Brief Notes of the Assemblies

THESE notes only touch upon matters that may have special interest for our readers, or that call for some critical comment. For the general news of these Assemblies, information must be sought elsewhere.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH.

On the second morning of this Assembly (Wednesday, 24th May), a Communion service, according to the somewhat ritualistic custom of recent years, was held in St. Giles’ Cathedral. Pastor Jacob Primmer delivered his usual, and well-deserved protest. He rose up near the Communion table, and holding in his hand the printed liturgy, which was to be used in the service, spoke as follows in a loud voice: “I, Jacob Primmer, out of loyalty to Christ and obedience to my ordination vows, and realising that Scotland’s worship of God is being revolutionised greatly by this service, solemnly protest against the use of a printed liturgy, with a repetition of the Lord’s prayer, and Creeds with Amens which teach the ‘real presence,’ and are therefore Popish and illegal, being an innovation on our worship, which the constitution of this country declares ‘shall remain and continue unalterable,’ and which His Majesty King George V., on his accession to the throne a year ago, vowed to ‘inviolably maintain and preserve.’ So help me God.”

On the 25th, the Procurator (C. N. Johnstone, K.C.), moved a deliverance on the subject of the proposed Peace Arbitration between this country and America, part of which ran as follows: “The General Assembly hail with profound satisfaction and gratitude the proposal that a general Treaty of Arbitration should be concluded between the British Empire, and the United States of America, whereby the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon race shall agree that any difference which may in future arise between them shall be settled by arbitration, and that recourse

shall not be had to arms,” etc. Amid all the discouraging signs of the times, this is truly a happy proposal, which may the Lord prosper in a way that shall be for His own glory and the good of His kingdom.

FASTING RECOMMENDED.

Rev. John Muir, Glasgow, submitted the report of the Temperance Committee. The Committee commended the practice of Fasting to “the faithful consideration of the Church in the hope that members would thereby the more exercise those principles of self-control and self-sacrifice which were the fundamentals of the holy life.” Several speakers objected to the adoption of this recommendation, some of them making it the occasion of jocular speeches. Rev. M. M’Callum, Muckairn, Argyll, said it was a return to the darkness of mediaevalism, an attempt to resuscitate the corrupt and deadening penances of Rome. He maintained that it was no duty taught by Christ. Dr. Norman Macleod endeavoured to moderate between parties by pointing out that the Committee did not insist upon the practice, but left it to the liberty of individual consciences. The report was adopted.

We are disposed to remark by way of comment that possibly Mr. M’Callum struck the nail on the head when he described the suggestion as a return to Popery, coming from the quarter that it did, for it is well known that there is a High Church Ritualistic party in the Established Church, but he went too far on the other hand to say that fasting was never taught by Christ. “Moreover, when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance . . . But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head and wash thy face” etc. (Matt. vi. 16-17). “And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting” (Mark ix. 29). There are other similar passages besides in the life of Christ. The Apostles, also, under the new descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, practised fasting as is recorded in the Acts (Acts x. 30; xiv. 23; xxvii. 33). It is therefore entirely wrong to say that fasting is not a New Testament practice, and is inconsistent with Gospel principles. Much depends, however, on the spirit in which it is engaged, and the object that is kept in view, and if we may judge from a variety of ritualistic elements in the Established Church, we are safe in concluding that it is a Popish kind of fasting (to put the matter in a simple way) that is being commended to the Church—not a gospel, evangelical kind.

On the 27th, Dr. Mitford Mitchell submitted a report on Correspondence with the Scottish Synod in England. In the discussion that followed, Dr. Wallace Williamson, of St. Giles, urged that efforts should be made to make it possible to have inter-communion between the two national Churches of England and Scotland. We learn that English Churchmen do not receive to communion members of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland,

while according to ancient law the English are eligible for communion in the Church of Scotland. But we think it is an ominous sign of the times that ministers of the Church of Scotland, instead of protesting against the Romanising practices and tendencies of the Episcopal Church, should only desire closer fellowship with it.

Rev. M. McCallum, Muckairn, supported an overture from the Presbytery of Lorn, pleading that efforts should be put forth to protect the civil and religious liberties of the country from Romish aggression. Such efforts are certainly sorely needed at the present time, but it is to be feared that too many of the clergy in the Established Church and out of it are culpably indifferent as to the serious state of matters.

THE IMAGES IN ST. CUTHBERT’S.

On the 29th, Mr. Jacob Primmer appeared in support of a petition regarding a baptismal font with figures of the Virgin and Child, in St. Cuthbert’s Church, Edinburgh. He had appealed from the decisions of the Presbytery and Synod to the General Assembly. Mr. Primmer, after dealing with the law of the Church in regard to images and idol-worship, complained that, in the church named, there was a font surmounted by figures of a woman and a child which he held were representative of the Virgin Mary and the Child Jesus, and the originals of which, by Michael Angelo, were to be found in the Notre Dame Cathedral, Bruges, France. They were told (said Mr. Primmer) that it was not the Virgin and Child, but simply figures representing motherhood, but the Papists called the same group Virgin and Child, and surely they were the best authorities on images. It was also said that this could not be, because there was no halo around the heads of the group, but there was no halo around the Bruges group. He produced several statuettes of the kind without halos, and he asserted that the whole thing was a plan on the part of Romanisers to introduce Popery into the Church of Scotland.

Parties were then heard as representing the Session, Presbytery, and Synod. Mr. D. Lyell, elder, for the Session, said they were Protestants to the backbone, and that what was done was only done for the glory of God, and for beautifying His house. Mr. Primmer, in replying, said that those who introduced images at first in the Christian Church put forth the same kind of arguments. Perhaps some of the members present had been in jail. He had, and he found the most innocent people there, on their own statement. (Laughter.) It was stated that this was for the embellishment of God’s house. No building of stone and lime was God’s house. The temple had been abolished. God’s house was now the spiritual Church, without the adornments of the old law. They said they were Protestants to the backbone. He would like them to show it.

The Procurator moved the dismissal of the petition and appeals. Sheriff Scott Moncrief seconded the motion.

Professor Curtis (Systematic Theology), Aberdeen, said that they ought to make some deliberate enquiry into the matter. The question was really very grave and delicate. What would they say if he introduced into the Church a cross with Christ hanging on it, not to stimulate idolatry, but devotion? On what basis of logic, common sense, or reason, could they reject this, and permit these statues of the Virgin and Child, for such they were recognised to be by the whole world outside the session of St. Cuthbert’s? If he went into St. Cuthbert’s with a Roman Catholic friend to see the great building, he (Prof. Curtis) might pass these figures without adoration, but his friend would not pass without adoring them. He could understand Roman Catholics to stand up in defence of these things, but he had grave difficulty in associating himself with those who, holding another conception of the Church of Christ, felt they could tamper with such things. He moved that a Commission of Assembly be appointed to enquire and report. Colonel Clark seconded. He pointed out that their decision would rule the legality of the form of Church ornament in future. The motion of Professor Curtis was carried.

Whatever good the Commission may do or not, we feel glad for Mr. Primmer’s sake and for the sake of the worthy cause which he so energetically advocates, that a victory was gained on this occasion. It is our earnest desire that the Commission may be led to remove these images as a gross infringement of the law of God, and a serious blot upon any Protestant place of worship.

PROPOSED UNION WITH THE UNITED FREE CHURCH.

Dr. Norman Macleod presented the report of the Committee appointed to confer with representatives of the United Free Church on the subject of union. In the course of a very able speech, he sketched the character and results of the meetings that had taken place between the two Committees—the friendly spirit that had pervaded them, and the measure of agreement that had been come to. He indicated that the U.F. Committee did not consider it within the scope of their commission to go farther than to come to an understanding as to the points of difference and agreement that existed between them, but that the Church of Scotland Committee were prepared to consider practical steps towards union.

The following four propositions are given as showing the nature of the union that the Established Church is willing to enter into:—(1) That the re-united Church shall be recognised by the State as National, bearing the name of the Church of Scotland, preserving her identity with the Church of the Reformation and the Revolution Settlement, as contemplated in the Treaty of Union, and exhibiting a national testimony to the Christian faith; (2) That she shall be recognised as a Church undertaking the provision of religious ordinances and pastoral care co-extensive with Scotland, and adapted to the territorial distribution of the

population; (3) That the Courts of the Church shall continue to be recognised by law as possessing separate and exclusive jurisdiction in matters spiritual; (4) That the ancient endowments shall be conserved for the United Church, in order that, with necessary re-adjustments, they may continue to be used toward the support of religious ordinances under a territorial system.

The motion adopting the report bore, among other things, that the Committee’s report was sent forth with a view to the consideration of their faithful people for another year, and that the Committee would be continued in view of further conferences with their friends of the United Free Church. The motion was carried with practical unanimity.

On another day, Professor Curtis, Aberdeen, spoke on the subject of their Church publication, The Life and Work and Mission Record, and moved a vote of thanks to the Committee for their care in the matter of the kind of advertisements inserted in the Record, but desiring them to extend their endeavours still further by “excluding all advertisements of secret or patent remedies of a medical or quasi-medical description, in order that the disinterestedness and Christian character of the accredited organ of the Church may be above suspicion in that respect.”

This motion was adopted, except the last clause beginning at “in order that the disinterestedness,” which in our humble judgment might have been very suitably retained.

On the motion of the Rev. Dr. Mair, it was agreed to submit an overture to the Presbyteries, proposing that the formula to be subscribed by elders at their ordination shall be the same as is now subscribed by ministers, and that the questions put to them relating to the Confession of Faith shall be the same as those which shall be put to ministers under the present ministers’ formula.

The elders were under a relaxed formula hitherto, but now the formula for ministers has also been relaxed, so that the two classes of office-bearers may well stand on the same platform. The new formula in the Established Church is so expressed that a man may believe as much or as little of the Confession of Faith as he pleases. He is committed only to “the fundamental doctrines of the faith contained therein,” and no one knows what any particular person may consider fundamental.

UNITED FREE CHURCH.

The chief subject of general interest before this Assembly was the Report of the Committee appointed to confer with the Committee of the Established Church on the question of Union. Dr. Henderson submitted the Report, and detailed the negotiations of the Committees. He laid emphasis on the fact that the Church of Scotland was prepared to allow ample scope for the principle of spiritual freedom short of renouncing State connection. His motion was something similar to Dr. Macleod’s in the other

Assembly in the way of transmitting the results of the Committee’s labours to the consideration of the Church in general, and of continuing the Committee with a view to further conference. Mr. J. Buyers Black (elder), Glasgow, moved an amendment to the effect that the Assembly go forward to direct negotiations with the Established Church with a view to union. Rev. A. Weir, Coatbridge, as representative of the opposite Voluntary section, submitted an amendment the substance of which was that the Assembly should declare that no union could be effected between the two Churches except on the condition of the separation of Church and State. These amendments received a very limited support. Dr. Henderson’s motion was carried by an overwhelming majority, only about 30 dissenting.

The reports given of Church Statistics and of the Colleges were not altogether of a favourable kind. The number of members and of divinity students had decreased. The decrease in members was chiefly attributed to emigration.

Space will not allow us, in these notes, to enter into a full discussion of the remarkable change of attitude towards the Established Church which has taken place among United Free Churchmen within a comparatively short period. A few years ago the great majority of the latter were banded together in apparently no friendly spirit, with a view to secure disestablishment, which was almost tantamount to destruction in the eyes of the upholders of the State Church. But the majority are now all the other way. There is not the slightest doubt that the decision of the House of Lords in the Church Property case has to do with the change, and that the United Frees, who are practically one in general doctrine and worship with Established Churchmen, see in the external advantages of the State Church a way of regaining the ground which they have lost. This appears to us the only feasible explanation of the sudden change. There seem to be a minority who are not prepared for union, but they did not present a very formidable appearance in the Assembly.

