GREAT SPEECH BY MR. M. J. F. M’CARTHY, B.A., T.C.D.
THE following is the text of a speech delivered by Mr. J. F. M’Carthy at a public meeting held in the Town Hall, Newtown Butler, County Fermanagh, on Friday, 6th November, the Earl of Erne in the chair:—
Lord Erne, ladies and gentlemen of the County Fermanagh,—I have given myself the pleasure of coming to Newtown Butler tonight, in the first place, to mark my respectful appreciation of the Earl of Erne’s recent public action in declining to identify himself with a certain insidious attempt to secure the endowment of a priest-governed University for Roman Catholics in Ireland at the public expense. I know that the overgrown priesthood of Ireland, in want of more funds, have been praying most fervently for complete autocracy in Irish Roman Catholic education. The achievement of that end would be the consummation of their desires, and they have been hoping to obtain it next year with the co-operation of Irish Orangemen.
I cannot tell you what were the foundation upon which that presumptuous hope was based. But, knowing the priests as I do, I am convinced that there are no means to which the sacerdotal society will not stoop, no quarter of the earth from which they would refuse assistance, in order to secure the fresh pecuniary endowment involved in the creation of a new University or College in which all real executive power and patronage, teaching as well as managerial, would be vested in themselves.
Rarely has the political world seen such a spectacle. In order to realise the situation you must reverse the condition of things and endeavour to imagine the Orangemen of Ireland soliciting aid from the priests for the advancement of the Protestant cause by the establishment of a University in which the only studies to be pursued should be the gospel of Christ and the Revolutions of 1647 and 1688.
We beheld the priests on their knees before the Orangemen, but not for a moment was I in doubt as to the result. The Orange Society has proved through its Imperial Grand Master, that it is imbued with the same principles and convictions as of old.
There are few men nowadays apparently who possess any fixed principles, and shoals of philosophic doubters are to be seen skimming through the shallow political waters on all sides. Philosophic doubt seems to be in fashion, not only on this the priest-governed University question, but on almost every other public topic that can be mentioned, from protection to vaccination.
It is, therefore, something to be thankful for that the bacillus of philosophic doubt has not yet infected the Orange Society. It will be a bad day for Ireland when Orangemen take to the devious ways of philosophic doubt. The constitution, history, and objects of Orangeism all prove that a rough, dogged adherence to principle is its main characteristic. Long may the heirloom of Orangeism, handed down to us from heroic days, be preserved! May it never founder in the muddy backwater of philosophic doubt! For what nobler object could a body of citizens set before themselves—whether they constitute a Papal Society in Rome or an Orange Society in Ulster—than the maintenance and preservation of civil and religious liberty?
When Treason bared her bloody arm, and maddened round the land,
For king and laws and order fair we drew the ready brand;
Our gathering spell was William’s name—our word was “Do or Die,”
And still we put our trust in God and kept our powder dry.
In what clime or in what age can it be recorded of the sacerdotal society, as we know it, that its members ever stood up for civil or religious liberty? Would that it could be written of them that they ever played a straight game or were ready for a straight fight! True to their history they are now playing a tortuous game and fighting a crooked fight in Ireland for a priest-governed University. And, if it be granted to them, it will be an act of political fraud for which the recent political annals of this country afford no parallel.
What is a political fraud? A political fraud is a deception knowingly and deliberately practised by a constitutional Government upon the electorate which returned it to power. That is the position which confronts us at this moment in Ireland. That is the aspect of the priest-governed University question with which I shall deal especially to-night.
The government of the United Kingdom is perhaps the most important trust which can be bestowed upon a body of men. If honour and integrity be essential in an ordinary trustee, those virtues are infinitely more essential in the Cabinet Ministers of the United Kingdom, because they are the holders of what is, perhaps, the highest existing trust on earth. If calculated deceit and political dishonour were to be clearly associated with the name and conduct of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, then good-bye to British supremacy, for good faith is the foundation on which British prosperity rests.
Let us now examine how the endowment of this priest-governed University for the sectarian education of Roman Catholics in Ireland, if it should take place, will be a political fraud involving the dishonour of the Prime Minister and Government of the United Kingdom.
For the past month or two our Government has been undergoing a reconstruction. It is no longer the Government under which the United Kingdom was managed since the year 1895. The death of Lord Salisbury, the resignation of Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Ritchie, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, and the Duke of Devonshire—in fact, of most of the statesmen of repute connected with it—has almost completely altered the personnel of the Government. But the Unionist party is still in power, bound by all the pledges on the faith of which it was entrusted with office in 1895.
Although there has been no General Election, no new mandate from the country, we have had many important re-elections of members of the Government, newly-appointed Cabinet Ministers, and others, which gave the reconstructed Government an ample opportunity of declaring its views on the question of endowing a sectarian University or College for the pecuniary refreshment of the priests. Mr. Arnold-Forster, for instance, had to seek re-election in Belfast, and he is one of the important members of the Cabinet, holding, as he does, the responsible office of Secretary of State for War. The Marquis of Hamilton also had to seek re-election at Derry, and, although a young man and only appointed to a subordinate post, he is, nevertheless, the bearer of an honoured name in Ireland, a young nobleman predestined, I hope, to a long career of usefulness.
These two members of the Government, as you know, have just secured re-election. What has been their attitude towards this proposed priest-governed University into which lay Roman Catholics are to be whipped for the aggrandisement of the overgrown priesthood? The Secretary of State for War had to re-enunciate openly his disapproval of the proposed sectarian University or College, and, on the faith of that reiterated pledge he was re-elected by the votes of the extreme Protestant party in Belfast, by whom a priest-governed University is rightly held to be as a thing accursed.
