| | PAGE. |
|——————————————————-|——-|
| THE KING AND QUEEN AT MASS, | 401 |
| A SERMON. By the Rev. D. Macfarlane, Dingwall, | 404 |
| DR. DODS ON INSPIRATION: A CRITICISM, | 411 |
| THE MEMOIRS OR SPIRITUAL EXERCISES OF ELISABETH WEST, | 420 |
| THE LATE PETER CAMPBELL, GLASGOW, | 427 |
| FREE CHURCH PROCEEDINGS, | 431 |
| SEARMON. Leis an Urr. Mr. Eoin Broun, Wamphray, 1680, | 433 |
| PROTESTANT NOTES, | 437 |
| NOTES AND COMMENTS, | 438 |
| CHURCH NOTES, | 439 |
| THE MAGAZINE, | 440 |

N. ADSHEAD & SON,

Printers and Bookbinders,

11 and 92 UNION STREET, GLASGOW.

PRICE TWOPENCE.

THE Free Presbyterian Magazine AND MONTHLY RECORD.

VOL. XII.

MARCH, 1908.

NO. II.

The King and Queen at Mass.

WE notice briefly elsewhere the shocking murders of the King and Crown Prince of Portugal, which took place at Lisbon on the first day of February, and we cannot but feel the deepest sympathy for the sorrowing relatives of the royal personages who have been cut off in such an unexpected and dreadful manner by the hand of the assassin. It was natural and becoming also that our Royal House and Ministers of the Crown should both feel and express their profound sympathy with the bereaved Portuguese in the painful and unparalleled calamities that have befallen them. A King and his heir cut down, yea, murdered, in one day! Sympathy, however, is one thing, and the mode, in which it may be expressed, is another. We are not bound to sacrifice personal honour, solemn promises, and the most important religious principles, for the sake of showing sympathy to any creature under the sun, no matter how exalted in social position. These are sacrifices which God does not require at our hand, and with which He is not well pleased. And yet such are the unhallowed sacrifices which the highest personages in this realm of ours have recently made in order to show sympathy to some of their fellow mortals. A Requiem Mass for the repose of the souls of the King and Crown Prince of Portugal was observed at St. James’ Roman Catholic Chapel, Spanish Place, London, on Saturday, the 8th February, and their Majesties, King Edward and Queen Alexandra, proceeded to the Chapel with full State ceremonial. There were also present the Prince and Princess of Wales, Prince and Princess Christian, Prince and Princess Alexander of Battenberg, and Princess Louise and the Duke of Argyll, with the addition of such prominent political men as the Duke of Norfolk, the Marquis of Ripon, Lord Lansdowne, Mr. Asquith, Mr. R. B. Haldane, Lord Tweedmouth, Lord Rosebery, and Lord Strathcona. It was not enough that a memorial service was to be held the following day, the Sabbath, in St. Paul’s Cathedral, at which their Majesties and others could and did attend, but they must do something entirely superfluous and unlawful to evince their sympathy with Portugal; they must set at nought the Protestant constitution of the kingdom and the religion they have expressly sworn to uphold, by taking part in an

idolatrous Roman service. Such proceedings, we consider, were God-dishonouring in the highest degree, and are signs of the times that forbode ill for our country’s future. We shall call attention to a few points that are fitted to stir deep reflection in all true Protestant patriots.

One of the most startling features of this incident is that it is the first time for over two hundred years that a King of Great Britain has attended Mass in his own country—the first time since James II. abdicated the throne. We regret to say that King Edward has frequently attended Mass on the Continent, but as far as is publicly known, he has never done so until now in his own country. Surely this is a most ominous dallying with the Papacy, and shows that the Protestantism of the throne is almost entirely nominal. Here is the King of this realm giving his countenance to forbidden worship—to the doctrine of Purgatory, Prayers for the Dead, Transubstantiation—the very things he condemned as idolatrous and blasphemous in his solemn oath at his coronation. It is stated that the Queen, on the present occasion, “sank to her knees at the consecration of the sacred elements.” This means that she gave divine worship to the wafer and solemnly assented to the supposed act of transubstantiation. How little understanding or appreciation must Queen Alexandra have of the Reformed faith when she could perform such an act of idolatry!

The second thing that is fitted to awaken reflection is that King Edward, by this performance, has practically forfeited his right to continue on the throne, and has absolved the people of these realms of their allegiance to him. He has violated his Coronation and Accession Oaths, and no false charity can alter the simple fact. He did not slip in as a merely curious spectator to this Roman Catholic Chapel on this important occasion, but he went in his full official capacity as the Sovereign of the Three Kingdoms (with, indeed, much more pomp and ceremony than he proceeded to St. Paul’s with on the following day), and so his conduct in the matter was in direct and deliberate defiance of his kingly obligations. We shall introduce here a resolution that has been drawn up by the Protestant Alliance, and forwarded to the Home Secretary for presentation to the King—a resolution none too strong, but still to the point:—

“The Protestant Alliance, representing Protestants of all denominations, views with astonishment and distress His Majesty’s attendance at a Mass for the Dead at St. James’ Roman Catholic Church, Spanish Place, W., such an action on the part of His Majesty being inconsistent with his position as Head of this Protestant nation, and a violation of the spirit of the Coronation and Accession Oaths. While deeply sympathising with the Portuguese nation in their great sorrow, the Protestant Alliance would humbly point out to His Majesty that, by Act of Parliament, 1689, ‘all and every person and persons that is, are, or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, shall be excluded, and be for ever incapable to

inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm, and the people of these Realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance.”

The resolution, which has been officially acknowledged by the Home Secretary, has been widely noticed in the daily press.

We trust this communication may produce some good result, though some of the newspapers, with their spurious charity, deride it as bigotted and so forth.

A third circumstance that adds to the gravity of the King’s present action is that the Government have a responsible hand in it, and that it was to all appearance done with their consent. The English Churchman declares, “The Sovereign’s Ministerial advisers are, of course, responsible.” They are parties, therefore, to this breach of the constitution, and have a very important share of the guilt, for if they had objected it is not likely that anything of the kind would have happened. Some of them gave their personal presence to the Mass, such as Mr. Asquith, Mr. R. B. Haldane, Lord Tweedmouth, and others, and this should afford reflection to the supporters of these gentlemen throughout the country. This aspect of the case speaks very badly for the principles of the present Government, which floated into power on a wave of Protestant feeling, and which professed to be ready to do great things in the cause of Protestantism. They have brought serious guilt upon the whole nation. It is only the truth to affirm that when the King and Ministers of the Crown attended Mass, the representatives of the nation were present; and Mr. Walter Walsh, in his Protestant Notes in The English Churchman, well says, “A great national sin against Almighty God was committed, for which the nation may well sorrow and humble itself before God.”

It goes without saying that the Roman Catholics, the “broad-minded” press, and all the disciples of false charity, are rejoicing at the attendance at Mass of our high personages. Such an event is bound to give a great impetus to the Rome-ward movement throughout the realm. The Jesuits may well take courage to further their propaganda with new zeal and energy. But we trust that after all the enemy may be defeated. His greatest successes sometimes turn out to be his greatest failures. If the Lord would only open the eyes of sleepy Protestants by such an event as this, to see the dangers that are looming ahead—dangers to civil liberty, moral purity, and the gospel of Christ; yea, to all that is best within the three kingdoms—from the flood of Romanism that is coming in so rapidly upon us, the present step of apostacy might be over-ruled for the highest good of the nation, and a powerful check might be given to the inroads of error and superstition. May the people of God earnestly plead at a throne of grace that this may prove to be the case! Our fear, however, is that, on account of despised privileges, the Lord is gradually departing from us as a nation, and that the sky will be even yet darker before a better day will dawn.

A Sermon.

BY THE REV. D. MACFARLANE, DINGWALL.

Preached on Sabbath, 29th September, 1907.

(Taken down by a Hearer.)

“Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.”—ROMANS iii., 24, 25.

IN this epistle the Apostle shows that both Jews and Gentiles are under condemnation. He shows that there is no difference between them; that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Then he goes on to show the way of salvation—the way in which Jews and Gentiles may be justified and saved. In the twentieth verse he says, “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin”; and then at the twenty-first he shows how sinners may be justified—“But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference.” All to whom the Word of God comes admit to some extent that they are sinners, and that they are in a lost condition; and even those who have not the Word of God at all show their belief of this by being worshippers and offering up sacrifices. But while all admit the fact of our state of sin and misery, all are not agreed as to the way of salvation. It is at this point that many stumble and perish. Throughout our own land, to go no farther, many come to church and admit that they are sinners, but they look for salvation by their own endeavours to satisfy for their sins. In other words, they try to be saved by the covenant of works which was broken, and under which we all are—both Jews and Gentiles. If we think of salvation at all, it is very natural for us to suppose that we may be saved, partly at least, by our own obedience to God’s commands; and by false teachers this way of salvation is confirmed in the minds and hearts of poor sinners. But we see that Paul shows and preaches the way that God provided for saving such as we are; and from the words of our text I purpose, as the Lord may enable me, to preach the gospel once more to you, and when I do so I am sure that I set before you the only way in which you may be saved. There are four things to be noticed here:—

I.—Justification—“being justified.”

II.—The efficient cause, as I may call it, of justification, viz., God’s grace.

III.—The meritorious cause thereof, i.e., the redemption that is in Christ—His propitiation, or as we have it in the context, His “righteousness.”

IV.—The instrumental cause of justification, i.e., faith.

I.—Justification. This implies that we are by nature in a state of condemnation. Now, no one is justly condemned without a cause, and what is the cause of our condemnation? It is sin. We have missed the mark—the end of our creation; we have failed to fulfil our chief end—the glory of God. The word in the original which is rendered “sin” means “to miss the mark.” That is the negative side of sin, but it has a positive side too. Paul says that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Just as the marksman falls short of his aim, so have we come short of answering the end of our being. But we have also positively transgressed the law. It is because of sin that God condemns us. Before anyone is condemned and sentenced to punishment he is first tried. That is the lawful way. Well, all the human race have been tried by God. We were all cited to His bar, and we all appeared before the judgment-seat of God to be tried. The citation sent forth to our first covenant-head included us also, and it was in these words, “Adam, where art thou?” And although Adam was, through slavish fear, trying to hide himself amongst the trees of the garden, yet he must obey the summons. He had to appear before the judgment-seat of God, the Judge of all, and as he stood there he did not stand alone: we stood there along with him. The whole human race were there charged with sin. Adam tried to deny the charge—he endeavoured to shift the responsibility to another—and he said, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Eve also tried to escape—she blamed the serpent, Satan; and so long as they were thus denying their guilt and not accepting the whole responsibility, the case was not very promising. But we believe that at last Adam pleaded guilty, and that, without blaming Eve or the serpent, he took the entire responsibility upon himself, and confessed that he was guilty before God. Now, we believe that when God begins to convince an individual of sin, the sinner at first tries to excuse himself. He puts at least a share of the blame upon another. He blames Adam; he blames Satan; but when truly convinced of his sins he cannot blame any creature but himself. He cannot blame Adam: he says, “I am Adam.” He cannot blame Satan. He takes the entire responsibility upon himself. He pleads guilty before God, as we find in the case of the publican who cried, “God be merciful to me, the sinner,” as if there were no other sinner in the world but himself. Now, so long as you blame Adam for your sin there is no hope for you; so long as you blame the devil there is no hope for you; so long as you blame bad companions there is no hope for you. You must come to plead guilty—personally guilty—like the publican: “I am the sinner.”

Now, at this trial Adam and the whole human race were found guilty before God, and the judgment of condemnation was pronounced upon them. But is there no remedy? Yes;

God immediately afterwards revealed Himself as a merciful God. He preached the gospel to them, and revealed Christ to them as the Saviour of sinners. He first preached the law to them and then He preached the gospel to them. Now, what is it to be justified? Paul says, “Being justified.” Well, justification is a change of our state as guilty sinners, and although none are justified without being changed in their nature, yet justification has nothing to do with the change of our nature. There are some who hold wrong views of justification, and they say that justification makes us righteous in our nature. No doubt we require a change of nature, but that is the work of the Holy Spirit; but this is a change of state that God makes in the case of all that believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. And what does God do when He justifies, for it is He, and He alone, that has the right to justify? Well, when God justifies the sinner, all his sins are forgiven. Not only the guilt of Adam’s first transgression, but the guilt of all other transgressions up to the time of justification are forgiven also. Yea, more; in the eye of the law the guilt of all future sins is forgiven too. You may think that is going too far. No; for if that be not true, then Christ must come again to suffer and to die for the sins of His people after their justification. But He need not do that. They are free, then, from the guilt of their sins—past, present, and future—on the ground of the satisfaction Christ rendered to justice. Do they not, then, need to ask forgiveness after their justification if all their sins are forgiven? Yes, daily they must ask forgiveness during their whole course on earth, but in a different relationship to God and to His law. In justifying them God deals with them as a Judge, but afterwards in forgiving their sins He deals with them as a Father. He does not punish them for their sins after their justification, but He chastens them, and scourges every son that He receives.

