by Rev. Alexander McPherson, Perth
(Notes of a sermon preached at Kinlochbervie Communion, on Monday, 15th May, 1995)
Text: “Thou settest a crown of pure gold on his head,” (Psalm 21: 3)
Some see only King David in this Psalm, but the first seven verses clearly go beyond what David could say of himself. Others think that David is combining what was true of himself with what he knew to be true of Messiah who should descend from him. Or, to put it differently, they think he is making himself a type of Christ. It is better, however, to regard David as writing of Christ by divine inspiration, just as in Psalms 22 and 45.
When Christ ascended to heaven at the close of His redemptive work, the Father crowned Him King of Sion and King of the universe. That was very different from what men did to Christ while He was in this world. Some of them also thought in terms of crowning Him, but not in the way described here. Our text suggests a contrast between the heavenly coronation and what men did on earth.
First, we shall consider Christ, as He is the King of kings; secondly, how men treated Christ the King; and thirdly, His being crowned by the Father with a crown of glory and honour.
First: Jesus Christ, as He is the King of kings.
Our word “king” comes from the Old German, and what it signifies (and what its equivalents in different languages signify) is the sovereign ruler of an independent state. People in the same locality need leadership, and in one way or another obtain leaders. In due course, leadership developed into kingship; and a king performed the functions of ruler, lawgiver, judge and commander. There were kings as early as Abraham’s day, and later, when God made Israel a nation, He, Himself, was their King; Israel was meant to be a theocracy. But later, in rejecting Samuel as their governor, they in fact were rejecting God, their heavenly King; as is clear from what God said to Samuel: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them,” (1Sam. 8:7), and were not happy until they had a king similar to those ruling other nations. Saul became their king, and he acted as it was predicted he would, (1 Sam.8:10-18). In due time David replaced Saul; then David was succeeded by Solomon, and many more after that. None of them possessed kingly qualities in perfection, nor ruled perfectly. That was to be expected, for
even the best of them were sinful men.
Yet, God promised His Israel, the true Israel, a perfect King. The Spirit of the Lord spoke by David: “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me, he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain,” (2 Sam 23: 3, 4). Isaiah also spoke of the perfect King who should come: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgement and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this,” (Isaiah 9:6,7).
In the fulness of time the perfect King came. He demonstrated His possession of every kingly quality: goodness (unparalleled benevolence), truth, righteousness, integrity, wisdom, moral purity, power and valour. Happy the people with such a King. He was as promised: “a leader and commander to the people,” (Isaiah 55:4).
Secondly: How men treated the King
John, in his Gospel, sums up the treatment given to the Saviour; “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” Let us now consider particular instances of men’s rejection of Christ which have in common this feature: that Christ was thought of as some sort of king, and a crown of sorts was given to Him.
Take, first, the case of Herod, ruling Israel by permission of the Romans, and alarmed to hear of another Person who was “born King of the Jews”. Pretending to wish to worship this king, he plans to kill Him. The crown Herod is thinking of is a promised crown, but he has no intention of keeping the promise.
In Herod we may see a portrait of fallen man managing his own affairs, as he thinks, and resenting Christ’s command, “Give me thine heart.” The sinner’s response is, “I will not have this man to reign over me.” The “Jerusalem” sinner, professing as he does to believe the Bible, conceals his animosity behind actions which appear to credit Christ with being a King, and which imply promises to crown Him. The promise is never kept. Too many who have lived under the Gospel die still promising to crown Christ. As with Herod, their’s is only a promised crown.
Next, consider Satan’s case in connection with his tempting Christ. Read it in Luke 4:5-7. The devil shows Jesus all the kingdoms of this world and offers kingship to the Saviour on condition that He worship him. Fallen man’s spiritual kinship with the devil shows in a similar strain of bargaining. They will agree to Christ being King if they be allowed to associate his kingdom with all worldliness, and themselves, the subjects, to continue in their worldliness. There must be no insistence, for instance, on a new birth.
