And yet, again, so simply clear The gospel message thou couldst speak, That childhood's heart and childhood's ear Gave heed in comprehension meek; And many a soul, long dead in sin, Felt stirrings of new life within, And learned to count all gain a loss, That stood between it and the cross! But, ah! if even the Master's word So often all unheeded fell, How shall the servant's voice be heard, Save when the Spirit, in his might, His lot hath fallen on evil days, First kiss, and then betray their Lord! 'Tis an old strife, but oft renewed, For Satan knows his vantage well- Earth were but one vast porch for hell! The preacher's voice but now is still, His flock are scattering far and near, How jars the laughter on his ear! And he is gone apart to pray, As often he hath prayed before; Referring to the well known Book of Sports. The undying worm, whose full-grown sting, A bulrush in the Spirit's hand, Green Anwoth keeps her Sabbath rest, He sleeps whose name embalms her still! But children's children still they bring, How Anwoth keeps her Sabbath-day! And now a sadder tale they tell, One watcher missing in its place, Who scoffing hurled it from its base! Oh, Scotland! home of Sabbath rest, In keeping Eden's light command! SABBATH PROTECTION: SIR CULLING SMITH'S CORRESPONDENCE WITH HIS EDINBURGH COMMITTEE. WE think we shall do a service to two good causes-that of the Christian Sabbath, and that of Christian brotherhood-by calling attention to this correspondence, and giving the substance of it, with such brief explanations and notes as may be useful for enabling our readers to understand its drift and bearing. Most heartily do we agree with Sir Culling in his "wish" that " every correspondence involving difference of opinion, were conducted in the kind spirit which," as he says, his "Committee," and, as we add, himself still more, "have manifested." But the "difference of opinion" is, in our apprehension, very serious and sad. Sir Culling Smith was invited to oppose Mr Macaulay at the election of a Member of Parliament for Edinburgh, on the occasion of the formation of Lord John Russell's government. The ground of opposition was the endowment of Popery. The occasion was unfavourable. Many sound Protestants did not consider the formal re-election of a Member of the Cabinet a suitable time for raising the question. The return of Mr Macaulay was made a testing government question; and it was announced that opposition to him would be regarded as equivalent to opposition to Lord John Russell's Ministry; nay more, as a refusal to give it a fair trial. Mr Macaulay himself went to an extraordinary, and, we fear, an inexplicable length in his denial of any design being entertained by his colleagues towards the endowment of Popery. And as to Sir Culling, he came to Edinburgh an entire stranger, on the shortest notice, and with nothing whatever to recommend him beyond his known character as a man of God, and his recent zeal in heading the resistance to the miserable Maynooth establishment. With all these drawbacks, Sir Culling more than stood his ground. Even his adversaries willingly acknowledged the progress which his admirable Christian and gentlemanly demeanour enabled him to make; and, with one remarkable enough exception, not fitted to advance the credit of the Chief Magistracy of the Scottish metropolis, none of them treated either Sir Culling or his supporters otherwise than with uniform and increasing respect. It was hoped that the approaching dissolution of Parliament would bring Sir Culling Smith forward with better prospects of success. Many who felt it their duty to vote against him on the occasion of the Whig Ministry going into office, would have felt themselves free to oppose Mr Macaulay, and bound to do so, at a general election; and it was anticipated that the question of the endowment of Popery would then be more fairly and unequivocally before the constituency and the country. We are far from regretting, on the whole, the unexpected turn which this affair has taken. In one view, indeed, we deeply deplore it. We esteem and love Sir Culling Smith; and as a public character in the Church of Christ, we value him highly. We had hoped to see him acting a useful part as a Christian man in the State; and we would have rejoiced in his connection with Scotland and the Scottish capital. All this is apparently at an end, at least for the present. We greatly fear, also, that the mere want of another suitable candidate may open to Mr Macaulay an easy return to his seat for Edinburgh in the new Parliament. Certainly it will not be any general enthusiasm of personal regard, nor any general sympathy with his Maynooth vote, that will prevent him, so far as the citizens of Edinburgh are concerned, from renouncing, as he threatened, all public life, and resumingh is path to the vacant throne of history. we do not regret the interruption that has occurred in Sir Culling Smith's correspondence with his Committee. It may be got over so as to advance ulti Still, mately Sir Culling's position in Scotland, should it lead him to study more than he has done, our national views and customs. And, at all events, it brings out high principle, and must lead many to ask, how it comes to pass that a purely religious question is allowed thus to be so influential and so paramount over all party and political considerations? The correspondence arose out of an answer Sir Culling Smith gave