There is a difference between punishment and chastisement, though some in our day do not seem to apprehend the distinction, although it is clearly revealed in the Word of God. You may probably remember what Professor Dods said on the subject in his sermon on “What is it to be a Christian?” Speaking of the ground of salvation, he said that some sought salvation on the ground of Christ’s atonement, while others, who came through much trouble in the world on account of sin, based their hope of salvation on the ground of their own sufferings; and the conclusion at which Dr. Dods arrived was that in the end both were right! That is his statement in black and white. What do you think yourself of a professor of divinity that makes no distinction between punishment and chastisement? Many rest their hopes for eternity upon their own sufferings in this world, but they shall find out at last that they are building upon a sandy foundation; and when the floods of death and eternity shall come, both the foundation and those that built upon it will be swept away into everlasting ruin.

In justification there is forgiveness of sins. “I have blotted out as a thick cloud thy transgressions. Your sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”

But there is more in justification than that, though that is a great blessing. There is an acceptance of our persons. That is, God now receives our persons into His favour and fellowship, and that as willingly as if we had never offended Him. Adam had no sin when created; he was created in perfection in the image of God. But the justified sinner is not free from sin. There is sin in his nature. Which, then, is more willingly received by God—Adam in his state of perfection, or the guilty sinner that believes in Jesus? If there be any difference, I would say the justified sinner is received with more acceptance than Adam was before he sinned. If you question the statement I can only answer that it must be so because of the magnitude of the cost to the Son of God in opening up a way for receiving the guilty sinner. God has more glory in the salvation of the sinner than if man had not fallen at all. The fact of sin is a mystery into which creatures cannot enter, but it is not a greater mystery than the fact of redemption.

II.—We now come to speak a word or two on the second head—that is, the efficient cause of justification, which is free grace, or the free favour of God, as you have it in the Shorter Catechism, “God, out of his mere good pleasure.” The cause is not in the subjects of justification. There was no difference between them and those that perish, but it is God that has made the difference, as Christ says, “I thank thee, O Father, . . . that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.” Now, as the Apostle shows near the end of the chapter, this excludes boasting on the part of those who are justified, seeing there was no difference between them and those that perish, and that salvation flowed entirely from the free grace of God, from his everlasting love. On the other hand this not only excludes boasting, but it revives hope. It is an encouragement to God’s people, who see that it was not from any merit in themselves that the Lord had mercy on them. Indeed, some of them were worse in practice than many that perish, such as Saul of Tarsus, Manasseh, and Mary Magdalene, out of whom Christ cast seven devils. This is an encouragement to those who have found out that they were not only sinners, but great sinners,—that there was no good dwelling in their nature at all. Do you, then, appreciate salvation by grace? Or are you still so self-righteous that you must cleave, in part at least, to your own works, like the Jews of old, who went about seeking to establish a righteousness of their own, and would not submit to the righteousness of God? Ah, it is awful to think of how many shall be lost in the land of the Bible through the rejection of God’s way of salvation, by grace, and who cleave to their own good works at the peril of being lost for ever. This much on the efficient cause of salvation.

III.—A word now on the meritorious cause of salvation. And what is that? It is the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, or, as the Apostle explains, the propitiation of Christ. The redemption of Christ is the price He paid for redeeming His people, the atonement He made by His own sufferings. In other words, the death of Christ; His blood; “Being justified by His blood.” We did not merit this blessing ourselves, but another did it for us. God provided a substitute, and He by His death not only rendered satisfaction to justice, but merited salvation as well. When you pay a debt to a creditor you get a receipt, but have no right to demand anything more. When you pay a debt you do not merit anything. You merely pay what you ought to pay. But when Christ made atonement, He not only paid the debt, but He merited eternal life for as many as believe on Him. Not by their own sufferings, not by their own good works, but by what Christ did and suffered in their room and stead, do believers inherit the blessing. This is the Gospel—the Gospel God’s people need, and need daily; for they are not to say like those at ease in Zion—“We have heard these things over and over again”; but if you are making progress in religion, if you seek to be delivered from sin, if you grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, you need this daily. You need Christ to be brought before you. You need to flee to him for refuge and salvation from sin and from misery. It is much to be feared that Christians in our day are at ease in Zion, and that they are not of the sick who need the physician—as Christ says—“They that are whole need not the physician, but they that are sick.” But it is not so with God’s true people. They seek to be delivered from sin. They need to hear about the Saviour. They must flee to Him daily, yea, hourly; day and night there is no rest for them till they finish their course, and they shall then find everlasting rest. However some of you may be, I am not at ease. Every breath I inhale and exhale, I require the Christ of God to save me.

IV.—A word or two now—and I shall not weary you—on the last point, viz., The instrumental cause of justification. What is that? It is faith. Which come first, justification, or faith in Christ? Well, faith in Christ comes first. The sinner is not justified till he believes in Christ, as Paul said to the jailor at Philippi: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved;” but there is not a moment’s interval between believing and justification. In justification God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believer; all Christ’s righteousness is reckoned to his account, just as all the unrighteousness of the sinner was imputed to Christ. Ah! what a wonderful exchange this! “God laid upon Him the iniquities of us all.” And when we believe in Jesus Christ, God imputes to us the righteousness of Christ. There is no imputation of the righteousness without receiving it by faith. Paul speaks here of the righteousness of God unto all and upon all that believe. The righteousness of Christ is set forth unto all in

the offer of the Gospel, but it is not imputed unto any but those who receive it by faith. Now, although justification is a change of state, and does not change in any degree our nature, yet faith implies a change of nature, so that where justification is there is sanctification. Where there is a change of state there is a change of nature. You cannot separate them as communicated blessings, though there is a great distinction between them. All the graces of the Spirit dwell in the soul that is created anew in Christ Jesus, unto good works; but, at the same time, you cannot be justified unless you exercise the grace of faith, and the first outgoing of the new nature towards Christ is by faith. In justification there is not only imputation on God’s part, but there is a receiving by faith on the sinner’s part, and that as an instrument, not as a condition; for a condition implies a being entitled to receive something upon performing the condition in the way of merit. But it is not a condition, but a mere instrument, and the instrument is given by God Himself, so that faith itself is grace, as if the sinner had said, when God commanded him to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ—”I tried, but I cannot believe. What will become of me?” God says, “I will give you a hand to receive Christ.” As sure as it was God who gave us our bodily hands, so sure is it that He gave us the hand of faith if we are to receive Christ. When the sinner is awakened to a sense of his sin, he is conscious of his guilt, and, although he needs Christ as prophet and as king, yet he specially feels his great need of Him as a priest. And hence the Apostle here mentions His blood—”Faith in his blood.”

We have spoken of the forgiveness of sins before, but the Apostle here speaks of justification, having a view to sins that are past, and he speaks also of the forbearance of God during that past time. Some take this to mean the sins of the Old Testament Church, which, though freely forgiven, were not satisfied for till Christ died. And that is quite true. But sins that are past mean, also, sins of God’s people. However, they may forget them for a time, yet they will remember their way in the wilderness, they will remember the past. When the past is revived, God makes it to be present. He sets all their sins in array before their eyes. Then there is the forbearance of God spoken of, and what forbearance it was, when He bore so many years with them, heaping up wrath unto themselves, adding sin to sin! What forbearance that God did not send them to hell! You see how long he bore with Saul of Tarsus, who was for many years a persecutor of the Church of God. But God purposed to save him; and the Apostle speaks of himself as a pattern to the end of time to all who should feel their need of salvation. As if he had said, “If anyone is on the brink of despair let him think of me, saved, though the chief of sinners! Seeing that I obtained mercy, no sinner on this side of hell need despair.” My friends, God had a mysterious purpose in allowing Saul of Tarsus to give Him defiance

so long; for when Paul was brought to repentance, he could sympathise with any sinner on this side of perdition. His sin was ever before him, as David says. Not a day he rose but his persecutions of the Church of God came into his mind, and this served as a ballast to keep him humble, so that Paul could appreciate salvation by grace more than many of those that are saved. All believers do not in this world appreciate grace in the same measure. Some—although they did not go the length of Saul of Tarsus and others in actual transgression—are made to know what evil is in their nature if God permitted it to break out; and this makes very precious to them the doctrine of being freely justified by the grace of God.

Now, I have kept you long, and I am going to stop. But we have a few of the Lord’s people in our midst—a few that are kept in living exercise. They endeavour, through the grace of God, outwardly to walk circumspectly. God has lit a candle to search their hearts; and they are like those spoken of in Ezekiel, who dug into the wall deeper and deeper, and the more they dig, the more corruptions appear. This is the way with God’s people, and these need salvation by grace. How much do they need it? “Ah!” the poor creature says, “I need it more than any professing the Lord. I am the chief of sinners: I need Christ more than any in the congregation.” Is that your case, my friend? If so, you are welcome to Christ, welcome to the redemption that is in Him. Cast not away your hope when Satan tries to wrest it from you. Keep your grip of it; there is enough in the grace of God. There are others who may be somewhat anxious to be saved, but ah! there is a danger of casting off that anxiety; for such may come to a certain groove of religion in coming and going to Church, and, perhaps, bending their knee morning and evening, and no more about it. Ah! if you are here in such a case, take care lest you be lost for ever! There are others who never think seriously about their souls at all. There are too many things to occupy their minds now. They consider the things of this life of more importance than the salvation of their souls; but they intend, when they get on better in the world, to seek for mercy. Take care! There are many lost in perdition who were once in your state. “Now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” It is now that God invites you to come. It is now you have the opportunity. “To-day, if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts!” To-morrow you may be in eternity; and think what it is to be lost for ever! And lost you must be; you cannot get over it unless you are found in Christ, not having your own righteousness which is of the law. And remember, there is no other way of salvation, no other way of justification. You must perish, or receive Christ. You must be lost eternally, or accept God’s way of salvation. Your own way of salvation will not do. Many have found that out already, and many more shall find it

out ere long to their eternal misery. And therefore remember that you seek to be found in Christ before you come to die, or there will be no end to your misery! “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

Faith in Christ is the divinely-appointed means of obtaining reconciliation with God, the redemption of Christ is the ground of reconciliation, and the free grace of God is the source from which flow all the blessings of salvation to guilty and hell-deserving sinners. “Blessed are the people that know the joyful sound; they shall walk, O Lord, in the light of thy countenance. In thy name shall they rejoice all the day: and in thy righteousness shall they be exalted” (Ps. lxxxix, 15, 16). The Lord add His blessing. Amen.

Dr. Dods on Inspiration: A Criticism.

PROFESSOR MARCUS DODS, D.D., was, at the last General Assembly of the United Free Church, made Principal of the New College, Edinburgh. He has since then—owing, it is to be feared, to indifferent health—been little heard of. The last noteworthy production of his pen which has come to our notice* is an article on Inspiration, which he contributed to what is—not too reverently, we think—called a “Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels,” the editor of which is the Rev. James Hastings, D.D. If this should prove to be Dods’ last contribution to theology it will be matter of regret, for herein he still stands up for that unsatisfactory theory of inspiration with which his name has been so much identified in this country for the past thirty years. Other names, both in the Established and in the United Free Churches, could be mentioned, who in their time have spoken not less—perhaps more—disrespectfully of the Scriptures than has Dods. But he, so far as we know, more than any other errorist within those Churches, has undertaken, in serious and sustained efforts, to think out and to establish a theory of inspiration which shall be in accord with the disparaging remarks touching the Bible’s inerrancy which is the common feature of the school of higher critics to which he belongs. The article which is being reviewed is a good specimen of what in this regard he has to say for himself. In it, indeed, he has made no advance on the doctrine enunciated in the somewhat notorious sermon on Revelation and Inspiration which he issued in 1877. To some extent the same illustrations serve him there and here; only that in the article the treatment of the subject is more ample, and every statement thereof is made as by one who has not forgotten that his positions have been much subject to criticism. On all this account we are unwilling to let the article pass wholly unnoticed.

