[LETTER TO MINISTERS.]
Rev. Sir,—On behalf of the Imperial Protestant Federation, with which are united the Scottish Protestant Alliance, the Scottish Reformation Society, the Scottish Women’s Protestant Union, and 47 other Protestant organisations in the United Kingdom and the colonies, may we ask the favour of your attention to the following statement, reported to have been made by the Secretary for Scotland in introducing the Education (Scotland) Bill into the House of Commons on March 28th? He said:—
“The School Boards were given” (by the Bill) “a great many extra powers which were found in practice to be wanting. In particular, they were allowed to help educational institutions within their boundaries, whether they were managed by themselves or not. The Roman Catholics, for example, educated a great many children, and, therefore, he did not shrink from leaving it to School Boards if they chose, on such conditions as they liked, to help out of the rates Roman Catholics and other educational establishments.”
If this provision is allowed to become law, the Protestants of Scotland will be compelled to pay rates for the support of the Roman Catholic religion, and of Ritualism also, in a large number of private venture schools. A reference to the Roman “Catholic Directory for Scotland” will show what a large number of convent and monastic schools may be thus benefited from the rates. It is well known that these schools are frequently used for proselytising purposes. Should the proposals of this Bill become law, there is reason to expect that schools of this class will become far more numerous in expectation of aid from the rates. The rate aid may, said the Secretary for Scotland, be granted to these schools “whether they were managed by themselves or not”—thus surrendering the principle of popular control over rate-aided schools of this class.
The Imperial Protestant Federation ventures respectfully to suggest that every Protestant who objects to being compelled to pay for the propagation of Popery and Ritualism in schools shall at once write to his Member of Parliament, and urge him to vote against such a scheme. It would be helpful also if ministers of the Gospel were to call the attention of their congregations at once to the religious aspect of this important subject, and protest against State or rate aid being granted to Popery and Ritualism.
Trusting that the cause of Protestantism may receive your active support in resisting the endowment of Popery and Ritualism in private venture schools in Scotland,—We are, etc.,
EDWARD H. GARBETT, Secretary.
JAMES W. WAFSH, Organizing Secretary.
3 Palmer Street, Queen Anne’s Gate,
London, S.W., April 8th, 1904.
The Psalms in the Great Religious Struggles.1
By the Rev. DONALD BEATON.
THE place of the Book of Psalms in the lives of the great Reformers is dealt with by Mr. Prothero in the fifth chapter of his book. John Wyclif, the morning star of the Reformation, lay dying at Lutterworth, and his enemies the friars crowded round him asking him to confess the wrongs he had done to their order. The old man asked his servant to raise him from the pillow, and gathering his remaining strength he said, “I shall not die but live” (Ps. cxviii. 17) and declare the evil deeds of the friars.” It was with the words of the 31st Psalm that John Huss died—”Into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” When he reached the place of martyrdom he knelt and repeated the whole of this Psalm. At the same spot little more than a year afterwards Jerome of Prague resigned his soul to his God in the same words as his friend Huss uttered—”Into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” In Knox’s account of George Wishart, one of the most touching pieces that even the graphic pen of Knox ever wrote, we are told that he desired Knox to return to his pupils, adding “One is sufficient for a sacrifice.” That night he spent with the Laird of Ormiston, and after supper the company sang the 51st Psalm in Wedderburn’s version—
“Have mercy on me now, good Lord,
After Thy great mercies;
My sinful life does me remord,
Which sore has grieved me.”
Then he passed to his bed-chamber with the words “God grant quiet rest.” That same night he was seized, carried to St. Andrews, and condemned to be burned. “When he came to the fire,” says Knox, “he sat down upon his knees and rose up again, and thrice he said these words, “O thou Saviour of the world have mercy upon me! Father of Heaven, I commend my spirit into Thy holy hands.” (Ps. xxxi. 6.) It is evident that the Psalms were very precious to those who laid down their lives in confirmation of the truth they professed.
When we come to the men who belong peculiarly to what is known in church history as the Reformation period, such as Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Beza, Zwingli, we find that in their great battles for the truth of God they found strength and comfort in the Psalms. Luther had a great admiration for the Psalms, and in his own characteristic way refers to the second Psalm as the best. “I love that Psalm with all my heart,” he says, “It strikes and flashes valiantly among kings, princes, counsellors, judges, &c. If what this Psalm says be true, then are the allegations and aims of the Papists stark lies and folly. If I were as our Lord God,
1 “The Psalms in Human Life.” By R. E. Prothero. See the Magazine for last month.
and had committed the government to my son, as He to His Son, and these vile people were as disobedient as now they be, I would knock the world in pieces.” But if Luther was a man of almost superhuman courage there were moments in his career when his heart sank within him, and in the hour of his great depression he would say to his friend Melanchthon, “Come, Philip, let us sing the 46th Psalm,” and the two would sing the Psalm together and feel stronger to fight another battle and face another foe. The 118th Psalm was another great favourite of Luther’s. “This is my Psalm, my chosen Psalm,” he says, “I love them all; I love all Holy Scripture, which is my consolation and my life. But this Psalm is nearest my heart, and I have a familiar right to call it mine. It has saved me from many a pressing danger, from which nor emperor, nor kings, nor sages, nor saints could have saved me. It is my friend; dearer to me than all the honours and power of the earth.” It was his desire that the soothing words of the fourth Psalm—”I will lay me down in peace, and take my rest”—would be the last words he would hear on earth. While Calvin lacked the impetuosity of Luther and that deep intensity of feeling that touched human nature at so many points, yet his love of the Psalms is not less strong. True we have not quoted in this book Calvin’s memorable reference to the Psalms in his commentary on that book, but there are sufficient references to prove that to Calvin the Book of Psalms was a great strength to him in trouble. When in any anxiety of mind he repeated the words of the 6th Psalm—”My soul is sore troubled; but, Lord, how long wilt Thou punish me?” In the agony of mortal pain he groaned out, “I became dumb, and opened not my mouth, for it was Thy doing.” (Ps. xxxix. 10.) Almost his last words were a fragment from the Psalms, “How long, O Lord?” Melanchthon died with the words of the 31st Psalm on his lips—”Into Thy hands I commend my spirit;” and when Beza passed into the presence of his God it was with the words “If Thou, Lord, wilt be extreme to make what is done amiss, O Lord, who may abide it?” (Ps. cxxx. 3.)