If, therefore, Mr. Arnold-Forster, as a Cabinet Minister, is a party next session to the introduction of a Bill for the establishment of this sectarian, priest-governed University or College, will he not be branded before the world as a dishonest man, a man who is not fit to be a member of a reputable club, a man not fit to be trusted in any commercial transaction, a man not fit to receive a certificate from the court of political bankruptcy? I do not suggest that Mr. Arnold-Forster intends to be a party to endowing this sectarian priest-governed University. That would be, in fact, to impute a crime to a responsible statesman who has made and remade such pledges. I do not even insinuate that such a capacity for falsehood exists in him or any other member of the Government. I am bound to believe Mr. Arnold-Forster to be an honourable man until the contrary is proved. Every man does not cease to be a gentleman when he becomes a politician.
Next let us take the case of the young Marquis of Hamilton. You all remember that on the day before his re-election for Derry the Marquis made one of the strongest speeches ever printed against this proposed sectarian, priest-governed University or College—it does not matter which name you call it by. Is it likely now that he will blight his opening career and brand himself as a political liar by remaining connected with the Government if in the face of such a declaration from himself when seeking re-election it introduces a Bill for the establishment and endowment of the very thing which he condemned? I rely upon the credit of the Ulster nobility, and I do believe that the Marquis of Hamilton will not so demean himself.
Then, again, let us take the case of Mr. William Moore, M.P. for Antrim. Mr. Moore went to Derry to assist in securing the re-election of the Marquis of Hamilton, and he also expressed, in the most unequivocal terms, his condemnation of this sectarian, priest-governed University or College for Roman Catholics. Now, Mr. Moore occupies the position of Parliamentary private secretary to a Cabinet Minister—namely, to Mr. Wyndham, the Chief Secretary for Ireland. If Mr. Wyndham be, as the priests allege he is, a thorough-going advocate for a sectarian University or College dominated by priests, an institution in which priests’ science, and priests’ history, and priests’ religion, and priests’ philosophy will alone be taught, why did he allow his private secretary to go down to Derry and win an election by denouncing that very University as an abomination and a monstrosity?
If Mr. Wyndham, as the priests allege, advocates the endowment of a priest-governed University or College for the perpetuation of discontent, falsehood, and sectarian bitterness in Ireland, then Mr. Wyndham should immediately have dissociated himself from Mr. Moore. But I do not hear that Mr. Wyndham has done any such thing. I cannot believe that Mr. Wyndham would be capable of allowing Mr. Moore and the young Marquis of Hamilton to pledge themselves thus if while they were committing themselves he had been secretly determined to do the thing which these two able young colleagues of his so unreservedly condemned. I believe, to put it on no higher grounds, that Mr. Wyndham is too solicitous for his own reputation to be a party to such fraudulent misrepresentation as that would amount to.
Having so far considered the position from the local point of view of recent Ministerial pledges in Ireland, let us now examine the question as it affects Conservative headquarters in England; Mr. A. J. Balfour, the Prime Minister, is said by the priests, the Freeman’s Journal, and the other priests’ newspapers to be in favour of conceding the sacerdotal claims in full. It cannot be denied that Mr. Balfour was in favour of a priest-governed University five years ago, in 1898, when he indited a well-remembered letter. But much has happened in Ireland since 1898.
I am always loth to refer to personal matters, but sometimes it cannot be avoided. There are few men who receive more daily temptations to think over-well of themselves than I do. I hope I resist those snares. At all events, I try to resist them. It can hardly be said, however, that I am egotistic when I state that amongst several important facts which have occurred since that date in Ireland two have been the publication of “Five Years in Ireland” and “Priests and People in Ireland,” another has been the publication of Mr. O’Donnell’s Book, “The Ruin of Education,” and last but not least the publication of Dr. Starkie’s address to the British Association at Belfast censuring the sacerdotal managers of the National Schools. Now, if nothing else had occurred but the publication of my two books, they alone were sufficient to change the aspect of the religious situation in Ireland for a British statesman. Their immense sale, at a comparatively high price, proves the truth which is in them, and no sane Minister of any British political party can proceed to pass religious legislation for Ireland now without taking into account the vast body of fact contained within the covers of these two books. If he does so, he will be struggling against the tide of thought which is rising fast in Great Britain.
Previous to the appearance of “Five Years in Ireland,” in March, 1901, there were no such facts available for the British statesman about to enact religious legislation for Ireland. Prior to that date all the facts, as well as all the fiction, prepared for the statesman’s eye were edited by the priests and their lay dependents, Protestant as well as Roman Catholic. No voice was to be heard in opposition to the Priest’s pretensions from within the Catholic ranks. Therefore, in the case of a well-meaning man, a North Britisher by birth, like Mr. Balfour, however predisposed he may have been towards a priest-governed Roman Catholic University in 1898, I say that it is just possible that he may not be so eager to-day to attempt new legislation of a quasi-religious character in the priests’ interest in Ireland. He may not be quite so smitten by the blandishments of the priests in 1903 as he was in 1898.