You ask perhaps, Who do this? The answer is, Multitudes who allow a little Christianity in their lives, but always in a corrupted, carnal, worldly form. They are quite at home at funerals where the spiritually dead bury their dead: at memorial services where the deceased persons, who in their lives gave no sign of saving grace, are lauded for their works: and at worship (so-called) which is neither in spirit nor in truth. What it amounts to is offering Christ a papier maché crown.
What now about the Jewish people as they appear in John 6, verse 15? “When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.” These were men ready to crown Jesus because he was able to preserve them from want and suffering, bless them with temporal blessings, and exalt them, as a nation, far higher than in David’s or Solomon’s time.
This is the Christ of the Social Gospel and its more radical successor, the Gospel of Liberation. The crown proposed is no better than one that any earthly king would wear: an ordinary gold crown.
Pilate’s attitude must also be considered. “Then Pilate entered into the judgement hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him. Art thou the King of the Jews?… Art thou a king then?… Will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews” (John 18:33-39). Pilate recognised that Jesus of Nazareth was a king, but from fear of the chief Jews ordered Him to be crucified.
Similarly, many are impressed by Christ’s claims, but the fear of man prevents them from submitting to His claims and admitting Him to reign in their hearts. Washing his hands and putting up a notice on the Cross did not absolve Pilate from guilt. Nor will any religious acts short of faith, repentance, love and obedience clear a churchgoer of the sin of rejecting Christ. A crown of words is useless, even insulting.
Lastly, we can think of the soldiers at the cross. They mocked Him with a purple robe, a crown of thorns and a reed sceptre (Mark 15:15-20).
The only recognition some give to Christ is to mock Him; and on suitable
occasions, they deride and revile. Infidels, whether they call themselves humanists, secularists, agnostics or just plain atheists, are today a great army openly ranged against God and his Christ and saying:
“Let us asunder break their bands,
and cast their cords from us,” (Ps 2:3).
This is fallen man casting away all pretences and appearing evil and unrestrained in contempt of his Maker, crowning Him with thorns. Sin in its naked wickedness appears in the mocking of the blessed curse-bearer, Jesus Christ, who willingly subjected Himself to being made a curse for His people. “How shall we escape?” How shall we escape if we crown Him with such a crown of thorns?
These things men did, and do, to the King of glory.
Thirdly: The contrast of His being crowned by the Father with a crown of glory and honour.
“Thou settest a crown of pure gold on his head.” What men failed to do, God the Father has done. Men were blinded by spiritual ignorance and hatred, and did not perceive Christ’s glory as the Son of God, perfect man, and loving, efficient Mediator. God the Father, who had given His Son to be a ransom for elect sinners, viewed His life on earth with approval and testified this three times. Therefore, when Christ had finished His redemptive work, His Father received Him into heaven as One worthy of infinite honour: “Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows” (Heb 1:9). And God sealed His Son’s fitness to be King of Kings by setting a crown of pure gold on His head.
The act of crowning denotes several things.
It denotes royal nature. Among men royal nature means royal descent, good breeding, appropriate education and training. But applied to Christ, it means deity. Thus God said to Him, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.” Royal nature in this case means also, a Man who is God – “Thou art fairer than the children of men” (Psl 45:2).
Crowning also denotes glorious conquest. Not with an armed host, but by personal endeavour, Christ defeated Satan, won His kingdom, and overcame all opposition. “By himself he purged our sins” (Heb 1:3); “And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it” (Col 2:15).
Imperial power is also denoted. Christ has sovereign rule over the universe: “God has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above
every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9-11).
Lastly, crowning denotes divine government. Apart from Isaiah 9:6,7, “Unto us a child is born…, ” quoted earlier, there is much else that tells of the ongoing reign of Christ. For example, there is the passage in Isaiah 11:1-9, “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse…;” and also the majestic description in Psalm 72.