FREE CHURCH.

On the opening day of this Assembly public worship was conducted by the Rev. Professor J. Kennedy Cameron, the retiring Moderator, who preached from Psalm lxxxv. 10: “Righteousness and peace have kissed each other.” The service being ended, the Assembly was constituted, and Professor Cameron nominated as his successor Professor W. Menzies Alexander, B.D., B.Sc., M.D., whom he commended as worthy in every respect of the position to which he was called. The nomination was seconded by Major Greig. Professor Alexander then proceeded to deliver an address entitled “Our Historical Position: Its Principles, Duties, and Possibilities.”

One of the most important things which occupied the attention of this Assembly was the report by the Rev. Donald Maclean

Edinburgh, of his visit to the Free Churches of Australia. Letters were first read from the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia and the Free Presbyterian Church of Victoria. Mr. Maclean then gave an account of the experiences of his visit, and reported very favourably of the attitude of these small bodies towards the Free Church of the home country. They wished some recognition from the General Assembly. Professor Bannatyne spoke in support of an overture from the Presbytery of Edinburgh, asking the Assembly to take the whole subject under their favourable consideration, and to recommend intending emigrants to seek out the places where these Churches were planted in Australia. Principal M’Culloch moved a resolution which cordially received the overture and the communications from Australia, reciprocating the friendly greetings, and gratefully recognising the cordial reception extended to the deputy of the Church. The Church learned with unqualified satisfaction of the loyalty and devotion of these daughters of the Church of the Disruption, and devotion to the principles and testimony of the mother Church. She hailed with delight the near prospect of closer relationship, and to this end appointed a Special Committee to deal with all statements and proposals that may come from the Churches in Australia, and to formulate, in consultation with the law-agents, such a scheme for closer fellowship between the Churches concerned as may be best for their spiritual and temporal interests. Professor Macleod seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.

The report on the Welfare of Youth and Publications Committee was submitted by the Rev. Samuel Lyle Orr, of Milton Church, Glasgow. Rev. A. Gilfillan, Oban, in speaking of the monthly Record, said that “many people were displeased with the advertisements which appeared in the Record, and he suggested that it would be a good thing if they could be dispensed with. He sympathised with the objection, because some of the advertisements were of a very secular nature. He wished, however, people to understand that the Editor had nothing to do with the advertisements.” Mr. Archibald M’Neilage, Editor of the Record, spoke as follows: “The Record paid itself. It did not yield a profit, but he was advised by the Treasurer that, as it was conducted at present, it involved the Church in no loss. But were the advertisements to be stopped, there would be a considerable deficit in the Record revenue, and this would require to be made up from other sources. The question which Mr. Gilfillan had raised was an important one, and he was glad he had made it plain that the Editor had nothing to do with the advertisements. Personally he (Mr. M’Neilage) had no responsibility whatever for either the advertisements or the money columns of the Record. He could neither keep the one out nor correct an error in the other. But the proper course for brethren who objected to advertisements to pursue was to move that they be not inserted, and instruct the Assembly where the necessary revenue was to

be obtained to make the Committee, in all its branches, self-supporting.”

Professor Bannatyne delivered the report of the Claim of Right Committee. In the course of the discussion that followed Mr. A. M’Neilage warned the Assembly against the tendency of some among them to say, concerning the crisis of 1900, that much more need not be said about it. Such must not be. Other Churches shared with them in the Westminster Confession, but no Church in Christendom, saving the Free Presbyterian Church, shared with them the heritage of the Claim of Right. They heard of some of their ministers thinking of entering the Established Church—that was a fact, the evidence of which he had in his possession—and saying the reason was that they were not satisfied with the position of the Free Church; but until the Established Church acknowledged the Claim of Right there was no way into it for a loyal-hearted adherent of the Free Church.

The Assembly was closed by an address from the Moderator (Professor Alexander), the subject of which was “Revivals, Historically and Practically Considered.”

REMARKS.

The name of Professor Alexander always recalls a serious episode in the history of this Church, and his appointment to the high honour of Moderator of Assembly is an act of self-justification on the part of its leaders, as well as a challenge to all who gain-said their procedure in that episode. Dr. Alexander left the United Free Church and joined the present Free Church in 1902, just when the latter was requiring help on its theological staff. He was almost immediately appointed tutor to the divinity students. In 1904, shortly after the property decision by the House of Lords, he was ordained Professor of Divinity. He had not sat any time in his seat when it was made known in the press by a dignitary of the Established Church that Dr. Alexander was the author of a book, entitled “Demonic Possession,” which contained principles of Biblical criticism that the Free Church professed to condemn, and which was published a few months before he joined that body. The book was then procured by others, and the report was found to be perfectly correct. Several articles were written in the Free Presbyterian Magazine which proved beyond all doubt that the author of “Demonic Possession” was a disbeliever in the verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and a believer in the leading ideas of the “higher critics.” The book was professedly an assault upon extreme Rationalists who denied the miraculous in the New Testament, but in reality it gave away more truth than it gained. Dr. Alexander wrote an unsatisfactory letter to the papers, largely in self-defence and partly in retraction. The subject came before the Assembly in 1905. Rev. D. M. Macalister intimated that Dr. Alexander had withdrawn his book on “Demonic Possession,” in deference to the

requirements made in various parts of the Highlands. Overtures bearing on the book from some Presbyteries were discussed. The general trend of remark was that there were some objectionable things in the book but nothing to be alarmed about. A member asked that Dr. Alexander give an apology before the House, but he was ruled out of order. The Assembly were satisfied with the mere withdrawal of the book. A deliverance adopted by the Free Presbyterian Synod six weeks after refers to “the very unsatisfactory manner” in which the Free Church “dealt with Professor Alexander, who, in his book, ‘Demonic Possession,’ has cast most serious and grave doubts on the inspiration and absolute infallibility of certain portions of the Holy Scriptures.” The last that was heard of the matter from the Courts of the Free Church was a statement made by Professor Alexander in a meeting of Commission, held on 19th December, 1905, when some unfaithful Free Presbyterians were received into the Free Church. In this statement he affirmed his belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures, but in terms not sufficiently definite, while there was no mention of “Demonic Possession,” nor any explicit disowning of the errors of that work. Thus the matter was left in an atmosphere of uncertainty. And what stands against the Free Church to this day, and shall stand, is the fact that the serious, fundamental errors of this book were never deliberately inquired into or condemned, and that thus her loyalty to the infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God was called in question by her own procedure, and still remains in question.

Australian Churches.—It appears that the Rev. D. Maclean, Edinburgh, gave a very glowing account of his visit to Australia, and to the very small Churches there that adhere in creed to the position of 1843. The limited size of these bodies is not a wholly unfavourable mark in these backsliding times, but we have reason to know that while there are some very worthy people among them, they are in a decayed and divided state. They adhere to the Psalms in public worship, but some of their congregations are ready to adopt modern methods in Church work, bazaars, and such like. Mr. Maclean did not hesitate when in Australia to belittle the testimony of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and to assert that the erroneous Declaratory Act of 1892, which occasioned that special testimony, was “a dead letter” until 1900, when the union of the majority of the Free Church with the U.P. Church took place.

Advertisements in F.C. Record.—It gives us special pleasure to observe that a voice was raised in this Assembly against the very secular advertisements which have disfigured all along the covers of the monthly Record. For our part we do not think that it is consistent with a Christian magazine to advertise upon its covers anything but that which is of a strictly religious nature, such as Church notices, and edifying religious books. “The Church” has no commission to be advertiser for “the world.” Some of

the advertisements that have appeared in the F.C. Record have been entirely contrary to the character of what such a Record claims to be—notices of new editions of dramatists and novelists such as Shakespeare, Thackeray, Dickens, and pictures of ladies’ figures and dresses of various kinds. What has the Church also to do with publishing the merits of Chocolates, Cocoas, Linens, etc.? But the very worst advertisement that appeared—and it was bad enough—was one in the Assembly number of last year relative to tours to Oberammergau to see the Passion Play. The title was the “Free Church Touring Guild, 11½ guinea Oberammergau Passion Play Tour.” This “Passion Play,” which is conducted by the people of a small village on the continent, is one of the most dreadful practical blasphemies of modern times—a play in which the final trial and crucifixion of Christ are enacted—a man representing the Saviour being hung upon a cross. Surely the manager of the F.C. Record had “the prince of darkness” at his side, when he could send such a shocking advertisement to his printer. Mr. Macneilage, the editor, takes no responsibility for the advertisements, according to his speech, but he has a responsibility all the same, for he tells us that apart from them the Record is not self-supporting. It is the advertisements that make up the arranged outlay in connection with the conduct of the Record, and it goes forth to the world with his name upon it as its chief superintendent. Many of these advertisements are an eyesore to Free Church people as well as Free Presbyterians who happen to read the Record, and it is time they were stopped.

Mr. Walsh’s next Book.—It may interest some of my readers, says Mr. Walsh in the Protestant Observer, to learn that I am writing a new book, which will give a history of anti-Papal legislation, from the time of William the Conqueror down to the nineteenth century. It will be a very large work, full of historical documents of great importance. Rome’s political action will be fully exposed throughout that long period. I fear it will not be ready for publication before next spring.

Scottish Reformation Society.—This Society has issued its report for 1910-1911. The paragraph dealing with “How Rome is being dealt with in other Lands” is especially interesting. France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Bolivia are all brought under review and each shew a determination to be free from Rome. Most of these States have already broken the ties between them and Rome; Spain is making a determined effort to be free. It should not be forgotten that Rome’s mummeries have turned the bulk of the subjects of these countries into rank infidels. Over against this is the attitude assumed by Britain, which, to every true-hearted Protestant, is disheartening in the extreme.

A Sermon.

BY THE REV. JOHN R. MACKAY, M.A., INVERNESS.

“Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”—2 COR. xii. 9.

IN directing attention to this portion of God’s Word, I shall, as the Lord may enable me, consider:

I.—The infirmities here spoken of;

II.—The power that is set over against those infirmities; and

III.—The consequent glorying.

I.—The infirmities are more than one. In the previous chapter the Apostle had spoken of many things that concerned his infirmities (xi. 30). “Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness” (xi. 24-27).

These were, all of them, things that concerned his infirmities. We, at this distance of time, are ready to look upon those trials, so courageously endured, as the very credentials of Paul’s apostleship. But we should not forget that they must have worn quite a different aspect to the Apostle who experienced them, and were the occasion of many a temptation that was fitted to lay him low. If our King sends out an ambassador to other peoples, the very fact of his being our King’s representative secures for him much respect, and consequent privileges and comforts everywhere. One might therefore expect that the King of kings and Lord of all, who has all power given to Him in heaven and in earth, should provide that an ambassador of His, who served Him with faithfulness, would have the utmost respect paid to him everywhere, and the amplest provision made for his comfort. When, instead of this, he was at every turn ready to become the prey of fierce elements in nature or of fiercer passions of men who had set themselves against the Lord and against His Christ, could this experience fail of being a trial of faith? Might not the treatment thus meted out very easily become the occasion of sore temptations? The Jewish law forbade punishment by stripes to exceed forty at a time, and the reason of that was, “lest, if they should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, a fellow Hebrew should become vile in their eyes.” Even if his cruel persecutors might say that they had not gone beyond what the law said was permissible in the case of a Hebrew, how could these castigations, when

administered to him so often, fail to make the Apostle appear vile in his own eyes? For truly the treatment that, under the providence of God, was meted out to the Apostle Paul by his own countrymen was fitted to quite break his spirit. It seems to me quite plain that the Apostle looked upon those trying providences enumerated in chapter xi., verses 24-27, as sent to humble him; that if, that is, he had any tendency to boast on account of his being a Hebrew, an Israelite, of the stock of Abraham, a minister of Jesus Christ, then these providential buffettings were sent to empty him.

