further, the ministers are reported to have said that they feel this is the right approach. It certainly is the “right” approach to leading the youth to out-and-out irreligion in their impressionable years. But when the ministers state that they are proceeding in this way “in an act of faith,” we know for a certainty that it is not the faith of God’s elect. What kind of faith it is, we know not.
Rev. Dr. George MacLeod Opposed in Ulster
From Press reports sent to us from Northern Ireland it appears that Dr George MacLeod, of the Iona Community, went over there in October on a lecture tour to gather support in a financial way for Iona Abbey. It seems that many of the Presbyterians and Protestants of Ulster were well informed as to the views of Dr MacLeod and intended to challenge and oppose him. In Ballymoney, there was a noisy period at a meeting which he addressed, when he was asked by the Rev John Wylie, of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, why he (Dr MacLeod) had permitted members of the Greek Orthodox Church to celebrate the full rites of the Mass in Iona. Dr MacLeod replied that it was the principle
of the Community that any member of a denomination could carry out his rites of worship. He was then faced by Rev Ian Paisley, who reminded him that in Derry he had said that the Community existed to recover and preserve the principles of the Reformation. These Protestant Irishmen were apparently prepared and determined to expose Dr MacLeod; while in Scotland professed Protestants of the Church of Scotland are fast asleep as far as Romish activities in connection with the Iona Community are concerned. In Coleraine, opposition from an Elders’ Fellowship resulted in the cancellation of an invitation to Dr MacLeod to speak at a meeting there. The opponents of Dr MacLeod declared that they would make a protest if the meeting took place. At a meeting of Presbyterian Protestants in Ballymoney, Rev John Wylie declared: “There is no doubt whatever that Dr MacLeod is a very High Churchman with sympathies towards Rome. It is a tragedy that he should be allowed to come to Ballymoney . . .” Mr Wylie then asked: “Is Dr MacLeod a Presbyterian?” and there were calls of “No” from the audience. He then asked: “Is Dr MacLeod a Romanist?” and there were calls of “Yes.” These excerpts from reports reveal that there are some Protestants today who are not afraid to voice their opinions regarding such men as Rev Dr George MacLeod, and to keep Dr MacLeod aware of his Romish tendencies and that he cannot deceive all the people.
Banned Book can now be Published
Great prominence was given in the Press and radio to the case ament the novel by D. H. Lawrence, entitled “Lady Chatterley’s Lover.” This book was written many years ago but was not allowed to be published and sold in Britain because it was considered to be obscene and calculated to corrupt. But a recent Act of Parliament regarding obscene publications dealt with the right to determine before an appropriate Court of Law whether a book of high literary merit suspected of being obscene was in fact obscene. The design was to either ban the book or permit publication. A case was brought before a judge and jury regarding the book aforementioned, and the Penguin Books Publishing Company appeared to defend themselves as intending publishers against the procedure of the Public Prosecutor. As readers know the case was a prolonged one for one particular reason, the intending publishers put into the witness-box a long list of “expert” witnesses to declare their views in defence of the book as being one of high literary merit and not calculated in any way to corrupt readers. Some may say rightly that the Public Prose-
cutor should not have acted as he did in calling no witnesses to give reliable evidence against the book. At any rate the jury returned the verdict that the book was not obscene and not harmful to the public good. It therefore can be published and sold now in England and Wales. Christians, not merely by profession, who fear the Lord and are deeply concerned for the low state of morals, are shocked by the fact that now hundreds of thousands of this evil book shall be sold cheaply. No godfearing person need read the book to pass a judgment of condemnation upon it. How? They can assume that the book is a vile publication when it was thought formerly to be a danger to morals in its being banned for so long. It has now been judged suitable for publication partly by pressure from groups of people with modern, unscriptural standards of morality. Then when the Public Prosecutor was prepared to prosecute in the case, this indicated that the book was anything but suitable to be let loose on the public. Another fact may be mentioned. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who often sits on the fence regarding certain moral questions, saw fit to publicly rebuke the Bishop of Woolwich for giving evidence at the trial in favour of its publication. The little, that any right-thinking person read of the evidence and the judge’s summing up, was enough to shock them. The moral fibre of the nation is being increasingly permeated with the views and activities of men who call good evil and evil good. Especially as a privileged nation we cannot escape the righteous judgment of God in abandoning recognition of the standards and claims of the moral law.