* This article was written before the second volume of Hastings’ Dictionary appeared, in which Dr. Dods has a paper on the Temptation of Christ.

The article is made up of (a) an introduction, in which an effort is made to define what is meant by Inspiration, (b) what Scripture says about its own Inspiration, and (c) theories of Inspiration which have had their advocates. The most satisfactory portion of the article is that in which he tells us what Scripture says of its own inspiration. One wonders how the author—professedly a believer in revelation—can pass in review so many utterances of Christ and of His apostles bearing upon the inspiration of the Scriptures (as Matt. xix. 4, John v. 46, Luke xxiv. 44, John x. 35, Romans iii. 2, Hebrews i. 1), and yet himself rest in a view of Scripture so exceedingly below that held by them. That he does hold another view than that of Christ and His Church concerning the Scriptures ought, we think, to be unquestioned. For although Dods can say many beautiful and true things about the Scriptures—so that one is apt to think, when he is in that strain, that his error cannot be serious—yet he is so far forth distinguished, along with higher critics generally, from the true Church of God, in that his words of admiration are always accompanied with serious and far-reaching qualifications. For if one take up the utterances of Psalmists, or of Prophets, or of Christ, or of Apostles, he will find exceeding much said in praise of the Scriptures or of the Word of God, so far as those oracles were in their day committed to writing, but he will fail to find one utterance meant to qualify those epithets of perfection applied to Scripture—a single indication, as so often with the higher critics, that for all their goodness they are not infallible. No, they are to the Church of God “like silver that has been tried seven times in earthen furnace.” They contain no dross. But “it is impossible to suppose,” says Dods, after the manner of the company he keeps, “that inspiration carries with it literal accuracy of expression,” etc. The fact, besides, that Dods has ever been an advocate for the toleration of the most extreme Rationalistic views (as e.g., those of Professor Robertson-Smith) that at any time appeared in the Free or United Free Church, shows what application in practice his view of inspiration is capable of.

Still one is glad to find that Dods is, in respect of his report of what Scripture says of its own inspiration, in company with the most advanced recent critics. For it is a feature of criticism, for the present moment, that it unreservedly allows that, beyond question, the apostles believed that the Old Testament Scriptures were divinely inspired. Bousset and Pfleiderer, writing from a naturalistic standpoint, allow it as frankly as do Kuypers and Warfield, who write from the standpoint of orthodox Calvinism. The only difference is that the former do not feel themselves bound by what Scripture says of its own inspiration; the latter do. Dods does not write from the naturalistic standpoint, yet so far as inspiration is concerned he is with the naturalists rather than with orthodox Calvinists, and he is just in touch with the times in dwelling so amply upon what the Bible says of its own inspiration.

In briefly pursuing this theme we shall first of all notice what exactly is Dods’ theory of inspiration, and how he seeks to establish it; afterwards we shall refer to theories of inspiration which others, as he tells us, have advocated; and we shall conclude by indicating what we take to be the true view of inspiration.

Dods defines inspiration as an ability which God gave to certain persons to perceive and express the significance of the revelation which God has given of Himself in creation, in the history of His people, and especially in Jesus Christ. He quotes approvingly Sanday’s view that inspiration is the action of the Holy Spirit, whereby some men more than others had their hearts and minds moved penetratingly and effectively by God’s revelation of Himself. We do not suppose that Dr. Sanday in actual use treats the Scriptures more reverently than does Dods himself; at the same time it is worth observing that Sanday’s emphasis, in speaking of inspiration as the action of the Holy Spirit, is more correct than Dods’, who speaks of it as some ability which some men are supposed to have had. As Dods starts with this idea of ability as being the word wherewith inspiration is correctly defined, we do not wonder to find him later on say that “it is the men, not directly the writings, that were [not are] inspired.” And thus Dods’ whole account of inspiration amounts—as it was bound to amount—to what the older theologians would speak of as an effort to explain the process of inspiration—a matter about which they themselves were wisely largely reticent, maintaining as they did that the essential matter to us is not the process but the product, not the men but the writings. Dods indeed quotes 2 Peter i. 21, “Men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Ghost” (R.V.), as if it bore out his contention that it is of the men, and not of the writings, that inspiration should be averred. Of course, those who aver inspiration of the writings are by no means disposed to overlook the importance of the truth that Holy Scripture has been mediated to us through holy men of God, who spake and wrote as the Holy Spirit carried them along; and beyond question the words of 2 Peter i. 21, allude to that circumstance. But Dods, in bringing forward this text in the connection in which he does so, seems to us to miss the real point of Peter’s observation. For what is primarily in the apostle’s view is to indicate that, in regard of Old Testament prophecy, the originating and determining factor was not the human but the divine will. “Prophecy came not of old by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” where the emphatic words, in the last clause, are “the Holy Ghost.”

As it is of no little consequence for a right understanding of the doctrine of inspiration that we should have it thoroughly settled in our mind that it is the writings, and not the men, of which divine inspiration is, in the doctrine which is according to godliness, averred, we shall dwell upon this matter for a paragraph or two. The doctrine of inspiration may, for us now-a-days,

be said to have its roots primarily in the words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy (2 Tim. iii. 16)—“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God”—in connection with which words it is worth noticing that the expression, “given by inspiration of God,” stands for one word, “theopneustos,” which word again is correctly rendered by the expression, “God-breathed.” So that in strictness it is not of “inspiration” simply we have here to think, but of “divine inspiration,” and this divine inspiration the Apostle Paul avers of the writings, for it would be incongruous to speak of the writers as “God-breathed,” but agreeably enough is it said of the writings that they are God-breathed or divinely inspired. For, whatever inspiration means, or effects, it is quite certain that the writings, that is, the Scriptures, are all that have come down to us as the result of this action of God. “Your fathers,” says the Lord by Zechariah, “where are they? And the prophets, do they live for ever? But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers?”—that is, were they not fulfilled in what overtook your fathers, and, by implication, are they not still going on being fulfilled? So that we see that however necessary it was that the prophets should have been men of God, their place was only secondary and was of a transient nature. It is not so with the product of inspiration—the Word of the Lord—for it abideth for ever. About this “Word” the Scriptures contain a doctrine of inspiration.

Further, not only is it necessary to point out that it is the Word of the Lord by the prophets, and not the prophets themselves, that primarily and most significantly concerns us here, it is also necessary to point out that a doctrine of inspiration, so far as it is practical, must take to do with the Word as written and not with the Word as spoken. It is quite true that every word ever uttered by Jesus Christ was divinely inspired. But it did not please the Holy Ghost to give us more than a few of His sayings. Similarly, not all that was spoken by the prophets and the apostles by the inspiration of God has been handed down to us; only so much has been as the Holy Ghost saw to be needful for His Church. In Christ’s own time there were, doubtless, a set of men who regarded holy tradition as of at least equal if not greater value than the written word. But neither Christ nor His apostles reckoned such traditions as of any value at all. The Holy Scriptures, on the other hand, they regarded and treated as the Word of God. Just so also at the present time, the Greek Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and Ritualists generally, make much of holy tradition, which they say has come down from apostolic times as a stream of enlightenment running parallel with the written Word. Of course all such traditions are as worthless as the traditions by which the Jews of old made void the law of God, and sound Protestants treat them accordingly. But the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the authentic writings of the men whom they profess as their human authors, and they are

recognised by the Spirit-taught Church of God as having the Holy Spirit as their fundamental author. It is of this written word that we say that it is God-breathed.

Now, concerning this body of writings known as Holy Scripture, the Scriptures themselves enunciate a doctrine; and concerning them alone do they aver that they are divinely inspired. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” These holy writings are the oracles—the “logia”—in the possession of which the Jew of old was placed at such an advantage as compared with the Gentile (Romans iii. 2). These are the oracles of God, according to which speakers ought to frame their own words (1 Peter iv. 11). They are the holy writings in which God had beforehand promised that gospel which the Apostle Paul preached (Romans i. 2). It was to fulfil these writings that Christ came into this world and died and rose again. In short, there can be no question that the Scriptures contain a doctrine of inspiration exclusively regarding those writings, and it is this doctrine that ever hitherto had been understood as the subject of inquiry when the inquiry was concerning inspiration. Indeed, Dods’ whole paper may, because of his disregard of this fact, be put down as a good example of what logicians call the Fallacy of the Irrelevant Conclusion. For he himself—although he maintains that it is of the writers we should aver inspiration—cannot help speaking throughout this article of the writings rather than of the men as being in some sense inspired. It is scarcely necessary to indicate at further length that the Scriptures contain a doctrine of themselves as writings, and that theology has always reckoned it of supreme consequence to ascertain what that doctrine is, and that it is vain for Dods to expect that he shall turn the inquiry, in regard of inspiration, towards something else than the Scriptures themselves. The only reason that we can find him assigning for his view—that it is the men, not directly the writings, that were inspired—is 2 Peter i. 21, and we have already seen that that passage does not carry him far. We have therefore probably said enough in refutation of Dods on this head, and in vindication of our own position—that it is of the writings rather than of the men one should say that they are divinely inspired.

This “ability” in which Dods conceives inspiration to consist is, he tells us, primarily a spiritual, and only secondarily a mental gift. Of this no proof at all is given, for it does not do to argue as if the action and effects of the action of the Holy Spirit in bestowing saving grace, were all one with the action and effects of the action of the Holy Spirit in inspiration. The semblance of proof that Dods gives for his view overlooks that plain distinction. If one were, however, to give the genesis and history of this distinction between a spiritual and a mental gift, one might put it briefly thus: The first step is Kant’s distinction between the practical and the pure reason; the second step is Ritschl’s distinction between faith and reason; the third step is Dods’ distinction

between the spiritual and the mental gift. But if one place oneself at David’s standpoint when he concluded that the Spirit of God spoke by him, the distinction of which Dods makes so much would not be likely to occur to him. For to the Holy Spirit we must surely ascribe an understanding that is infinite, as well as a will which is most holy. And when, in another place, the Psalmist says, “each thought of thine a deep it is,” he must unquestionably have found as perfect and all-satisfying a rest for his intellectual nature in God’s written revelation of Himself, as he could at any time have done for his moral nature. This is the glory of the Word of God—that in it man’s whole being finds rest and not one aspect of that being merely. And if we were found more in the attitude of one who prayed, “Open mine eyes, that of Thy law the wonders I may see,” we should have less of those distinctions between faith and reason—between spiritual and mental gifts.

(2) We pass on, then, to notice what our author has to say of inspiration as held by others than himself. One theory referred to is that of those who, while they hold that the Scriptures are inspired, yet think that they are not all equally inspired—that there are degrees of inspiration. It would seem that some Jewish Rabbis thought there were three degrees of inspiration, corresponding to the tripartite division of the Old Testament into Law, Prophets, and Writings. Some Christian scholars (as Bishop Daniel Wilson), thinking this was a way out of some difficulties which the phenomena of Scripture presented to them, have advocated this essentially Rabbinic view. Of this theory Dods says that in it there are hints of truth but not the whole truth. For our own part, we think, with Gaussen, that this theory of degrees of inspiration is simply an evasion of the Bible doctrine of inspiration. For it is not possible to trace with Christ or His apostles any deference paid to the Law greater than that given to the Prophets, nor again to the Prophets above the Psalms. The three portions—Law, Prophets, and Holy Writings—into which the Old Testament Scriptures were divided, are all equally Law with Christ and His apostles (John x. 34).

Another theory which has had its advocates has been called the dynamical or essential theory. It argues that the imperfections which its abettors say are found in Scripture are human, but that the truths it contains are divine. Dods, although not satisfied with this view as the best explanation that can be given of the facts, still thinks that it brings us nearer the truth than does the theory of degrees. But Scripture is an organised unit, and although—just as in the human body—some parts are more vital than others, still every part is pervaded by one life—every part is needed in its own place; and he is not a friend who wounds the least, as he would not be a friend who should wound the greater (Matt. v. 19).