But although we consider ourselves bound to interpret the infirmities of which our text speaks as embracing the particular providences that have been alluded to, there can be no question that the main reference is to one particular trial, of which we come to read in the twelfth chapter, to wit, the thorn in the flesh. The language is figurative, and one, so far, easily understood. If one has but a whin thorn in one’s foot, walking becomes very painful until the thorn is extracted. The figure present to the mind of the Apostle may have been of some sharp-pointed wood or stake larger than a whin thorn; but be the exact figuration what it may, it is plain that something very painful to his spirit is meant to be pointed at. Many have offered guesses of what might have been the nature of this particular trial, comparable in its painfulness to a thorn in the flesh; but since the Holy Spirit was not pleased to give any clear intimation of what really constituted the trial, it is prudence on our part not to be wise above what is written. We are warranted, however, to conclude that it was not an affliction which grew up with him from a boy, and, indeed, that it did not enter into his experience in the earliest years of his life as a Christian. This particular affliction was laid upon him subsequently to his having been raised up to the third heaven, where he heard things not lawful to utter upon this earth. It was of a particularly painful kind, otherwise he would not have spoken of it as a messenger of Satan. I take it that that implies that it made an open door, so to say, to Satan to come in upon him so as to torment him in his spirit. For as Satan can and will for ever torment the spirits of unjust men and women in hell, so it is possible that God should permit that a gracious soul would here suffer excruciating pain from Satan for a little season. It is possible that, on account of this visitation, Satan had opportunities of pointing, in the secrecy of Paul’s own spirit, the finger of scorn to him, and make it appear extremely unlikely that God would advance His kingdom upon this earth through such a person as he was, or bless him in his labours at all. It is certain that the affliction was not only painful but fitted to prostrate the Apostle exceedingly. And in fact it was meant to humble him. If over against his being a Hebrew, an Israelite, of the stock of Abraham, a minister of Christ, there was placed in the opposite scale that weariness and painfulness which resulted from the strangely-trying

providences wherewith he seemed to be tested at the hands of God and men; so over against his having been raised to the third heaven was placed this thorn in the flesh. And although none of us can have been exalted as was Paul when taken up to the third heaven, yet we need our thorns too, and more especially, I daresay, ministers of Christ; for only those in whom “death worketh” can be a source of much comfort to the tried Church of God. But leaving the particular application of this thorn to each living soul—for I suppose one reason why the thorn was not specified was just in order that it might the more readily lend itself thus to the wider application—I proceed, in the second place, to consider the power that is here placed over against those infirmities.

II.—The power of Christ.—Few things suit better than power and infirmities. That is pre-eminently true of Christ’s power as it meets with His people’s infirmities. Now, with regard to this power of Christ, observe:

(1) It is omnipotence. Nothing can be surer than that Christ was the Apostle Paul’s object of faith, and the Person to whom he directed his prayers. See how conclusive the argument for Christ’s deity here is. He besought the Lord thrice that the thorn might depart from him (verse 8). The Lord, to whom he prayed, answered him: “My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength (power) is made perfect in weakness.” “Most gladly therefore,” resolved the Apostle, “will I glory in my infirmities, in order that this promised power of Christ may rest upon me.” The promised power of the Lord is identified with the power of Christ. Christ and the Hearer of prayer are identical. In other words, Christ is to Paul all that God is. We are so straitened in ourselves that because Christ must be our Mediator, upon whom we shall lean when we approach God, we do not so readily make the Mediator Himself the Hearer of our prayer. But Christ was to Paul at once the only Mediator between God and him, and at the same time the object of his worship and the Hearer of his prayer. Christ is thus to the believer as the tabernacle was of old to the Israelite. The Israelite needed not to go beyond the tabernacle for any of his religious duties. The altar of brass, the candlestick, the table of the show-bread, the altar of gold, the ark of the testimony with its precious deposit, the mercy-seat, the cherubim, the Shekinah itself, were all there. To it belonged the priesthood and sacrifices innumerable. So is it with Christ. The believer has no need to go beyond Him for anything. The Father is in Him; the Spirit belongs to Him; He is Himself our life and our peace. One is our Prophet, Priest, and King. Nor can I help saying in passing that it is impossible to think that Christ occupies this place in the mind of many in our own time who presume to preach in His name, and yet who can contradict Him, and say much taking exception to His teaching.

(2) But this power which is set over against infirmities in our

text is not only the power of Christ—the power of the prayer-hearing Jehovah—in a word, omnipotence; this power is grace. It is power of a gracious nature—a power manifesting itself not in the destruction of the ungodly, but in rescuing the poor and the needy and those who have no help of man at all. Christ’s power has been, and will be, exercised in more ways than one. He manifested His power in creating heaven and earth and sea and all that therein is. He will manifest His power one day in destroying His enemies. But that exercise of His power in which chiefly is His delight is in exercising it in a gracious sense. Mercy is His delight, while judgment is His strange work. And the glory of His power in a gracious sense will so transcend every manifestation of it in any other sense, even as the light of the sun transcends the light of moon and stars; so that, as it is the light of the sun that engages and occupies us in the daytime, it will be the gracious power of Christ that will fill the thoughts of redeemed mankind and of elect angels throughout the eternal ages. For His mercy shall be built up for ever, and His faithfulness shall be established in the very heavens. And unto this mercy we are invited to betake ourselves. As many as continue to despise His overtures must needs know His power to destroy them; but now is He inviting us to Himself, saying, “Look unto me and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else; there is no Saviour beside me—I know not any.” His delight is in those who, with confidence, betake themselves to His mercy. And those who do betake themselves to His mercy may rest assured that their experience will correspond with that of Paul, who fled to His mercy, and ever afterwards found that Christ’s power was engaged graciously to protect him from all evil.

(3) This power, which is grace, is of that nature that it looks out for infirmities as affording the only fitting opportunity and occasion of its self-manifestation. The reason, you observe, why Christ’s grace was to prove sufficient to meet the Apostle Paul’s infirmities was simply this—that He made it a rule to Himself to show this special aspect of His power only in succouring the needy, in upholding those who are bowed down.

One sees illustrations of the truth of this observation in more connections than one. It was, for example, “when we were yet without strength,” that “Christ died for the ungodly.” If Christ had said, “I will wait until these sinners become just and good, and then I shall die for them as for worthy persons,” He might have waited for ever and certainly never see the good desired. But He would rather say, “I shall die for them when they are weak, I shall die for them when they are guilty, and by dying for them when they are guilty deliver from their guilt, and make it eternally manifest that nothing in them, but only the good pleasure of my will, moved to this act of self-sacrifice.”

You see it exemplified in the history of the Christian Church. Who would have thought that the fishermen of Galilee would have

been the chosen instruments to turn the world upside down? And yet Christ’s strength was made perfect in their weakness, and His power was thus glorified as it could not otherwise have been glorified. Nor need it be pointed out that, if Christ purposes, when His cause is low, to revive it, it need cause no surprise if He make choice of weak and contemptible instruments for reviving His cause, for that would only be in keeping with His manifestation of His grace in every sphere in ages past.

III.—All this brings us to consider this glorying in infirmities, of which we see such a signal example in the Apostle Paul. Now it is an easy thing to speak of glorying in infirmities, but it is quite another to be found in this exercise. But let it be observed that if we shall glory in our infirmities, it will be true—

(1) That we shall be conscious—yea, painfully conscious—of them. These are experiences to which the Church of God have been no strangers. The Psalmist was not a stranger to them. “For the enemy hath persecuted my soul; he hath smitten my life down to the ground; he hath made me to dwell in darkness, as those that have been long dead.” Very many, we may be sure, of the Lord’s more deeply-tried people have found those words of the Psalmist to express their sense of misery, as though they had been coined by the Holy Ghost for their own special use.

(2) The painfulness of our affliction will not only make us wish that it were removed from us, but it will make us earnest in our pleadings with God to this end. The Apostle Paul besought the Lord thrice in this wrestling of his, just as our Lord Himself in His agony thrice prayed that the cup might, if it were possible, pass from Him without His drinking it.

(3) Christ will manifest Himself as the hearer of prayer, although not altogether on the lines which we might have been laying down. He answered the Apostle Paul in a very direct way, saying to him, “My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness,” but not as Paul at one time wished He should. He may not have answered you so very directly, and yet He may have answered you graciously and not less truly. It may be—to give such an example as more naturally comes within one’s own experience—that Satan may have buffeted you, in the sense of pointing the finger of scorn at you, of intimating and impressing upon you that your usefulness in Christ’s service was at an end, that it would be great presumption on your part to expect God’s blessing upon your labour any more, and that therefore you may as well give up speaking in Christ’s name. And yet, in the midst of all these secret thunderings, God may be sensibly coming to your help, making your enemy time and again a liar unto you. In this way, I believe, many of Christ’s servants who feared, on account of some sore and long-lasting temptation, that they were cast over the wall as mere cumberers of the ground, have had their confidence renewed, and their hope touching the unchangeableness of His favour strengthened. They had an

answer from Christ, if not in a way so supernatural as was His way of dealing with Paul, yet none the less true.

But how few even of those who are not strangers to being helped, attain to glorying in their painful infirmity—in infirmities that gave Satan opportunities of prostrating their life in the dust! Yet this is what the Apostle Paul attained to. He preferred that Christ should make His grace known in holding him up when bowed down with this affliction, to His removing the affliction altogether. Why? He perceived that the grace of Christ would thus more sweetly be experienced by him, and that Christ’s glory would thus be more mysteriously revealed in and to his own spirit. For that the power of Christ should rest upon him, was equivalent to its coming to dwell in him as in a tent. A heart, broken through temptations and afflictions and necessities, is the only proper resting-place of this gracious power of Christ. The Apostle felt as if Christ had asked him whether he was, or was not, willing that his very infirmities might serve as a window through which Christ’s gracious omnipotence should be manifested, as it can only be manifested in such situations, and the Apostle replied that if the case were so—if his wound was to be Christ’s dwelling-place, in which His gracious omnipotence was to be glorified mysteriously—then he would be happy to have such a wound always. It would seem that he had had it fourteen years already when he wrote this Epistle, and we have no warrant to conclude that he was ever without it until he finished his course here below.

How is it with ourselves? If we have not attained to what the Apostle attained to, it will be something if we long after it.

A Letter on Sabbath Railways.

BY THE LATE REV. ROBERT MURRAY M’CHEYNE, DUNDEE.

TO ALEXANDER M’NEIL, ESQ., ADVOCATE.

SIR, I have read the report of your speech at the meeting of Directors of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, on Tuesday, 16th November last, and also the motion which you propose to lay before the shareholders on the 24th February. As a Christian minister, and a free British subject, I take leave to express in this manner the deep feelings of righteous indignation which these have awakened, not in my breast only, but in the breast of every believing man whom I know.