Nobody wants an increase of sectarianism in education in Ireland, except the priests and their parasites, who fear the truth as much as beetles fear the light. Trinity College is good enough for anyone. Trinity College is as free as air. May those who rule its destinies not lose courage now! The Queen’s Colleges are equally free. A young man may pass through those colleges and retain his individual religion—whether it be Roman Catholic, Mussulman, Evangelical Protestant, High Church Protestant, Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregationalist, Baptist, Quaker, or Plymouth Brethren; and when he emerges from their portals he may find himself confirmed in all those qualities which make up good citizenship. I myself was more devoted to Roman Catholic observances when I left Trinity than I was before I entered it. If I have a quarrel with the priests to-day it is from experience gained since I became a man, a householder, a wage-earner, and a taxpayer, not from any bias that I absorbed against them at school, or college, or university.
But let us return to the element of fraud which would taint the passing of any Act for the establishment of a priest-governed university or college next session, still considering the question from the Prime Minister’s point of view. Let us suppose that Mr. Balfour is still in favour of this priest-governed Roman Catholic University. Can you not see that, having regard to the action of Mr. Arnold-Forster, the Marquis of Hamilton, and Mr. William Moore, M.P., Mr. Balfour would be the greatest criminal of all, would be the principal in the first degree in this act of fraudulent misrepresentation, if a University Bill were to be introduced by the Government in 1904?
Let us follow closely the connection between the principle and the accomplices. The Prime Minister, who is responsible for all his colleagues, sends two of them to Ireland for re-election—one a Cabinet Minister, the other a subordinate Minister, both having been selected by himself for promotion because of their principles. The private secretary of another Cabinet Minister, who is, in an especial degree, the protégé of the Premier, is deputed to assist in the elections. The Prime Minister knows that all three men, Cabinet Minister, subordinate Minister, and private secretary, pledge themselves not only to vote against any description of sectarian University or College, or part of a University or part of a College, for Roman Catholics in Ireland, but they go out of their way to denounce the project as reactionary and pernicious.
Having been re-elected on the faith of these denunciations, the Prime Minister takes those colleagues to his bosom, accepts all the advantages consequent on their triumphant return, and gains an accession of strength in his own position as Prime Minister by virtue of the pledges given by those friends of his against a priest-governed University.
So far, then, as the priest-demanded, priest-governed University is concerned, it may be truly said that Mr. Balfour is Prime Minister of England on the faith of the pledges given by Mr. Arnold-Foster, the Marquis of Hamilton, and Mr. Wm. Moore, against the endowment of such an institution. That is the whole relationship of Mr. Balfour, as Prime Minister, to the priest-governed University for Ireland, about which we hear so much artificial newspaper-gossip just now. Officially he has no other locus standi in regard to it except that of one pledged to refuse it.—The English Churchman.
Searmon.
LEIS AN URR. ARCHD. COOK A BHA ‘N DEIMHIDH.
7th July, 1862.
“B’ fhearr lean a bhi ri dorsaireachd ann an tigh mo Dhe, na bhi ‘m chomhnuidh ann am paillunaibh aingidheachd.”—Salm lxxxiv. 10.
(An dara Searmon.)
BHA sinn a’ nochdadh cuid de na nithibh a bha ‘dol air aghaidh ann am paillunaibh nan aingidh nach taitneach leis an anam ghrasmhor. A nis seallamaidh air beagan de na nithibh airson am b’fhearr leis an anam ghrasmhor an t-aite a b’isle ann an tigh Dhe na bhi ‘chomhnuidh ann am paillunaibh aingidheachd. Bha anam Lot air a chradh o la gu la le bhi ‘faicinn agus a’ cluinntinn an gniomharan aindligheach. ‘S e an t-iongantas, an aite sin a bhi ‘fas ni bu shocraich dha gur ann a bha e fas ni bu chruaidh agus ni bu chruaidh. Tha sin a’ foills-eachadh gu’n robh a ghleidheadh air Dia. Feudaiddh sinn a bhi ‘saoilsinn gu’m bheil e ni ‘s cunnartaich bhi ann an cuid a dh’aitean, ach gleidhidh Dia iad anns a h-uile suidheachadh. Mo chairdean, anns na linnibh roimh so chaidh Satan a mach an aghaidh na h-eaglais a’ marbhadh le teine is claidheamh, agus cha do bhuaadh-aich e a bheag. ‘S ann a bha iad a’ dol an lionmhorachd. Ach a nis ‘s ann a thainig e mach mar eun mor geal le cleoc diadhachd agus tha e ‘toirt nam miltean do dh-ifrinn.
Bha sinn a’ nochdadh gu’n do mhinich an Spiorad Naomh anam do na creutairean a thug e beo, agus gu’n d’ thainig falambachd annta nach lionadh ni cruthaichte. Thusa, a fhuair sràd de bheatha ann ad anam, cha-n ‘eil ni a lìona thu ach an Ti a chru-thaich neamh agus talamh. Oh, tha anam iongantach.
