OR AN INQUIRY INTO THE CONDITION OF CHILDREN
IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
BY CAESAR MALAN, DOCTOR IN THEOLOGY.
“For me and my house, we shall serve Jehovah.”—JOSHUA xxiv. 15.
(Translated for the first time from the French.)
(Continued from page 68.)
CHAPTER IX.—THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH FROM THE BEGINNING BAPTISED THE INFANT CHILDREN OF BELIEVERS.
The father of the family.—“What shall I answer you, Samuel? To say, as you say you have heard it said, that infant baptism was unknown to the Apostolic Church, and that the practice stole into the Church little by little at a later period, appears to me to deny what the history of the period affirms, or to mean that one is willingly ignorant of what history relates. That the Apostolic Church baptised the infant children of believers is to me so evident, that when I hear it said that the proof alleged is equivocal, or that it is not of much force, I feel bound to ask, Where is the simplicity or frankness of those who thus speak?”
Samuel.—“Nevertheless, dear brother, that proof—be its value what it may—is not in a direct sense the Word of God.”
The father of the family.—“No, without doubt, it is not, but it is the print which that word has made in the Church. The footprints which I discover on the ground are not, to be sure, the very man who left these footprints, but they are the unmistakable witnesses of his having been there. And I am quite sure that if you, dear Samuel, found yourself lost in the midst of a desert you would be glad to follow the track made by a caravan, if you discovered such a track on the sands. Would you, in a case like that, say that that track was of no consequence to you as long as you did not see the camels and merchants who made it? I think you would not. Now, the case is not different as regards Church history, when the question in debate concerns some usage or practice. When it is, indeed, a question of doctrine, we must ‘to the law and to the testimony’ as the alone voice to which we ought to hearken. But if the enquiry concerns a material fact which a certain doctrine was likely to result in, the material response which history gives is an unobjectionable means for arriving at a true conclusion, and to refuse this verdict is to declare that we are prejudiced against the truth which history substantiates.”
Samuel.—“I have no objection to offer to what you say, dear friend. On this account—although I hitherto thought it right to pay little heed to what Church history might furnish on the
subject of infant baptism, and even found fault with those who occupied themselves much with that aspect of the discussion—I am now your willing listener. Yes, I quite believe that such footprints as you have spoken of may here be met with, and they are the footprints which truth has made, and the nature of their verdict ought at least to be carefully examined.”
The father of the family.—”Ah well, my friend, you may meet with these fruits in the very days of the Apostles in the Church of Antioch in Syria (Acts xv. 1). That Church, planted as it was in the midst of the Gentiles, was quite a stranger to the forms and habits which belonged to the ceremonial law. Now, when things stood thus in Antioch, we are told that certain Jews, who had been converted to the Gospel but were at the same time zealous for the practice of the law of Moses, came to Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas then were, and taught the brethren, ‘that if they were not circumcised after the custom of Moses they could not be saved.’ Paul and Barnabas opposed this view, and shortly afterwards the Synod in Jerusalem condemned it as an error. But even that error contains a positive declaration in the sense that those converted Jews knew that the Church among the Gentiles was constituted like their own in respect of little children. The custom of Moses was that the little child should be circumcised. They themselves still retained that practice, and it was that usage that they wished to impose on the Gentiles under the Gospel. They believed that as with themselves, who were converted Jews, so with the Gentile converts, the children appertained to the Church, seeing that they insisted on perpetuating an ordinance which concerned children more than any other. If, in the Christian Church, little children had been excluded from the sign of the covenant, would those Jews have had even the thought of conserving a seal which they had always seen put upon little children?”
Samuel.—”No, certainly not; and I am not without appreciating both the plainness and the force of that proof which even the history contained in the Acts of the Apostles furnishes.”