You candidly acknowledge that in the ranks of your opponents are to be found “men of lofty intellect, of great learning and piety, and unbounded benevolence,” and yet, in the same breath, you say, “You must judge for yourself, according to the reason and plain sense of the matter.” That is to say, that the host of intellectual and pious men who are arrayed against you do not

judge according to reason or plain sense in this matter, but by some airy superhuman notions, which a man of sense may brush aside as so many cobwebs. Ah! sir, speak out your mind. Tell what it is that lies at the bottom of your enmity to the entire preservation of the Lord’s day. It is the concealment of your sentiments that is the darkest part of your whole address. You are an utter stranger to me, and I dare not judge as to your true motives. But every thinking man cannot but form this opinion in his own mind, that the reason why you despise the lessons of all God’s holiest and wisest servants in this land, is not that you think little of the resolutions of popular assemblies (that is a miserable subterfuge, unworthy of any but a mere debater), but that you despise and trample under foot the divine message which they bring. You say you are threatened to be overwhelmed with a flood of obloquy. Do not be afraid. You are on the world’s side—”the world cannot hate you.” There are not many to lift up their voices in behalf of the holy Sabbath. Those who do, are the followers of One who bade us bless and curse not. You say “you do not court approbation, and you care nothing for condemnation.” This may be a brave speech; few will regard it as a wise one. If you mean that you do not care for the condemnation of worldly men, there would be something right in that, for in doing our duty we must expect that the world which crucified our Lord will not spare his servants; but if you mean that you do not care for the condemnation of God’s people, and of the word of God, and of the Lord Jesus, who is to be your Judge, then will you soon repent your words with bitter tears. Why, sir, what are you, that you should say, “I care nothing for condemnation?” “Can thine heart endure, or can thine hands be strong in the day that I shall deal with thee?” “Hast thou an arm like God, or canst thou thunder with a voice like Him?” If the condemnation of your words, which God’s people are now testifying in every part of the land, be righteous condemnation—if it be in accordance with the word of God and the mind of Christ—is it the part of a wise man to say, “I care not for it?” You may say so now in the blindness of your heart, but the day is at hand when you will feel the reverse.

And now one word as to your proposed motion. It runs as follows:—”Whereas it is the duty of the directors of the company to give implicit obedience to the law of God, etc.,—This meeting resolves that it is not inconsistent with the duty of the directors as aforesaid, and they are hereby enjoined to provide trains to be run from the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow respectively, in the morning and in the evening of Sunday,” etc.

I do not know whether this motion has come entirely from your own mind, or whether several have agreed with you in it; but I here freely state my conviction, formed upon the calm and deliberate study of the motion, and without the slightest desire to use a harsh or improper term, that THE MOTION IS BLASPHEMOUS.

You say, first, that it is your duty to give implicit obedience to the law of God. What is the law of God? “Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it” (Exod. xx. 8-11). Now, sir, if, as I presume, you spent your early years in Scotland, trained up, perhaps, under the watchful eye of one who prayed for her child that he might walk in wisdom’s ways, you cannot be ignorant of the explanation given of this commandment, in the Shorter Catechism (Qu. 60): “The Sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days, spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.” This is the law of God, and this is the received interpretation of it, both of which were, no doubt, in your eye when you penned that memorable sentence, “It is the duty of the directors to give implicit obedience to the law of God.” And yet, before the ink was dry, you write down, “The directors are enjoined to provide trains to be run in the morning and evening of Sunday.” In other words, you hold in your hand the two Tables of Stone, written with God’s finger, and you say we should obey this; and then you dash them on the ground, and say it is our duty, notwithstanding, to trample on and defy them. Ah! sir, you may call this reason and plain sense, but simpler men can see that it is open mockery of God’s holy law, and of Him on whose heart it was graven from eternity. Such lip-acknowledgment of God and his law God hates and despises. I solemnly declare, and it is the feeling of many besides me, that I would have been less shocked if you had written down, “It is the duty of the directors to break God’s law.” That would have been honest and downright, and thousands would have applauded you. But when you set out with the hypocritical declaration that it is your duty to give implicit obedience to the law of God, and then conclude by declaring your resolution to break it, I believe in my heart, that not only will God’s children abhor the blasphemy, but honest, worldly men will despise your cowardice. And now, sir, I have done. You will know the feelings of deep compassion with which you, and the unhappy men who voted with you, are regarded by many an humble and holy believer, who loves, because he knows, the preciousness of an unbroken Sabbath-day. Never in all my experience did I meet with a child of God who did not prize, above all other earthly things, the privilege of devoting to his God the seventh part of his time. It is still a sign between God and his Israel.

It is this simple fact, sir, that affords me ground to fear that, with all your talents, with all your reason and plain sense, you are yet an utter stranger to the peculiar tastes and joys and hopes of those who love the Lord. You proclaim your own shame. You prove, even to the blind world, that you are not journeying toward the Sabbath above, where the Sabbath-breaker cannot come. If you shall really carry your motion, against the prayers and longings of God’s people in this land, then, sir, you will triumph for a little while; but Scotland’s sin, committed against light, and against solemn warning, will not pass unavenged.—I am, sir, etc.

P.S.—As an advocate learned in the law, you must be well aware that the law of God, as expounded by the Confession of Faith of the Established Church of Scotland (and which is subscribed by every denomination of orthodox Dissenters in Scotland), is also the law of the land, as ratified and enacted by the Act 1690 of the Parliament of Scotland, in the two following clauses:—

“As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God, so, in His word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him; which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord’s day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.”

“This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts, about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.”

If this be true, which you know it is, then you stand convicted before the British public as one who proclaimed it to be the duty of the directors to break both the law of God and the law of the land.

ST. PETER’S, DUNDEE, 1st December, 1841.

Notice to Treasurers in Western Presbytery.—It is requested that all Treasurers of Congregations and Mission Stations within the bounds of the Western Presbytery send to the Rev. Alexander Macrae, Portree (interim Clerk of Presbytery), a copy of their annual financial statement (audited) for the year ending 31st March, that it may be presented to the Presbytery at its first meeting.

Recollections of Betsy Lindsay, A Godly Young Woman who passed through much tribulation, and died at Edinburgh in 1839.

BY THE LATE REV. FRANCIS M’BEAN, FREE CHURCH,
FORT-AUGUSTUS.

(Continued from page 70.)

LETTERS FROM BETSY LINDSAY.

THE following letters were addressed by Elizabeth Lindsay to various friends during her illness.—

“22nd April, 1837.

MY VERY DEAR FRIEND,—. . . There is not a case we sinners can be in but there is a provision in the covenant suited to our need. Are we cast down? There is abundance of comfort. God is the ‘Father of mercies and the God of all comfort.’ Are we burdened with sin? ‘Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and he shall sustain thee.’ Are we heavy laden? He says, ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.’ Are we oppressed with anxious cares? He says, ‘Cast all your care upon him who careth for you.’ Are we grieved and dismayed because we have backslidden in heart from God? He says, ‘I will heal their backslidings; I will love them freely; for mine anger is turned away from him. I will be as the dew unto Israel: he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Lebanon.’

Now, my dear friend, we know that all the blessings and mercies that ever were, or ever shall be, enjoyed by any believer in time or eternity are all the fruits of Christ’s purchase—the fruits of His incarnation, of His death, resurrection, and ascension—and run to us through the channel of this covenant. Oh, then, what great reason have we to rejoice in God! ‘Although the fig-tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls; yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation.’ . . . Oh, what a wonder that mercy should ever have been extended to sinners of the race of Adam! But it was because God’s thoughts were thoughts of love from all eternity.

‘Wide as the world is thy command,
Vast as eternity thy love,
Firm as a rock thy truth shall stand
When rolling seas shall cease to move.’

If we could measure eternity, then might we attempt to measure the love of God, which has a breadth and a length, a depth and a height, which passeth knowledge; and this ocean of love is as full

and free as ever, for all the souls that have been made partakers of it or ever shall. It will not in the least exhaust it, for how can that which is finite exhaust that which is infinite?

My dear friend, I am afraid I have tired your patience, but I trust you will take it as an evidence that I long earnestly to see you, that we might speak of the love of our dear Redeemer. . . . I was exceedingly sorry at parting with Mr. K., but I hope it is for the glory of God and the good of souls that he has gone to England. Oh, what a changing scene is this! Everything around us tells us that this is not our rest, if we would but learn that here we have no continuing city. I humbly trust that he will receive a blessing for the kindness he has shown to me and mine. The Lord give mercy unto him and his house. . . .

Now, my dear friend, remember Zion. Plead with the Lord that He would arise and build all her waste places. Pray for me; and may the Lord deal bountifully with you. Amen.—I am, my dear friend, yours very sincerely,

ELIZABETH LINDSAY.”

“22nd April, 1837.

MY DEAR YOUNG FRIENDS,—I hope you are well. Oh, what need you have to improve the day of health, for God will require you to give an account to Him at the day of judgment for such a precious privilege. In health you have an opportunity to hear the Gospel preached which tells us of a Saviour, and that He is just such an one as we sinners need. Oh, then, come and enlist under such a Saviour’s banner! Among the angels in heaven there is ‘joy over one sinner that repenteth.’ God loves the young to come to Him. He says, ‘I love them that love me, and those that seek me early shall find me.’ And in another place He says, ‘Incline your ear, and come unto me; hear, and your soul shall live.’ Give God the morning of your days, and ‘Seek ye the Lord while he may be found; call ye upon him while he is near.’ Reject not the Gospel of Jesus. Oh, remember what an awful thing it will be if you slight the precious blood of Christ, after having heard that it is so freely offered to you. Make your Bibles your daily companions, and when you read them, or when you hear the Gospel preached, pray that God would teach you to understand it. Remember the Saviour’s word, and take heed how ye hear. Consider you are hearing for eternity. The Word will either be the saviour of life unto life or of death unto death; it will either be the means of your salvation or of adding to your condemnation. Remember, my dear young friends, that there is something more needed than the mere reading of the Word or going to Church. You must be ‘born again,’ or you ‘cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Pray earnestly to God to give you a new heart, for without a new heart and a right spirit you can never see God in peace. Seek earnestly to be prepared for a

sick and dying bed ere you come to it. Perhaps you may not be favoured with a sick bed; it may please God to cut you off in a moment—in the very bloom of youth and health—and as the tree falls so it must lie! But oh, how happy you would be if you had an interest in Christ; for so an abundant entrance would be administered to you into the presence of Jesus Christ. . . . — From your affectionate friend and soul’s well-wisher,

ELIZABETH LINDSAY.”

“16th August, 1837.

MY DEAR E.,—May grace, mercy, and peace be with you, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. I hope, my dear E., you are now enjoying better health than you did. The country air, through the blessing of God, has often a wonderful effect in restoring to health and enlivening the spirits. I am sometimes ready to envy you the beautiful spots which I know you will often be retiring to; everything around you will be speaking forth the praise of God, and have a tendency to spiritualise the mind. From the river that is gliding softly past, you may gather something that may be useful to your own soul, while you remember the river that makes glad the city of God. But how very different would it have been, had it not been for the eternal love of a three-one God; had it not been for this, instead of the river of God’s grace, that glides softly but swiftly by, we should have been for ever exposed to the wrath of a justly angry God, that would have raged like the foaming billows, throughout the never-ending ages of eternity. But He saw there was no hand to help, therefore His own arm brought salvation. ‘In His love and in His pity He redeemed them; and He bare them, and carried them all the days of old.’ He is still the same, although they may be saying, ‘Is His mercy clean gone for ever? Doth His promise fail for evermore?’ They forget at such times that He rests in His love, and they have to say, ‘This is my infirmity; but I will remember the years of the right hand of the most High.’ They see, then, that although they change, He changes not, but has still the same watchful care over them. It was therefore the Psalmist had to say, ‘Thou hast known my soul in adversities.’ Oh that we may experience much of this love in our hearts, that we may come daily ‘to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.’