We are, however, chiefly interested in what Dods has to say of

the doctrine of inspiration as that has been held by the vast body of evangelical Christians; we mean the doctrine of plenary inspiration or of divine authorship. And we are amazed to find that of this doctrine, as expressed by representative theologians, he has given the merest caricature. He mixes up the doctrine of plenary inspiration with what has been known as the mechanical or dictation theory—a theory which carries in it the thought that “as the divine comes in, the human must go out and make room for it”—a theory which is of Pagan rather than of Christian origin. Fancy men like Gaussen, or Hodge, or Shedd, or Smeaton, acknowledging that that was a fair representation of the evangelical doctrine on the point! Some Lutheran divines might be given as appearing to countenance the dictation theory, but it is unfair to charge orthodox Reformed divines with such a theory. Even in the matter of saving grace, everyone who experienced it must have felt that they were never so much themselves—never so much men—as when they were most under the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit. And if anything is plain on the face of the Scriptures it is just this—that no mere men realised manhood so fully as did those of whom the Holy Spirit made instruments in giving His Church His written Word. It is not the case that David was less human in his afflictions and joys because God made him, through those afflictions and joys, the means of giving the Church His oracles. Nor was Paul less human in his powerful reasonings because, in them, the Holy Spirit made him the means of conveying to us His own Word, which Word proves more lasting than the fabric of the material earth and heavens. And is it not a commonplace in theology to refer to the Person of the Redeemer Himself, who is not less truly human because divine, as the analogue of what examination shews to be true of the Scriptures, that is, that they are of divine authorship, but still that that is realised through the instrumentality of human authorship? Augustine doubtless held the doctrine of plenary or verbal inspiration, and yet it is he who said (as quoted in the article), “Inspiratus a Deo, sed tamen homo—inspired of God, but nevertheless a man.” Dr. Moody Stuart relates that the designation by which Dr. John Duncan delighted to call the books of the Old and New Testaments was, “The words of the Holy Ghost.” And yet it was he who said that we should remember that the writers of Holy Scripture were not simply pens—they were pen-men.

Dr. Dods does injustice—I shall not say wittingly—to Dr. Kennedy, of Dingwall, when in this article he attributes the mechanical view of inspiration to him. He quotes Dr. Kennedy of the following effect: “God employed men in writing. But these men were so controlled by him that He is the Author of the writing, and so the Author that any charge of inaccuracy against the Record or Scripture as originally given must be preferred against Him.” This quotation is from Dr. Kennedy’s “Doctrine of Inspiration in the Confession of Faith,” on the sixth page of

which one may read it. Because Dr. Kennedy says that the Confession of Faith—and (by implication) that he himself—regards God as responsible for the truth of all Scripture, Dods concludes that he should be classed with the Dictationists; as if Dr. Kennedy thought that the true analogue of the place which David and Paul occupied in relation to God, “whose word was upon their tongue,” was that of a schoolboy or clerk who writes to dictation, but whose personal interest in the words committed to writing may be a matter of indifference. But all this supposes that Dr. Kennedy, like Dr. Dods, is endeavouring to give an account of the process of inspiration, whereas the truth is that Dr. Kennedy had no thought of doing any such thing at all. On the contrary, as touching the process, he had said on page 1, “There is no attempt by the authors of the Confession to explain the mode or process of inspiration. The Westminster divines were far too wise to make any such attempt.” But of course when he speaks of the product—of the divinely-inspired Word—he, in common with evangelical men generally, believes that it is in every part truth more stable than heaven and earth, and that the Holy Ghost is worshipped and honoured in being regarded as responsible for the truth of all it teaches.

(3) And this leads us to say a word in conclusion regarding the true doctrine of inspiration. Evangelical theologians have not as a rule been fond of using, by preference, the expression, “verbal inspiration.” This is not because they did not believe in it, for they should not hold with Christ if they did not hold to the infallibility of every jot and tittle, not to say of every word. But the word “plenary” has been preferred, because “verbal” is apt to give the impression that those making much of it are interested more in sounds and syllables than in sense or substance. At the same time, the challenges of our enemies make it oftentimes quite necessary to assert the truth regarding inspiration in that form. For it is essential to hold that the Scriptures, as originally given, are throughout and throughout God-breathed, and it is an instinct of faith not to associate any imperfection with such a product. Opportunity fails us to enter on elaborate proof that that is the sense in which we must hold the doctrine of inspiration if we should be found in spiritual sympathy with those whose credentials proved them to have been the well-attested messengers of God. But as a sample, take up one of the minor prophets. Take up Hosea or Joel or Micah. The inscription placed as a heading over each and all of these prophecies teaches us at once what to expect. It is: “The word of the Lord.” That describes the whole prophecy. If we don’t receive the whole book, say, of Hosea, or of Joel, or of Micah, in that sense, we refuse to receive it in the sense in which it is being offered to us. Now it is quite certain that Christ and His apostles placed these minor prophets on a par with the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures whether these belonged to the class of Law or of Prophets or of

Psalms. The Old Testament is altogether “the word of the Lord.” And so far as the New Testament is concerned, it is enough for us at present to say that it is simply impossible for Christians to associate a lower conception of inspiration regarding it than is associated with the Old Testament. It, too, must therefore be “the word of the Lord,” and better cannot be said of it. Briefly, the whole Bible is “the word of the Lord.” Of that “word of the Lord” we say that it is inerrant and infallible. Dods thinks that we ought to set up ourselves as examiners of the Word of God, in order to ascertain whether the facts of the case bear out such a high doctrine of inspiration as the Church of God almost universally thought was cherished by Christ and His apostles. That is tantamount to a claim of our being able to comprehend so as to be judges of all that the Scriptures contain. We consider that it is beyond question (as even extreme Rationalists allow) that Christ and His apostles held, regarding the Scriptures, a doctrine of plenary inspiration, and consequent inerrancy; and we consider that believers cannot hold another doctrine regarding Scripture than that held by their Lord.

The objections urged by Dods against the literal accuracy of the Scriptures are very trivial. For example, he imagines that the grammar and style of the Scriptures would have been something other than they are if the Scriptures were inspired in the sense in which, e.g., Dr. Kennedy supposed them to have been inspired. The Apostle Paul thought the style adopted by himself was more in keeping with divine authorship than that, e.g., of the Greek rhetoricians (1 Cor. ii. 13). And, besides, the pertinent question is—Is the grammar or style of the Bible such that its truthfulness as the Word of God is thereby marred? Again, it is made an objection that the sayings of our Lord are variously reported in the several gospels. Evidently—according to Dods’ view of what constitutes literal accuracy of expression—it were a useless thing to have more than one account of any one event in Christ’s life, for in order to be literally accurate, according to his demand, the second evangelist was bound to tell his story word for word as was done by the first, and of course such repetition would be very useless. All that is necessary, we think, to account for the differences (although their marvellous harmony is their really striking feature) between reports by two or more evangelists of one event in Christ’s life, is to remember that the evangelists’ Greek words are, at least generally, translations of Christ’s Aramaic words, and that, as a rule, their reports are only summaries of all that Christ must have spoken.

J. R. M.

The late Lord Overtoun.—The United Free Church has lost its richest and most liberal supporter in the person of John Campbell White, Lord Overtoun, who passed away on the 15th February, at the age of 65 years. The Press is full of tributes of praise to the deceased gentleman.

The Memoirs or Spiritual Exercises of Elisabeth West.

(WRITTEN BY HER OWN HAND.)

(Continued from page 381.)

WHEN this was over, I began to inquire, Whether I had been in my own duty or not? and was confirmed again and again that I had done the Lord’s commands; but more especially on the Saturday night after—it was a night of power on my soul, and much of the love of God in Christ was discovered to me. And on Sabbath morning that word came, “This is the day that the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice. Thou hast put more joy in my heart than they when their corn and wine abounded.” This was a most blessed day to me, and it seemed as if it was a forerunner of the Lord’s return to my soul, with days of wonted power. I thought I won into the chambers, and there got leave to pour out my complaint and request, both for myself and for the church and interest of Christ.

O how much of the loving kindness of the Lord was manifested to me! which may make me cry out with wonder, “What am I? Or is this the manner of man, O Lord?” Yet, notwithstanding of all this, I still had my own particular to grapple with; it was ever molesting and vexing my spirit; that which I could not make language to the world of, was making me go heavily, mourning, and with a bowed-down back; and though I durst not question the Lord’s love to me, yet many times I cried, “If I be thine, why is it thus with me?” As for this nameless distemper, I knew not well what to say anent it; only I saw it very uneasy to fight with. I got six thoughts or meditations from it, wherein this ugly disease I was labouring under differed from any other. First, I thought it was a singular evil; I knew none in this case but myself. Secondly, I found it to be a secret distemper; I could not let it be known to any. Thirdly, I saw a paradox in this; there was nothing in the world I would fainer be quit of, and yet there was nothing I would so fain been about with. Fourthly, I thought it was inconsistent with grace, and that these were not the spots of God’s children. Fifthly, I thought it was inconsistent with former promises given to me at solemn occasions, and in the day of my espousals. Sixthly, I saw that the more I thought to quit and part with it the closer it sticks with me; I sometimes could appeal to heaven, whether I would not be more content to be at liberty than to be in bondage as I was. O the bitter cries and complaints it brought from me! begging He would relieve me from this difficulty: “O send me deliverance, for Thy own name’s sake!” What speed I came, was only, that many sweet promises were given me, from that sweet Psalm xci., but my difficulty was not removed, and I was still in the place of trouble. In this case I remained a long time; and though I dare not doubt the Lord’s kindness to me many ways manifested, yet this bitter pill was like a dead weight on me. O the body of sin and death is a heavy burden!

As to my outward concerns, all things went right; I had much love and respect from these among whom I dwelt. I must acknowledge, there was much of the goodness of God manifested to me. As I was a servant, I many times besought the Lord that He would give me a spirit and knowledge to go about my concerns in the family, and that I might please my master and mistress; for I still saw, if anything went wrong in my management, religion would suffer. O for Thy glorious name’s sake teach me my duty in this! I was heard: for I truly saw that what I did, though it was not so well as others would have done it, yet my lady and the rest were so content that I was many times astonished, and made to cry out, “Thou art the God that performs all things for me.”

I continued in this family till November, at which time my lady and the family were going for London; and willingly would they have had me going with them, but nothing could persuade me, for I saw that it was not my duty. I was, and am persuaded, that nothing I have an aversion to should be gone in with by me. Now, by my not going with them, I disappointed myself of service; but since it was not my duty to go, I was firmly made to believe that I would be provided for: and so I was, for in a very few days I was settled to be mistress in the Trades’ Hospital, for these children to teach them. This seemed to be a very promising through-bearing: but all my fear was, that I was not enough qualified for such a post. I besought the Lord on this account, and was answered with good words.

I entered to this family about the 5th or 6th day of November, 1708. During the short time I was in this place I shall, as the Lord assists, remark how he dealt with me. At my first entry I was very kindly received by all concerned; and this continued for some time: I saw the Lord’s hand assisting me in whatever I was employed about, which filled me with wonder at his wise conduct, even in outward things, contrary to my expectation; yet, notwithstanding all this, I never went to prayer alone, and got any breathing, but I was made to cry, That this might not be made the place of my abode; and this word went still with me, “I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage.” On this word I was made to believe and hope.

Sometime after this I fell in a great deadness of spirit, especially in secret prayer: I had no life, no breathing; but, when I was in family prayer with the children, or dropping any word for their instruction, then I sensibly felt assistance, and that with power and life to my soul. But on the back of this, when I went to

secret, there I was as dry and sapless as a stick; when I went alone, I was indeed all alone, all I had for my companion was unbelief, atheism, mistrust, and quarrelling the Lord’s unfaithfulness in making out His promise to me. In short, the enemy was present, and his work was to suggest such terrible thoughts against a work of grace in my soul, that it is not convenient for me to record them. Yet when I came again to the family I was almost in a rapture, in commending Christ and His ways to be both pleasant and profitable, in all cases, in all places, and at all times. O what seeming contradiction was in my case! for, when I returned to secret, then I was almost persuaded that I was nothing but a perfect hypocrite, a whited wall, a painted sepulchre; appearing to be something to others, but was not what I seemed to be. I thought all the religion I had was but a form of godliness, without the power; and many such thoughts were suggested to me, and I gave way to them, and with my heart entertained them as real truths not to be questioned. Oh! I cannot express the extraordinary disquietment, discouragement, and extreme melancholy I was under; for I could not understand the Lord’s way with me: I had troubles from without, and trials from within, sinking me in the deeps, where there was no standing in the mire of unbelief; neither could I see the Lord giving me one look of pity or help, nor answering my heavy bitter supplications, which put the last stone on my burden.