The father of the family.—”Ah well, any other testimony of an historical nature, if it is trustworthy, ought to be equally welcomed on our part. On this account I ask you to join to those first footprints, the following, the clearness and the depth of which are such that they will not leave you in any doubt. I shall point them out to you all the way from the days of the Apostles up to the time when every one recognises that infant baptism was the universal practice of the Church.*
“(1) Hermas, the contemporary of Clement of Rome, of whom [possibly] St. Paul makes mention (Phil. iv. 3), and who himself may possibly have been the same Hermas of whom the same Apostle makes mention (Romans xvi. 14),—Hermas, I say, taking
* See this proof in detail in Wall’s History of Infant Baptism.
up what seems to be a reference to the words of the Saviour, to wit, ‘that the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children,’ goes on to express himself characteristically thus: ‘All of you who, like to little children, will remain without doing evil will be more honoured than the martyrs and confessors themselves; for all infants are honourable before God, and are the first persons with Him’ (Pastor of Hermas iii. 9, 25). Would Hermas have spoken thus if he had thought that the infant children of believers belonged to the profane rabble, were excluded from the Church, and were deprived of their having the name of Jehovah invoked upon them?
“(2) Justin Martyr, who lived forty years after the days of the Apostles, a pious and learned man—the first to plead the Church’s cause before the Emperor, who was persecuting it—expresses himself, in a conversation which he had at Ephesus with the Jew, Trypho, an intelligent and even accomplished person, in the following manner: ‘We also, who have approached God through Christ, have received not carnal but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And, by God’s mercy, we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners; and all men may equally obtain it.’ And elsewhere, when asked by Trypho, ‘Wherefore, if circumcision was a good thing, do not you practice it, as do the Jews?’ Justin replied, ‘We Christians are circumcised through baptism with the circumcision of Christ’ (Col. ii. 11, 12). (Dialogue, chap. xliii.) Now, Samuel, can you think that Justin, a seriously pious man, profoundly versed in the Scriptures, would have compared Christian baptism with circumcision, or would have answered the Jew in the way in which we saw him do, and above all, have introduced the reference to original sin, if he had known that infants were neither baptised nor admitted as members into the Christian Church? For my part I cannot imagine that he would.”
Samuel.—”No more can I, and, indeed, I acknowledge that it never occurred to me that the historical proof was one of such weight.”
The father of the family.—”What has been set before you is but a small fraction of the whole proof thus derived. Consider this. That same servant of the Lord Jesus, in one of his Apologies for the Christians, uses these words: ‘Yea, among us there are not a few men and women, of sixty and seventy years of age, who were disciples of Christ from their infancy, and who have continued all the time living a pure life.’ Now, on that quotation from Justin Martyr I offer two remarks. First, he uses the very same words which the Lord Jesus had made use of when He gave commandment to His Apostles to make disciples of all nations (Matt. xxviii. 19), so that it is an error to say that the words, ‘make disciples,’ in the mouth of our Saviour are applicable only to adults, seeing that Justin Martyr, according to our present quotation, makes use of them in speaking of infants. Secondly,
it is clear that the men and women who were sixty and seventy years of age when Justin wrote this Apology, must have been born within the days of the Apostles, and that it must have been in the days of the Apostles that they were added to the Church. Is not that footmark as distinct as it is deep? Does it not tell us clearly that in the churches formed in the days of the Apostles and under the direction of the Apostles, infants were reputed disciples, that is to say, members of the Church?
“But let us pursue our research and see how Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria, some sixty or seventy years after the days of the Apostles, leave us footprints still more plain:
“(3) Irenæus, who was equally renowned with Justin as a Christian martyr, and who was taught by Polycarp (St. John’s disciple), in speaking of the Lord Jesus, expresses Himself thus: ‘Therefore as He was Master, He had also the age of a Master; not disdaining nor doing violence to human nature; nor breaking in His own Person the law which He had set for mankind: but sanctifying every several age by the likeness that it has to Him. For He came to save all persons by Himself; all, I mean, who by Him are regenerated unto God; infants and little ones, and children and youths, and elder persons. Therefore He went through the several ages: for infants being made an infant; to little ones He was made a little one, sanctifying those of that age’ (Ag. Her. ii. 39). Thus spake a doctor of the Church, a witness of Apostolic times, and of the discipline of the Church when the Church was yet pure. He declares that even children at the breast are in the Church, that they are made holy or sanctified by the Saviour, that for them He was a little child; and he declares also that little children in the Church have been regenerated unto God, that is to say, according to the way of speaking then in use, that they had been baptised with water.”