Bha sinn ag radh gu’n robh am bas a’ tighinn iongantach dluth air a’ chreutair, agus gu’n robh e ‘faicinn mur fhaigheadh e maith-eanas anns an t-saoghal nach fhaigheadh tre’n t-siorruidheachd, agus b’ fhearr leis bhi ri dorsaireachd ann an tigh a Dhe na bhi ‘chomhnuidh ann am paillunaibh aingidheachd. Tha an creutair ‘ga fhaotainn fein ‘na pheacach; ged a bha e ‘sgur dheth o’n leth mach gidheadh gu’n robh e ‘s a’ chridhe agus a chionta ‘na luidhe air. L eagaiddh sin e gle ialsal, agus caillidh e a dhanachd, nis chì an t-anam ann an Dia ni nach comasach fuil no feoil air foill-seachadh dha. Chi e trocair ann an Dia, comh-fhulangas ann an Dia, ach sin fad as uaith-san, agus ‘s ann mar sin a thig an creutair gu bhi ‘basachadh do ‘n t-seann chumhnant. O mo chairdean, cha-n e an aon bheachd air trocair a bh’ aige roimh a bhios aige ‘nuair a bhios Spiorad Naomh nan gràs ‘ga fhosgladh dha. Chi e an sin nach e ‘urnuigh is nach e ‘fhuath do pheacadh o’m bheil trocair, gur e a th’ ann ni a tha ‘sruthadh o Dhia. Thig an sin an creutair gu bhi cosmhuil ris a’ bhean bhochd ud reidh ris an spruileach a tha ‘tuiteam o bhord a’ Mhaighistir, seadh o bhord na cloinne. Tuigidh e nadur briathran a’ chismhaoir, “Dhia, dean trocair ormsa tha a’m’ pheacach.” Iarraidh e faghail a stigh ‘san teaghlach. Nis is maith leis an anam so ‘bhi ‘cluinntinn mu Chriosd, gu h-araidh mu’n chrich a bh’ aige ann an tighinn a stigh do’n t-saoghal. Tha ard-uachdaranachd ann an Dia, agus ma tha thusa a’ d’ pheacach bochd a chaill do chòir is maith leat a bhi ‘cluinntinn mu Chriosd. Nis c’ aite an cluinn thu sin? ‘N ann am pailluinaibh nan aingidh? o, cha-n ann.
‘Nuair a thig neach gu sin, nach comasach naoimh no aingil air maith a dheanamh dha, is maith leis a bhi ‘cluinntinn mu Chriosd, agus a’ chrioch a bh’ aige ann an tighinn stigh do’n t-saoghal, gur ann a shireadh agus a thearnadh pheacach, agus an cup a dh’ òl E. Anam bhochd, ma thig thusa gu bhi a’ d’ pheacach bidh tu taingeal gu’n d’ òl Criosd an cup. “Rinneadh esan do nach b’ aithne peacadh ‘na iohairt-pheacaiddh air ar sonne chum gu’m biomaid air ar deanamh ‘nar fireantachd Dhe annsan.” ‘S e so toil an Athar gu’n creideamaid anns a’ Mhac. Bidh iomadh ceisd air an anam so ach bidh e mu dhorus Chriosd—bidh ged a bhios e cho furasda lamh a chur air a ghrein ‘sa tha e dhasan creidsinn. Gidheadh is maith leis a bhi ‘cluinntinn mu Chriosd. “B’ fhearr leis bhi ri dorsaireachd ann an tigh a Dhe na bhi chomhnuidh ann am pailluinaibh nan aingidh.”
Ann an so thig an t-anam gu bhi ‘feitheamh dh’ fheuchainn an cluinn e focal a bheir aiseirigh dha. Tha feum air cumhachd. B’fhearr aon fhocal le cumhachd na tri-fichead bliadhna a’ feitheamh anns na meadhonan. Bidh an t-anam a’ feitheamh airson focal le cumhachd a dh’ aonadh e ri Criosd anns an t-soisgeul. ‘Nuair a chuala Elisabet beannachadh Muire leum an naoidhean ‘na broinn. Agus tha an eaglais anns an Dàn ag radh, “‘S e guth Fear-mo-ghraidh a th’ ann.” Chuireadh i eadar-dhealachadh eadar e is guth naoimh no aingil. Nis ‘s e so a tha an sùil an anama, gu’n cluinneadh e focal mar sin a bheireadh beatha dha. Tha doigh iongantach aig luchd-aidich an diugh. Their iad, “bu mhaith an t-searmon a bha sud.” Ach an cual’ iad focal innte a ghluais beatha ‘nan anam? C’áite an cluinnear iad ag radh, “‘s e guth Fear mo ghraidh a’ bualadh?” Shaoil bochdan Chriosd aon uair nam faigheadh iad saor o na smuaintean diomhain gu’m biodh iad sona. Ach ciod e a th’ aca a nis? Tha, anam marbh. Oh, is iongantach sin aon le anam marbh a’ feitheamh am faigh e focal a bheir aiseirigh dha.
Ann an so duisgidh buairidhean a bhios e gle dhuillich do’n chreutair a chreidsinn gu’n robh an leithid aig aon riamh a fhuair trocair. Thusa, aig nach ‘eil ni dhe so, tha ceann ard agad agus is comasach thu air urnuigh laidir a dheanamh. Ach tha buairidhean aig a’ mhuinntir so agus iarrtus a bhi mu dhorus tigh Dhe dh’ fheuchainn an cluinn iad ni air bith mu thimchioll an ni sin a tha mar sgian aig sgornan an anama. Cha-n ‘eil ach gle bheag dhe so am measg luchd-aidich an diugh; ach chunnaic sinn an la gu’n robh e ann; agus ‘nuair a bha a leithid sin ann cha robh Criosd ‘na choigreach anns an eaglais. ‘S iongantach creutair a’ dol o mheadhon grais gu meadhon grais le ni aig sgornan a dhuchais ‘ga thoirt gu bruachan na h-ain-earbsa. Nis ma’s tusa aon de chuspairean a ghraiddh cha-n fhaigh thu mach as a’ chor sin gus am bi thu abuich. ‘S iomadh anam aig an robh sin agus a fhuair e air a thionndadh gu bhi ‘na dhearbhadh air gu’m bheil iad de’n chloinn.