At this time I had four sore and heavy burdens on my back; First, Outward troubles of several sorts. Secondly, Great and sore temptations from the enemy, tempting me to atheism, mistrust, quarrelling the Almighty; Oh, as the fiery darts flew about my ears! Thirdly, A load-weight of inward corruption. Fourthly, Which was heaviest of all, an absent and angry Lord. This so disheartened and disquieted me that I had neither heart nor hand for duties; but was dead, senseless, and secure. In this case I went from duty to duty, sorrowing as one without hope of any outgate. About this time there was word that the sacrament was to be given; and though that sometime a-day this report was sweet to me, on the thoughts of a communion, yet it was not so now. I resolved I would not venture on such a solemn work; only, lest I should give offence, I was minded to wait on, so as none might suspect me.

Now, to help forward my unfitness for this great work, I cannot forbear to remark one dispensation more. That same week the Sacrament was intimated. One night, as I was in my closet, about nine of the clock at night (and although I was many times ill employed there, yet I durst not omit frequently to go to that place), while I am sitting alone writing, I heard one that belonged to the family take an occasion from my being there to speak very bitterly, and make a very heavy charge against me, for being, as they said, so frequently in that place; and took a liberty to reproach religion on my account, and that openly and publicly

before the most part of the family. I heard a good while ere I spake one word; but at length I broke out in a most passionate anger, and ill-natured expressions: I being at this time in a very ill frame of spirit otherwise, the enemy wrought with my proud and corrupt nature to a very great degree. O, how this fit of passion seized on both my body and mind! so that I drew this inference from it, I was resolved not to communicate; and now providence hath so ordered it that I am not, in a case, either temporal or spiritual, to set about it.

Now was I plunged into a deep where there was no standing. I thought the anger of the Lord is gone out against me; so that my heart sank within me like a stone. I continued for some time in this disorder, and I was resolved never to let my case be known to any in the world. Now, when I was thus distressed, hopeless, and helpless, more lying on me than I was able to bear then was it that the tender-hearted Samaritan (the Lord Jesus Christ) passed by me, and saw me an object of pity. O, that merciful, compassionate, and condescending Lord! who first brought me to the wilderness, and then spoke comfortably unto me.

This being the Sabbath before the sacrament, as I was hearing Mr. Millar in the Lady Yester’s kirk, I was both wounded and comforted in that sermon. I thought I was that person that was crying and complaining, When I cry and shout, He putteth out my prayers; I have no experience of the answer of prayer. But ere this day was done I felt other things: I found the warm breathings of His Spirit melting me down to an entire submission: “Let Him do to me as He thinks good.” The Lord was very gracious to me, where I began to think on setting about solemn work. The sense of his goodness continued with me, and many sweet promises I got renewed, that he would give me a delivery from all my raging enemies.

On the fast day, Mr. Millar was on these words, “Wilt thou not revive us again, O Lord? that thy people may rejoice.” The very reading of this text was half a sermon to me, my heart went so out with it. I bless the Lord. He had a very satisfying sermon, and I was made to hear with application to my soul, and, after I came home to secret, I felt a present God upholding me. Next day I was neither up nor down, but betwixt the two, waiting, depending, and trusting that all would be well.

On Saturday, I was under great discouragements; questions were put to me by the enemy that I could not well answer, and this was concerning the outmaking of some promises that were very dark to me. In the meantime, I wanted not what might have borne me up under any difficulty whatsoever, and that was a large sight and view of God’s love to my soul, and that He was about to deliver my soul from these racking disquiets that so distracted and discouraged me in the way of duty. This I was undoubtedly to believe; and, when discouragements seemed as if they would be about with me again, then these words came in with power, and I was made to express them with vigour and life,

believing they were really from the Lord, Psalm xlii., “Why art thou cast down, O, my soul, and why art thou disquieted within me? Still trust in God, for I shall yet have good cause to praise him.” And many times that word was put in my mouth, “My Lord, thou art right!” This is without doubt or question; I am fully persuaded of this. O, the comfort, quietness, and satisfaction this brought on my disordered mind! to such a degree, which is not to be expressed, but is better felt than told.

When I came to the place of public worship, one Mr. Bird, a strange minister, preached on these words, Song ii. 16, “My beloved is mine, and I am his.” O, but this was a seasonable and confirming sermon to me! I thought he told me my case as if he had known what passed between God and my soul in secret, which none in the world knew. O, the unspeakable comfort I found in having my interest in Christ so manifested to me, both in secret and public! where my long-offended Lord seemed to be at friendship with me again; and that He was about to deliver me from my strong enemy; and that the delivery was to be like the flying of birds, very swift, sudden, satisfying, and suitable. This I was made to believe.

On the morrow, being Sabbath, the day of our great solemnity, in the morning, I found fear and discouragement beginning to arise; but I was helped, through grace, to believe they would not overcome me. I came to the place of public worship, where Mr. Millar was wonderful on the love of God; but I found a great deadness on my spirit, and could not hear right, but grew worse, and very disordered. Then began I to reason the matter, what I should do with this corrupt nature of mine, that cannot wait on the Lord without distraction? where I saw it to be my plain duty to bring all these weaknesses to Christ, who only could mend them. I came to the second table in a very bad frame, but I desired to make mention of Christ’s righteousness only, his intercession, not mine; I saw my own vileness and weakness; and in the sense of this, I sat down to the table where Mr. Bird served, where I could neither speak nor think: yet I had great expectations that the Lord would do something more for me even at this present time. The minister that was serving the table had these expressions, “Believer, may be thou art saying, I cannot find what I expected: but I must tell thee, He hath a better dish and cup provided for thee than what thou hast in hand.” With that word, Christ came along to my soul with an extraordinary measure of His Spirit and power. I sensibly found a change, and these two words came with life and force, “Ye shall be ever with the Lord. And when ye go through the valley and shadow of death, I will be with you.” O, how this refreshed my drooping spirits, “That I would be ever with the Lord.” This is all I am seeking for time and eternity; this will make out all the deferred promises, spiritual and temporal: I desire no more. This was a very blessed time to me, and through the whole day it went very well with me. And when I came home, I found Him in secret, and got sweet

intimations of His love; this was indeed a day of power on my soul, and I hope to many others as well as to me; it being 3rd April, 1709.

On the morrow I returned to the public worship with a sense of the Lord’s love manifested to me; and heard sermons very suitable after such an occasion. Through the week following, I wanted not temptations to misbelieve again; but no sooner I betook myself to the Mediator, but presently they fled away.

On Sabbath next, our minister, Mr. Millar, preached on these words, “The King hath brought me into his chambers.” O, what reason have I to bless the Lord for these sermons! They were the very language of my soul: and indeed, “The King brought me into his chambers;” I went not in of my own accord, but He brought me. O, but this was a sweet and comfortable time to me! For I lived an heaven upon earth, in comparison of what storms I had undergone for five years before this; where I was racked and tortured between the promises and providences, and could not get them reconciled, but now there was a great delivery. I saw all the promises, all in Christ; and He would make them all out in His time.

I compared myself to a ship that had been long at sea, and by reason of many storms was all broken in pieces; but yet, broken as it was, the wise Master-Pilot, the Lord Jesus Christ, brought this tossed vessel to a safe harbour in Himself. The enemy would sometimes assault me, and say, Ye must go to sea and meet with a new storm again; but I thought I could appeal to God Himself, that I could not at this time enter new trials until I was better mended. I besought Him that He would keep me from entering again to engage with new difficulties till I got sufficient strength to answer the enemy. I was like a woman new brought to bed, whose strength comes not presently to her, but yet she is sensible of her delivery, but is unable to engage to any strong piece of work. My kind and sympathizing Lord seemed to give ear to me in this thing: O, what of His wonders do I experience! Notwithstanding this sweet deliverance I had got to my soul, yet I found that there was something more I had to seek, and that was a temporal deliverance also; for He hath given me the upper springs, and will He not give me the nether springs also? Now, the case was this: In the family where I was, there was a person that rendered my life most uneasy in many respects, which are not convenient to name; but whatever they were, it was like to have these three sad consequences: First, to make me discontented with my lot and station, though otherwise very desirable; Secondly, It was like to render me useless and insignificant, so that I could not be profitable to those of whom I had the charge; Thirdly, Religion was like to suffer, and the way of God to be ill spoken of, on my account. These things affected me mightily, for which I besought the Lord for a deliverance from this place: for I saw, as clear as the sun shines, nothing else would do it; for both fair means and foul means were tried to do away these

contentions, but nothing would take effect. I again and again cried for a delivery in His own way, and was made to believe that a deliverance was very near, though I neither knew how, nor in what way, it was to be brought about. There were two Scriptures that gave me great ground of hope: “I am the Lord that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage.” The other was, “Surely the Lord will perfect that which concerneth me.” O, but this was a sweet time to me! The answer of prayer quickly given. Some weeks ago I was saying, “I knew what the answer of prayer was: I cry, but He shutteth out my prayers;” but now I feel it otherwise.

This was a very confirming time, where all my former experiences and promises were made clear to me, that they were no delusions, but really from the Lord. On the eighteenth day of this month the enemy began to assault me, as if my hopes of a present delivery were vain: I was in great perplexity, and went to my sweet Advocate in duty, where I got leave to pour out my complaint in His bosom. Meantime I was thus pouring out my soul before Him, one comes and knocks at the door; and O, but I had ill will to be disturbed; but at length I opened. What their errand was they did not tell me, but in a short time events proved that they were sent to me as an answer of prayer.

These things I would not so particularly record, but it is to let us see the care and concern the Lord hath on His poor people when in trouble, even with respect to their external concerns; He hath a fatherly and tender heart, He pities and helps in the most convenient seasons. I must acknowledge that this dispensation of providence to me, the vilest and unworthiest of all His creatures, was so remarkable, and exactly the return of prayer, in all the circumstances of it, that I am more and more every day made to wonder and admire at his wise conduct of providence, not only toward my soul, for which He hath done great things, but also with respect to my lot in the world. But I may say with the Psalmist, “He is the God that performeth all things (well) for me, spiritual and temporal.” I get nothing but what He makes me first cry to Him for by prayer; and then in His own time and way He answers and performs what He hath made me believe. O, happy are they who have so good a God to trust in!

But, to come to what I intended: There was an intimate comrade of mine with whom I had many sweet and pleasant hours in prayer and converse one with another. We would commit heart-secrets to one another with a great deal of freedom, without fear, being persuaded of one another’s true and real friendship. This person sends for me, and after some time’s converse she proposed several questions: what she meant by them I could not understand, neither had I any thought to inquire at her why she asked such things at me: only I thought it came in as our ordinary converse, and so passed by without a reflection on it.

The time wherein our lot is fallen looks very gloomy, as if a

storm were approaching: we had the more need to lay up our winter provision, and, like wise Joseph, in plenty to provide for famine, for we have had both plenty and purity of gospel ordinances in Scotland for a considerable time; but what scarcity there may be, only the Lord knows.

The last time we were together there were some communications among us about the principles of our religion. Would to God we were all better grounded in them than we are; for by this time, that we might have been teachers of others, we are to be taught the first principles of our religion, to our shame may we speak it. There is a word in Jude, ver. 3 (which the Lord is calling us seriously to consider this day) “Earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.” There are two lessons to be learned from these words: First, that as God has handed down a faith to His people, so they should be so settled and confirmed in it, that they may be able to contend for it when it is called in question. Secondly, We may learn, in all ages of the Church, there have been some to oppose and contradict the faith, otherwise there were no need for contending for it. Every Christian should choose a faith, which they should stand by against all oppositions: choose a faith and keep it, do not waver from it, to be of one religion to-day and another to-morrow; only choose not that religion which you cannot contend for from the Word. This must be our only rule if we would make a good choice.

(To be Continued.)

The late Peter Campbell, Glasgow.

PETER CAMPBELL was born at Bororaig, in the parish of Duirinish, in the island of Skye, in the year 1833. His father, Donald Campbell, was a godly man; but both his father and mother died when he was about two years of age. His maternal uncle took Peter with him and brought him up. He lived in Glendale.

When Peter was about eight years of age, sharp convictions of his own sinfulness caused him to seek solitude for prayer when out in the fields herding his uncle’s cows. He pondered over his own lost estate, and often desired that the Lord would make him godly, like his father, and then take him away to be with his father in everlasting happiness. He attended the prayer meetings held in the district of Glendale by that worthy man of God, Hector Maclean, Hamara, for whom he retained the profoundest regards ever after.

