Searmoin VII.
Lucas, vii. Caib., 42 Rann.
“ Agus do bhrigh nach robh aca ni leis an dioladh iad, Iomis dhomhsa, uime sin, co dhiubh is mo a ghràdhaicheas e?”
(Air a leantuin o t.-d. 68.)
- Ged tha maitheanas peacaidh a sruthadh o shaor ghràs, gidheadh bha e air a cheannach air son dhaoine taghta Dhè, le feartaibh fola Chriosd. Tha so air a theag-asg dhuinn ann an iomad earrann do na sgrìobtuirbh, agus gu soilleir anns na ‘briathraibh a leanas:—“ Anns am bheil againn saorsa tre fhuil-san, maitheanas nam peacadh, a reir saoibhreis a ghràis.” “ Agus glanaidh fùil Iosa Criosd a Mhic, sinne o gach uile pheacadh.” Co air son an d’ fhuiling Criosd bàs maslach a chroinn-cheusaidh? Tha e ‘na ni cinnteach nach d’ fhuiling e air son aon lochd a rinn e féin a riabh; oir “ cha d’ rinn e peacaidh, agus cha d’ fhuaradh ceilg ‘na bheul.” Thainig e dh’ ionnsuidh an t-saoghail saor o pheacadh, agus bhuan-aich e naomha, neo-lochdach, agus dealaichte o pheacadh fad aimsir a chuairt air an ‘talamh; cha robh e riabh ciontach ann an aon ni a bha toillteanach air pheanas, agus uime sin, cha ‘n fheudadh a fulang air a shon féin. Tha e ‘na ni cinnteach, mar an ceudna, nach d’ fhuiling e air son nan daoine aingidh, a tha fulang pheanas toillteanach am peacainna féin ann an ifrinn; oir cha bhiodh e còrdadh ri fior cheartas gu ‘m fuilingeadh Criosd an toiseach air son am peacainna, agus gu ‘m biodh iad féin a ris a fulang tre bhith-bhuaintachd air son nam peacanna ceudna. Uime sin, tha barantas againn a chreidsinn, gu ‘n d’ fhuiling e air son nan daoine taghta, agus air an son-san a mhain. “ Ghràdhaich Criosd an eaglais, agus thug se e féin air a son.”
Tha pobull taghta Dhè ‘nam peacaich a thaobh nadur, co maith ri muinntir eile,—tha ‘m peacainn toillteanach air pheanas co maith ri peacanna muinntir eile, agus tha ceartas Dé ag iarraidh gu ‘m biodh iad air an smachdachadh air an son, co maith ri muinntir eile. Ach ged tha ceartas Dé an tòir orra, agus ag iarraidh an smachdachadh, gidheadh ghràdhaich Criosd iad, agus thug se e féin air an son, chum an saoradh o chionta, agus o pheanas. Ach ged tha sluagh Dhè air an saoradh o pheacadh agus o pheanas, gidheadh, cha ‘n ‘eil éa-coir sam bith air a
dheanamh air ceartas, oir fhuair ceartas Dé lán dioladh air son am peacanna anns an iobairt uil-fhoghainteach a thug Criosd suas air a chrann-chéusaiddh. Phaidhidh Criosd am fachan uile gus an fheòirling dheireannach, an uair a thug se e féin mar éiric air am son. Uime sin, tha e soilleir gu bheil tròcair agus ceartas air am foillseachadh, air an glòrachadh, agus a deanamh gairdeachas te cheile, ann am maitheanas peacaiddh. Tha maitheanas peacaiddh air a thairgse gu saor do dhaoinibh, ach chosd e gu daor do Criosd;—bha e air a cheannach, cha b’ ann le nithibh truailidh, mar a ta airgiod agus òr, ach le fuil an Uain, a thug e féin suas mar iobairt gun smal do Dhia. Dhoirt Criosd fhuil air son maitheanas peacanna mhòrain.