Dear E., I long much to see you, although I cannot hear a word you would say to me, which I find a greater trial than ever the want of my eyesight was. But God in a wonderful manner makes up for the want of my hearing, by enabling me to understand the most of what is said by the motion of the lips. There is hardly a word that any of my own family says that I do not know; there are some strangers I do not understand well, but that is supplied by writing on the slate, only it is a very tedious

way of communicating for both parties. ‘But the Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works.’ Infinite Wisdom will do me no wrong.

‘Good when He gives, supremely good,
Nor less when He denies,
E’en crosses from His sovereign hand
Are blessings in disguise.’

I had another attack of convulsions yesterday, which has exhausted my little remaining strength very much; the Lord is just taking one pin after another out of this frail tabernacle, and in His own good time it will fall totally. It has been with great difficulty I have written these few lines, so I hope you will let pain and weakness be an excuse for the many imperfections of them. May you deeply draw abundant supplies of grace out of the great storehouse of our God. Pray for me, and may the Lord deal bountifully with your soul. Amen.—I am, my dear E., yours very sincerely,

ELIZABETH LINDSAY.”

(To be Continued.)

The Coronation of King and Queen.

THE Coronation of their Majesties King George V. and Queen Mary took place at Westminster Abbey on Thursday the 22nd day of June, amid scenes of unusual pomp and magnificence. There were three processions from Buckingham Palace at an interval of half-an-hour between—first, the assemblage of foreign Princes and representatives; secondly, the members of the Royal Family; and thirdly, the King and Queen. Vast multitudes lined the route, and accorded the Sovereign, his Consort and children the heartiest acclamations. At the Abbey the usual procedure was gone through of crowning the King and Queen by the Archbishop of Canterbury, with the exception of the addition of a short sermon of six minutes by Dr. Lang, the Archbishop of York. His text was Luke xxii. 27, “I am among you as he that serveth.” It is worthy of note and thankfulness that comparatively few accidents took place in the streets where so many people had gathered and were standing from the earliest hours. Coronation Day was held as a holiday throughout the realm. Religious services were held in town and country by all denominations.

There is much need that prayer would ascend to Him who is King of kings and Lord of lords that he would give grace to our Sovereign and Queen to realise the great responsibilities of their exalted position, and to wield a powerful influence for good over their subjects, high and low. May the Lord of His infinite mercy so dispose and enable them, and make them a blessing to the wide Empire over which they reign!

Johnston of Wariston.*

THE Scottish History Society has done good work in publishing in their series, now and again, volumes of deep interest connected with the church history of Scotland. One of their latest issues is Johnston of Wariston’s Diary. This part of the Diary only covers the years 1632-39, which embrace a period fraught with momentous issues for Scottish Presbyterianism. A fragment of Wariston’s Diary had been issued in 1896, but it only covered the short period of thirty-six days—from 21st May to 25th June, 1639. The part of the Diary covering the years 1639-50 is undiscovered. He evidently regarded this as of special value, for he had it deposited in Edinburgh Castle. If still in existence, it would be of especial value on throwing light on the Westminster Assembly and the Protester and Resolutioner Controversy, for Wariston, it will be remembered, was one of the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, and was a strong supporter of the Protesters.

Johnston’s part in the great struggle that ended in the downfall of Prelacy in 1638 is well known. He took a prominent part in the signing of the Covenant, and was Clerk of the famous Glasgow Assembly that sounded the death-knell of Prelacy for the time being in Scotland. The cruel and vindictive spirit that followed him, as shown by the Royalist party, is also well known, and the tragical end of the old man, broken in mind and body, is one of the black deeds that has stained the name of Charles and his Government with infamy.

The Diary before us reveals a man who felt religion to be a serious matter, and in this record of prayer and tears, as it has not inaptly been described, we have some insight into the character of the men who fought for Scotland’s spiritual independence. No matters are too insignificant in his sight to bring before “the throne of grace,” and while at times one comes across expressions which grate on one’s feelings of reverence and propriety in addressing the great God, yet no one can rise from a perusal of these pages without being deeply impressed with the fact that God and His over-ruling providence were very real to Johnston of Wariston.

The Diary is written in the form of an address to his soul, and in the archaic spelling of the time. The first matter in which he recalls and recognises the over-ruling providence of God is his marriage. He was much beset lest he might be carried away by a fair face, or yield to his friends’ entreaties that his future wife would have “a great tocher-good (marriage dowry).” At length when matters were so far arranged, he writes in his Diary: “The Thursday afternoon thou went out with thine uncle to see her, and

* “Johnston of Wariston’s Diary, 1632-39.” Scottish History Society, Edinburgh, 1911.

having told unto her how this match was well liked of by friends of both sides, thou craved not a present Aye or No from her, but desired her to advise on her knees with her God, and to pray Him instantly to further it if it was for His glory and for the weal and contentment of friends and for her and my salvation; or to hinder it, if He thought meet for His glory and our weal. She having promised so to do, her heart warmed to me, and mine to her, at the hall window strangely. And the people of the house, jesting her, told me thereafter she was growing very devout, whereby I knew she had sought God’s direction, and at my return accepted me kindly.” The marriage, in which the guidance of the Lord was so anxiously invoked, proved one of unalloyed happiness for the very brief period it lasted. His wife, Jean, a daughter of Sir Lewis Stewart, was but a mere girl when she married, and eight months after she was in her grave—stricken down with a trouble that suggests appendicitis, says the editor of the Diary. On the morning of their marriage they made a paction with each other; he “promising never to gloume (scowl) nor glunche (look sullen) on her before folks, and she vowing never to disobey him in any company.” The death of his young wife was a sore blow to him, and he almost fell prostrate beneath the rod. Every little story that he heard, and which pointed in any way to his wife’s interest in divine things, greatly encouraged him, and was carefully noted down. Here is one which has a lesson as much for our times as for Wariston’s. When a mere child she observed that her uncle, Mr. Alexander Hay, spent longer in bed on Sabbath than on week days, and in her child-like simplicity she said, “Lord uncle, since ye rise all the week soon for to win gold, I think ye should rise far sooner on Sabbath for to win God’s Word.” It made a deep impression on the uncle, and he never forgot the child’s rebuke.

Here and there in the Diary we come across references to some of the great preachers of the time—men whose memories are treasured as a precious heritage of Christ’s Church in Scotland. There were giants in the land in those days, and some of the great ones hung with the deepest interest on the words that fell from the lips of these messengers of the Gospel. Wariston is no captious critic—too easily satisfied, one is inclined to remark. His Diary references to the sermons he heard are chiefly a record of the heads of the discourses. In his early years the preachers whose churches he attended were all deposed in 1638, with the exception of two.

Like some good men, Wariston had very little sense as to the management of financial affairs, with the result that he was soon over head and ears in difficulties. And as too often happens in such cases, these difficulties led him to do things which an honest man ought to have refrained from doing. Much money belonging to his relatives had been entrusted to him, and he set about spending it with a lavish hand and a somewhat easy mind.

He himself looked on it as a providential provision, as the following sentences show:—”The Lord brought to my mind His particular care and providence in casting in my lap, during all my wants and sumptuous expenses of building and spending, ever abundance of monies, albeit pertaining to others, as, first, Riccarton’s monies, then Beatrix’s (his sister) monies, then Anna’s (his sister-in-law) monies, whereby the Lord has staked me in the meantime.” Wariston did not mean to be dishonest, but his extravagance and carelessness landed himself and others in difficulties.

The struggle between Prelacy and Presbytery was fast reaching a climax, and Wariston set himself to a thorough study of the Church’s history in Scotland since the Reformation. Some of the prominent leaders in Church and State at last determined to take up an attitude of opposition to the new Service Book, and leading men at the Bar were consulted, with whom Wariston was to act as junior counsel. On accepting the office he shows how free he was of any worldly motives. Here are his words: “On the other part, I was no ways induced by any worldly aims or respects wherewith in this cause I would not corrupt the spirituality of my desires with the least mingle of this commodity, but that the Lord would be my only client and rewarder, as I wished He might be my assister.” He set about the Lord’s work with a serious mind, and set apart a day for God’s direction and assistance in the matter. He felt his own unfitness, which he records in words that are pregnant with pithy descriptiveness: “My soul answered, Lord, thou knowest the stammeringness, or rather the unskraiped overhaistings, of my tongue; the schilpities (feebleness) of my wit (understanding); the unclear, unsolid indistinctness of my judgment; the sliperie sliderines (slipperiness) of my memory.”

Events were fast hastening on. The nation, at length fully roused, awoke as a giant that had been asleep. The National Covenant was signed in Greyfriars Churchyard and in other places throughout the land, and at length the famous Glasgow Assembly met. In the hour when wavering counsels would have wrecked the plans of the Presbyterians, Wariston was a tower of strength, and by his quickness and insight, together with his legal training, he guided the leaders from yielding to compromising courses. As already indicated, Wariston was appointed Clerk of the Glasgow Assembly. Unfortunately the proceedings of the Assembly are not much dwelt on, as he had no time to write it during the Assembly, but he tells us: “This I produced for my first act the registers of the Kirk, and can never sufficiently admire and adore the goodness, wisdom, and providence of God in preserving them and bringing them to our hands at such a time—magnified be His name—as this was a solid foundation to us, without the which we would have seemed to have builded upon sand; so it was a sore stroke and cut-throat of our adversaries and their cause.”

Wariston’s studies now stood him in good stead, as we learn from the following extract:—”In the great Committee, where my Lord Argyle was sitting in the Tolbooth, I cleared all their minds that Episcopacy was condemned in this Church. I drew it up in a large treatise by God’s assistance, as likewise anent the articles. In the Assembly I showed all the warrants, and read the very Acts themselves out of the registers, and answered all objections; and whereas, both in the morning we heard of some would publicly dispute for Episcopacy, and many scores came to the House resolute to vote for it, yet the Lord made the Acts so to convince their minds that every man’s mouth acknowledged that they had been abjured and removed; and when I was reading the roll and heard no word but ‘Abjured and Removed,’ I was struck with wonder, and yet my thoughts fail to apprehend that great and wonderful work of God, and yet my ears sound ever with these words—Abjured and Removed.”

Soon after this the Presbyterians had to take the field to defend their rights. The story of the struggle need not be continued further here, as our interest meantime ends with the part Wariston played in the struggle during the period covered by this part of his Diary. We leave the reading of the Diary deeply impressed with the high sense of responsibility entertained by Wariston in connection with a work which was to leave its mark for ever on the page of Scottish history, and we cannot do better than conclude with the words of a prayer of his, which shows his strong wrestling with God:—”O eye of God, that ever looked down on me; O ear, that ever heard my cries; O heart, that ever pitied me; O hand, that ever helped me; look down now, hear now, pity now, help me now in my unutterable anguish, for never was thy poor servant, friend, son in such an estate as now, and never did I so cry and lament unto Thee as now.” D. B.

Dr. Bartoli’s Lectures.—If the Knox Club is not quite what it should be, it certainly deserves credit for bringing Dr. Bartoli to this country to deliver this series of lectures which are now issued under the title, The Bible in Relation to the Church of Rome and the Higher Criticism. These lectures are of a very high order. There is a ring of honesty and simple faith which is alike invigorating and encouraging to the reader. The Protestant Church has received a notable acquisition in the secession of Dr. Bartoli from Rome. He discusses such subjects as the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, counterfeit and genuine Christianity, the facts of science and the facts of the bible, Roman Catholic and evangelical interpretation of the bible, the Higher Criticism of the bible and its principles, etc. His personal acquaintance with the theology of Rome, and his mastery of science, enable him to deal with these subjects as a master. The lectures are published by the Knox Club, and should be read and carefully pondered, especially by young men and women.