Samuel.—“Do you mean to say so? Does the word ‘regenerated’ signify ‘baptised with water’ in Irenæus?”
The father of the family.—“Yes; almost always. Thus, for example, this same Irenæus says: ‘When the Holy Spirit gave to the disciples the power of regeneration unto God, he said unto them: “Go ye, etc.”’ Now that can only mean, as you must see, that He gave them power to baptise; since no Apostle ever had the power of regenerating a soul unto God in the proper sense, as that belongs exclusively to the Omnipotence of God. And in another place Irenæus says: ‘When the Lord gave to His disciples a commission to regenerate unto God, he said unto them: “Go and make disciples of all nations, etc.”’ Now we know that it was a commission to baptise with water that the Apostles received from Him.”
Samuel.—“If that is so, my brother, it is evident that in the time of Irenæus infants were baptised with water. To deny it would be to resist facts, or to regard valid testimony as a thing of no weight.”
The father of the family.—“Other witnesses yet will tell you the same thing. Thus (4) Clement of Alexandria, Irenæus’s contemporary, who like him employs the terms baptism and regeneration indifferently, in giving direction to Christian men and women concerning the gravity and modesty to be used in their apparel and ornaments, among other things says: ‘Let your seal be a dove, or a fish or a ship under sail, or a harp, or an anchor. And if any one by trade be a fisherman, he will do well to think of an Apostle, and the children taken out of the water.’ Clement thus indicates that in his time it had not been forgotten that the Apostles had baptised little children, as he counselled Christians who by their calling lived in the very midst of the waters to make choice of this as an emblem.”
Samuel.—“That fact is interesting. It has, in its very simplicity, something very amiable in it.”
The father of the family.—“So I think too. But I go farther down the stream of history, and about one hundred years after the days of the Apostles I come upon the testimony of (5) Tertullian, which I produce with all the more satisfaction because it is not an uncommon thing for those who oppose infant baptism to appeal to him in their own support. Now here is the fact: In his books on Baptism and on the Soul, after having spoken of man’s natural depravity and of the need of regeneration, he advances the opinion that baptism with water takes away all the sins which have preceded baptism, and he from this supposed circumstance concludes that it would be much better if instead of baptising infant children people should put off their baptism until the age of discretion, ‘for example,’ as he says, ‘until after marriage, in order that the time in which the passions are strongest should have been passed, and thus baptised persons would run less danger of losing the fruit of their baptism.’ Such was the avowed opinion of Tertullian. But what light does the expression of this opinion in this form throw on the question of infant baptism? Does it imply that in Tertullian’s time the usage was unknown? On the contrary, it establishes the judgment that in Tertullian’s time infant baptism was the common practice of the Church. Finally, does Tertullian dissuade from infant baptism on the ground that infant baptism was contrary to the Scriptures, and that it was right to baptise only after one had believed? Not at all. Tertullian’s reason for his dissuasion was of a quite different kind. Tertullian therefore must be reckoned with Hermas, Justin Martyr, Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria as witnessing to the practice of the Apostolic Church in the sense of putting the seal of the covenant on infants born in the Church. Do you call it still in question, Samuel?”
Samuel.—“It does not seem to me that I could with good reason resist the testimony of the witnesses you have brought forward.”
(To be continued.)
The late Mrs. Mackay, Halkirk, Caithness.
WE have occasion again and again to mourn the removal by death of aged Christians from our midst. The gleaner has been so busy in recent times that in some parts of the Church there are very few remaining of the godly who saw a past generation, when “the power from on high” was more abundantly felt in the land. One of those aged pious persons, recently taken away, was Mrs. Mackay, Upper Camphill Street, Halkirk, Caithness, who entered into rest on Thursday the 14th May, at about the age of 84 years. Her removal causes a real blank in the village and congregation to which she belonged.