- Tha ‘m maitheanas peacaiddh a cheannaich Criosd air son a phobuill le luach co mòr, air a chompaireachadh riu-san gu saor. Tha ‘n Tighearn Iosa Criosd a maith-eadh peacanna dhaoin, co saor ‘s a leigheas e eucailean dhaoin, ‘n uair a bha e air thalamh. Ann an staid irios-lachaidh, agus gu h-àraidh an deigh dha inntrig air a mhinnistreileachd fhollaiseach, bha e ghnàth dol mu ‘n cuairt a deanamh maith, a searmonachadh an t-soisgeil, ag oibreachadh miorbhuilean, agus a leigheas gach eucail a measc an t-sluaigh; ach cha d’ oibrich e riamh aon mhiorbhuil air son airgiod, agus cha do leigheas e riamh aon eucail air son duais. Chosd a bhean air an robh an dòrtadh fola, na bha aice ag iarraidh leigheis o leighibh eile, agus cha b’ fheairrd i e bheag, ach gu ‘m bu mhisd. Ach co luath ‘s a thainig i dh’ ionnsuidh Chriosd, ‘s a bhean i ri iomall eudaich, bha i air a leigheas gun chosd, gun fhulangas, gun airgiod, agus gun luach. Tha e soilleir nach robh Criosd fo chomain sam bith do ‘n mhuinntar a rinn e leigheas, air sgàth deadh obair sam bith a rinn iad, na subhaile air bith a bha annta, thar muinntir eile. Ciod na deadh oibre a rinn an duine anns an robh an leigion do dheadhain, mu ‘n robh e air a leigheas? Ciod na subhailean a bh’ anns na deich lobhair a bha air an glanadh, an uair nach do phill ach aon as an deich, a thoirt glòir do Dhia? Cha b’ ann air sgàth gniomh an làmh, na subhailean an cridhe, na comain sam bith a bha aca air Criosd, a bha e leigheas eucailean dhaoin, ach a thaibseanadh maitheas neo-chriochnach a chridhe féin, agus saoibhreas a ghràis.
‘S ann air am doigh cheudna, mar shaor thiodhlac, a tha ‘n Tighearn Iosa Criosd a toirt maitheanas peacaiddh do ‘n iomlan d’ a phobull. Tha e ‘na ni cinnteach nach robh e fo chomain air bith do ‘n bhana-pheacach a nigh a chosan le a déuraibh, ni bu mho na do ‘n Phairseach a thug
cuireadh dha chum bidh. Bha iad le cheile ‘nam peac-
aich aig nach robh ni sam bith leis an dioladh iad; gidh-
eadh, bha eadar-dhealachadh mòr eadar fonn an cridhe;
—bha ‘m Phairiseach glan ‘na shùilean féin, ach bha
bhana-peacach so ciontach, gràineil, agus neo-airidh ‘na shealladh féin; bha esan saoibhir, agus gun uireasbhuidh
ni sam bith air; ach bha ise bochd agus lomnochd, gun
ni sam bith aice. Agus do bhrigh nach robh ni sam bith
aice leis am feudadh i dioladh a dheanamh, mhaith Criosd
a fachan gu saor; seadh, chuir e ‘n céill gu follaiseach, an làthair na bha mu thimchioll, gu robh a peacanna a
bha lionmhor air a’ maitheadh dh’ i. Ann am meadhoir a
tùirsge, agus a déuraibh, labhair e sìth r’ a h-anam, agus
chuir e air falbh i le comhfhurtachd na tròcair a fhuair i,
ag ràdh,—“Shlànruich do chreidimh thu, imich ann am
sìth.”