The same reverence for the Psalms is manifested by the English and Scottish martyrs. Bishop Ridley on the last night he spent on earth refused the company of his brother, saying that he meant to go to bed and sleep as quietly as he ever did in his life—”I will lay me down in peace and take my rest; for it is Thou, Lord, only that makest me dwell in safety.” (Ps. iv. 9.) The next morning he was chained to the stake, and as the flames rose around him he exclaimed with a wonderful loud voice, “Into Thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit; Lord, Lord, receive my spirit.” The story of Lady Jane Grey can never be read without stirring to its depths the best feelings of our humanity. In that solemn hour when she faced eternity, when the executioner’s axe was the appointed instrument to bring her into the presence of the Judge of the quick and the dead, she drew comfort and consolation from
the Psalms. To the Duke of Suffolk, who had departed from the Protestant faith, she wrote urging him to lay to heart “the saying of David in his 104th Psalm, where he saith thus: ‘When Thou takest away Thy spirit, O Lord, from men they die, and are turned again to their dust; but when Thou lettest Thy breath go forth they shall be made, and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth.’ Be of good courage and He shall strengthen thine heart. Fight manfully, come life, come death: the quarrel is God’s, and undoubtedly the victory is ours.” To her sister, Lady Katharine, she sent her New Testament, urging her to “desire with David to understand the law of the Lord God.” Her husband was condemned to die on the same day. He begged for a last interview and last embrace. Lady Jane refused; the meeting could only increase their trial and disturb their preparations for death. She saw her husband led out to execution, and she saw his dead body in a cart pass under her window—”a sight to her no less than death.” But painful though this experience was it did not shake her resolution to die as a Protestant. When she came to the foot of the scaffold she repeated the whole of the 51st Psalm; then laying her head upon the block she said, “Into Thy hands I commend my spirit, O Lord.”
The Scottish martyrs showed the same deep love for the Psalms. Hugh Mackail sang on the scaffold the sixth verse of the 31st Psalm in the metrical version—
“Into Thy hands I do commit
My spirit; for Thou art He,
O Thou, Jehovah, God of Truth,
Who hast redeemed me.”
and then broke into these impassioned words—”Farewell, father and mother, friends and relations! farewell the world and all delights! farewell meat and drink! farewell sun and moon and stars! Welcome God and Father! Welcome sweet Jesus Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant! Welcome blessed Spirit of grace! God of all consolation! Welcome glory! Welcome eternal life! Welcome death!” Time would fail to speak of Richard Cameron, Donald Cargill, Alexander Peden, James Renwick, Isobel Alison, and Marion Harvie, but a word must be said in connection with the Wigtown martyrs, Margaret MacLachlan and Margaret Wilson—the former aged 60 and the latter 18 years. The elder woman was set lower down the river that the younger might see her struggles and be moved to recant. Her persecutors pitying Margaret Wilson pulled her out of the water and offered her life if she would say “God save the king” and take the test. “May God save the king if He will!” she said, for she desired the salvation of all men, but she would not renounce her faith or take the test. She was then again tied to the stake, and as the salt waves curled above her breast and all but touched her lips, she sang the 25th Psalm—
“My sins and faults of youth
Do Thou, O Lord, forget;
After thy mercies think on me,
And for Thy goodness great;”
and so on until the waters choked her voice and silenced the song she sang so sweetly on earth, but which, one fondly believes, was continued in heaven.
It is needless to remind readers of this magazine what an important place the Psalms had with the Puritans, those deeply taught and experienced Christians whose writings are the finest works we have on experimental theology- What the Psalms were to the Huguenots is also referred to in Mr. Prothero’s book, but as we have already taken up too much space, we may on a future occasion say something about the Psalms in missions.
An Address on Preaching the Gospel.
BY THE LATE REV. PROFESSOR JOHN DUNCAN, LL.D.
IN June, 1844, a Committee of the Free Church issued a report (with introductory narrative by Dr. Moody-Stuart) of the deliberations of the General Assembly of that year “relative to the state of religion in the land.” This report contains several interesting addresses, one of the most valuable of which is the following by Professor Duncan on truths that ought to be emphasised in preaching the Gospel. The Committee express their regret that “the report of Dr. Duncan’s speech, than which there was none during the whole proceedings more worthy of preservation,” is “brief and imperfect,” while they believe that it is sufficient, as now given, “to convey some idea of its general character”:—
Professor Duncan said, that in desiring and aiming at the conversion of sinners and the edification of saints, it was of great importance that they should have a distinct idea of what the conversion of a sinner means. He thought it was, in a great measure, owing to the want of this that a number of those disorders in practice and errors in doctrine, to which Dr. Cunningham had referred, might be traced. Next to, and closely connected with, an earnest desire for the salvation of souls, and a constant expectancy (which cannot be too strongly inculcated), was the right and scriptural understanding of what they aimed at when they desired and expected a sinner’s conversion. Conversion was not merely to be understood as a turning from one thing to another thing, but as the turning of an absolutely lost sinner to the God of free and sovereign grace. It was therefore of great importance in existing circumstances, and at all times, that their minds and spirits should be under the sober regulation of revealed truth. And while different suggestions had been thrown out as to the means of promoting these ends, one deeply important question for them to consider was, What was the improvement or the amelioration of those means which they were already employing under the authority of the Word of God, which ought to be adopted in their present circumstances? The question was not only, should there be more
preaching, but should there be better preaching. Here he begged to refer to the earnest admonition given by Dr. Malan at the Assembly in Glasgow, to beware of Arminianism. He (Dr. Duncan) did not believe that Arminianism existed in their own Church. But he could not disguise from his own mind, that of late years, at least previous to the Disruption,—he knew not how it may have been since, for they could not expect to get rid of all these evils in a day,—since evangelism had become more fashionable, it had become more indefinite and diluted; and if this does not amount to Arminianism, it is a rounding off the corners of that which is called Calvinism, but which I believe to be Jehovahism; it was a rubbing off and a smoothing down of the salient points of Calvinistic doctrine into something which, if it was not Arminianism, was a kind of doctrine with which all who are called Calvinistic evangelicals and Arminian evangelicals could agree. Now this was just the beginning of the evil,—it was the letting in of waters,—the dilution of the gospel; and the dilution of the gospel would very soon lead to the perversion of the gospel. He remembered an anecdote of a poor man and his wife in England, who were labouring people. They attended a dissenting minister, who, in the course of his ministrations, recommended a Commentary on the Bible. These poor people accordingly laboured to be able to purchase one, and were at last able to do this. After perusing it for some time, the man asked his wife what she thought of the Commentary. “Why,” said his wife, “we used to read the Bible in the evening, and it seemed to do us good; and now that we have got the Commentary,—it is very good, no doubt, but I do not think it does us so much good. The Bible did us good like a glass of wine, but the Commentary does us good like the same glass of wine in a pailful of water.”