There is significance too in the statement that Christ’s crown is of pure gold. It images for us the moral purity of the Person and all connected with Him. His people are destined to be holy; His administration is marked by a holiness that avenges the defiling of His visible church – something to be considered in view of its present worldly condition and those who have caused that. And Christ’s Kingdom when it is finished and full will be marked by this, “There shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth” (Revelation 21:27).
The purity of the crown also suggests its solidity and enduring nature: that His kingdom is a kingdom that cannot be moved, a kingdom supported by an eternal decree. “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion” (Psalm 2:6). “His name shall endure for ever: His name shall be continued as long as the sun: men shall be blessed in Him; all nations shall call Him blessed” (Psalm 72:17).
Finally, we can, or rather we must think of the pure gold as signifying glory. The Saviour is emphatically designated, “the King of glory”, in Psalm 24. There, we also read, “Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory.” There is no King like this. We are all to meet Him either as rebels or loving subjects. Before we sing the concluding verses of Psalm 72, may grace be given to us to think of that momentous meeting as Samuel Rutherford did:
“They’ve summoned me before them,
But there I may not come,
My Lord says, ‘Come up hither,’
My Lord says, ‘Welcome home,’
My kingly King, at His white throne,
My presence doth command,
Where glory, glory dwelleth,
In Immanuel’s land.”
Lecture on the Sabbath
Rev. Neil Cameron
(Delivered in Glasgow in 1926)
Continued from the December issue in which the second head of the lecture was dealt with, that is: II. Those who are commanded to keep the Sabbath holy, (1) The father of the family, (2) The magistrates of our cities and towns, (3) Kings, their counsellors, and both houses of Parliament. The remainder of the lecture, in abridged form, is now given.
(4) The Fourth Commandment is more binding in the religious sphere, if that be possible, than in the temporal. The church of Christ has obligations relative to the Sabbath. The records of the church in the past prove that the true servants of Christ saw their responsibility in this matter. Kirk Sessions, for example, are bound to keep the Sabbath Day holy within their gates, that is, in their congregations. They are not to admit to church privileges any who are employed in doing any work, save works of necessity or mercy, on God’s holy day. People are not to use the argument that they are compelled to work on the Lord’s Day lest they lose that work; nor are they to think that the guilt of doing such work falls on the employer but not on them.
Works of necessity and mercy on the Lord’s Day are such as these: to attend to the sick; to feed people, or beasts that are hand-fed; and to attend the outward and ordinary means of grace as enjoined by the words, “Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together.” Another work of necessity is navigating a ship at sea, providing the vessel did not sail from port on the Sabbath and that no unnecessary work is done on board on the Lord’s Day. Policing a city or town on Sabbath is necessary, as otherwise life and property would not be safe.
The running of trains, street cars [tramcars] and buses on the Lord’s Day for monetary gain is a violation of the Fourth Commandment. Such as travel by these on the Lord’s Day ought not to receive Church privileges from our Kirk-Sessions. Since 1896 there has been a resolution on the records of the Kirk-Session of this congregation, to the effect that no one who worked, or travelled by street cars or trains on the Lord’s Day would receive Church privileges. This has been adhered to ever since. If it should be relaxed now, as some demand (none of them in St. Jude’s, I am thankful to say) I am convinced that it would appear to our people as backsliding by the Church. The Synod’s finding on the subject shows that this is the unanimous judgment of our ministers in Scotland, and of our office-bearers and people. Consequently, it is the duty of our Kirk-Sessions to see to it that no one who works unnecessarily on the Lord’s Day, or who travels on Sabbath by trains
or buses, shall receive baptism or the Lord’s Supper from them.
Some use sophistry such as this: That they themselves would not work, or travel by trains or buses on the Lord’s Day, but that the Church should not debar from church privileges such as would use them. God’s Word says that we must not suffer sin on our neighbour. The real meaning of such an argument is that the Church should allow their people to do that which these sophists feel to be sin in their own conscience. If this be not so, why do they say that they would not do it themselves? Such arguments are devoid of any real force in face of the Fourth Commandment and integrity of conscience.