Born at Tormsdale in the parish of Halkirk, and brought up at the knee of a pious grandfather (Sandy Sutherland), she appears to have become a subject of divine grace in early youth. Details of her first experiences we cannot give, but during the closing days of her life her memory went back to early years, and she remarked on one occasion, “If there is a spot in Tormsdale I would like to see, it is that ‘housie,’ where I used to go to secret prayer, when my grandfather was done with family worship. I would run to this secret place, a sweet place to me, I trust.” She grew up to maturity, an exemplary young woman, and was married to John Mackay, a worthy man who predeceased her more than thirty years ago.
Mrs. Mackay was one who adorned the station of life she occupied by a Christian walk and conversation. Dutiful, kindly and affectionate in her disposition, with keen natural intelligence, she was a valuable acquisition to any household which she might have occasion to visit for a longer or shorter period. Her piety, though unobtrusive, was an influence that pervaded her conduct, and she took special delight in relating notes and incidents in connection with ministers and worthies of bygone days. The preaching of a pure gospel, and the privilege of attending upon the ordinances of God’s house, were things precious in her eyes, and by divine grace, she made a diligent and profitable use of her opportunities. When a faithful testimony was required for the truth of God and the principles of the Free Church in 1893, Mrs. Mackay was one of those who immediately identified herself with the party which then “abode in the truth” and raised a banner on its behalf. She continued an attached member of the Free Presbyterian Church to the end of her life.
If Mrs. Mackay was recognised by her friends and acquaintances as a pious woman during the days of activity, she became still more markedly recognised as such during the last few years of her pilgrimage, when confined to bed and passing through “the furnace.” The grace of God shone forth in her, and her mind became very lively and exercised in the things that are spiritual and eternal. Afflicted oftentimes with doubts and fears as to her interest in Christ, she was evidently stirred to give diligence
to make her “calling and election sure,” and her earnestness in this respect was a voice to many who visited her bedside. Whoever was at ease in Zion, Mrs. Mackay was not, and she manifestly esteemed everything as loss and dung in comparison with winning Christ and being “found in Him.” As the trial of faith was seen in her, so at last there appeared amid much suffering, the triumph of faith. The words of the wise man were in no small degree exemplified. “The path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day” (Proverbs iv. 18). We subjoin a few notes taken by a friend during her last days.
Our deepest sympathy is extended to three sons (one of them is Mr. John Mackay, missionary, Greenock) and two daughters who survive—especially to the daughter who was in closest attendance upon the deceased—in the great bereavement they have sustained. May the Lord grant a blessing with the dispensation. The minister and congregation at Halkirk have also lost a real help at a throne of grace. “Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord.” J. S. S.
NOTES OF LAST DAYS.
The following are a few of Mrs. Mackay’s sayings during her last illness, which may prove profitable reading to some. Simple they are, but breathing “the spirit of life.”
On one occasion she exclaimed, “O, if I could but see Him and praise Him for His long forbearance to me and tender mercy!” A frequent saying was, “Not unto us, Lord, not unto us, but to Thy great name be the praise.” Once she said this, when suffering much, and it was observed to her, “You still think praise is due unto His name,” when she replied, “Well, the enemy may be deceiving me, but I think that I would seek to praise Him, even if He should cast me off.” Again: “O that He would put that living desire in my soul that will call upon Him day and night. But there are two kinds of calling. There is one kind that is formal, and they do not care whether they find Him or not, and I am afraid of that kind of calling upon Him. Again, she went on repeating, “How great is the goodness thou for them that fear Thee keep’st in store!” when it was remarked, “His goodness is great, it is an ocean of goodness.” “Yes,” she replied, “an ocean without a beginning, and an ocean without an end.” “Look, how great is the Atlantic Ocean” it was then answered, when she said, “I do not often think about the Atlantic Ocean, but I must confess I think often about the ocean Christ.” Suffering great pain in her feet, one in attendance happened to let slip the expression in sympathy, “O these nasty feet of yours!” when she at once replied, “They are not nasty feet; they took me many a step to hear the word of the Lord.” One day she seemed to have a great conflict with the adversary, uttering the third and fourth verses of the 143rd Psalm, “For the
enemy hath pursued my soul,” etc., but on the following morning she began thus, “What shall I render to the Lord for all His gifts to me?”—the storm being evidently changed into a calm. After a visit from two ministers she said, “May the blessed One send His servants to their work, and let them be faithful!” One Sabbath morning, at family worship, she exclaimed, “O sing a new song to the Lord,” and the 98th Psalm, verses 1-3, were sung. When apparently harassed by the enemy, the words were quoted to her: “The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” “A beautiful promise to His covenant people,” she replied. At another time she exclaimed, “One word from Himself is better than a thousand worlds. It is of His goodness, lovingkindness, and tender mercy that I am not cut down, a cumberer of the ground. O who would bear with me as He hath done!”