When he was about eighteen years of age he heard a sermon from the Rev. Alexander MacColl at Glendale. The text was—”In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also”—(John xiv. 2, 3). This truth (especially the words, “I will come again and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also,”)

made a lasting impression on his heart. So far as we can now ascertain, this was the day on which he heard the joyful sound of the Jubilee trumpet and was set free. This kindled such love to Mr. MacColl in his heart that he felt a very strong inclination to go to see him, but bashfulness prevented him. This year he and other three young men from Glendale left home for Glasgow. The road from Glendale to Portree passes the Lonmore Free Church Manse, and as they came along Mr. MacColl was out in his garden, and, seeing them, he came out and accompanied them a good distance. Peter told this to a friend long afterwards, and said: “Whatever effect Mr. MacColl’s advices that day had on me, God blessed them to one of our number, and of this he gave good proof ever after that day.” This young man died of smallpox a few years after he came to Glasgow.

Peter Campbell sat in the M’Donald Gaelic Church, under the evangelical preaching of the Rev. Mr. Gordon, and received many feasts of fat things from his lips. This servant of Christ he held in great veneration, in whom he placed implicit confidence as being faithful to God’s Word and to the souls of men. Mr. Gordon visited the family with whom Peter lodged, and when leaving he gave him his hand, saying, “What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” The serious and solemn manner in which Mr. Gordon quoted these words left a lasting impression on his mind. He often referred to this incident in after days. After Mr. Gordon’s death he sat in Hope Street Gaelic Church under the Rev. Mr. Urquhart. He considered him a preacher that needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth. None could be long in his company without being convinced that the memory of these three faithful servants of Christ had a warm place in his heart to the last, viz., Rev. Messrs. MacColl, Gordon, and Urquhart.

There was a goodly number of godly laymen in Glasgow during that time who held prayer meetings in each other’s houses, which were like Bethel to the Lord’s people. These meetings Peter always attended, and the bonds of brotherly love which united these men in the Spirit, continued with them to the last. They spoke often one to another about the dishonour done to Christ and His Word by the Free Church, and deplored it exceedingly. It was with deep grief of heart they watched the spirit of atheism, infidelity, hypocrisy, and worldliness, which, from year to year, broke down her carved work, and which, they saw, must end in her ruin. But her doctrines and principles for which the witnesses of Christ suffered to death in Scotland in the past, were dearer to them than their life, and by these they purposed to abide, whatever that might cost to flesh and blood. The most of these men have entered since within the vail, to enjoy fellowship of a much higher degree in the Lord—in love to God and to one another. The few of them who are still in the wilderness love to think upon those pleasant, if grievous, times. Such were days of old which they can never forget. This was true of our friend to the last.

In the year 1893 Peter Campbell was among the first, in Glasgow, to separate from the Declaratory Act Church, in order to maintain the Word of God, the Confession of Faith, and purity of worship in accordance with the original constitution and practice of the Free Church of Scotland. It was to him like life from the dead to see the Free Church rise again to her original purity, though small, poor, and contemptible in the eyes of the world. From this step he could not depart—neither would he yield to compromises nor surrender; and when he saw that some were willing to lower her banner for truth, his heart trembled for the Ark of God, till he saw her emerging unscathed out of the ordeal.

Although he was looked upon, by all the Lord’s people who knew him, as a man of real integrity and godliness since he was eighteen years of age, yet he never sought admission to the Lord’s Table. In the year 1895 two of the elders of the congregation proposed that we should go to examine him at his own house. This was done, and the result was that he came forward at the next Communion. We do not state this as an example which others should follow; for we have good cause to believe that nothing prevented him from coming forward to make a public profession, according to our Lord’s command, but his fear of bringing any reproach upon the name of Christ in the world, and that on account of the deep insight he had of the depravity of his own natural heart; but we are sure that he never regretted having taken this step. Two years later he was elected to the office of the eldership by the members of the congregation. This was in 1897. He was much loved by all his fellow-elders, and also by the whole congregation. The duties which devolved on him after that time brought him more prominently before the people, and made manifest that he was a man possessed with much of the spirit of prayer and supplication.

The first time he was called upon to speak to the question, he reluctantly rose, and said—”Lord save us from the man, myself.” These words he twice repeated, and then looking around on the people, he said—”I tell you the godliness that will not keep you from the dancing balls and vain songs, will not keep your souls out of hell at death.” The last year of his life on earth, there was an unusual vigour and spirituality felt in his prayers in public. We were told since that he never opened any books during the last two years of his life but the Bible and Foxe’s “Book of Martyrs.” He regularly got up through the night to spend some time in secret prayer; but during the last two years he used to spend hours during the night on his knees. This was true in a very special manner on Sabbath mornings. He generally went to bed on Saturday nights about ten, rose for secret prayer at twelve, and often did not return to bed till three or four in the morning, and notwithstanding rose at an early hour. Self-loathing for the sinfulness of his nature, on the one hand, and the marvellous grace of God revealed in Christ crucified, on the other, were

themes on which he dwelt much in his prayers. The vastness of eternity and the nothingness of time—the extraordinary value of the soul’s salvation and the vanity of all the world when contrasted with it—the intense earnestness with which he wrestled for an outpouring of the Spirit on the young, in order that they might be brought to Christ by repentance and faith—were very conspicuous in his prayers. It was noticeable, particularly, how absolutely he trusted in the merit of the blood of Christ as the only remedy for purging the guilty conscience.

He was most regular in his attendance on the public means on Sabbaths. The last Sabbath he was able to come to church, he made ready for the forenoon service, but could not come; but in the evening he put on his boots, and told his wife that he was going out to St. Jude’s for the last time, and so it was. He prayed that night in the church with great earnestness and unction. When his last painful illness came to a height, he told Mrs. Campbell that this was death. He suffered very much in his body, but had peace and comfort in his soul. In the midst of the intense pains which he suffered, he said—”Yet a little while and He that shall come will come, and not tarry.” After a while, he said—”The Lord will help and then deliver.” He said to a young man who called often to see him—”Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning,” and he added—”It shall be so.” He saw Mrs. Campbell weeping, and he said to her—”Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and your children,” adding—”He is good to my body, and He is good to my soul; for I am going to the kingdom where many great sinners have gone, who were saved by grace.” A friend from Lochaber came to the city at this time, and called twice to see him. This friend’s visit was very comforting to him, and when the friend was going away, he said to him—”The Lord sent you to visit me from Ballachulish.”

The night before he died I saw him for the first time during his last illness; but he was so weak that he could not speak much. I asked him what portion of God’s word he would like me to read; he said—”Read ‘The blood of Jesus Christ, his son, cleanseth us from all sin’; that is the greatest truth in the Bible for a poor guilty sinner.” Next morning he was not able to speak, and he passed away before midnight on the 25th of September.

Peter Campbell was a very faithful, constant, and true friend. By his demise, the Free Presbyterian Church, and also the cause of Christ throughout the whole earth, lost an elder who loved the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and who prayed often for the coming of His kingdom in the world. The Kirk-Session of St. Jude’s placed on its records their appreciation of him as a godly man, and their sincere sense of grief at the loss sustained by his death, by the Session, Congregation, and the Church at large. We desire here to renew our expression of deep sympathy with Mrs. Campbell, and to commend to her “The friend that sticketh closer than a brother.”

N. C.

Free Church Proceedings.

A MEETING of the Free Presbytery of Edinburgh was held on 21st January, Rev. Professor Moore, Moderator. Among other business—and as a result of the deliberations of the Free Church Commission in November, to which reference was made in a recent number of this Magazine—Professor Kennedy Cameron put certain questions to Mr. James Watson, minister at Leith, with reference to the conduct of public worship there. The following is the report of questions and answers, as found in the Free Church Record for February, and strange to observe, the Editor was not indebted to the Presbytery for his information but to the newspapers, as he thus proceeds:—

“The following is the report which appeared in the daily papers: Is it the case that recently, at a meeting of congregation, the praise was accompanied by the use of the organ?—No. At a recent dispensation of the Lord’s Supper, was the Communion Table decorated with flowers?—No. Is there a Boys’ Brigade attached to the congregation?—Yes and* No. The Moderator to Professor Cameron—Do you accept the last answer? Professor Cameron—Oh, I accept any answer.”

Our comment on these questions and answers is that they convey a wrong impression, and do not actually enlighten the people on the real state of affairs. First, in regard to the organ, they are fitted to convey the impression that the organ was never used at all at any congregational meeting in Leith, while, according to uncontradicted report, the organ was used. The press, however, did not say that the praise was accompanied by the use of the organ. What it said was that a social meeting was held at which there was vocal and instrumental music, and that the organ was played during the evening. The press, as far as we saw, said nothing about praise. There may be musical selections played on an organ without praise or singing, and it seems to have alarmed at least some Free Church people—and that rightly—when they heard that the organ was used at any congregational meeting in connection with their Church. The above questions and answers therefore do not give all the necessary enlightenment, and leave the public in the dark as to the exact state of matters. A second question should have been put as to whether the organ was used at all at a congregational meeting. But the Free Church purity men are on the horns of a dilemma here, for they allow other instruments to be played at social meetings in connection with their Church, and Mr. Watson, Leith, could challenge them to point out any essential difference between one musical instrument and another—between an organ and, say, a fiddle or banjo. Secondly, in regard to flowers on the Communion Table, this question is also inadequate. No doubt, the more sacred the

service the more reprehensible would be any ritualistic display of flowers, but where is there any radical difference between having the flowers exhibited on the Communion Table in Church on any Lord’s Day and having them exhibited at the dispensation of the Lord’s Supper? This question and answer give the impression that the flowers were never exhibited at all, when the minister at Leith has already admitted that the flowers were on the Communion Table on a Lord’s Day, though not at a dispensation of the Communion. Are the Free Church leaders prepared to tolerate such vain exhibitions as these at any time in Church? If so, they can tolerate anything. The third question bears on a Boys’ Brigade. Personally we do not approve of Boys’ Brigades, either outside or inside the Church, for they stir up a martial, fighting spirit that should not be encouraged in the young; there is plenty of it in fallen human nature already. It is time enough for young people to learn the arts of war when they come to years of maturity and manhood. We do not quite understand what Professor Cameron meant when he said, “Oh, I accept any answer.” The words certainly give the impression to the ordinary reader that any kind of answer would satisfy. If this be the meaning, the remark is not hopeful, but we wait further developments.

We observe that at a monthly meeting of the Glasgow Presbytery, held on 7th January, that the Overture transmitted, from the Assembly to Presbyteries “anent Admission of Ministers and Probationers from other Churches and Repeal of diverse Acts” of Assembly, was submitted and read. After discussion, it was moved by the Rev. Henry Carmichael, Coatbridge, and seconded by the Rev. John Macleod, Duke Street Gaelic, “That the Presbytery approve of the Overture being passed into a Standing Law of the Free Church of Scotland.” It was moved by Dr. M’Fadden, Dumbarton, and seconded by Rev. W. S. Heron, Partick, “That the Overture be not approved.” The first motion was carried by a majority, and became the finding of the Presbytery.

This Overture provides, among other things, that candidates for admission be believers in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, and in purity of worship—to the exclusion of uninspired hymns and instrumental music. One would like to know—and the people of the Free Church ought to know—what are the objections of such men as Dr. M’Fadden and Mr. Heron to this Overture. There were ten objectors also in the Edinburgh Presbytery when the Overture was presented for their consideration. It is perfectly plain that there are men in the present Free Church who ought never to have been in it, and if the leaders had been faithful at the first, they would have been refused admission. It is the supposed faithful witnesses of 1900 that are themselves responsible for the present condition of matters, and the kind of methods hitherto adopted will do nothing to reform.

Searmon.

LEIS AN URR. MR. EOIN BROUN, WAMPFRAY, 1680.

“An sin thubhairt an Tighearn rium, Ged’ sheasamh Maois agus Samuel a’m’ lathair, cha bhiodh m’anam leis an t-sluaigh so; cuir a mach iad a m’fhianuis, agus siubhladh iad air falbh.”—JEREMIAH xv. 1.

(Continued from page 390.)