Dr. Duncan reminded them that zeal for God’s glory should be ever uppermost in the minds of His servants. When they urged sinners to repentance, the character and claims of Jehovah should be laid as the basis for it. This was the basis of all revelation—Jehovah He is God. That was a doctrine not only of the Old Testament, but set forth and explained in the New Testament, where He was set forth as working all things after the counsel of His own will. The doctrine of man’s fall—his total fall, not merely from virtue and righteousness, but his total alienation from Jehovah, and the consequent loss of all internal good,—his entire separation from Jehovah God, out of which came the doctrine that the fall was a total ruin,—ought to be much insisted on. The doctrine, too, of the Trinity ought not only to be referred to, but set forth in their whole preaching, in its relation to the manifestation of God’s glory in the salvation of sinners. Their preaching should be the gospel of the Triune God. The doctrine of the Trinity should be ever taught, though not ever formally taught. The doctrine of the person of Christ, which gives glory and excellence to the work of Christ, should be brought
forward,—not salvation merely, but the glorious Saviour Himself, and that not only for the sake of guilty sinners’ salvation, but for the exhibition of the Divine character—that it was worthy of God to save sinners for such a Saviour. Man’s total apostacy from God—his total depravity—would lead to the exhibition of what alone can be, in an apostate’s condition, any comfort or support—the love of Jehovah. It opened such a deep wound that nothing but a Saviour—as a Saviour for an absolute sinner, dead in trespasses and sins—could heal it. God should be proclaimed as the sole Creator, Christ as the entire Saviour,—not the Redeemer only, but the quickener also, not the author of faith only, but the perfecter and finisher of faith. The doctrine of man’s impotency—of his total inability to bring himself back to God, should be held up. The opposite doctrine—the doctrine of man’s ability to convert himself, countenances the absurdity that man is to return to a dependance on Jehovah by the belief of a certain independence, which is not only absurd, but also dishonourable to God. It would not do to tell a man that he may come to Christ, but that he must come. Some, indeed, would have man to do all, though he could do nothing; and others would have him to do nothing, because all was done for him. As long as I am told that I must come to God,—and that I can come, I am left to suppose that some good thing, or some power of good remains in me, I arrogate to myself that which belongs to Jehovah. The creature is exalted, and God is robbed of His glory. If, on the other hand, I am told that I cannot come to God, but not also that I must come, I am left to rest contented at a distance from God, I am not responsible for my rebellion, and God Jehovah is not my God. But if we preach that sinners can’t come, and yet must come, then is the honour of God vindicated, and the sinner is shut up. Man must be so shut up that he must come to Christ, and yet know that he cannot. He must come to Christ, or he will look to another, when there is no other to whom he may come; he cannot come, or he will look to himself. This is the gospel vice, to shut up men to the faith. Some grasp at one limb of the vice and some at the other, leaving the sinner open—but when a man is shut up that he must and cannot, he is shut up to the faith—shut up to the faith, and then would he be shut up in the faith. God is declared to be Jehovah, and the sinner is made willing to be saved by Him, in his own way, as sovereign in His grace. Many may dislike this doctrine as harsh and severe, but it is because they view God’s sovereignty apart from His grace. They spoke of the sovereign God, but why not of the sovereignty of grace. For himself, he felt comfort when shut up to this truth, that God was sovereign, and His grace sovereign; for though he was a sinner—an absolute sinner, Jehovah had said, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” This doctrine came like heaven’s own thunder, and struck down all human dependence. It came upon a man as lost, as the very chief of sinners, and depending solely on God’s will;
and then, oh how blessed to know the sovereignty of grace. It struck him down when he read, “The Son quickeneth whom He will.” His mind fixed on the “whom He will,” and he was undone, because it did not depend on his own will, but on the will of another. But he read again and found that it was the Son that quickeneth whom He will, and this raised him from the dust, because the Son, on whose sovereign will his salvation depended, was the same “Jesus Christ who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.”
It was of importance that the truth which gave such glory to God, which alone could comfort, because it alone brought man down, be declared; that Jehovah’s glory be exhibited; that men be made to feel their own emptiness; that they may see Christ’s sufficiency, and Christ’s yearning heart over sinners. On what had been said as to the mode of preaching, he should say not a word, as he was sure all were convinced that it was not by might nor by power, but by the Spirit of the Lord. If God gave the desire, and sent His servants forth with His glorious word impressed on the heart and conscience, He who had given His word for that very end would accompany it with demonstration of the Spirit; having appointed these means, and ordained them, He would give grace to apply them; and he believed that Jehovah had this end in view, and the more so when they were feeling their infirmities and sins.