On the day before she died, she was very weak, but was heard, whispering, “Happy, happy, happy—a happy eternity.” The remark was made to her, “You are weak, but He in whom you trust is strong,” and she answered, “Be strong in the grace that is in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Again, she was heard, whispering, “For ever with the Lord—happy, happy, happy.” Among her very last words were these, with pauses between, “From strength—to strength—to Zion—until they appear before God” (Psalm lxxxiv. 7).
Suipeir an Tighearna: Rivetus.
Teagasg, a chum gu’m bitheadh iadsan le’m b’ail ‘tighinn gu
h-ionchuidh gu bord naomh an Tighearna air an
ullachadh roimh laimh;
LEIS AN URR. ANDREAS RIVETUS.
(Air eadar-theangachadh o’n Laidinn airson a’ cheud uair.)
(Air a leantuin o t. d. 71.)
AN T-AON CAIBIDEIL DEUG (air a leantuin),
A tha mu thimchioll a’ ghraidth, an treas ni sonruichte dh’am
feumar an aire a thoirt anns an ullachadh naomh so.
A CH ceart mar ghradhaich Esan sinn, agus mar thug E
dearbhadh air a ghradh agus air a thogadh ann an rathad
gniomhach, ‘sann mar sin tha an deiscioibuil a b’ ionmhuinn le
Iosa ‘gar n-earalachadh ag radh: “A chlann bheag, na gradhaich-
eamaid ann am focal, no leis an teangaidh; ach ann an gniomh
agus ann an firinn. Le so aithnichidh sinn gu bheil sinn de’n
fhirinn, agus bheir sinn dearbhachd d’ar cridhe ‘n a lathair. Oir
ma dhiteas ar cridhe sinn, is mo Dia na ar cridhe, agus is aithne
dha na h-uile nithean” (1 Eoin iii. 18-20). Cha bhi sinn uime
sin a’ tabhairt riarachaidh do lagh a’ ghraidth ma ‘se as nach bi
sinn ach a’ breugadh ar coimhearsnach le briathraibh tlà is
truacanta; ma ‘se as nach bi sinn ach ag aideachadh a bhi ‘nar
cairdean ann an cainnte a mhain; seadh eadhon ged nach guidheamaid gu h-olc dha, no eadhon ged bu mhaith leinn gu’n tigeadh na h-uile maith d’a ionnsuidh. Feumaidh firinn ar deagh-gheana a bhi air a nochdadh le oidheirpean air maith a dheanamh dh’ar coimhearsnach, le ar n-uile chomasan, agus mar a dh’ fhaodas cothrom a bhi againn. Bithidh mar so coimhlionadh gniomhach a’ leantuin ar geallaidhean, agus bithidh ar geallaidhean, a chaidh a runachadh ann an treibhdhireas ‘san taobh a stigh, an deigh sin a’ briseadh a mach ann an gniomharan a bhitheas d’an reir. Tha e ‘na ni so-dheanta gu’m bitheadh daoine air am mealladh le briathraibh mealltach, ach cha’n’eil am beul ‘na phlasd a dh’ fhoillicheas ni air bith o Dhia. Mu’n tig am facal a mach as ar beul, is aithne Dhasan an d’ eirich e as a chridhe no nach d’ eirich. Tuilleadh fòs ged fhaodadh daoine co-chreutair a mheas airidh air gu’n gabhtadh stigh e a ionnsuidh cuirm graidh, no sithe, gidheadh cha bhi sith aige ann fein agus bithidh a shith an Dia moran ni’s lugha, d’ur tha e air a chron-achadh anns an leth a stigh le Dia agus le a choguis fein.