- Tha ‘m maitheanas peacaidh a tha Dia a tabhairt
d’ a phobull, a filleadh ann an eu-ceartan uile;—tha ‘m peacann’ uile air an dubhadh a mach a leabhar cuimhne
Dhè. Tha pobull Dhé anns an t-saoghal, so ciontach ann
an iomad seorsa do pheacaibh,—tha iad ciontach ann am
peacadh gin agus gniomh, ann am peacaidh dearmaid agus
deanadais:—seadh, tha iad a briseadh aitheant an Dhé
gach là, le smuaintibh, focal, agus’ gniomh. Tha ‘m peac-
anna ro lionmhor, ni ‘s lionmhoire na folt an cinn; ach
ciod air bith co lionmhor, co gràineil, na co antrom ‘s a
ta iad, tha ‘n t-iomlan diubh air an glanadh as trid feart-
aibh fola Chriosd, chor ‘s nach éirich iad am feasd ann am
breitheanas ‘nan aghaidh. Ann an là mòr a chunntais,
“ iarrar aingidheachd Israeil, agus cha bhi i ann, agus lochdan Iudah, ach cha bhi iad r’ am faotainn,” do bhrigh
gu robh an t-iomlan diubh air an glanadh as, an uair a
phill Israeil le flor aithreachas a dh’ ionnsuidh an Tigh-
earna. Pillidh e ris,” a deir am fàidh Micah, “ agus
gabhaidh e truas dinn; agus comhdaichidh e ar n-eas-aont-
as, agus tilgidh e ar n-uile lochdan ann an doimhneachd-
aibh na fairge.”
Tha uile oibre Dhé diongmhalta agus foirfe, cha ‘n eil
e fágail obair sam bith leth dheanta; ach nam biodh cuid
do pheacann’ a phobuill air a’ maitheadh, agus cuid eile
air am fágail gun mhaitheadh, cha bhiodh anns a mhaitn-
eanas so ach leth obair, na obair leth dheanta, agus cha
bhiodh e chum glòir Dhè, no buanaichd do anamaibh neo-
bhasmhor dhaoinne. Ma tha aon pheacadh a mhain air
fhágail gun a mhaitheadh, tha ‘n t-anam fathasd air fhág-
ail fo chionta ‘pheacaidh sin, agus mar chreutair ciontach,
buailteach do thraigh shiorruidh. Cha d’ fhag Criosd
obair féin,—obair na saorsa,—leth dheanta;—rinn e na
h-uile nithe gu ro mhaith,—choimhlion e, dh’ árdaich e, agus chuir e onoir air an lagh,—thug e dioladh do cheart-as, phaidhidh e fachan a phobuill, agus cheannaich e saorsa shiorruidh air an son. A nis, do bhrigh gu ‘n do cheannaich Criosef mar urras, saorsa iomlán air son a dhaoine taghta féin, tha lagh is ceartas, agus Dia cothromach na glóir mar an ceudnla, ag iarraidh gu ‘m faigh-eadh iadsam buanachd na saorsa so, no ann am briath-raibh eile, saor mhaithheanas nan uile pheacanna. Tha e soilleir o na briathraibh a labhair Criosef ri Simón am Phairiseach, mu ‘n a bhana-pheacach air am bheil cunntas againn anns a cho-theagasg, gu robh a cheart thrdcair so air a deónachadh dhise. “A ta mi ‘g radh ruit,” arsa Criosef, “gu bheil a peacann’ a ta lionmhor, air a’ maith-eadh; air an aobhar sin, ghrádhaich i gu mór.” Thug i mach gun dàil, toradh iomchuidh a chreidimh agus an aithreachais.
III. Tha mi nis gu bhi labhairt air an treas ceann tea-gaisg, le bhi ‘g ainmeachadh cuid do ‘n toradh a tha lean-tuinn fior aithreachas agus maithheanas peacaidh; agus bheir mi oidhirp air so a dheanamh, le bhi toirt fa ‘near an doigh anns an robh an toradh so air fhoillseachadh, ann an cleachdann na ban-iompachain, air am bheil cunntas againn anns an earrann so do fhoical an Tighearna.