Nis ann an so chi an t-anam anns an drap is lugha de dhiadh-achd iordheirceas nach ‘eil ann an ni air bith eile anns a’ chruiith-eachd. Ma thig e do d’ ionnsuidh-sa chi thu gur e na tha de dhiadhachd anns an t-saoghal iordheirceas an t-saoghail. Ach mur ‘eil thu ach a’ d’ fhoirmealach bochd bidh suil fhiar agad anns a h-uile ni, aon suil air an t-saoghal agus suil eile air na meadhonan. Ach ann an so chi an t-anam gu bheil anns an drap is lugha de aithne air Dia ann an Criosd iordheirceas nach aithne do aon air bith. Thusa, aig nach ‘eil ach an saoghal, cha-n ‘eil agad ach do bhru agus tha sin aig na bruidean, is ithidh na cnuimhean fhathasd d’ iordhearcas. Ach an creutair aig am bheil an drap is lugha ‘dh aithne air Criosd ‘na anam, ged a bhiodh e ‘na bhaigear, tha aige ni nach toireadh a’ chruiitheachd da. Thusa, aig am bheil e, is leat na h-uile nithe; is leat Dia, seadh, is leat na diabhuil fein. Nis nach ‘eil sin iordhearc, a tha ‘toirt air ais na-h-iomhaigh agus ag ullachadh an anama airson ni nach fhaca suil agus nach cuala cluas agus nach d’ thainig ann an cridhe duine, na dh’ ulluich Dia dhoibhsan aig am bheil gradh dha.
Ann an so bidh an Spiorad Naomh a’ mineachadh Chriosd agus Dia ann an Criosd do’n anam, Criosd air a dheanamh freagarrach ri staid an anama, a’ gabhail tri oifgean, faidh, sagart agus righ. Mo chairdean, ‘s ann anns na h-oifgean sin a tha Criosd leis an Spiorad Naomh a’ comh-chur na slainte ris an anam. Agus tha an Spiorad Naomh air uairibh da rireadh ag aonadh an anama ris anns na h-ainmean sin. “Tha ‘m anam a’ dluth-leantuin riut.” Nach ‘eil sin milis? ‘S e ni-eigin de sin a bh’ aig an eaglais, nuair a thubhairt i, “Cuir mi mar sheula air do chridhe.” Thusa le ‘m maith bhi ‘nad dhorsair ann an tigh Dhe, feudaidh gu’m faigh thu so fhathasd. Bidh E air uairibh a’ briseadh a steach agus bidh suil aig an anam ri sin agus ged a chumadh E an creutair fad a’ feitheamh cha dean ni’s lugha an gnothuch. ‘S e Tomas a bha glic, cha-n fhoghnadh dearbhachd nan deiscibul eile dha; dh’ fheumadh esan dearbhachd dha fein agus fhuair e sin gus an dubhairt e, “Mo Thighearn agus mo Dha.” Thusa, a tha E a’ glanadh do chàil, bheir E sin duit fhathasd agus ma thig E am fagus duit cha-n ann ‘nad fhoirmealach geal a dh’ fhàgas E thu ach ‘nad pheacach mor le aithne air peacadh. ‘S e fior aithne air nadur a’ pheacaidh mar pheacadh cuid de dhiomhaireachd na rioghachd.
Mar so chi an t-anam mar a tha an saoghal lan de ribeachan, nach ‘eil combfhurtachd chruthaichte nach fheidh a bhi ‘na ribe do’n anam. Chi e nach ‘eil dion aige ach anns an Eadarmheadhonair. Nach ‘eil sin priseil? Feudaiddh E bhi ‘toirt na siorruidheachd ann an cuimhne an anama. ‘Nann am pailluinaibh nan aingidh a bhios E ‘deanamh sin? Cha-n ann; “b’fhearr leam bhi ri dorsaireachd ann an tigh mo Dhe na bhi a’m’ chomhnuidh ann am pailluinaibh aingidheachd.” Ann an tigh Dhe tha siorruidheachd gu minic air a h-ungadh do’n anam is tha an t-anam a’ faotainn drapan de chomfhurtachd airson na siorsuidheachd a tha ‘ga dheanamh reidh ris a’ chrois. Cha’n iongantach ged a b’fhearr leis bhi ri dorsaireachd ann an tigh a Dhe. Ann an tigh Dhe chitheadh e clann Chriosd, cha’n fhaic e iad ann am pailluinaibh nan aingidh; ach nam biodh e ‘na dhorsair ann an tigh a Dhe chitheadh e iad. ‘S ann mar sin a tha an t-anam a’ tighinn gu aithne air aonadh ri pobull Dhe. Co luath ‘s a tha Spiorad nan gras a’ dusgadh so anns an anam toisichidh an t-anam sin air dluthachadh ri pobull Dhe ged a bhiodh eagal air nach sealbhaich e an comunn gu siorruidh, gidheadh ‘s iad an aon chomunn anns am bheil a’ thlachd. Am bheil thu ann an sin a bhios a’ faicinn pobull Dhe a’ dol seachad aig do dhorns? Ciod e is coireach? Cha-n ‘eil drap de Chriosd ‘nad thigh.