The Duty of Giving Away
A STATED PROPORTION OF OUR INCOME.
By WILLIAM ARTHUR, A.M.1
THE task which devolves on me this evening is to submit a few observations on the duty of giving away a stated proportion of our income. This subject has already been handled, and that with much force of logic and scriptural demonstration, with much feeling and practical knowledge, in the book so well known under the title of “Gold and the Gospel;” a book with this singular genealogy, that it is the offspring of five heads and one heart. The gentlemen to whom the public are indebted for the origin of that volume, as also for its circulation on terms unprecedented, though they must be satisfied that they have done much, yet, like all who have tasted the pleasure of doing good, are resolved on doing more. Not content with having set up a banner for benevolence, they are determined to raise and train an army by whom that banner shall be followed, wherever it is unfurled. Against their volume just one thing can be said—it is a volume, and a large one; and that is no inconsiderable drawback, in an age that is itself a newspaper. They now intend, by the lighter
1 This excellent address was delivered about fifty years ago in the Victoria Hall, Belfast, the Bishop of Down, in the chair.—ED.
instrumentality of popular addresses, to press the subject home upon multitudes whom octavos never disturb. By their choice, the lot of commencing this new form of proceeding has fallen upon me ; and though in public addresses I generally feel it to be wrong to spend even a sentence on myself, to-night I am bound to say, that in the course of my short and humble life, nothing in the way of compliment or honour ever affected me so deeply as when, after reading the requisition which called me here, I read that remarkable list of names appended to it ; names, to more than one of which I had been accustomed from boyhood to bow with respect in the distance.
For the practical handling of the subject which is expected from me, I know not that I can do better than attempt to
Explain the duty,
State the grounds whereon it rests, and
Plead for practical attention to it.
When we speak of the duty of giving away a stated proportion of our income, we do not mean that all persons having equal incomes are bound to give away equal sums, however their other circumstances may vary. Power to give away may be modified by three circumstances — family, locality, and station. Of two persons, each receiving a hundred a-year, one has seven children, the other is a bachelor. It would be strange if the single man might justly spend upon himself as much as the other must spend on his family, and might innocently give away only as much as he contrives to give. This is a difference of family.
Of two persons having the same family and the same income, one lives in a large city, where rent, taxes, and provisions are high ; the other in an agricultural village, where these are all cheap. Is the latter to take the full advantage of his easier circumstances for his private purse, and give none of it to benevolence ? This is a difference of locality.
Again, two persons have both a thousand a-year. One from small beginnings has reached that point by industry and saving. Without hereditary claims, without public expectations, and with invaluable habits of economy, he is royally rich on his thousand a-year. The other has inherited the same income from a father who was in the habit of spending ten thousand a-year. A number of servants, retainers, and tradespeople have what amounts to a vested interest in his revenue ; the public have expectations ; and, worst of all, his habits are formed on a costly model, so that he is not only perplexed, but really poor, with his thousand a-year. This is a difference of station.
Each of these three branches of modification has innumerable offshoots, going to show, that to require all who have equal incomes to give away equal sums, would be neither just nor generous.
Nor do we mean that all persons are to give away the same proportion of their income, however its gross amount may vary. Two
brothers live in the same town, and have the same family. In this case, station, locality, and family are equal. The elder is just able to provide his family with a small house, frugal fare, homely clothing, and a passable education. He is quite unable to lay up anything which would help to open their way in life, when the critical period of settlement shall come. Yet, knowing to whom he and his owe their daily bread, he gratefully devotes a tenth of his income to the service of God.
His younger brother has been otherwise prospered. His children sleep in spacious rooms, and play among their own flower-beds ; their clothing is rich, their board generous, and their education costly. For each of them he is able to lay up in store, and knows that, if they do not pass through life with comfort and respect, it will be their own fault. And is this man, for whom Providence has done so much more than for his brother, to content himself with rendering the same proportionate acknowledgment as he ? For the latter to give a tenth of all is an effort ; an effort which he feels, and his children feel, in “their coats, their hosen, and their hats.” For the other to give a tenth would be no effort whatever ; it would never affect his comforts, nor even his luxuries, no, not the crumbs that fall from his table. It would affect nothing but his hoarded money. If we hold that his brother should give a tenth, and he should give no more, then we hold that the lesser mercies demand the more touching acknowledgment, and that God’s superior bounties may sit more lightly on our hearts.
Take another case : You visit a friend when he is twenty-five years of age, spending little on his establishment, and giving away a tenth to Him who gives him all. You return to his house when he is fifty. Now he is spending on his establishment ten times as much as before. Why ? Because the Lord ” hath blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.” The same labour which, twenty five years ago, yielded him a modest income, now brings a twentyfold return. When Providence has thus multiplied the proportionate productiveness of his toil, is he to confine his acknowledgments to the same proportion which he rendered when his efforts were far less fruitful ? If he does, gratitude diminishes as bounties enlarge. We would, therefore, strongly contend that when Providence greatly increases the return of labour, or throws abundance into our lap without labour, we are bound to acknowledge such mercy—mercy which distinguishes us above the ordinary lot of men—not by thank-offerings adjusted to the scale of those whose blessing is less than ours, but by aiming to keep pace with the peculiar bounty which, while some pine and others struggle, gives us ” all things richly to enjoy.” One man’s tenth is more than another man’s third. I know one venerable man—one of the men whom my soul loveth—who, at the outset of life, adopted the vow of Jacob, ” Of all that Thou shalt give me, I will surely give the tenth to Thee ;” but so far
from confining himself to this, I know that some years ago he was for that year giving away not a tenth, but four-tenths. How Providence has dealt with him you may judge from the simple fact that one day he might be seen in the morning giving away a thousand pounds to one religious society, and in the evening five hundred to another.