- Anns a cheud àite, tha irioslaichd, agus brón diadh-aidh, ‘nan toradh a tha leantuinn fior aithreachas. Bha ‘n toradh so gu soilleir air fhoillseachadh ann an cleachd-ainn na ban-iompachain so; bha a brón mór, bha a déur-ibh pailt, agus bha i mar an ceudna air a sgeudachadh le h-irioslaichd. Ciod air bith cho cruaidh ‘sa bha cridhe, na co faoin ‘s a bha h-inntinn ‘s an àm a bha seachad, rinn gràs an aithreachais a fàgail stuama, tiom-chridheach, agus iriosal. Fhuair i nis an cridhe briste agus brùite, tha na iobairt thaitneach do ‘n Tighearna. Tha ‘n caoch-ladh ceudna, ann an tomhas èigin, air a dheanamh anns gach neach a tha air fhiosrachadh le fior aithreachas:—tha ‘n t-uaibbreach air fhéin-fhalmhachadh, air irioslaich-adh, agus air a thoirt a dh’ ionnsuidh an dùslaich; tha ‘n cridhe cruaidh air a mhaothachadh, air a thaiseachadh, agus a leaghadh ann am brón diadhaidh:—tha ‘m peac-ach aig nach robh aird air ni sam bith ach nithe talmhaidh, a pilleadh a dh’ ionnsuidh Dhé le spiorad leibinte, agus ag iarraidh slainte d’ a anam mar an t-aon ni feumail. ‘S ann trid aithreachais a tha peacach a pilleadh a dh’ ionn-suid an Tighearna; oir tha iad anns a choitcheomn a toirt an aghaidh air Sion, a gul. Chualas Ephraim a caoidh gu goirt an uair a bha e air a thoirt gu aithreachas; chualas a’ mac struidheach a caoidh gu goirt, agus chualas a
mhuinntir a bha air am bioradh ‘nan cridhe air là na Cuingis a caoidh, mar a chaoideas duine chaill a cheudghin e. Agus ‘s ann mar as soilleire tha tròcair Dhe, agus gràdh Chriosd, air am foillseachadh do ‘n iompachan ann a’ maitheanas peacaidh, as mo tha ghràdh fèin a lasadh, agus a chridhe leaghadh le bròn diadhaidh.
Ach tha tuille as bròn air fhilleadh ann an aithreachas; gidheadh, tha bròn agus irioslachd a ghnàth a dol ‘na chuideachd,—seadh, feudair a ràdh gu bheil bròn diadhaidh a tòiseachadh agus a crìochnachadh le fior aithreachas. Tha uisgeachan a bhròin so a lionadh, agus a traoghadh, a reir mar tha creidimh agus aithreachas ag oibreachadh anns an anam. Ach ged tha deiscioibuil Chriosd uile ‘nam pobull aig am bheil cridhe briste, agus spiorad brùite, agus a tha gu tric ri bròn, gidheadh cha ‘n ‘eil iad air am fàgail gun tomhas sam bith do chomnfhurtachd; oir tha sòlas gu tric air a mheasgadh le ‘m bròn, anns an t-saoghal a ta làthair, agus tha sòlas neomheasgta feitheamh orra uile, anns t-saoghal ri teachd. “Thig iad gu Sion le caithrean, agus aoibhneas siorruidh air an cinn, agus teichibh bròn agus osnaich air falbh.” “Is beannaithe iadsan a ta ri bròn, oir gheibh iad sòlas.”