Searmon.

LEIS AN URR. LACHLAINN M’COINNICH, CHA ‘N AN LOCHCARRON.

“Oir doirtidh mi mach uisge air an tartmhor, agus tuiteadh air an fhearann chruaidh; doirtidh mi mach mo Spiorad air do shliochd, agus mo bheannachd air do ghinealach: Agus fasaidh iad suas mar anns an fheur; mar gheugaibh seilich ri taobh nan sruth-chlaisean. Their am fear-so, Is leis an Tighearna mise; agus ainmichear fear eile air ainm Iacoib; agus sgrìobhaidh fear eile le làimh do’n Tighearna, agus sloinnidh se e fèin air ainm Israeil.—ISAIAH xliv. 3-5.

THA fìor phobull an Tighearna nam pobull meath-chridheach; ‘se sin, tha iad buailteach do laigse creidimh, a dh’aindeoin na tha Dia gach là a’ deanamh air an son. Ach ged tha iad gealtach agus meath-chridheach ‘nuair nach faic iad cuideachadh am fagus, tha iad treun mar an leomhann fuidh cheannard na Slàinte! ‘Se ‘s aobhar d’an smuaintibh anacreidimh am mothachadh a tha aca air cruas agus feòlmhorachd an cridhe—cha’n ‘eil iad a’ faotainn nì maith air bith annta fèin. Is ann, uime sin, a chum cridheachan a phobuill a neartachadh a sgap Dia a gheallaidhean sios agus suas feadh ‘Fhocail. Tha’n earainn luachmhor a chaidh an ceart-uair a leughadh làn do shòlas agus do aoibhneas dhoibhsan a ta ri bròn ann an Sìon,—dhoibhsan a ta gluasad an dorchadas agus nach eil a’ faicinn soluis,—dhoibhsan a ta ‘faicinn am feum air an neamhnuid luachmhoir sin ris an abrar gràs. Ann an so tha geallaidhean da-rìreadh luachmhor agus sòlasach. Cha’n eil iad, tha e fìor, airson muinntir a ta air an seideadh suas le a leithid so ‘san leithid sud do bhuaidhean nàdurrach—air an leithid so do mhuinntir bhiodh iad air an tilgeadh air falbh—cha’n ‘eil iad a’ faicinn feum ac’ orra: ach do’n dream air am bheil iotadh—dhoibhsan a ta air an coimeas ri fearann tartmhor, agus a ta air an aobhar sin a’ faicinn am feum air Criosd—dhoibhsan tha iad luachmhor.

Ann bhi labhairt nis faide o’n cheann-teagaig so, bheir mi, le comhnadh Dhè, fainear—

I.—Cò iad da’m buin na geallaidhean so?

II.—Mìnichidh mi na geallaidhean fèin, mar chaidh an leughadh.

III.—Nochdaidh mi an toradh a ta sruthadh uatha anns an dream aig am bheil còir orra: agus.

‘San àite ma dheireadh, Nì mi co-dhùnadh aithgearr.

I.—Nochdaidh mi cò iad d’am buin na geallaidhean.

Tha na geallaidhean uile a’ coinneachadh a chèile ann an Criosd. “Oir geallanna Dhè uile annsan is seadh iad, agus ann-san is Amen iad, chum glòire Dhè.”—2 Cor. i. 20.

Tha geallaidhean ann a chaidh a thoirt do Criosd a mhàin, geallaidhean eile do Criosd agus do’n eaglais, agus cuid do’n

eaglais a mhàin: agus gun eòlas slàinteil—gun solus spioradail cha’n ‘eil e furasda eadar-dhealachadh a chuir eatorra. Ach thugamaid fainear, ged a bhuineas na geallaidhean a ta air an toirt do Criosd a mhàin dha fèin anns an t-seadh is àirde, gu’m buin iad ann an seadh eile d’a eaglais agus d’a phobull.

Ged tha Criosd, mar thug mi cheana fainear, air a ghabhail a steach anns gach gealladh, labhraidh mi umpa anns an àite so mar bhuineas iad do’n eaglais: Dh’ise tha’n Tighearn’ a’ taigsinn comh-fhurtachd ann am briathraibh ar teagaig fuidh ‘n ainm Iacob agus Israeil. Tha’n t-ainm Iacob a’ ciallachadh anmhuinneachd, ach an t-ainm Israeil cumhachd, no aon a fhuair buaidh. Thuirt Esau mu Iacob gur maith a bhaisteadh e, do bhrìgh gu’n tug e’n car dà uair as, an t-aon mu thiomchioll a chòir-bhreith, agus a rìs mu thiomchioll a bheannachaidh. ‘S ann ‘nuair bha’n gleachd aig ris an aingeal, agus a thug e buaidh, a fhuair e’n t-ainm Israeil.

Air a faghail dhi fèin cha’n ‘eil an eaglais ach lag agus anmhuinn, gun chomas air bith; ach ‘nuair, tre chreidimh ‘na Fear Saoraidh Glòirmhor, a nì i greim air Dia, bheir i daonnan buaidh, cha’n e a mhàin sin, ach—”bheir sinn tuilleadh is buaidh trid-san a ghràdhaich sinn.”

Ma thuigeas sinn na geallanna so, mar air an toirt do Chriosd, tha iad a’ feuchainn dhuinn staid a ghealachdaidh agus fhulangais, agus mar an ceudna a bhuaidh a thug e mach air a naimhdibh fèin agus ar n-aimhdibhne; agus air a shon sin gu’n d’fhuair e ainm os cionn na h-uile ainm, araon air neamh agus air talamh.

II.—’Se’n dara nì ‘rùnaich mi na geallaidhean luachmhor a chaidh a leughadh a mhìneachadh dhuibh.

‘Se’n ceud aon diubh so, “Doirtidh mi mach uisge air an tartmhor.”—Leis an “uisge” tha sinn r’a thuigsinn anns an àite so feartan buadhach an Spioraid Naoimh, a dhoirteas e ‘mach air an anam a tha’n teinn—a tha mothachadh ‘fheum air Criosd mar Shlànuighear. Mar bheir uisge fionnarachadh do’n fhear-thuruis a ta sgìth agus fann leis an teas, sa chridhe ‘ploscartaich le iotaidh; mar sin tha soisgeul na slàinte do anam a pheacaich. Tha gràs na nì ro luachmhor, agus ‘nuair bhios a mhiann air an Tighearn’ a bhuileachadh, cuiridh e anns an anam iarrtas làidir, air a shon.

Is meur do ghràs eadhon an dian-iarrtas so fhèin, agus gach neach a dh’iarras ann an treibhdhireas a chridhe, gu cinnteach gheibh e. ‘Se tart no iotaidh is treise agus is mì-fhoighidinniche d’ar miannaibh uile. Tha e gun nàire gun fhoighidinn, mar gum b’e; feumaidh e bhi air a shàsuchadh. Tha e cosmhuil ri Rachel mu sliochd-sa, “Thoir dhomh clann air neo gheibh mi bàs.” Their an tart spioradail an nì ceudna mu Chriosd, “Thoir dhomh Criosd air neo cha bheò dhomh.” Cha tug Dia togadh air bith dhuinn an dìomhain. Cha’n ‘eil a h-aon dhiubh nach do chruthaich e lòn d’a rèir: chruthaich e leinn togadh airson bidh is dibhe, agus mar h-ullaicheadh e biadh is deoch d’an rèir cha bhiodh e ach a’ fochaid air a chreutairean. Feudaidh ar miannaibh nàdurra air

uairibh a bhi fuidh dhroch stiùradh, agus is minic a tha; ‘nuair tha chùis mar so cha’n ‘eil e mar fhiachaibh air Dia an sàsuchadh: ach do thaobh ar n’iarrtasan spioradail cha’n ‘eil iad air an toirt an dìomhain uair air bith ‘s eigin gu’n sàsuichear iadsan. Cluinneamaid ciod e tha ar Tighearna e fèin ag ràdh mu’n tart spioradail so. “Ma tha tart air neach air bith thigeadh e do m’ ionnsuidh-sa agus òladh e.”—Eoin vii. 37. “Agus a rìs, Agus a deir an Spiorad agus a bhean-nuadh-phòsda, Thig. Agus abradh an tì a chluinneas, Thig. Agus thigeadh an neach air am bheil tart. Agus ge b’e neach leis an àill gabhadh e uisge na beatha gu saor.”—Tais. xxii. 17.

‘Se’n dara cuid de’n ghealladh—Agus tuiteadh air an fhearann thartmhor. Feudaidh an t-anam cha’n e mhàin a bhi tartmhor, ach eadhon mar mhìr do fhearann air a losgadh leis an teas; Feudaidh, cha’n e mhàin mothachadh agus mòr mhothachadh bhi aig air fheum air gràs, ach mar an ceudna faireachadh air mòr-thruaighe. Bha staid Righ Daibhidh ann am fàsach Iùdah an càileigin mar so. Tha e ‘coimeas staid ‘anama ri cor an àite anns an robh e. “Tha tart air m’anam a d’ dhèigh, tha m’ fheòil a’ tograidh a t-ionnsuidh ann an tìr thioraim, agus thartmhor, as eugmhais uisge.—Salm lxiii. 1. Bha Righ Daibhidh anns an àm so air a dhruideadh suas o mheadhonnan nan gràs; ach feudadh e bhith gu bheil an Criosdaidh a’ mealtainn nam meadhonnan, agus gidheadh, gu bheil e mar fhearann cruaidh agus tartmhor fodhpa. Ma’s e so do staid a Chriosdaidh, co-chuir riut fèin an gealladh; ge cruaidh da-rìreadh do staid, bha muinntir eile na leithid romhad-sa, agus fhuair iad furtachd o’n ghealladh so. Ciod i cànain an anama a ta an leithid so do staid? O! ars’ esan, cha’n ‘eil sràth do ghràs agam! Ma’s ann mar so a tha thig a dh’ionnsuidh Chriosd. “Ach,” arsa an t-anam, “tha mo chridhe cruaidh—cha’n ‘urrainn mi urnuigh a dhèanamh—nam faighinn saorsa chum urnuigh a dhèanamh—nam b’urrainn mi deur a shileadh—nam b’urrainn mi mo chridhe fhosgladh do’m Dhia, bhithinn sona! An i so da-rìreadh do staid? Anaim bhochd! ‘S tu an ceart duine airson an d’rinneadh an gealladh, agus ris am bheil briathraibh mo chinn-teagaig a’ labhairt. Tha do chridhe ‘na fhàsach tartmhor gun fhaireachadh. Eisd ris a’ ghealladh a chaidh a thoirt do mhuinntir ann ad’ staid-sa: “Oir anns an fhàsach brisidh uisgeachan a mach, agus sruthan anns an dithreabh: Fasaidh am fearann tioram ‘na linne, agus am fearann tartmhor ‘na thobraichibh uisge.”—Isa. xxxv. 6, 7. Ni-eadh, tha dòchas do thaobh neach a’s miosa cor na thusa; “‘Nuair a bhitheas am bochd agus an t-aonaran ag iarruidh uisge agus nach bi e ann; agus a bhitheas an teanga air tiormachadh le tart, mise Iehobhah freagram iad; Dia Israeil is mì nach trèig iad. Fosglaidh mi aimhnichean anns na h-ionadaibh àrda, agus tobraichean ann am meadhon nan gleann; ni mi’m fàsach ‘na linne uisge, agus am fearann tioram ‘na shruthaibh uisge.”—Isa. xli. 17, 18. Theagamh nach urrainn duit urnuigh a dhèanamh—tha thu mothachadh