If any Kirk-Session should allow their people to travel by trains or buses to church or other places on the Lord’s Day and extend to them the privileges of the Church, the Presbytery is bound to restrain it. It has full powers to bring such a Session to account and to deal with it in accordance with the law of the Church. Anyone who may feel aggrieved by the decision of Kirk-Session or Presbytery can appeal to the Synod for final decision. This is as it should be, in order to deal justly, in accordance with God’s Word and the law of the Church, in every case.
Transgressions of the Fourth Commandment are not to be connived at. A very determined effort is being made to sweep away barriers raised against Sabbath desecration by our Synod. Those barriers were raised in accordance with the clear requirements of the Fourth Commandment and the creed and constitution we have bound ourselves, by the most solemn vows, to maintain. The statements of the Confession of Faith are as follows: “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 preparation of their hearts, and ordering of 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,” (Confession of Faith 21:7,8).
The thin end of a wedge is being driven into the Free Presbyterian Church so as to split it on this question. Those who are determined to have the laxity
they demand, can easily find churches in Scotland or elsewhere in which they may have it to their heart’s content.
Thirdly, let us consider briefly the punishment which follows the sin of Sabbath desecration.
The Jews were guilty of Sabbath desecration as well as contempt of God’s prophets, and defiling God’s house. The reason why God destroyed many of them by sword, famine, and pestilence, and sent others of them to Babylon for seventy years, is thus recorded: “Moreover, all the chief priests and all the people transgressed very much, after all the abominations of the heathen, and polluted the house of the Lord which He had hallowed in Jerusalem. And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by His messengers, rising up betimes and sending; because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling-place: but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His word, and misused His prophets until the wrath of God arose against His people, till there was no remedy. Therefore, He brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age; He gave them all into his hand. . . To fulfil the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths; for as long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years,” (2 Chron 36:14-21).
We are guilty as a people, in what used to be called Sabbath-loving Scotland but may now be called Sabbath-hating Scotland, of these very sins charged against the Jews. Let us take serious notice of the fact that these things are written for our admonition. We have to deal with the same holy and just God, who is unchangeable in His hatred to sin, and who will not connive at the sin in us for which He punished others so severely. The desecration of the Sabbath was a sin of the first magnitude in His estimation; for the land itself had to get rest from the desecrating feet of old and young during seventy years.
Therefore, let us beware lest our Sabbath desecration bring down the wrath of God upon us as a country: and let Free Presbyterians take to heart that God will not connive at sin in them in the day of judgment. God will take away the gospel and the Sabbath from us unless timely repentance prevent such a terrible judgement.
“If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour Him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the
Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it,” (Isaiah 58:13).
Particular Redemption
Rev Donald Beaton
This article is the penultimate part of the section on particular redemption extracted from Mr Beaton’s book The Reformed Faith; and is continued from the last issue.
(c) Baxterianism. Before dealing with Baxter’s views of the extent of redemption, some reference must be made to the views held by Davenant and Ussher. Both were eminent divines. John Davenant was one of the five English deputies at the Synod of Dort. In his Dissertation on the Death of Christ he advances certain propositions, in the second of which he says: “The death of Christ is the universal cause of the salvation of mankind; and Christ Himself is acknowledged to have died for all men sufficiently, not by reason of the mere sufficiency, or of the intrinsic value, according to which the death of God is a price more than sufficient for redeeming a thousand worlds, but by reason of the evangelical covenant confirmed with the whole human race through the merit of this death, and of the divine ordination depending upon it.” In his third proposition he says: “The death or passion of Christ, as the universal cause of the salvation of mankind, hath, by the act of its oblation, so far rendered God the Father pacified and reconciled to the human race.”
Archbishop Ussher, who had a principal hand in drawing up the Irish Articles of 1615, and one of the great theologians of the seventeenth century, in answer1 to the request of a friend, gave expression to his views concerning the extent of redemption. Ussher’s views were practically those of Davenant. The Westminster Assembly included a number of members who were supporters of Davenant’s opinions, among them Edmund Calamy2, who avowed in one of the debates that he maintained in the same sense as the English divines at the Synod of Dort “that Christ by His death did pay a price for all; with absolute intention for the elect, with conditional intention for the reprobate in case they do believe . . .; that Jesus did not only die sufficiently
1The judgement of the late Archbishop of Armagh . . . on the extent of Christ’s death.