Ged a bhiodh an t-anam grasmhor ann am meadhanan nan gras mur fhaic e clann Chriosd an sin bhiodh na meadhanan falamh dha. Tha fhios gu’m bi saorsa aig an fhoirmealach far nach bi iad. Ach bidh na meadhanan falamh do bhochdan Chriosd ‘nuair nach bi clann Chriosd annta. Ach coinnicheadh an t-anam ri aon de chloinn Chriosd ris an comasach e a bheul fhosgladh gun eagal, cosmhuil ris na deiscioibh air an t-stighe gu Emaus dh’ fheidh iad am brollach fhosgladh d’a cheile agus tha sin iongaotach. ‘S ann mar sin a bhios cuid de bhochdaibh Chriosd gle aonarach ‘nuair a tha a’ mhuinntir ris am biodh comunn aca mar so air an toirt a stigh do’n t-siorruidheachd. Oh, an saoghal truagh, ‘nuair a theid a’ chlann uile a thoirt as theid a losgadh agus na h-oibre a ta ann. “B’fhearr leam bhi ri dorsaireachd ann an tigh mo Dhe na bhi a’m’ chomhnuidh ann am pailluinaibh aingidheachd.” B’fhearr leam bhi mar Mhephibosheth bochd crubach air a dha chois, crubach air a ghairm agus crubach air a thaghadh na bhi ann am pailluinaibh nan aingidh.
Tha ann an clann nan gras ni a tha ‘cur anama ghrasmhoir ann an cuimhne air Criosd agus air siorruidheachd agus feudaiddh mi radh gu bheil air uairibh nithe a’ gabhail aite a tha ‘toirt orra bhi ‘faicinn cho fad air dheireadh. ‘s a tha iad fein. Faic Cornelius, chunnaic e uiread ann am Peadar is gu’n robh e ullamh gu aoradh dha. Nis ‘s ann mar sin a tha clann nan gras ag aonadh ri cheile agus ‘s ann mar sin a tha Criosd ‘gan ulluchadh airson gloir.
The Late Mr. William Campbell,
PREACHER, WICK.
IT is with deep regret that we record this month the decease of Mr. William Campbell, missionary, which took place at the house of his daughter, 1 Glengarry Mansions, Inverness, on Wednesday morning, the 16th December. Mr. Campbell had attained the ripe age of 85 years, but up to within a month of his end was wonderfully fresh and vigorous and capable of conducting two or more Sabbath services. His last illness was short, and the news of his death came with quite a shock to his friends north and south. Mr. Campbell’s personality was one of more than ordinary strength and impressiveness, while his religious career was unique and valuable, so that a sketch of both will be of interest to our readers.
William Campbell was born in the parish of Dornoch, Sutherlandshire. His father was George Campbell, one of the old Gaelic schoolmasters that were such a useful institution in the Highlands in their day, and an eminent Christian. A very interesting description of George Campbell is to be found in Brown’s Annals of the Disruption. He is brought before the reader as a speaker at one of “the men’s” fellowship meetings on the Friday of a communion, and some of the particulars of his striking bearing and manner of address would not unfitly apply to his son, Mr. William Campbell. George Campbell finished a life of usefulness in the Lord’s vineyard in Scourie, Sutherlandshire, shortly before the Disruption of 1843. His eldest son was Mr. Walter Campbell, the godly and esteemed missionary in North Uist, who died there upwards of ten years ago.
We regret we are unable to give any detailed particulars of the first spiritual experiences of the subject of this sketch, but that these were deep and marked his subsequent history amply proved. Mr. Campbell, like many other Scottish Christians, was reticent about private experience. All that we can particularly supply on this head is the passage of God’s word upon which he was first enabled to secure a footing for eternity, and his hearers will remember the echo of it in his preaching. It was this; the words of Christ in the fourth verse of the seventeenth chapter John, “I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” God glorified and the redemption of sinners secured by the finished work of Christ were two notes that often resounded through his discourses and prayers.
Mr. Campbell gave early promise of being an edifying public speaker at fellowship and other religious meetings, and was duly licensed as a missionary of the Free Church by the Presbytery of Dunkeld, in Perthshire, about the year 1849. Thereafter he did service for the Free Church in many parts of the Highlands. He was for ten years missionary in Lochalsh, Ross-shire, and also for a lengthened period in the district of Strath-Conon. Mr. Campbell was for several years annually sent to minister to the large bodies of Highlanders which gather during the summer fishing seasons at Peterhead and Fraserburgh, and in this way became widely known as an able missionary throughout all parts of the Highlands.
At this point we may introduce one of the distinguishing features in Mr. Campbell’s career, that marks him out from almost all his friends and fellow-labourers of recent years, and that is his early severance from the Free Church. This took place about 33 years ago—during the former controversy in regard to union with the U.P. Church. Mr. Campbell, being a resolute defender of the ancient doctrines and principles of the Church of Scotland as founded upon and agreeable to God’s Word, was strongly opposed to the union movement, and did not hesitate to speak out in a bold and uncompromising manner against the proposed alliance with a body that was a standing opponent of national religion as well as the upholder of a subtle form of Arminianism. Mr. Campbell was not the man to mince matters when he took upon him to denounce men and things that were not in harmony with the faith, and so his outspoken utterances secured for him the strong disapprobation of the leaders in the Church who were favourable to union. The result eventually was that his name was removed from the list of Highland missionaries. Mr. Campbell was one of those persons who thought that even the faithful party in the Church came to too easy a conclusion with the union party at the time of the cessation of negotiations, and as he got little sympathy from the ministers in general. Subsequent events, we doubt, have justified the despised Mr. Campbell’s attitude rather than that of many who were held in greater renown. Mr. Campbell now took up a separate position from the Free Church, while he still continued on friendly terms with those whom he esteemed faithful men within her pale, such as Dr. Moody Stuart, Professor Smeaton, and Dr. Kennedy, and went to hear them as opportunity afforded. He held, however, separate meetings in various parts of the country, and went several years in succession to Peterhead and Fraserburgh, where his ministrations were largely attended by his former hearers from the Highlands, who preferred his able and edifying services to those of many ordained ministers who were considered eloquent preachers and were sent to these stations by the Church.