gu bheil do chridhe cruaidh, agus cha’n ‘eil fhios agad ciod a their thu. ‘S tu an ceart duine a tha aig mo cheann-teagaig ‘san amharc. Bu mhiann leat urnuigh a dhèanamh, ach cha’n urrainn thu. Bheir esan dhuit, cha’n e ‘mhàin deoch a chasg d’iotaidh, ach doirtidh e tuiltean ort. Cha’n aon fhras a dh’fhoghnas dhuit —bha do thiormachd ro fhada: Frasaidh e ‘nuas gu pailt—doirtidh e ‘mach tuil ort. ‘Nuair thig furtachd, ciod air bith an t-àm, cha bhi do shòlas gann—cha bhi do shìth dìomhain. ‘Nuair bhios oighreachd an Tighearn’ sgìth silidh e ‘nuas uisge gu pailt. Rì linn na tiormachd so, theagamh gu’n do ghlac peacadh neart san anam—theagamh gu bheil smuaintibh uamhasach ag èiridh suas anns a’ chridhe. Tha’n Tighearna, uime sin, ‘gealltainn gu’n leighis e so mar an ceudna; oir ars’ esan, “doirtidh mi mach mo Spiorad air do shliochd, agus mo bheannachd air do ghinealach.” Tha’n Comh-fhurtair, an Spiorad Naomh, air a ghealltainn do uile phobull Dhè. ‘Se a dhreuchd-san, cha’n e a mhàin geur-mhothachadh a thoirt dhuinn air ar peacaidhean, ach mar an ceudna an t-anam a neartachadh. ‘Se maitheanas peacaidh am mòr-bheannachadh a cheannaich am Fear-saoraidh airson a phobuill; agus tha’n Spiorad a’ cur an cèill na beannachd so gu h-uaignidheach ann an cluais na coguis, trid an Fhocal. Tha’m focal a’ labhairt sìth ris gach neach a threigeas peacadh, agus a philleas ri Dia. Ach feudaidh sinn a bhi ann an staid rèite ri Dia, agus feudaidh am focal sìth a labhairt gun an t-sìth sin bhi air a cuinntinn ‘sa’ choguis. Bithidh eagal air an fhìor Chriosdaidh roimh shìth bhreige, agus cha’n fhois dha gus am faigh e ‘bharrantas ann am focal Dhè. Dealraidh an Spiorad, air a ghealladh, agus bheir e air cuspair a ghràis gu’m faic e gum buin e dha. Brisidh e sìos cumhachd an ana-chreidimh, agus le dearbhadh a thoirt do’n choguis air fìrinn a gheallaidh, mar thug e roimhe air fìrinn a bhagraidh. Their an lagh ris a’ choguis, Is tusa am peacach. Their an Spiorad Naomh, trid an Fhocail, Thàinig Iosa Criosd a chum an t-saoghail a shàbhaladh pheacach a bha caillte. ‘S ann air a leithid so do dhòigh a tha an Spiorad beannaichte labhairt sìth ris an anam.

Thigeadh do’n pheacach gun meadhonnan nan gràs a mhi-bhuileachadh, no dearmad a dhèanamh air fèin-cheasnachadh: mar ‘eil a chridhe mar bu mhath leis cha’n urrainn e aicheadh, co dhiù, nach ‘eil an Slànuighear comasach air a chumhachd a dhearbhadh air. Ma’s e, an àite naomhachd nach eil e ‘faotainn ann fèin ach luibhre pheacaidh, feudaidh e dol a chum an t-Slànuighear le briathraibh an lobhair roimhe. A Thighearna, ma’s àill leat ‘s comasach thu air mise a ghlanadh. Ma tha e ‘faotainn a chridhe cruaidh agus neo-aithreachail feudaidh e innse d’a Shlànuighear gu’n cual e uime, gu’n robh e air àrduchadh mar Phrionns’ agus mar Shlànuighear, a thoirt aithreachais do chloinn Israeil agus maitheanas peacaidh. Ma tha e faireachadh ana-chreidimh ag oibreachadh, feudaidh e ràdh, A Thighearna, bu mhiann leam creidsinn, cuidich an thusa mo mhìchreidimh. Ciod

sam bith truaillidheachd a tha ‘g oibreachadh anns an leth stigh, dhèanadh beantainn ri cumhachd Chriosd a leigheas.

Uime sin, Thugamaid a mhàin oidhearp air creidsinn, oir dhoibhsan a chreideas tha na h-uile nì comasach.

III.—’S e’n treas nì chuir sinn romhainn an toradh a ta sruthadh o na geallaidhean so anns an dream aig am bheil còir orra ‘nochdadh. Fàsaidh iad suas mar anns an fheur, mar gheúgaibh seilich ri taobh nan sruth-chlaisean. Cha’n ‘eil nì anns a’s luaithe dh’fhàsas na’m feur ri àm uisge agus drùchd, agus cha’n ‘eil craobh no preas sa’ choille a’s luaithe dh’fhàsas na’n seileach ri taobh nan sruth-chlaisean. Is amhuil a bhios fàs an fhìor Chriosdaidh ‘nuair a thèid ‘anam a bheòthachadh le drùchd agus frasaibh nan gràs. “Mar an t-arbhar bidh e air ath-bheòthachadh; agus fàsaidh e mar an fhìonain, agus bithidh a bholadh mar fhìon Lebainoin.” Tha e nàdurra do ghràs a bhi fàs, ach cosmhuil ris gach pòr eile, iarraidh e uisgeachadh o’n àirde; agus mar faigh e so seargaidh e agus cumaichidh e ‘cheann; ach ‘nuair thuirlingeas an dealta nèamhaidh, “brisidh e mach, agus thig e fo’ bhlàth mar an ròs.” Agus mar ann an Nàdur ‘s amhuil mar an ceudna ann an gràs; tuitidh an drùchd air uairibh agus beòthaichidh e gach feur agus luibh, gidheadh cha chluinn a chluas a’s fearr clàisteachd e—cha’n fhaic an t-sùil a’s geire sealladh e. Air uairibh eile thig an t-uisge nuas na bhoinnean tlà, air uairibh ‘na fhrasaibh trom, agus air uairibh eile le stoirm agus le buaireas gàilbheach: ach ciod air bith mòd air an tuit an t-uisge ‘s ann a chum math na talmhainn. Air a’ mhodh cheudna tha cuid do dhaoine air an toirt o dhorchadas gu solus, uidh air uidh, air mhodh nach urrainn neach a chomharachadh—theagamh, trid beannachadh Dhè air oilean diadhaidh; tha cuid air an tionndadh o pheacadh gu fìreantachd ‘nan òige, gun mòr dheuchainn inntinn; tha cuid eile ris air an toirt gu sliabh Shìnai—tha tairneanach agus dealanaich an lagha air an leigeadh fuasgailt air an coguis, mu’n dlùthaich iad ri Criosd anns a’ ghealladh. Ach ciod air bith mar thig iad, is sona iadsan a ta ann an Criosd: fasaidh iad suas mar am feur—mar an seileach ri taobh nan sruth-chlaisean—fasaidh iad ann an gràs, agus thèid iad air an aghaidh o neart gu neart, gus an nochdar iad coimhlionta an làthair an Dhè ann an Sìon. An sin dearbhaidh iad mar dh’fhàs iad ann an gràs.

Their am fear so is leis an Tighearna mise. ‘Se sin, tagraidh e ‘chòir air Criosd. Thig e chum an Fhir-shaoraidh, agus dlùthaichidh e ris trid creidimh an t-soisgeil. Thig e gu Criosd agus cha tilgear a mach e. Mar urrainn e ‘ràdh gur leis Criosd, bheir e air a char a’s lugha oidhearp air a ràdh gur le Criosd esan. Ged nach urrainn e ràdh le muinghinn gu bheil gràdh aig Criosd dha, ‘s urrainn e ràdh le Peadar gu bheil gràdh aige-san do Chriosd—mar urrainn e ràdh gu’n do tharruing Criosd e, ‘s urrainn e, le irioslachd, a ràdh, tarruing mi agus ruithidh mi ‘nad dhèigh. Bithidh e tagradh ris an Tighearna gur Dia trocaireach e, ‘s ged dhiùltas se e gidheadh leanaidh se e cosmhuil ris a’

mhnaoi a’ Chanaan. Cha b’urrainn do’n mhnaoi bheannaichte sin a ràdh san àm, Is leamsa Criosd; gidheadh thagair i a cùis; rinn i, mar gu’m b’e, deasbad ris, agus le buanachadh mar so fhuair i a miann. Feumaidh an t-anam an nì ceudna a dhèanamh—feumaidh e bhi do ghnà ag amharc ris an t-Slànuighear—do ghnà ga thilgeadh fhèin aig a chosaibh—do ghnà a’ gleachd an aghaidh ana-chreidimh, agus gun sgrùd gus am faigh e buaidh. Bheir an Tighearna beannachadh d’a leanabh fhèin; ach feumaidh an leanabh a spionadh, mar gu’m b’e, làmhaibh Athar. Tha’n Tighearna gu dearbh a’ gealltainn gu’n crath e uisge glan air a phobull—gu’n toir e dhoibh cridhe nuadh, agus gu’n toir e air falbh an cridhe cloiche, ach ‘s àill leis gu’m fiosraichear e do thaobh an nì so, le tigh Israeil. Is furasta an nì briathraibh stèidh mo theagaig aithris. Is leis an Tighearna mise; ach creid thusa mise, cha’n ‘eil e cho furasta an creidsinn, agus, an aithris tre chreidimh. Tha cuid de dhaoine am barail nach ‘eil ann an creidimh ach nì furasta. Air mo shon-sa dheth, tha mi, le Pòl, de dh’atharrachadh sin do bharail. Thèirear cogadh ris, agus ‘s math a thoilleas e’n t-ainm. Cha ghnìomh furasta greim fhaotainn air Criosd, agus an greim so a chumail le fèin-fhiosrachadh. ‘S i so cainnt an Sgriobtuir agus mothachadh pobull Dhè mu’n chùis.

Agus ainmichear fear eile air ainm Iacoib.—Ceanglaidh se e fèin ri eaglais agus ri sluagh Dhè. ‘S ann tha mòr shonas fìor Israeleach gu’m feud e aoradh a dhèanamh do Dhia maille r’a phobull, ann an spiorad agus ann am fìrinn. Cha’n eil anns an ainm Israeleach agus neach a bhi ‘na bhall de’n fhìor-eaglais ach an t-aon nì. Is i an eaglais corp dìomhair Chriosd, agus ‘s e creidimh a mhàin a ni neach ‘na fhìor bhall dhith.

Agus sgrìobhaidh fear eile le làimh do’n Tighearna, agus sloinnidh se e fèin air ainm Israeil.—’Nuair a dh’aontaicheas neach le cùmhnant no le còrdadh cuiridh e a làmh-sgrìobhaidh ris. Tha neach a sgrìobhadh le ‘làimh do’n Tighearna a’ ciallachadh gu’n aontaich e leis a’ chùmhnant shìorruidh. ‘Nuair a phòsas boireannach gabhaidh i dhith fèin sloinneadh a fir-phòsda. Air an dòigh cheudna ‘nuair bheir an t-anam e fhèin do Chriosd sloinnear e air ainm. Far am bheil an tomhas is lugha do ghràs tha e ag aontachadh leis a “Chùmhnant a ta air a shuidheachadh ann an gach nì, agus a choimhdear.”—2 Sam. xxiii. 5.