2Minister of St Mary’s, Aldermanbury, London.
for all, but God did intend, in giving of Christ, and Christ in giving Himself did intend, to put all men in a state of salvation in case they do believe” (Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, p 152). The subject caused considerable debate in the Assembly; Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie took a prominent part in opposing Calamy’s view. Finally it was agreed: “Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called into faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only” (Confession of Faith 3:6).
Dr Mitchell, in his Introduction to the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly (p56) remarks: “Though at first sight it may not seem easy to reconcile the opinions of these divines with the language of the sixth section of this chapter (3) of the Confession, it would be rash for me to say it is impossible.” This difficulty of Dr Mitchell’s probably arose from an interpretation put upon certain words in the section which has been dealt with by Dr Cunningham. Does the word redeemed describe only the purchase or procurement (impetration is the word usually used by the theologians), or does it comprehend the application as well? In Dr Cunningham’s opinion, it seems quite clear that it is descriptive of the purchase of pardon and reconciliation because there is an enumeration of all the leading steps in the great process originating in God’s eternal election of some men, and terminating in their complete salvation (Historical Theology, vol 2, p 327). It has further been argued, Dr Cunningham points out, that in the Confessional statement, “Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only,” the latter words, the elect only, apply to the preceding predicates (redeemed, called, justified) collectively. If so, it is the statement of a mere truism, serving no purpose, and giving no deliverance upon anything. The Confessional doctrine, therefore, must be regarded “as teaching that it is not true of any but the elect only that they are redeemed by Christ, any more than it is true that any others are called, justified or saved” (Ibid, vol 2, p 328). It may be pointed out here that the word redemption, as used in the Westminster period, referred to the procurement of salvation and did not include its application. It is in this sense that Baxter uses the word in the title of his book, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ. Whatever efforts may have been made to give an interpretation to chapter 3, section 6, of the
Confession favourable to the views held by the followers of Davenant and Ussher, there can be no doubt that the teaching of chapter 8, section 8, leaves no loophole for this teaching: “To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption He doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same”. This statement, as Dr Cunningham truly says, contains and was intended to contain the true state of the question in the controversy about the extent of the atonement (Ibid, vol 2, p 329). When The Larger Catechism was being drawn up, the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly (p 369) indicate that the Davenant school of divines in the Assembly made another attempt to obtain sanction for their views. A committee brought up for discussion the following questions and answers: “Question: Do all men equally partake of the benefits of Christ? Answer: Although from Christ some common favours redound to all mankind, and some special privileges to the visible Church, yet none partake of the principal benefits of His mediation, but only such as are members of the Church invisible. Question: What common favours redound from Christ to all mankind? Answer: Besides much forbearance and many supplies for this life, which all mankind receive from Christ, the Lord of all, they by Him are made capable of having salvation tendered to them by the gospel, and are under such dispensations of Providence and operations of the Spirit as lead to repentance.” The final form of the questions and answers on the above subject is set forth as follows in Questions and Answers 61 and 63 of The Larger Catechism: “Question 61: Are all they saved who hear the gospel and live in the Church? Answer: All that hear the gospel and live in the visible Church are not saved; but they only who are true members of the Church invisible.” “Question 63: What are the special privileges of the visible Church? Answer: The visible Church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying that whosoever believes in Him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come to Him.”