On the other hand, we do not mean that persons are bound to give away all their income, so as to admit of no increase of capital, or extension of property. There is a large class of promises which attach temporal advancement to humble and godly industry as a reward from Providence. “By humility, and the fear of the Lord, are riches, and honour, and life.”—(Prov. xxii. 4.) “Such as are blessed of Him shall inherit the earth.”—(Psalm xxxvii. 22.) “Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord, and delighteth greatly in His commandments. Wealth and riches shall be in his house.”—(Psalm cxii. 1, 3.) Liberality itself, the very virtue for which we are pleading, is encouraged by the prospect of abundance. “Honour the Lord with thy substance, and with the first-fruits of all thine increase : so shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.”—(Prov. iii. 9.) One of the punishments threatened against improperly gotten wealth is its decrease, while lawful labour is stimulated by the hope of plenty. “Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished, but he that gathereth by labour shall increase.”
This passage, not only offers to industry the prize of increase, but states the true relation of labour and capital. “He that gathereth by labour shall increase.” Labour creates capital ; capital rewards labour. Where there is no labour, capital is lumber ; where there is no capital, labour is beating the air. The effect of well-directed labour is to increase capital ; the effect of increasing capital is to lighten the burden and raise the pay of labour. These effects depend not on the will of men or masters, but are wrought deeper than either can permanently reach, into the groundwork of human relations, by the Builder of all. That accumulation of capital which results from the blessing of Providence on lawful industry, so far from contravening the purposes of benevolence, directly and most efficiently serves them. Two brothers enter this town, each with a capital of £50,000. The one seeks out fifty thousand poor families in the town and country, and gives away all his capital among them, a pound to each. The other invests his fifty thousand in a factory. Return in five years and mark the effect of the two sums upon the people. Of the first fifty thousand the only trace you can find is here a decayed bonnet, there a worn-out cloak, and in some humble homes a very grateful recollection ; but no permanent public benefit, no sensible improvement in the condition of the labouring poor. As to the other fifty thousand, it fed and clothed many families from the first day ; to-day it is feeding and clothing many families, and it is promising to do so in perpetuity. At the same time, the profits
which are known to have accrued to its owner are attracting other capital to a like investment, so as further to improve the prospects of all the labouring population of the neighbourhood.
It is possible, and more than possible, that in this case the one who gave away his all did it from the noble motive of self-denial ; and most assuredly he will have his reward. It is also possible that the other acted from the commonest selfishness, and can look for no credit beyond that of worldly wisdom. But the fact that he who acted from a noble motive did no permanent good to the poor, while he who acted from a low one did much, forces us to inquire, Did not the one unconsciously violate, and the other unconsciously follow, a law of Providence? Does not the one case indicate the existence of a law against the dispersion of property in indiscriminate gifts, and the other a law in favour of its employment to elicit and reward useful labour? Land and money are the two bases of wealth. Cultivation is to the one what commercial investment is to the other. Religion does not require that either should be made away with, or neglected ; but that, when laid out for increase, the Lord should be honoured with the first-fruits of all the increase.
But here many sincere and admirable Christians will tell me, ” You are arguing directly against the words of our Lord. He commands us, ‘ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth ; and to do as you say is plainly to break this very clear command.’ If that be so, all my reasoning on the point falls to the ground ; and he who permits riches to increase is no Christian. But is it so ?
We have already seen that a class of promises exists which must be nullified if no servant of God is to permit his possessions to increase ; and such commands as ” Provide things honest in the sight of all men ; ” ” Charge them that are rich . . . that they be ready to distribute, willing to communicate,” etc., enforce duties which exist not, if no man has a right to have possessions, except only in such a degree as will enable him to continue alive. No command ever contradicts another command ; and no command is ever meant to supersede a whole class of promises. With these two principles in view, we take this command, ” Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,” and place it beside another which is like unto it : ” Take no thought for to-morrow.” Am I to be told that I break this latter command if I take thought for duties and responsibilities which do not press to-day, but will to-morrow? Without doing so, I cannot fulfil my duty to God, to my neighbour, or to myself. The highest obligations which are laid upon me require thought, and action too, for the morrow. This runs through all the ways of Providence. Most of the duties for which he holds us responsible call us to work for the morrow. For to-morrow, the plougher ploughs, for to-morrow the sower sows, for to-morrow the reaper reaps, for to-morrow the miller grinds, for to-morrow the weaver plies his loom, for to-morrow the
builder frames his roof ; and did we put a stop to all labour which is for to-morrow, we should at once reduce the activity of the human race to a few of the most menial occupations. The call to take no thought for to-morrow is certainly not a call to neglect duties and evade responsibilities ; but a call to trust in Providence when the time only to trust has come. When I have done for to-morrow all that is laid at my door, then let me not encroach upon the province of Him who alone can rule the future and the contingent, by troubling myself with them. Let me simply do this day the work which is this day due ; and though long and impenetrable months may lie between me and its result, for that I must trust Him whom the sparrows trust ; saying cheerfully, “The Lord will provide!”
When in the one of these two glorious words of Christ the letter is so plainly to be interpreted by the spirit of all Scripture, it is not probable that in the other the letter is all we are to look to. But if you will appeal to the letter, then to the letter you shall go. That letter is, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust do corrupt.” Now, moth and rust do not corrupt property employed in active service, as commercial investment. They only corrupt hoards which are heaped up idle, not doing the purposes of Providence, not contributing to the welfare of men. Against such stores only does the letter of this precept bear, and against them let all denunciations peal !
To be continued.
Comfort to a Gracious Soul in Trouble.
A LETTER BY EDWARD BLACKSTOCK—1841.