- Tha miannan spioradail an geall air làthaireachd Chriosd, agus co-chomunn maille ris, ‘n an toradh a tha leantuin aithreachas, agus maitheanas peacaidh. Tha e soilleir gu robh miannan spioradail ag oibreachadh gu h-éifeachdach, ann an cridhe an iompachan air am bheil cunntas againn anns a chaibideil so. Cha ‘n ‘eil ag sam bith, nach fhac agus nach cual i Criosd roimh an àm so: agus tha aobhar a chreidsinn, gur ann fo a theagasg a bha i ‘n toiseach air a dùsgadh, air a toirt gu mothachadh air a cionta, agus gu fior aithreachas. Co luath ‘s a bha i air a ficsrachadh le gràs iompachaidh, bha miannan beo air an dùsgadh, suas ann a cridhe, ‘n geall air tuille eòlas fhaotainn air Chriosd; bha a h-aigndhean a dol a mach ‘na dheigh, agus o’n uair a chual i gu robh e air aoidheachd car tamull, ann an tigh aon d’a coimhearsnaich, rìon na miannan so a brosnachadh, agus a treòrachadh gun dail, a dh’ ionnsuidh an tigh anns an robh Chriosd ‘na shuidh aig biadh. Bha a cridhe tinn le meud a gràidh do Chriosd,—bha i ‘n geall air tuille chluinntinn do na briathraibh gràsmhor a bha sruthadh a bhilibh, agus air tuille do bheothachadh, agus do bhuanachd spioradail fhaotainn d’ a h-anam neo-bhàsmhor. Anis, tha ‘n leithid so do mhiannaibh spioradail ag oibreachadh anns gach fior iompachan o linn gu linn, miannan a tha ‘g an tarruing an deigh Chriosd, mar chuspair an gràidh, mar steidh an dòchais, agus mar thobar an slàinte.
Cofhad’s a tha daoine ‘nan codal gu trom an an ana-moth-achadh, agus neo-chùram mu thimchioll slàinte an anama féin, tha iad neo-shuimeil mu thimchioll Chriosd, tha e mar fheumh a talamh tioram ‘nam beachd, gun mhaise air bith aige gu ‘n iarradh iad e; ach co luath ‘s a tha iad air an dùsgadh as an ana-mhothachadh so, agus air an gairm o dhorchadas gu solus, tha iad a toirt an aghaidh air Criosd gun dàil, agus ga iarradh gu dùrachdach le déuraibh. Agus cha leòir leo bhi ga iarradh, agus ga leantuinnd fad as, far nach fhaic ‘s nach cluinn iad e; ach ‘s e ‘m miann a bhi dlùth dha, a bhi faicinn a ghloir, a mealltuinn a làthaireachd, agus a faotainn gach là as a lánachd gràs air son gràis. Cha dean ainm, na aideachadh, no na sochairean as luachmhoire o ‘n leth a mach, am fior iompachan a thoileachadh, as eugmhais Chriosd: tha ‘n Spiorad ceudna ag oibreachadh ann, a bh’ anns an eaglais o shean, an uair nach do ghabh i tamh na fois ann an dleasdanas sam bith, gus an d’ fhuair i esan d’ an robh gràdh aig a h-anam.
(Ri leantuinnd.)
The Battle for the Word of God.
IN recent issues of “The Presbyterian” (Philadelphia) we have accounts to hand of the momentous proceedings of the General Assembly of the American Presbyterian Church, held at Grand Rapids (Michigan), in May. Attention has already been called to this struggle in our pages. The challenge to the Fundamentalists or Conservatives was made by Dr Harry Fosdick, a professor in Union Seminary, New York, and pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, New York, in his sermon, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” Dr Fosdick is a Baptist and a thorough-going modernist. He was received recently with open arms by many of the preachers in this country, and boomed by some of our leading religious journals, and during the meeting of Synod we saw a queue of people outside Renfield Street U.F. Church (at one time ministered to by Dr Dods) waiting admission to one of his lectures. “The Presbyterian” is joining issues with these revolutionary forces, and as an instance of the seriousness of the situation it instances the case of Prof. Fagnani, a Presbyterian minister, and professor in Union Seminary, and gives the following quotation from his writings:—”Jesus was not a being come down from heaven; but one who attained to heavenly heights. He was not a God who walked on earth, like a man, but a human who walked