In his Confession, Baxter, while expressing admiration for the Westminster Divines and their work, will only accept chapter 3, section 6, and chapter 8, section 8, if the redemption referred to in these sections is “not of all redemption and particularly not of the mere bearing the punishment of man’s sins, and satisfying God’s justice; but of that special redemption proper to the elect, which was accompanied with an intention of
actual application of the saving benefits in time. If I may not be allowed this interpretation, I must herein dissent . . . I hope it was never the mind of that reverend Assembly to have shut out such men as Bishop Ussher, Davenant, Hall, Dr Preston, Dr Staughton, Mr William Fenner, Dr Ward, and many more excellent English divines as ever this Church enjoyed, who were all for general redemption.” Baxter’s position on the extent of redemption is thus stated by an admirer: “That the number of the finally saved, who will be at the right hand of Christ in the Last Day is foreknown, and therefore fixed, is indisputable; and that Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man, and for the sins not of the elect only, but also for the sins of the whole world, and that the call to accept His salvation is sincerely addressed to all men, are equally indisputable” (Works of the Puritan Divines: Baxter, p 53).
His controversy with Dr Owen, the prince of the Puritan theologians, began in connection with the latter’s great work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Works, vol 10). In his Aphorisms on Justification, Baxter took exception to, among other things, Owen’s teaching on a definite redemption. Owen answered him in what may be termed an appendix to his Death of Death in his work, Of the Death of Christ. It is remarkable that while he joins issue with Owen for his doctrine of a definite redemption, he declares: “In the article on the extent of redemption, wherein I am most suspected and accused, I do subscribe to the Synod of Dort, without any exception, limitation, or exposition of any word as doubtful and obscure.” This, to say the least of it, seems strange. In an appendix to his Vindiciae Evangelicae, Dr. Owen returns to Baxter’s criticisms in his Confession of Faith (1655). Baxter’s final reply was appended to a work which he published against Blacke, entitled Certain Disputations of Right to the Sacraments and the True Nature of Visible Christianity (1656)3. While Baxter’s views on the extent of the atonement are to be condemned, it is only fair to say, as Dr Smeaton has pointed out (The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement, p. 542), that he was not an Amyraldian.
To be concluded
Dornoch Induction:
The Induction of Rev. D. J. Macdonald, MA, to the pastoral charge of Tain, Dornoch, Lairg and Bonar Congregation will take place, DV, on Friday, 29th March, at 7 pm in Dornoch FP Church at Evelex, Dornoch.
3The controversy provoked a large number of books and pamphlets which are now forgotten.
Lessons from the Baptism of Jesus
“Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased,” Luke 3:21,22.
We see in the above passage, the high honour the Lord Jesus has put on baptism. We find that among others who came to John the Baptist, the Saviour of the world came, and was “baptized”.
An ordinance which the Son of God was pleased to use, and afterwards to appoint for the use of His whole Church, ought always to be held in peculiar reverence by His people. Baptism cannot be a thing of slight importance, if Christ Himself was baptized. The use of baptism would never have been enjoined on the Church of Christ, if it had been a mere outward form, incapable of conveying any blessing.
It is hardly necessary to say that errors of every sort and description abound on the subject of baptism. Some make an idol of it, and exalt it far above the place assigned to it in the Bible. Some degrade it and dishonour it, and seem almost to forget that it was ordained by Christ Himself. Some limit the use of it so narrowly that they will baptize none unless they are grown up, and can give full proof of their conversion. Some invest the baptismal water with such magic power, that they would like missionaries to go into heathen lands and baptize all persons, old and young indiscriminately, and believe that however ignorant the heathen may be, baptism must do them good. On no subject, perhaps, in religion, have Christians more need to pray for a right judgement and a sound mind.
Let it suffice us to hold firmly the general principle, that baptism was graciously intended by our Lord to be a help to His Church, and “a means of grace”, and that when rightly and worthily used, we may confidently look upon it for a blessing. But let us never forget that the grace of God is not tied to any sacrament, and that we may be baptized with water, without being baptized with the Holy Ghost.
We see, secondly, in this passage, the close connection that ought to exist between the administration of baptism and prayer. We are specially told by Luke, that when our Lord was baptized He was also “praying”.
We need not doubt that there is a great lesson in this fact, and one that the Church of Christ has too much overlooked. We are meant to learn that the
Continued on page 82