I FEEL very sorry for the dark and trying state of mind of which you complain in both your last letters, and wonder at it, because it used to be so different. Surely we have taken sweet counsel together, and have walked to the house of God in company. I grant it is indeed awful (as you say) to be deceived in soul matters ; and if you were trusting to free will and free agency, to human merit, or sound gospel notions in the head—being a stranger to heart-work, and the life and power of true godliness—I should see it necessary to change my voice, as Paul says.
But have I not seen you walking in the light of God’s countenance ? Has not Jesus revealed Himself unto you many a time, and has He not often in seasons of trouble delivered you ? Has He not applied many a promise with divine power to your heart ? Has He not granted you many a time of sweet and holy enlargement in prayer ? Has He not impressed your heart in private with such and such truths, and then brought you into His house, and confirmed these things from the mouth of His servants ? Has He not manifested His love to your soul, so that you thought you never could doubt His goodness any more, or call in question your soul’s interest in Him ? Did He ever fail you, or forsake
you? I trow not. Then stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved!
O, remember, He is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever! Whatever clouds may veil His face, or darken your sky, He rests in His love. “Cast not away your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For yet a little while and he that shall come, will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith, but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But ye are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them who believe to the saving of the soul. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh.”
O, my dear friend, unbelief is the cruel spear that pierces Him! You and I do not wish to cause His wounds to bleed afresh. No, no, let us catch Him by the feet, and say, “My Lord, my God!”
You are undergoing a long captive state; by and by, He will turn your captivity, and then you will be like them that dream! Then your mouth shall be filled with laughter, and your tongue with singing, and you shall say, “The Lord hath done great things for us, whereof we are glad!” Now, you are in the dark; anon, you shall say, “The darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.” He bringeth deep things out of darkness, and light out of the shadow of death. Now, “the good man” is gone a long journey, and he hath taken his bag of money with him, but he will come home at the time appointed. Now, you are tempted, but thy God will make the tempter flee; now, you see nothing, and feel nothing, but a body of sin and death, but this is only the strife raised by the law in the members against the law of the mind.
Here is the trial of faith, and the patience of the saints. Trust in, and plead the blood of Jesus. “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” Now, though you are locked up in unbelief, coldness, deadness, etc., your life is still in the root, and shall ere long ascend into the branch: “Because I live, ye shall live also.” Blessed be God, our unbelief cannot make the faith of God of none effect. “God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, principalities nor powers, things present nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall ever be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Sometimes God gives Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers. Little-faith fell among thieves, but the good Samaritan came in with his oil and wine, etc., etc. When the priest and the Levite have passed by, look out for Him. “He will surely turn and smile again, nor shalt thou seek his face in vain.”
Dear daughter in the faith, fare you well. The Lord lift up the light of His countenance, and give you peace. So desires and prays, your sincere, obliged, and ever faithful friend,
ED. BLACKSTOCK.
Letters of the late Alexander Kerr, Assynt.
I.
ACHMELVICH, February, 1871.
MY DEAR FRIEND,—I received your welcome letter, but could not reply sooner. You know it is not easy for one in the face of trouble to state anything as he ought. My wife is suffering much, and has not been out of bed for a month; and I need patience to bear the Lord’s chastisement. We are apt to forget that sin is the cause of all suffering, and we are daily provoking the Lord with our sin, which is “the thing that he hates;” and so I confess with shame that I am not submitting as I ought to His chastening.
The Lord has been good to me ever since I was a boy, following me with goodness and mercy, although I was far from deserving it; and the question to-day is, What did I make of all His favours these three score years and more? Did I attain in any measure to live to the glory of God, and to the profit of my soul or the souls of others? Anyone that has not the glory of God in view in his life and actions will come short at last. Sin, indeed, will work contrary to that principle, and that is what causes the fight, but sin will not win the field in the least one that has been brought to know the saving grace of God in his soul. Often, indeed, one will be weak and weary in the fight (for who that knows the power of the carnal mind but would be sick of it), but there is a promise given, “Sin shall not have dominion over you,” and that is good news to every sincere follower of Christ. And there is another promise that is good news to them also, “In the Lord is their righteousness and strength.” Their following of Him is not in their own keeping. Paul knew this, and so he said, “I know that He will keep what I have committed to Him.” But before Paul could “commit” himself to the Lord, he had heard and believed this: that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” Blessed for ever and ever be the Lord that such news was proclaimed in this wicked world, so that poor sinners to whom it is “glad tidings” may find, on believing and receiving it, that their own souls are saved thereby.
Remember me to F., M’K. He is one who is bearing the chastening of the Lord, and will soon be free of all sin and suffering. . . .—Your sincere friend,
ALEXR. KERR.
II.
ACHMELVICH, June 20th, 1871.
MY DEAR FRIEND,—I am glad to understand by your last letter that you are all in your ordinary health, for health is a blessing that will not last always. Things are much in the usual way with us here. I cannot say that the warm weather is of much benefit to my wife’s trouble.
You will tell me in your next letter if you were at the sacrament in Thurso, and were you the better of it? Also write me some notes from any living ones that were there. I was glad of the
note you gave in your last from Mr. —— about the Presence that was with the Church of God in all her trials and temptations, as is recorded in Scripture. And although we cannot compare ourselves with these saints of God, yet their experience is put on record that we may examine if we have any likeness to those to whom these promises were made ; or any mark of their belonging to us by our being united to Him in whom all the promises are Yea and Amen. As for myself, I feel like a withered branch in the vineyard, a cumberer of the ground, destitute of the fruits of holiness. Oh ! the corruption of the natural heart ! should it not put us to shame before Him who knows our inmost thoughts.
I was sorry to hear of the death of Donald Macpherson, Reay. I knew him these fourteen years, and there were not many his equal for tenderness in the fear of the Lord. The most of my acquaintances with whom I took sweet counsel are no more in this world—I mean those in whose spiritual concern I felt a deep interest, believing them to be members of Christ’s mystical body. Write soon.—Your sincere friend,
ALEXR. KERR.