1. ‘Nuair a tha sluagh ciontach do thar-chùis a dheanamh air iomadh fàbhair a fhuair iad o lamhan Dhè, a rinn iadsan a thruailleadh, agus a mhi-bhuileachadh, a chum iad féin a chruadhachadh ’nan slighibh aingidh; an sin tha aobhar eaggail ann, gu’n d’thig Dia mu dheireadh agus gu’n gabh e dìoladh dheth leithid a ghinealach thruailidh. Bha’n aingidheachd so mar an ceudna air a chuir as leth sluagh Iudah le Ieremiah ii. 5-9. Do thaobh an dì-chuimhne air caoimhneas Dhé do’n taobh ’s an àm a chaidh seachad, agus air son tàir a dheanamh air fhàbhar, truailleadh a thìr, agus oighreachd a dheanamh ’na fhàsach, nì a tha air a chuir as an leth anns an 7 rann. “Uime sin, ’deir an Tighearn, anns an 9 rann, tagraidh mise ribh fathast, agus ri clann bhur cloinne tagraidh mi.” Mar sin ann sa xi. An deigh gu’n dubhairt an Tighearna ri Ieremiah, na dean ùrnuigh air son an t-sluaigh so, anns a 14, tha e a’ cur ri sin, mar aobhar brosnachaidh air son so, rainn 15-17, “Ciod a th’aig mo ghràdh ri dheanamh ann mo thigh-sa? Chuir i an gnìomh mòr ghràinealachdan; agus tha’n fheòil naomh air teicheadh uait; an uair a ta thu aingidh, an sin tha thu aoibhneach. Gorm chrann ollaidh, maiseach agus deadh thorach, thug an Tighearn mar ainm ort.” Ach cha robh imeachd riaghailteach ann, agus uime sin tha leantuin. “Le fuaim toirm mhòr, dh’fhadaidh e teine ’na mhullach, agus tha a gheugan air am briseadh. Oir rinn Tighearn nan sluagh, a shuidhich thu, olc a labhairt a’ d’ aghaidh,” &c. Mar sin, Iere. xiii., tha’n Tighearn le comh-samhlachd croinn, a’ nochdadh cia mar a thug e air tigh Israeil gu h-iomlan dluthachadh ris, air son sluagh, agus air son ainm, agus air son moladh, agus air son glòir; ach nach èisdeadh iadsan, air an aobhar sin bhagair e orra gu’n deanadh se iad mar chrìos millte, agus mar sin gu’m milleadh se uaill Iudah, agus mòr uaill Ierusalem, agus gu’n deanadh se iad mar ni nach fhu. Faic anns an 9-11. Mar sin, xvi., tha e ag radh, agus air tòis, “Ath-dhiolaidh mi dùbailt an aingidheachd agus am peacaidhean, do bhrigh ’s gu’n do thruail iad m’fhearann, le salaichead an gnìomh-ara fuathach; agus le’n gràinealachdaibh lìon iad m’oighreachd.” ‘Sann mar so a thug iad ath-dhioladh do chaoimhneas Dhé ann an tabhairt na tìre sin dhoibh, le a thruailleadh le am peacaidhean; agus uime sin tha e a’ bagradh gu’n dìoladh e orra am peacaidhean le tomhas dùbailt. Mar sin, tha’m fàidh, Esec. xvi., a’ deanamh iomradh fharsuing air na fàbhairean ’s na caoimhneas an nochdadh do’n t-sluaigh sin, agus tha e tabhairt dhuinn mar an ceudna suim fharsuing air an tàir agus air an truailleadh air

na fabhairean so; agus do bhrigh sin tha corruich air a cur an céill o’n 36 rann, agus air aghaidh. Bha so mar an ceudna air a chuir as leth Ephraim, no Israel, le Hosea vii. 13, 15. “Chiontaich iad a’m’ aghaidh-sa: ge do shaor mi iad, gidheadh labhair iad breugan a’m’ aghaidh: ge do neartaich mi fòs an gairdeanan, gidheadh tha iad a’ dealbh ainhleis a’m’ aghaidh.” Mar an ceudna, Hosea xi. 1-4, Isa. l. 2.

1. ‘Nuair a tha sluagh air teachd gu bhi air an cruadhachadh ‘nam peacaidhean, a’ gràdhachadh agus a’ gabhail tlàchd ann a bhi dol air seachran as an t-slighe, agus a’ deanamh uaill ann an cuid aingidheachd, mar gu’m biodh iad a’ rùnachadh nach leasaicheadh iad gu bràth, agus uime sin na’n tosd roimh na h-uile bhagraibh, agus ‘gan cur an suarachas: ‘an sin tha mòr aobhar eagail air buille léir-sgrios nach dean meadhon sam bith a bhacadh. Bha e mar an ceudna air a chuir as leth an t-sluaigh so, Jerem. xiv. 10, gu’m bu toil leo dol air seachran, nach do chum iad air an ais an casan: agus ciod a thàinig an deigh so? “Uime sin cha ghabh an Tighearn riu, cuimhnichidh e nis an aingidheachd, agus cronaichidh e’n cionta.” Agus an deigh sin, anns 11, thubhairt an Tighearn ris, na guidh as leth an t-sluaigh so air son am maith; rann 12, “An uair a thraisgeas iad, cha’n èisd mise ri’n glaodh: ach leis a’ chlaidheamh, leis a’ ghoirt, agus leis a’ phlàigh, cuiridh mi as doibh.” Mar so tha’m fàidh, Esec. xxiv., ‘Faicinn Ierusalem ann an comh-samhlachd coire làn do mhìrean; agus a tha i air a gairm, rann 6, an coire aig am bheil a’ shalachar ann, agus o nach deachaidh a shalachar a’ mach uaith. Cha b’ail leatha a bheag deth a gràineileachd a chuir air falbh, agus air an aobhar sin thubhairt an Tighearn anns an 9 rann, “Is an-aoibhinn do’n chaithir fhuilteach; ni mise fòs a chruach theine mòr: rann 10, Carnaibh connadh, fadaibh an teine; caithibh an fheòil, agus cuiribh oirre spìosraidh gu leòir, agus loisgear na cnàmhan: rann 11, An sin cuir falamh e air eibhlibh, a chum gu’n teasaich a phrais, agus gu’n loisg i, agus gu’m bi a shalachar air a leaghadh innte, air chor as gu’m bi a shalachar air a chaitheamh.” Cha b’ail leatha a salachar a chuir air falbh ann an tràth, agus uime sin cuiridh an Tighearn crìoch air ann a léir-sgrios, agus cha chuir e dàil ann; oir tha e air a chuir ris, rann 13, 14, “Ann ad’ shalachar tha neo-ghlòine, do bhrigh gu’n do ghlàn mi thu, agus nach robh thu glan; cha bhi thu air do ghlànadh o d’thruaillidheachd ni’s mò, gus an d’thoir mise air mo chorruich gu’n gabh i tàmh ort. Mise Iehobhah labhair: thig e gu crìch, agus coimh-lionaidh mis’ e; cha d’thèid mi air m’ais, ni mò a chaomhnas mi, no ghabhas mi aithreachas.” B’e an ni ceudna peacadh Israel, oir, deir Hosea, vii. 10, “Agus tha uabhar Israel a’ tabhairt fianuis fa chomhair a shùl: gidheadh cha’n eil iad a’ pilleadh ris an Tighearn an Dia, no ‘ga iarraidh air son so uile. Mar an ceudna, xi. 7, Tha mo shluagh-sa an tì air cùl-sleamhnachadh uam; ge do ghlaodh iad ris an Tì a’s àirde, cha’n àrdaich aon neach e.” Chruadhaich iad am muinealan, a chum ‘s nach èisdeadh iad focal Dhè. Uime sin thubhairt an Tighearn, Ierem.

xix. 15, gu’n d’thugadh e air Ierusalem, agus air na bailtibh eile an t-olc uile a chuir e an céill ‘nan aghaidh. B’e ‘n dearbh shluagh so féin, mu’n robh Sephaniah ‘labhairt, i. 12, a bha suidhichte air am breugaibh, agus a thubhairt ‘nan cridhe, cha dean an Tighearn maith, ni mò a ni e olc, muinntir air am bheil bagraidhean uamhasach agus eagalach, air an cuir an céill, gu crìoch a chaibidil sin.

1. ‘Nuair a tha sluagh fo’ an cuid peacaidhean a’ teachd gu bhi brùideil, feòlmhor, agus neo-mhothachail, ag cur an neo-bhrìgh gach ni a tha’n Tighearn aon-chuid ag radh no a deanamh, le’a sheirbhisich no le’a chuid frithealaidhean, ach a’ leantainn an toil-inntinn féin, an sin feudaidh sùil a bhi ri buille eagalach agus mhillteach, nach gabh pilleadh air ais, a bhi ann do reir Isa. xxii. 12-14. “Agus anns a là sin, ghairm Iehobhah Tighearn nan sluagh, gu guil, agus gu caoidh, agus gu maoile, agus gu crioslachadh le eudach saic; ach feuch, aoibhneas agus aighear, marbhadh dhaimh agus casgairt chaorach, ag itheadh feòla agus ag òl fion; itheamaid agus òlamaid, oir am màireach gheibh sinn bàs.” “Agus dh’fhoillsicheadh ann mo chluasan le Tighearn nan sluagh, gu deimhin cha ghlanar an aingidheachd so air falbh uaibh, gus am faigh sibh bàs, deir Iehobhah Tighearn nan sluagh.” Tha leithid do ni ceudna againn air a chur an céill le Amos, vi. 1, &c., “An aghaidh na dream a tha aig fois ann an Sion, tha cur an droch là fada uath, a ta luidhe air leapaichean deud-chnaimh, agus a tha ‘gan sìneadh féin air an ùirighibh; a ta ‘g itheadh uan na’n treud, agus na’n laoigh a’ meadhon an tighe bhiadhaidh; a ta seinn do fhuaim na clàrsaich; a ta cosmhail ri Daibhidh, a’ dealbh dhoibh féin innealan-ciùil; tha ‘g òl fion ann an cuachaibh, agus ‘gan ungadh féin le taghadh gach olaidh: ach nach eil doilich air son amghar Ioseiph.” ‘Nis faiceamaid ciod a bhagair Dia air son an aobhar sin, ann an 7, agus air aghaidh, a’ daingneachadh an ni ceudna le mionnan, rann 8, gu bhi nochdadh neo-chaochlaideachd na comhairle so.

2. ‘Nuair a tha muinntir cho fad as o bhi gabhail aithreachas, agus o bhi toirt an aire do chronachaidhean, agus o iad féin irioslachadh ann an lathair an Tighearn, le mothachadh air an aingidheachd, ach gu’m fireanaich iad an slighibh féin, agus gu’n tagair iad an neo-chiontas féin am fianuis Dhé, an sin cha’n eil tuille dòchais air ath-leasachadh, tha’n cor cosmhail ri bhi an-earbsach, agus feudaidh iad dùil a bhi aca ri buille mhairbhteach: oir b’e so mar an ceudna peacadh sluagh Iudah, mar a chi sinn, Iere. ii. 23. “Cionnas a dh’fheudas tu radh, cha’n ‘eil mi salach, cha deachaidh mi an deigh Bhaalim?” Uime sin, rann 24, Feumaidh an t-àm a teachd anns am bi iad air am faotainn agus air an glacadh: air an doigh cheudna, rann 35, “Gidheadh tha thu ‘g radh, Do bhrigh gu’m bheil mi neo-chiontach, gu cinnteach pillidh a’ chorruich uam.” Ciod a tha leantuinn? “Feuch tionnsgainidh mise ann am breitheanas riut, a chionn gu’m bheil thu ‘g radh, cha do pheacaich mi.” Mar sin tha’n Tighearn fo cheangal ni ‘s mo mhòr gu a chomh-strigh a thagradh ‘nan aghaidh, agus

gu thabhairt orra-san agus air an t-saoghail mar-aon fhaicinn, le toraidhean dubhach, cia cho ciontach ‘s a bha iad? Mar an ceudna, chi sinn mar a tha’n Tighearn a fireanachadh a dhol air aghaidh do thaobh an t-sluaigh so le Esec. xviii. gu h-iomlan. B’aill leo-san a radh, do thaobh na’n trioblaidean so gu léir ris na choinnich iad, agus a bha iad fathast gu chomhlachadh, nach d’thainig iad orra air son am peacaidhean féin, ach air son peacaidhean an athraichean; a deir iad-san, dh’ith ar n-athraichean dearcan searbh, agus tha ar fiaclan air an cuir air faobhar, agus uime sin chomh-dhuin iad nach robh slighe an Tighearn cothromach: ach tha an Tighearn anns a chaibidil sin ‘ga fhireanachadh féin, agus a’ dearbhadh gu’n robh iadsan cho ciontach ri’n athraichean, agus gu’n d’imich iad ann an slighibh an athraichean, a’ moladh gach ni a rinn an athraichean; agus uime sin nach b’urrainn iad neo-chiontas a thagradh do’n taobh féin. Faic mar an ceudna Esec. xxxiii. 11-20.