to a question abruptly put at one of his last public meetings in Edinburgh, relative to his views on the subject of the protection of the Sabbath generally, and, in particular, the prohibition or prevention of Sabbath Railway travelling. On this subject the Committee open correspondence with Sir Culling Smith, in a letter dated 11th November 1846, and setting forth their apprehensions: Whilst fully satisfied with the declarations you had made on other points, and gratified to think we had succeeded in obtaining a candidate of Christian character and devoted piety, very great disappointment was felt by many of the Committee in the remarks which you made upon that question at the last meeting in the Waterloo Rooms. The deepest apprehensions are entertained of the incalculable evils threatened by the introduction of the practice of Sunday travelling in Scotland; and so far as it has already gone, our worst fears have been more than realized. It seems to be the duty of every Christian to use every possible meaus for putting an end to this fearful amount of Sabbath profanation, so disgraceful to our country, and hitherto so little known. Government buildings the same. The parks the same to equipages, though not to foot passengers, many of whom have no other day to breathe the fresh air. The employés of Government should be at liberty, except for matters of necessity. The transmission of the mail bags seems to me a matter of necessity. There are letters which, if there were no such thing as a PostOffice, private Christians would be justified in transmitting on Sunday. The Government has undertaken the monopoly of transmitting the national correspondence, and is bound to do for individuals what they would have otherwise done for themselves. I consider that the Government is right in assuming that there may be letters of necessity on any Post Office route on any Sunday, and that therefore the bags ought to pass. The delivery of letters is another matter. None should be delivered but those which the senders by some conventional sign or stamp require to be delivered. The responsibility then rests with the senders. The practical effect of such a plan would be an immense reduction of deliveries in every English town and city. Having explained my view on the duty of Government within its own sphere, I proceed to explain what I consider not to be its sphere. It does not seem to me that either individuals, or companies, which are only persons on a large scale, ought be forced in the matter of Sabbath observance. No doubt the Sabbath is often grossly and railway proprietor, I should endeavour to fulneedlessly violated on railways. Were I a fil my duty of preventing the evil. But I cannot see my way to legislative interference. If I stop Sunday trains in Scotland, I must do so in England. If I interfere with trains to Richmond on the Sabbath, I must stop the equally great scandal of the steam-boats to Richmond. If I arrest steam travelling, I must stop horse travelling, such as omnibus, cabs, and posting. Now, the whole of this I am prepared to do, if my friends can prove it to be my duty. But I cannot see it to be my duty, either on the ground of punishing irreligion, or on the more captivating plea of protecting the well-disposed. With those that tell me that irreligion is to be Sir Culling's reply, dated 17th Sep- punished as such, I cannot argue. The contember 1846, is as follows :— I readily comply with the wish of the Committee to explain my views on the subject of railway travelling onthe Sabbath, by which I understand them to mean the duty of the Government on that subject. The Committee will excuse me if, in order to make my views clear on Sunday travelling, I state those on the Sabbath in general. They are aware of my general view, that Government is equally bound with private individuals to take cognizance of Divine truth, and to obey the Divine will. In regard then to the Sabbath, a Christian individual ought to prevent his family, and persons in his service, from desecrating the Sabbath. His power over others must be confined to what moral influence he can exercise over them. So with the Government. It must see that the Sabbath is respected in its offices, public buildings, and Crown lands, and that its servants do not violate the Sabbath in its service. Its offices should be shut. Exhibitions in trary is to me the first axiom of a legislator's duty. And with regard to protection against ill disposed employers or customers, it seems to me that religious men who solicit such protection forget that trials and difficulties are a perpetual condition of virtue, and that it is not within the functions or power of the law to remove them. From this general view of the Sabbath, my friends will see that I consider the passage of the mail trains on railways a work of necessity, and that much as I desire to see other trains diminished or stopped, I cannot promise as a legislator to stop them. I look to the spread of living Christianity, rather than to coercive measures, to restrain this and every other description of Sabbath-breaking; and I fervently hope that the same mighty gospel before which slavery, superstition, drunkenness, aud every form of error and immorality are to perish, will ere long restore her Sabbaths to Scotland, as tranquil as formerly, and even more profitable, because founded upon the willing consent of a church-going and Bibleloving population. |