III.
ACHMELVICH, July, 1871.
MY DEAR FRIEND,—Thanks for your writing so soon in our loneliness and trouble. Sometimes I think I am “out of mind” in this generation.
You mentioned that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was to be observed among you in two weeks, and how unlike you were to such a thing. I am glad you view this to be such a solemn matter, for it is so in the view of everyone who in the least knows what it sets forth. You can read at your leisure the 1st chapter of Malachi, and you will see there how the Lord was displeased with those that profaned His holy ordinances. The ordinance of the Supper is specially holy and spiritual, for it represents the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in His love to the Church, and in His giving Himself as a ransom for her. Now, you are not spiritual, but carnal ; yet if you feel that, and mourn over it, your carnality, if truly lamented and confessed, would not keep the Lord from visiting you if it was His good pleasure to reveal Himself to your soul, and to turn your captivity as the streams in the south. May He do so in His own sovereign grace, and give you a taste of His love as a token for good. But alas ! the Lord is not giving such tokens of His presence as in days gone by, either in the public or private means of grace, and this should be our grief and burden ; and it should also stir us up to put Him in mind of His own covenant engagement—that He would make the Name of Jesus to be remembered while sun and moon endure.
Mention me to the friends that will be with you—to David Steven, the godly man, and to my friends from Wick, William Sinclair, William Crowe, and William Finlayson.—Hoping you are all well. Your sincere friend,
ALEXANDER KERR.
Searmon.
By Rev. NEIL CAMERON, St. Jude’s, Glasgow.
Thess. v. 17—”Deanaibh urnuigh gun sgur.”
- Co ris is coir urnuigh a deanamh? Cha choir urnuigh a dheanamh ri neach air bith ach an t-aon Dia beo agus fior. Am measg na’m Papanach tha iad ag urnuigh ris an oidhe Muire, agus ri naoimh eile, tha agus ri moran nach robh nan naoimh idir, ach tha iad a deanamh so an aghaidh beachd naoimh Dhe air a chuis, a bha air an deachdadh leis an Spiorad Naomh. Chi sin an uair a thuit Cornelius sios gu aoradh a thabhairt do Phheadar gun do thog e suas e ag radh ris:—”Seas suas; is duine mise mar an ceudna” (Gnio. x. 26). Tha e soilleir bho na briathran sin gum be beachd Phheadair nach bu choir urnuigh a dheanamh ri duine air bith. Bha cuid eile ri aoradh do Ainglibh; ach chan fhuileagadh an t-Aingeal do Eoin so a dheanamh:—”Feuch nach dean thu e . . . dean aoradh do Dhia” (Tais. xxii. 9). Cha ghabhadh Aingeal naomh aoradh, agus cha ghabhadh Abstol aoradh, no urnuigh. Car son? A chion gum bheil e sgriobhte: “Bheir thu aoradh don Tighearna do Dhia, agus dhasan na aonar ni thu seirbheis” (Math. iv. 10).
Tha mcran a deanamh urnuigh ri iodholaibh. Tha na Cinnich a dhiunnsiudh nach d’thainig, an soisgeul, agus na Papanach. ri so. Bha na Cinnich a cumail a mach nach ann do na h-iodhloil a bha iad a deanamh aoraidh, ach do na diathan aca troimh na h-iodhail; tha Eaglais na Roimh a teagasg an ni cheudna, nuair nach eil ni air birh fa chomhair intinn an luchd-aoraidh ach an t-iodhol, agus gid’ bhiodh dhearbh sinn cheana nach coir aoradh a thoirt ach do Dhia a mhain. Tha an Spiorad Naomh troimh an Abstol Phol a cur na cuise so ceart:—”Ach tha mi ag radh, na nithe a tha na Cinnich ag iobradh, gur ann do dheamhnaibh a tha iad ‘g an iobradh, agus chan ann do Dhia.” (1 Cor. x. 20.)
Tha firinn ann a tha ‘g radh:—”Dhaidich mi mo pheacadh dhuit agus cha do cheil mi m’ euceart: Thubhairt mi, Aidichidh mi m’ eusaontais do’n Tighearna; agus mhaith thusa cionta mo pheacadh.” (Ps. xxxii. 5.) Chan aithne don fhirinn no do naoimh Dhe cuspair urnuigh air bith ach Dia na aonar. Tha so cho soilleir bhon T-seann Tiomnad, agus a tha e bhon Tiomnad Nuadh. Ma tha neach a deanamh urnuigh ann am firinn tha e dearbh mhothachail nach coinich ri chor ach Dia; or ‘s ann Dhasan a bhuineas maithenas peacaidh, agus anam a shaoradh troimh Chiod air a cheusadh bho dhol sios don t-slochd.
- Co iad d’ am bheil e air aithneadh urnuigh a dheanamh? Tha Dia ag radh:—”Orm fein mhionnaich mi; chaidh firinn a mach as mo bheil; briathar agus cha phill e air ais; gu cinnteach dhomhsa lubaidh gach glun, mionnaichidh gach teanga.” (Is.