Feumaidh sinn ar toil a thoirt suas do Dhia, agus leigeadh leis-san a thoil fhèin a dhèanamh ruinn. ‘S ann do bhriathraibh a’ chùmhnant ris am feum sinn ar làmh a chur ma thèid sinn air seachran, gu smachdaich Esan sinn leis an t-slat. Feumaidh sinn an t-slat a phògadh,—sinn fhèin irioslachadh, agus sgrìobhadh le’r làimh do’n Tighearna: ‘s e sin, feumaidh sinn a bhi naomha mar tha Esan naomha; oir as eugmhais so cha’n eil e comasach dhuinn a mhealtuinn aon chuid sa’ bheatha so, no sa’ bheatha ri teachd. Is aithne do’n Tighearna iadsan a’s leis fhèin, agus ‘se comhara cho soilleir ‘sa tha ‘nan riochdas gu’n do thrèig iad aingidheachd. Tha sinn do thaobh nàduir a’ deasbhuidh

naomhachd, agus uime sin neo-chomasach aon dleasdanas a dhèanamh air mhodh taitneach dha-san. Le sgrìobhadh le’r làimh do’n Tighearna, tha sinn ga’r toirt fhèin thairis dh’a a chum ‘s gu naomhaich e sinn. Feumaidh sinn dol a mach asainn fhèin gu tur, agus gabhail ri gràs anns an staid inntinn is irioslaich. Ach an dèigh gach nì as urrainn sinn fhèin a dhèanamh gheibh sinn mach nach eil ar naomhachd ach fada o bhi coimhlionta.

Tha na h-uile fìor Chriosdaidh coimhlionta ‘na mhiann—’na rùn—’na oidheirp. A dh’aon fhocal—bhiodh e coimhlionta nam b’urrainn e.

A nis, do bhrìgh nach urrainn sinn an lagh a riarachadh airson ‘na tha seachad d’ar beatha, a thaobh gu bheil ar cridhe truaillidh, agus gu bheil peacadh air a mheasgadh le’r dleasanais is fearr, tha aobhar againn Dia a bheannachadh gu bheil ann an cùmhnant nan gràs fìreantachd air a h-ullachadh. Ris an fìreantachd so feumaidh sinn ar làmh-sgrìobhaidh a chur, agus sinn fhèin a nochdadh an làthair ar Dhè ann an èideadh dealrach ùmhlachd an Fhir-shaoraidh. Nam bu mhian leinn am beannachadh fhaotainn feumaidh sinn trusgan ar bràthar is sine a chuir oirnn. ‘S e naomhachd a mhàin a ni neach iomchuidh airson nèimhe; ach ‘s i ùmhlachd Chriosd a mhàin tha toirt còir dhuinn oirre. A ràdh gu foghainn ùmhlachd Chriosd gun naomhachd caithe-beatha cha’n eil an so ach amaideachd. Cha’n eil neach a ta cur luach air fìreantachd Chriosd da-rìreadh nach eil le uile anam an dèigh air naomhachd beatha. Cha’n fhan mi’n tràth-sa ri dhearbhadh co aca tha trusgan na bainnse a ciallachadh gràs anns an anam, no fìreantachd Chriosd air a cur air an anam: feudaidh, do rèir mo bheachd-sa, an dà chuid a bhi air a chiallachadh; air mo shon-sa dheth cha’n urrainn mi’n sgaradh ‘na m’ inntinn. ‘S e ar dleasdanas creidimh—aithreachas—irioslachd—gràdh agus gràsan eile an Spioraid a bhi againn; agus ged bhiodh iad so uile againn cha b’urrainn dhuinn an tagradh mar am bonn air an gabhadh Dia ruinn. Feudaidh, air uairibh, neul èiridh air an inntinn:—feudaidh dorchadas agus marbh-alachd—caoin-shuaraicheas agus cruas seilbh a ghabhail air a’ chridhe. ‘Na leithid so do staid thugamaid aire nach tuit sinn ann an eu-earbsa—amhairceamaid ri fìreantachd Chriosd. Ged a chailleas fear-fearainn a phàipeirean ma tha a chòraichean ann an leabhraichibh an righ tha a staid tèaruinte. Leanamaid naomhachd le’r n-uile chridhe, ach na cailleamaid gu bràth sealladh air ùmhlachd an t-Slànuighear. ‘S esan carragh nan linntean—’Se ùmhlachd a choisinn an Spiorad Naomh dhuinn—’S e’n Spiorad Naomh ùghdar ar naomhachd, agus is e naomhachd an tobar anns am bheil ar sonas a’ co-sheasamh.

“An nì a cheangail Dia, na sgaradh duine:” gun sùil a chumail air fìreantachd Chriosd tha e eu-comasach do neach a bhi naomha; agus ciod am feum a tha air Criosd, ma tha ar n-ùmhlachd fhèin iomlan—mar biodh ar fìreantachd fhèin mar bhroinneagaibh salach. Na’m faiceamaid sinn fhèin dìreach mar tha sinn, agus mar tha Dia ga’r faicinn, bhiodh ar cridheachan a’

ploscartaich an dèigh naomhachd mar shlàinte spioradail ar n-anamna—agus an dèigh fìreantachd Chriosd mar stèidh ar dòchais agus ar sonais.

Ma thuigeas sinn gu cubhaidh na fìrinnibh luachmhor so, chithear gu soilleir an toradh ‘nar giùlan. ‘Se Criosd ar Lèigh, ‘s i naomhachd ar slàinte; An abair sinn gur h-ì ar slàinte choisinn ar n-oighreachd dhuinn? A dh’aon fhocal, feumaidh sinn teachd gu Criosd mar pheacaich, agus sgrìobhadh le’r làimh do’n Tighearna—feumaidh sinn a leigeadh fhaicinn gu’n d’rinn sinn so ann an treibhdhireas ar cridhe, le caithe-beatha stuama, cothromach, agus diadhaidh—a’ deanamh deadh-sgeul ar soisgeul an Iosa a shaor sinn.

IV.—Nì mi nis, anns an àite ma dheireadh, tilleadh ris na chaidh a ràdh, a chum gu’n dèanamaid co-chùnadh.

Chuala sinn gu’m feud pobull an Tighearna a bhi gearan air cruas cridhe, agus sin eadhon fuidh mheadhonnan nan gràs: ceasnaicheamaid sinn fhèin chum an t-aobhar fhaotainn a mach: theagamh gu bheil sinn a’ toirt fasgaidh do pheacadh èigin ged tha ar coguis ag innse gur peacadh e. Bheir so cruas-cridhe ‘na lorg—fuadaichidh e’n Spiorad air falbh. Bitheamaid air ar faicill roimhe so agus eisdeamaid ri caogair na coguis a chuir Dia ‘na taobh stigh.

Ach, theagamh gu’n do cheadaich Dia ‘na àrd-uachdaranachd cruas-cridhe a leagadh oirnn, a chum ar creidimh agus ar faighidinn fheuchainn, mar rinn e air Iob naomha roimhe. Cha’n eil ar coguis ag innse dhuinn gu bheil sinn a’ toirt fasgaidh do pheacadh air bith, ni’s mò na bha a choguis-san. Ma’s ann mar so tha, feitheamaid air Dia, agus rachamaid le’r cridhe cloiche dh’ionnsuidh Chriosd. Ni esan a thaiseachadh, agus bheir e air gach nì oibreachadh a chum ar math.

Theagamh gu bheil thu gad fhaireachadh fhèin falamh. Anaim bhochd! tha thu cruaidh agus tioram—tha thu salach agus neo-ghlan—tha t’anam air a thruilleadh le luibhre a pheacaidh! Thig-sa, ma ta, gu sruthanan an ionaid naomha a dh’fhionnaraicheas! Thig gu uisge na beatha! Thig gu Criosd anns a’ chùmhnant, ceart mar tha thu! Gabh ris na gheibh thu agus bi taingeil.

Cia mar tha thu gad mhothachadh fhèin? Peacach? Abair gu bheil thu peacach, tha Slànuighear an so agad. Theagamh nach eil thu cho maoth-chridheach ‘s bu mhath leat, thig a chum an uisge so, taisichidh agus naomhaichidh e thu. Tha Dia a’ gealltainn aithreachas a thoirt—bi cinnteach gu’n coimhlion e fhocal. Am bheil thu salach agus truailidh? ‘Se do bheatha teachd gu Criosd—glanaidh fhuil-san thu: Tha e sìneadh a làimhe is àille dhuit: sin thusa mach do làmh a ta dubh—salach—truailidh, agus cha diùlt e breith oirre. Am bheil eagal ort nach eil so fìor? ‘S tu nach ruig a leas. Tha e air fhocal—tha e air a mhionn gabhail riut. Ciod air bith is galar dhuit tha leigheas aige-san dhuit; ciod air bith do leòn, tha aige-san pailteas. Thig

air t’aghaidh, thig mar tha thu—thig gu Criosd agus ‘s e do bheatha. Ge b’e thig air an dòigh cheart cha tèid a thilgeadh a mach; gabhadh e de uisge na beatha gu saor. Tha gach nì ullamh, thigibh a chum a’ phòsaidh. Thigibh, arsa Gliocas Dhè, ithibh do m’ aran-sa, agus òlaibh de’n fhìon a mheasg mi.

The late Mr. George Hay,

TARBERT, LOCH FYNE.

WE regret to record this month the death of Mr. George Hay, steamer agent, Tarbert, Loch Fyne, who passed away at his house there on the 20th June. Mr. Hay, who was sixty-six years of age, was brought up under the much-favoured ministry of the Rev. John Campbell, the worthy Disruption minister of Tarbert, and at a comparatively early age began to take a deep interest in divine things. At the time when a separate testimony was raised on behalf of the truth and sound Free Church principles by the Free Presbyterians in 1893, Mr. Hay heartily identified himself with them, and continued to the end a loyal and steadfast upholder of the Free Presbyterian Church. He had been for a number of years previous to this period a respected elder in the Free Church, where he also discharged, with much efficiency, the offices of treasurer and precentor. His services in these various capacities were found highly useful in the Free Presbyterian congregation, and he rendered them faithfully and ungrudgingly to the end. As a singer, Mr. Hay was one of the most powerful and animated that ever we have had the privilege of listening to. His whole mind and heart seemed engaged in the exercise, and there was nothing, as he himself bore testimony, that he had more delight in than in singing the praises of the Lord. Thus a great breach has been made upon the small congregation of Tarbert, a breach that is deeply felt by the people. Within the short period of six or seven months, three men who took an active interest in the cause have been removed—John Johnston, James Bruce, and George Hay. May the Lord in His abundant mercy fill the breaches, and enable those who remain to maintain a firm testimony for the truth!

As to his personal character, Mr. Hay was of a quiet, humble disposition, sincere and upright in all his dealings, both in the Church and in the world. A man of good intelligence and understanding, he was far from being self-assertive—often willing to defer to the opinion of others, but not prepared to compromise any principle. His last illness began with influenza but developed serious complications. He seems to have anticipated death from the beginning of the trouble, and was remarkably willing to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better. The writer visited him during his illness. He was not able to say much, but spoke of the preciousness of Christ as a Saviour and the indispensable

need of having His Word to rest upon for eternity. A common remark of his in the days of his health was, “We ought to examine ourselves; if we are Christians, we are very poor ones.” On his death-bed he said that he felt Christ very near to him, and longed for the moment when the Lord should take him away to be with Him for ever. The end of the upright man is peace.

Mr. Hay was married twice. His first wife died a number of years since. To Mrs. Hay and the surviving members of both his families, our deepest sympathy is extended. May the Lord be a husband to the widow and a father to the fatherless! J. S. S.