1. ‘Nuair a theid sluagh air an aghaidh ann an aingidheachd, agus a ghabhas iad dìon dhoibh féin, fo sgàil diadhachd agus aideachadh o’n leth muigh, an sin tha aobhar eagail ann, gu’m fireanaich Dia ann agus a ghlòir féin ann an sealladh na’m fineachan, agus gu’n dean e aithnichte nach bi aoradh agus a sheirbhis o’n leth mach ‘na àite dìon do neach mi-naomh sam bith; oir b’e so mar an ceudna peacadh an t-sluaigh so, Iere. vii. 3, 4. “Mar so deir Tighearn nan sluaigh Dia Israeil, leasaichibh ‘ur slighibh agus ‘ur gniomharan, agus bheir mise dhuibh còmhnuidh a ghabhail anns an àite so. ‘Na h-earbaibh á briathraibh breugach, ag radh, is teampull an Tighearn, teampull an Tighearn iad so.” Do bhrigh ‘s gu’n robh aca an teampull ‘na measg, shaoil iad gu’m biodh na h-uile ni gu maith leò, agus nach biodh iad gu bràth air an sgrios ge d’ dheanadh iad an ni b’aill leò. Ach tha’n Tighearn, anns na rainn a tha leantuin, a’ foillseachadh nach deanadh na nithe sin uile an tearnadh, na’s mò na thearnadh Siloh; agus an deigh sin a’ cur ris, rainn 15, 16, “Agus tilgidh mi sibh a mach as m’fhianuis, mar a thilg mi mach bhur braithrean uile, an t-iomlan do shlíoichd Ephraim. Air an aobhar sin na guidh thus air son an t-sluaigh so,” &c. Mar sin tha’n Tighearn ag radh le Isaiah, i. 11, &c., “Ciod e lìonmhoireachd bhur n-ìobairtean dhomh-sa? deir an Tighearn.” Cha robh suim aig Dia do na nithe so uile, chionn ‘s nach robh an giùlan o’n leth muigh freagarach do’n aidmheil, cha’n èisdeadh e ri’n ùrnuighean, rann 15; mar an ceudna Isaiah lxvi. 3, 4. ‘An lorg sin bhagair Esan gu’n roghnaicheadh e am fàgail d’am meallaidhean féin, mar a roghnaich iad an slighean féin, agus an ni sin anns nach robh aige tlachd. Faic mar an ceudna Amos v. 21-23. Tha Micah a’ cur so as leth an t-sluaigh cheudna, iii. 11, “Tha an ceannardan a’ toirt breith air son duaise, agus an sagairt a’ teagasg air son tuarasdail, agus am fàidhean a’ faistneachd air son airgid; gidheadh leigidh iad an taic ris an Tighearn, ag radh; ‘Nach ‘eil an Tighearn’ nar meadhon? Cha d’thig aon olc oirnn. Ach ciod a tha teachd air

lorg so? rann 12. Uime sin, air ‘ur son-sa bi’dh Sion air a treabhadh mar mhachair, agus bi’dh Jerusalem na càrnaibh; agus sliabh an tighe mar ionadan àrda na frìthe.

1. ‘Nuair a tha aingidheachd a’ meudachadh gu sònruichte ann a’ measg buill na h-eaglais, d’ am bu chòir le’n teagasg ‘s le’n eisiomplair a bhi ‘g iompachadh ‘sa ‘g athleasachadh an t-sluaigh, o’n slighibh peacach, an sin tha a chuis cosmhail ri bhi an-earbsach, agus feumaidh Dia dìoladh a ghabhail diubh uile; do thaobh so, chi sinn an dearbh shluagh so air an dìteadh le so, Iere. ii. 8, 9. Cha dubhairt na sagairt, “C’ait am bheil an Tighearn? agus iadsan a laimhsich a reachd, cha b’aithne dhoibh mise: rinn na h-aodhairean fòs ceannairc ann am aghaidh; agus rinn na fàidhean faistneachd le Baal, agus lean iad nithe nach d’thug buannachd Uime sin tagraidh mise ribh fathast, deir an Tighearn, agus r. clann bhur cloinne tagraidh mi.” Faic mar an ceudna vi. 14, 15, agus viii. 11-13. Bha mealtaireachd ann am measg na’n sagairtean ’s na’m fàidhean, agus leighis iad lot sluagh Dhé gu faoin, ag radh, “Sìth, sìth, agus gun sìth ann.” Agus do thaobh sin tha a’ leantuinn, rann 13, Ni mise gu buileach an sgrios, deir an Tighearn. Air an doigh cheudna, Esec. xxii. 25, 26. “Tha co-bhoinn fhàidhean ’na meadhon; mar leòmhan beucach, an tòir air a chreach. Bhris iad mo reachd, agus mhi-naomhaich iad mo nithe naomh, &c. Air an aobhar sin, mar a leanas, rann 31, dhòirt mise mach orra mo dhìon-chorruich, chaith mi iad le teine m’fhéirge; an slighibh féin dhìol mi air an cinn, deir an Tighearn Dia.” Faic mar an ceudna Hosea iv. 6-9, agus ix. 3.

(Ri leantuinn.)

Protestant Notes.

Ecclesiastical Disorders Bill.—Sir George Kekewich (on behalf of the Church Association) reintroduced the Ecclesiastical Disorders Bill in the House of Commons at the middle of last month. The Bill provides for the appointment of Commissioners who shall have power to visit any church which has been the subject of complaint before the late Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, or to which their attention has been called under Sec. 9. They are required to send articles of enquiry as to the existence of the practices enumerated in the Bill. These articles are to be answered by both Incumbents and Churchwardens by affidavit. The Commissioners have power to send an Assistant Commissioner to hold an inquiry on the spot, and on his report the Bishop is notified with a view to his taking order; but, failing that the Incumbent is to be suspended by the Commissioners unless he promises in writing to discontinue the illegal practices; but if after the prescribed interval of time no such promise has been made, the Incumbent is then to be deprived of his benefice.

German Professor Excommunicated.—The controversy to which the Papal encyclical regarding the dangers of Modernism gave rise has been revived by the excommunication of Dr.

Schnitzer, a well-known Professor of Church History and Theological Law at the University of Munich, who published an article on the encyclical in a Berlin periodical. The excommunication pronounced by the Vatican takes the form of a Suspensio a divinis, by which Dr. Schnitzer is forbidden to celebrate Mass or administer the sacraments. The Papal Nuncio in Munich has also formally requested the Bavarian Government to withdraw Dr. Schnitzer’s authorisation to lecture, and the Bishop of Augsburg has prohibited theological students from attending the professor’s lectures on pain of refusal of ordination.

The New University for Ireland.—According to Press forecasts it seems that Mr. Birrell proposes to introduce a Bill into the next session of Parliament for the purpose of endowing an Ultramontane University in Ireland. The Jesuits already control twenty senior fellowships of £400 per annum each in the Royal University. They control ten junior fellowships at £200 per annum each in the same University. They control a large number of perquisites in addition. They have Roman Catholic bishops, doctors, judges, barristers, etc., on the Senate. The members of the Jesuit University College, in St. Stephen’s Green, are privileged to set papers and then examine for degrees, their own pupils being among the candidates. But they want more; and the man who was a staunch Puritan two years ago, when fighting the Church of England over the primary schools, is an Ultramontane of the first water in Ireland.—The Catholic.

Notes and Comments.

The Bishop of Newcastle and his Sacerdotal Clergy.—At last a Jonathan has been found in the nerveless Evangelical army, able and willing to make an assault upon the Philistine position, without any support from the “commissioned officers.” The weakening suspense is over, and whether the assault be followed up or not—and there are welcome evidences that the rank and file, the laity, will follow the Bishop of Newcastle with or without the clergy—at any rate, it is impossible that things should ever be quite as they were before Dr. Straton took action.—Work and Witness.

The English Education Question.—Some time ago a representative deputation of English Churchmen waited upon the Prime Minister, appealing in the name of the Established Church of England for simple Bible teaching in the public schools. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in his reply, assured the deputation that it was the Government’s desire to legislate along the lines suggested by the deputation, and the Minister of Education said he rested his anchor upon the Bible, and it was most gratifying to him to find a body representative—if not of the bulk of the clergy, certainly of the overwhelming bulk of the laity—willing to join with those who were not Churchmen upon a basis of common Bible instruction.

Secular Education and Crime.—The Spectator recently in commenting on an article which appeared in the Church Quarterly Review, in which the writer, the Rev. W. G. Edwards Rees, attempts to prove that crime increases wherever religion is dropped by the State, says—”We can have no doubt ourselves of the justice of Mr. Edwards Rees’ conclusions, though we admit that the explanation of statistics gives similar opportunities to both sides; and we do not suppose that his explanations will remain unchallenged. . . . But nothing could be better worth proving by statistics than the enormous advantage of State-given education, and we hope and believe that some day the figures will disclose the truth at a glance. The table will be headed by those countries where religious education is given by teachers in whom religion is a lively faith—a faith that informs and illuminates everything taught.” “If,” said Huxley, “I were compelled to choose for one of my own children between a school in which real religious instruction is given and one without it, I should prefer the former, even though the child might have to take a good deal of theology with it.”

King and Crown Prince of Portugal murdered.—The whole civilised world was shocked during the past month by the news of the tragic deaths of the King and the Crown Prince of Portugal, which took place on Saturday afternoon, the 1st February. The Royal Family had been staying for some time at a residence outside Lisbon, but were returning to the capital. They had crossed the Tagus in a steamer, and were driving to the palace, when three men from the crowd, that lined the path, moved towards the royal carriage and deliberately shot King Carlos and the Crown Prince. Queen Amelie, who rose to defend her son, after her husband was attacked, had a marvellous escape. The assassins were soon despatched by the armed police. The scene was a terrible and pathetic one. The profoundest sympathy is felt for the Queen, and the Queen Dowager, the King’s mother, in their most painful bereavements. The second son, Don Manuel, has been proclaimed King. Portugal, which is a very Papish country, is in a very bad social condition, and these murders seem to have been planned and carried out by Republicans of the anarchist type.

Church Notes.

Communions.—Ullapool, first Sabbath of March; Portree, and Tarbert, Harris, second.

Services in London.—We are requested to intimate that the Rev. Neil Cameron, St. Jude’s, Glasgow, will (p.v.) preach at St. Andrew’s Hall, 45 Palace St., Westminster, London, on Sabbath, the 29th March. The services are arranged as follows: Gaelic at eleven in forenoon, and English at seven in the evening. Palace Street is almost opposite the Army and Navy Stores, Victoria St., Westminster. The place of meeting is the same as was on last

occasion, when services were conducted by the Rev. James S. Sinclair. Information may be had from Mr. William Grant, 22 Winifred Grove, Clapham Common, London, S.W.

The late Mr. William Taylor, Halkirk.—We regret to record this month the death of Mr. William Taylor, Sinclair St., Halkirk, Caithness, which took place on the 10th February. Mr. Taylor, who was eighty-three years of age, was one of the first persons in Halkirk who separated, in 1893, from the then so-called Free Church, and he continued ever since a loyal supporter of the Free Presbyterian Church. A man of much intelligence and business capacity, and willing to help the cause, he undertook the office of Treasurer, and discharged the duties thereof freely and ungrudgingly until the frailties of advancing age compelled him to resign about a year ago. He also acted as a very efficient precentor for ten years or upwards. He became a member in full communion a few years since, and was to all appearance one who desired “the sincere milk of the Word,” for his soul’s edification and salvation. His death is the removal of a link with the past, and leaves a blank in Halkirk. Much sympathy is felt for his widow and family in their bereavement.

Acknowledgments.—The Treasurer of the Dingwall Congregation begs to acknowledge, with thanks, the following donations for Church Building Fund:—Received per Rev. D. Macfarlane—A Friend, Postmark “Glenfinnan,” 5/; Received per Treasurer—”A Friend, Lochinver,” £1 5s. Rev. J. R. Mackay, Inverness, acknowledges, with thanks, 10/ from Resolis for “Kaffir Bible Fund,” and 5/ from Tomatin for “Mr. Radasi’s Mission.”