Is ni iongantach e gu dearbh gu bheil cruas a cho mor a’ fantuinn air moran ann an tighinn a dh’ ionnsuidh a’ bhuidh so, d’ur nach’eil an cridhe a’ leaghadh le teine graidh a tha cho coimhlionta; agus gheibh sinn feadhainn eile a tha ag aideachadh gu bheil eagal De orra agus gidheadh ‘se is roghnaiche leo a’ cumail air falbh o’n chuirm naoimh so (anns am beil Criosd air a cheusadh air a thabbhairt dhuinn airson ar slainte; anns an beil ‘thulangas ro-chruaidh air a chumail a mach fa chomhair ar sula), na gu’n cuireadh iad air falbh air a sgath-san a ‘chuid a’s lugha dhe’n anamiannan. Tha fearg, deigh air dioghaltas, farmad, droch run, agus an leithid sin, ‘gan spionadh air falbh Uaithsan, air choir ‘s nach smuainich iad air fearg Dhe a tha a’ dian-lasadh ann an aghaidh an leithidean sin, ni mo tha eagal orra roimh fhearg Dhe, ach air dhoibh a bhi ‘gan eiridneadh fein tha iad ‘gan toileachadh fein. Tha mi ag aideachadh nach h-ann gun aobhar tha ‘mhuinntir, a tha anns an t-shuidheachadh sin, a’ fantuinn air falbh o’n bhord naomh, ach is ni e a tha a’ nochdadh easbhuidh ceile bronach d’ur ‘sann tha iad, le call mor agus mar muinntir ‘tha aig cosdas mor, a’ leantuin air sasachadh an anamiannan. B’ fhearr dhoibh gu mor gu’m foghlumadh iad Uaith-san a ta macanta agus iriosal ann an cridhe. Ach ma’s ail le muinntir a thigh gu’n chuinn iad E, no gu’m bi aite aca ann a rioghachd, cuimhnicheadh iad faidhdearachd ud Esaias, a thubhairt: “Cha dochainn agus cha sgrios iad, air feadh mo shleibh naoimh-sa gu h-iomlan; oir lionar an talamh le eolas an Tighearna mar a chomhdaicheas na h-uiseachan aigein na fairge” (Esai. xi. 9).
Is i toil Criosd d’an taobhsan a fhuair as an lanachd sin, a dh’ aithnich Dia an deigh Dha aithne a ghabhail orra, dh’an tug Mac Dhe E fein ‘na shaor thiodhlac agus a thug iad fein Da (chum as gu’m bitheadh mar gu’m beadh tabhartas ann taobh air thaobh), agus aig am bheil aobhar airson a bhi smuaineachadh
gu’n aidich Criosd iad mar a chuid fhein—is i toil Chriosd, tha mi ag radh, aige nach’eil feum, E fein, air ar n-obair no air ar maoin, gu’m bitheadh na bochdan a ghnath a lathair againn, chum as ‘nam pearsa-san gu’n tugamaid Dha san—seadh d’ur tha ocras Air gu’n tugamaid Dha biadh, d’ur tha E tartmhor gu’n tugamaid Dha deoch: d’ur tha E ‘na choigrach gu’n tugamaid aoidheadh Dha, d’ur tha E lomnochd gu’n eideamaid E, d’ur tha E euslan gu’n tigeamaid g’a amharc, d’ur tha E ann am priosan gu’n tigeamaid d’a ionnsuidh (Mata xxv. 35).