Mr. Campbell came at length to the town of Wick in the year 1881 at the invitation of the Gaelic mission, which held its meetings in the Pulteneytown Academy. This mission was originally connected with the Free Church, but had become dissevered from it, and so was open to receive the services of one in Mr. Campbell’s position. The writer well remembers some of Mr. Campbell’s first appearances in Pulteneytown Academy. The preacher held a Gaelic service in the forenoon and an English one in the afternoon. There was a good attendance at the forenoon service, for then there was a considerable number of Gaelic-speaking people in Wick, but the afternoon was still more largely attended, for a number of people came from the various surrounding churches to hear him. The figure of the preacher was most impressive—tall, dark, well-proportioned, and of solemn countenance. His voice was clear, musical, and penetrating, his delivery appropriate and his utterances weighty. As he warmed with his subject, and especially as he began to denounce the errors of the day, his manner became most energetic and vehement, until it was clear to every hearer that a Boanerges had appeared among them, a faithful witness for Christ, who did not hesitate to “cry aloud and spare not,” to lift up his voice like a trumpet, and to show “the house of Jacob their sins.” Some thought the language too unmeasured, and perhaps an expression here and there could stand modification, but the bold, uncompromising testimony was all needed, and it was much appreciated by not a few, who, while still retaining their connection with the Free Church, lamented and condemned the views and practices of the backsliding majority within her. Indeed, Mr. Campbell’s appearance in Wick was a source of great strength and comfort to such persons. They heard very little spiritual doctrine of a soul-satisfying nature from the ordinary pulpit, and no testimony for truth as against error, while they got both in good measure from Mr. Campbell. The writer, then a boy, well recollects the impression made on his youthful mind. There was a reality and a power—yea, a newness—in the preaching that at once astonished and overawed him; the doctrine was rousing and searching, and the alarming exposures given of the evil movements of the day were quite a new revelation, nothing of the kind being heard from the Free Church pulpit. A quotation in this connection may be given from the diary of the late Mr. Wm. Sinclair, rope manufacturer, Wick, who was a worthy and zealous elder in the Free Church, and an attached friend of Mr. Campbell’s—“Several of my family have gone to Mr. Campbell’s weekly prayer meeting, where the poor and needy ones expect to gather crumbs. Mr. Campbell has been preaching in the Academy over two years, Gaelic in the forenoon and English in the afternoon. He is an experienced Christian, and well fitted to edify and terrify. May the Holy One work through him! If ministers of Satan and graceless professors got their own way, he would be soon sent over the Ord, as one not fit to be left on earth. They cannot bear his plain faithfulness in testifying that their deeds are evil, and that they shall have to give an account at the great day for yielding to Satan and their own corrupt natures in swallowing greedily all sorts of deceitful innovations, while professing to worship in spirit and in truth. Eyes unsealed see these things to be the snares of the devil to deceive the bewitched, the blind leading the blind. For if they walk not according to the divine will, it is because there is no light in them.”
In 1893 Mr. Campbell was gratified at the testimony lifted up by the Rev. Messrs. Macfarlane and Macdonald and others against the well-known Declaratory Act and other defections in the Free Church, and shortly thereafter cast in his lot with them and the Free Presbyterian Church, of which he has died a missionary.
In summing up our account of Mr. Campbell, we may notice one or two distinctive points about him. Though not an ordained minister, and commonly spoken of as a lay missionary, he was strictly speaking something between the two, and the best expression to describe him is “a preacher of the gospel.” He was one of those men whom the Lord seems to endow with gifts and spiritual qualifications for the proclamation of His Word, apart from the regularly appointed channels. Mr. Campbell delivered his message with such ability and authority that many intelligent people took him to be a regularly equipped and ordained minister. His gifts of thought and utterance were considerably above the average, while his presence and bearing, it is no exaggeration to say, would have adorned any pulpit in the kingdom. Mr. Campbell’s preaching was specially fitted to be edifying to exercised hearers. He dwelt much on the work of the Spirit in conviction of sin, in uniting the soul to Christ, and in nourishing and supporting it during its wilderness journeys and conflicts. His statements of doctrine and experience were almost invariably exact and well-balanced, and he delivered his message in a weighty and experimental manner. We knew of one excellent godly woman who had drunk in the Word under the eminent Rev. Archibald Cook, and continued to cherish his memory with the deepest regard, that said she got help through Mr. Campbell’s preaching that she didn’t get through Mr. Cook’s. Indeed, when Mr. Campbell came first to Wick, he had several of the choicest Christians in the North as his hearers, who deeply appreciated his services. Mr. Campbell was a faithful witness for Christ and His truth. He did not spare ministers for their unfaithfulness, and he boldly condemned all unscriptural innovations in worship and errors in doctrine. Many people thought he did nothing else than this, but they were mistaken. No doubt his English audience was more varied and promiscuous than his Gaelic one, and he reserved for it his severest exposures and denunciations. This may account for the comment of one of his godly hearers, who said that he was “sweeter” in the Gaelic and sharper in the English. He did, however, valuable and lasting work in this field in his generation, and was the means, in the hands of God, of opening the eyes of not a few to see the evils of the time, and of leading them to make a clean and faithful stand on the side of truth. Latterly he did not deal so much with the denunciation of error, probably for this, among other reasons, that he was united to a Church whose testimony he was satisfied with, but he continued faithful and steadfast to the end in the faith which he so intensely loved and so long and powerfully preached.