with God on earth. He was not a being who died that others might live, but a man who so lived that men need not perish.” It would scarcely be possible to cram into these few lines more rampant, or to use the scriptural word, damnable heresy than has been done by the Professor. With such men sitting in the high places of the schools of theological learning, it is no wonder that those who value the faith once delivered to the saints are alarmed, and feel it their bounden duty to deal with the destructive forces at work. When the Assembly met at Grand Rapids, the Conservatives joined issues with their opponents in putting forward for the moderatorship the name of Dr Clarence E. Macartney, a courageous contender for the truth of the Bible, and who is in the very prime of manhood (being only 45 years). His nomination was moved by the Hon. William J. Bryan, the great lay leader of the Fundamentalists, in a noble utterance. “It was his (Dr Macartney’s) courage,” said Mr Bryan, “that raised the standard of protest about which the Church rallied; it was his leadership that won a decisive victory for evangelical Christianity and historic Presbyterianism. He was the man of the hour, and linked himself with the fundamental tenets of the creed of our Church. His name is a synonym for loyalty to the Bible as the Word of God, and Christ as the only begotten Son of the heavenly Father. His election to the office of chief executive of our militant Church will be accepted as an announcement of the Church’s unshaken adherence to the impregnable rock of the Holy Scriptures. It will be proof that the conservatives, who constitute an overwhelming majority of its ministers, its elders, and its members, have exercised the undeniable right of naming the official head of the organisation, and it will cheer our allies in other churches who, like ourselves, refuse to substitute so-called modern thought for the revealed will of God.” It is significant that the only other name put forward was that of Dr Erdman, who is on the side of the conservatives, but who has “shown a disposition to avoid controversy” in defence of the truth. The result of the vote was the election of Dr Macartney.
“The Presbyterian,” in summing up the gains for the Conservatives or Fundamentalists, enumerates the following 7 points:—(1) The election of Dr Macartney to the moderatorship; (2) the choice of the Hon. William J. Bryan as vice-moderator; (3) the election of Mr Bryan and Dr Mark A. Matthews, Seattle, to the General Council; (4) the defeat of Dr William P. Merrill, New York, a noted Liberal, for re-election to the Board of
Foreign Missions, and the election to this Board of men who are in every way loyal to the Bible and the standards of the Church, such as Dr William L. MacEwan, Pittsburgh; and Dr John F. Carson, Brooklyn, N.Y.; (5) the Assembly’s adoption of a resolution ordering the Foreign Board to withdraw from all participation with Union colleges in foreign fields which teach doctrine contrary to the Confession of Faith; (6) the Assembly’s deliverance directing all seminaries, and professors in seminaries, to see to it that their teachings, whether in class-rooms or in books and publications, shall be in full accord with the Confession of Faith; (7) the declaration of the Assembly that the relation of Fosdick to the Presbyterian Church is an “anomaly.” One of the most unsatisfactory things done at the Assembly was its treatment of the Fosdick case. The Judicial Committee recommended that the New York Presbytery, either through a Committee or the Kirk-Session of the First Presbyterian Church, should approach Dr Fosdick with the view of his accepting the Confession of Faith, to determine whether it is his pleasure to enter the Presbyterian Church. This recommendation was carried at the Assembly. “The Presbyterian” is not speaking too strongly when it says in a leading article, entitled—”A Monstrous Suggestion”—that if it was with a view of getting rid of Dr Fosdick in an indirect way in the belief that he would never accept the Confessional teaching, that this was an action unworthy of a Church of Jesus Christ, and that in view of Dr Fosdick’s well-known opinions, the Presbyterian Church missed a great opportunity to bear witness to the truth as it is in Christ. This criticism meets with our hearty approval, and the editor of “The Presbyterian” carries us with him when he further adds—”The suggestion that the difficulties involved in the situation would be straightened out if Dr Fosdick would become a Presbyterian seems to us nothing short of monstrous.”
The law is that hammer, that fire, that mighty and strong wind, and that terrible earthquake rending the mountains and shivering the rocks. But it behoved that the tempest, the fire, the wind, the earthquake should pass before the Lord should reveal Himself in the still small voice.—Luther.