Agus gu firinneach tha e ‘na ni reusonta d’ur thainig Esan chum ar fuasglaidh a priosan agus a braighdeanais a bha air na h-uile doigh n’a b’uamhasaiche na daorsa na H-Eiphit: d’ur thainig Esan chum gu’n leighisidheadh E sinn o ar galairean basmhor, seadh chum gu’n comhdaicheadh E E fein leinne, gu’m beathaicheadh E sinn le fheoil fein, gu’n sasuicheadh E ar tart le ‘fhuil fein, tha e, tha mi ag radh, ‘na ni reusonta nach deanamaid iadsan a dhearmad ‘tha Dhasan ‘nan cnaimh dhe a chnamhan-san, agus ‘nam feoil dhe a fheoil-san. Do bhrigh uime sin gu’n deachaidh as do na cuirmean agus na feisdean graidh a bha ‘san eaglais o shean, agus sin air son an aobhair so—gur h-ann a thainig an ni a bha air a chur air chois airson maith nam bochd air a thionndaidh gu struidheas na muinntir bheartaich agus gu comhphoiteareachd neo-dhligheach, ionnus ‘s nach do dh’ fhan ni air bith dhe na nithean a bu choir do na h-ainmean briagha ud a bhi a’ ciallachadh; is coir, tha mi ag radh, do na creidmhich, anns na suidhichean a th’ againn a nis, d’ur bhitheas iad air ti ‘tighinn gu cuirm naoimh so an Tighearna, gu’n tionndaidh iad na cuirmean graidh ud gu a bhi a’ nochdadh fialaidheadh do chreutairean bochda, air choir as gu faoidte a radh mu thimchioll gach neach de na h-uidhean (a reir an comais): “Sgaol e, thug e do na bochdaibh; mairidh ‘fhireantachd gu brath; mairidh ‘adharc le h-urram” (Salm cxii. 9).
(Ri leantuin.)
The Loss of the S.S. “Empress of Ireland.”—Alarming occurrences have succeeded one another during recent weeks. On Thursday the 18th June, an unprecedented disaster took place on the Highland Railway a little north of Carrbridge, Inverness-shire, whereby five persons lost their lives and several were injured. There had been heavy downpours of rain, and through a sudden cloudburst, a tremendous spate of water, flowing down a small river or burn, first carried away an ordinary bridge, and then, with the debris, struck a railway bridge, over which, at that very moment, a train was passing in the early afternoon. Two carriages were derailed, and plunged into the flood, with the sad consequences mentioned. The painful event was clearly “the act of God”—no one could have foreseen what took place. At the inquiry one gentleman remarked that the Highland Railway had hitherto a remarkable immunity from accidents—had, in fact, “never killed a passenger.” Praise is due to Divine Providence for this. The Most High is speaking loudly to us at our very doors as to time’s uncertainty, and warning us to seek due preparation. Sudden death means sudden glory to some, but sudden misery to others. “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
Mary at the Sepulchre.
JOHN, CHAPTER XX.
BEFORE the morning light had dawned,
While darkness spread afar,
Sad Mary, with an aching heart,
Drew nigh the Sepulchre.
She found the stone, the great sealed stone,
Had then been rolled away,
An herald now proclaiming there
A resurrection day.
But ah, for her no comfort yet
Did this great sign convey,
The burden of her grief she wailed,
“They’ve taken Him away.”
With sorrow’s burden forth she went
To friends bowed down the same,
And forth in haste a loved one ran,
And to the grave first came.
There stooping down, he looked, and saw,
But did not enter in;
The sepulchre is empty now,
And death hath vanquished been.
But Mary sat, and wept alone,
In sorrow and dismay;
The burden of her sorrow still
“They’ve taken Him away.”
But now the chosen time has come,
And sorrow’s clouds must flee;
She hears the voice of her Beloved
Who died to set her free.
“Touch me not yet,” He said, “but I
Thee to my brethren send;
Go, tell that to my Father God
And yours I do ascend.”
Learn this: Man, stooping down, did eat,
And fell engulfed in sin;
His soul is dark, and empty now;
There is no life within.
No love to God, or to His law,
Doth in the heart remain;
‘Tis all a filthy sepulchre,
Where spiritual death doth reign.
No strength to turn, no power to live,
Hath any of the race;
To raise from bands of death in sin,
‘Tis work of covenant grace.
The ceremonial law is past,
And Judah’s rites are done;
The types and shadows all are gone;
The gospel day has come.
The Prince of life, a conqueror,
Has risen from the grave,
And death and hell He overcame,
His people poor to save.
But now our Nation’s turning from
The paths the fathers trod,
To empty ceremonies of Rome,
Not in the Word of God.
Before the gospel light we lose,
And darkness cover all,
Now early, early, earnestly,
Upon Him let us call.
J. A.