To strangers Mr. Campbell appeared stern and distant in manner, but in private he could be very free and affable. He had many reminiscences of the past that were interesting and instructive. In his early youth he heard several of the great Highland preachers, such as Mr. Kennedy, Redcastle, and Dr. Macdonald, while as ministers of later days he had special regard for the Rev. Archibald Cook, the Rev. John Macrae, “Macrath Mor,” and Dr. Kennedy, Dingwall. Perhaps the Rev. John Macrae was the minister of the Gospel whose preaching most touched his heart, while from some other points of view he might cherish even a greater esteem for Mr. Cook and Dr. Kennedy.
As stated at the beginning of our sketch, Mr. Campbell’s last illness was short, and his end unexpected. The Rev. John R. Mackay, who visited him during this time, observed a very sweet unction on his spirit, which bespoke “the latter rain” of divine influences, and a ripening for the society of heaven; and the aged veteran quoted with much animation the following passage of God’s Word as having come with special power to his soul:—”For he hath said, I will never leave thee nor forsake thee,” laying much emphasis on the words “For he hath said.” Though his breathing was oppressed, he suffered little or no pain. His end was peace. Thus passed from time to eternity, from earth to heaven, one who fought the good fight and faithfully served his generation, and whose memory and testimony will not soon be forgotten by his attached hearers and friends. “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.” J, S. S.
PULPIT REFERENCE.
The Rev. Donald Beaton, minister at Wick, referred to Mr. Campbell’s death in the following touching manner at the close of the morning service in the Academy on Sabbath the 20th from the text Romans viii. 33—”Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth”:—”And now, in conclusion, I cannot help thinking that in speaking of God’s marvellous loving kindness and unwearied care for His own elect that your minds would naturally revert to the great loss which we, as a congregation, have sustained in the removal of Mr. Campbell from our midst. The separation made by death is always solemn, but the separation between a preacher and his hearers is one of the most solemn in this world. God has never sent one of His servants in vain; they must either be a saviour of life unto life or a saviour of death unto death. There are responsibilities incurred in listening to a messenger sent from God, an ambassador of the King of Kings, that only the great day of judgment will fully reveal. The obligations that press every hearer to accept the Gospel when it is offered press all the more heavily when the lips that warned and invited have finished their work in this life for ever. You, as a congregation, have been privileged to see men who, by their life and conversation, gave the clearest possible evidence that the God of all grace had chosen them as vessels unto honour to be filled with His mercy in the ages that are coming. One by one these stately cedars have fallen, or rather, I should say, have been transplanted. They were of the planting of the Lord, and when they had reached the full measure of their growth here He transplanted them to His heavenly vineyard. And we this day have to mourn the loss of one who reached the venerable age of 85, and who for more than 22 years broke to you the bread of life. And now that his course is ended a brief reference may be made to his chief characteristics as a preacher. Mr. Campbell’s real power as a preacher lay in his ability to speak to the case of the weak and afflicted of Christ’s flock. His was an experience that was rich and deep—an experience that was founded on the Word of God. It recognised in the fullest sense the absolute supremacy of God. There was no wavering in the declaration that God was sovereign in choosing a people to serve Him. It acknowledged with heart-felt sincerity the utter ruin caused by sin—the wonderful loving-kindness of God in providing a Saviour, and the absolute necessity of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Alongside of this proclaiming of the mysterious dealings of God with the believer, there was a decided note of faithful contending for the faith that was once delivered to the saints. Fearless denunciation of error and steadfast adherence to the truth of God’s Word were strong characteristics of his preaching. That denunciation may have appeared to us at times to have been somewhat extravagant in language, but it was the expression of a heart that loved truth more than the applause of men. He ran his appointed course, and laid not aside his sword until the summons came. His was a career that began for good amongst the terrors and thunderings of Sinai, and ended with all the calmness and gentleness of a quiet sleep. Bunyan tells us that when Mr. Standfast received the summons to go over the bridgeless river he set things in order and made great haste to go. “At this time there was a great calm in the river, so that Standfast stood awhile addressing his companions after this manner:—’This river has been a terror to many; yea, the thoughts of it also have often frightened me. Now, methinks, I stand easy, my foot is fixed upon that upon which the feet of the priests that bare the ark of the covenant stood while Israel went over the Jordan. The waters, indeed, are to the palate bitter, and to the stomach cold, yet the thoughts of what I am going to, and of the conduct that awaits for me on the other side, doth lie as a glowing coal at my heart. I see myself now at the end of my journeying; my toilsome days are ended. I am going now to see that head that was crowned with thorns, and that face that was spit upon for me.'”
The Late Mr. Archibald Crawford,
TIGHNABRUAICH.
IT is with deep sorrow we also briefly notice this month the death of the venerable Mr. Archibald Crawford, Tighnabruaich, which took place at his house there on Monday evening, December 21st. Mr. Crawford was a remarkable man of God who possessed a profound understanding of divine things, and his removal leaves a great blank in the Church. He was in his 89th year. A fuller notice of him will appear in a future issue. J. S. S.