xlv. 23.) Anns an Tionnadh Nuadh tha e air a radh :—“ Chum do ainm Iosa gun lubadh gach glun, de nithibh a tha air neamh, agus de nithibh a tha air thalamh, agus de nithibh a tha fo ‘n talamh.” (Phil. ii. 10.) Tha na h-uile creutair a chruthaich E ri iad fein a chromadh sios do Chriosd Ainglean naomh, daoine air an talamh, agus diabhuill agus anamaibh caillte ann an ifrinn. — Ach do brigh nach eil cathair trocair air an taobh thall de’n bhas, is ann ‘s an t-saoghal so tha dochas do thaobh a pheacaich, agus is ann ‘s an t-saoghal so a tha Dia a gairm clann nan daoine gu bhi tagradh ris air son trocair. Tha e na dhleasdanas air sluagh neoiompaichte bhi lubadh an glun do bhrigh ‘s gun d’athn Dia dhoibh e, agus a bhi ‘g iarruidh a Spioraid Naoimh gu bhi ‘g an gairm gu h-eifeachdach. Ged nach urrainn an t-anam ann an staid naduir ni dheanamh ach peacadh, gidheadh tha e ceangailte air le Dia gun d’theid e don uaignidheas a lubadh a ghlun do Dhia mar chiontach agus a ghuidhe air son trocair air sgath Chriosd. Agus na gluinean nach eil a lubadh anns an t-saoghal so feumaidh iad lubadh aig a bhas, agus aig latha mor a bheitheanais. Is e dleasdanas, agus sochair sluagh Dhe bhi ag urnuigh agus is ann riusan air mhodh araidh a tha an t-Abstol a lathairt ann ar ceann teagaig. Neach a deanabh aidich air diadhachd agus e gun an urnuigh uaigheach is cealgaireachd mhor e, agus ge be air bith dochas a dh’fhaodas a bhi aig a leithid sin de neach gun eirich gu math dha aig a bhas, tha focal Dhe ag innseadh dhuinn gun sgriosar dochas a chealgair. Tha sinn uime sin a comh-dhunadh gur coir do na h-uile bhi ri urnuigh, ach gu h-araidh gur coir do luchd aidich na diadhachd a bhi ghnath ann an eilemid na h-urnuigh.
- Gu de a chumadh anns an coir do’n duine e fein a chur an ceann an dleasdanais so? Tha sinn a faicinn tri cumaidhean anns an fhirinn. Ann an suidhichean ‘s an robh an creutair air leth lois fein tha na gluinean air an lubadh. Bha lagh air a dheanamh aig aon am nach robh urnuigh ri bhi air a deanamh ri neach air bith, fad dheich là ficheadh, ach ri righ Darius na aonar, ach chi sinn gun do lub Daniel a ghluinean tri uairean ‘s an latha na sheomar fein mar bu gnath leis. Bha an doigh cheudna aig an Abstol Phol; oir tha e ag radh :—“ Air an aobhar so tha mi lubadh mo ghlun do Athair ar Tighearna Iosa Criosda ” (Eph. iii. 14). Bha na naoimh a cleachdadh aig amai bh solaimte nuair a bhiadh moran dhuibh cuideach, an gluinean a lubadh ann an cleachdadh na h-urnuigh. “ Agus an uair a chriochnaicheadh na laithean sin, chaide sinn a mach, agus thriall sinn romhain; agus thainig iadsan uile maille ri mnathan agus ri cloinn ‘n ar cuideachd, a mach as a bhaille: agus chaide sinn air ar gluinean air an traigh, agus rinn siu urnuigh ” (Gnio. xxi. 5). Tha moran aitean anns an Fhirinn gu soilleir ag ainmeachadh gun robh e na riaghalt aig na naoimh a bhi lubadh an glun anns an uaigheas, agus mar an ceudna aig amai bh araidh anns an fholais mar an ceudna; ach is ann a mhain aig amai bh neo-abhaisteach a bha iad a lubadh an glun nuair a bha moran comhla.
Is e an dara rian a gheibh sinn anns an Fhirinn daoine ‘n an seasamh anns an fhollais ri urnuigh. Be so an rian ann an laithibh Sholamh :—Agus thiondaidh an righ aghaidh, agus bheannaich e uile choimhthional Israel : (agus uile choimhthional Israel nan seasamh 🙂 Agus sheas e, agus bhéannaich e uile chomhthional Israel (1 Righ viii. 14 and 55). Tha an rian so air a chomhtharachadh le Críosd anns an Tíomnadh Nuadh :—“ Agus an uair a sheasas sibh a deanabh urnuigh, maithibh ” (Mark xi. 25). Tha na briathran sibh agus. gach glun, gu soilleir a toirt fa’r comhair cuideachd comhla fo’n fhocal, sibh, agus aon anam fo’n fhocal, gach glun. Mar sin an uair a tha sluagh cruinn comhla ri urnuigh is e an rian a bha aig na naoimh, ri linn nan Abstol, dol an ceann an dleasdanais so nan seasamh.
Bha rian eile aig na naoimh, an da chuid roimh agus an deigh teachd Chriosd, iad fein a shineadh air an lar. Be so an doigh anns an d’thaing iad a dhiunnaidh Dhe aig amdibh anns an robh cuisean uamhasach aca. Be so an doigh anns an do thagair Maois n-uair a rinn clann Israel an lagh oir, agus a bhagair Dia an sgrios am priobadh na sula. Rinn Joshua an ni ceudna an uair a pheacaich Achan ; agus rinn Daibhidh an ni so n-uair a bha an leanabh tinn.
Bho’n chunntas a tha againn air urnuigh Chriosd ann an garadh Ghetsemine tha e coltach gun deachaidh E an toiseach air a ghluinean, ach an deigh sin gun do thuit E air an talamh. Ma leubhas tu, Lucas xxii. 41, agus Marcus xiv. 35, chi thu gur an mar so a bha. Tha mar so tri doighean anns an do chleachd na naoimh a bhi ris an urnuigh, ach an taobh a mach de bheannachd an Tighearna iarruidh air am biadh, cha-n aithne dhuinn aite an ‘s Fhirinn uile anns am bheil iad ag urnuigh nan suidhe. Chan eil mi ciallachadh creutairean do nach d’ thug an Tighearna neart gu seasamh.
Tha an sluagh anns na h-uile Eaglais (ach ro bheagan) a tha an diugh air aghaidh na talamhuinn a fuireach nan suidhe aig an urnuigh. Chan aithne dhomh ann an Eachdraidh na h-Eaglais gun robh a leithid de chleachdadh aig daoine ann an ginealach sam bith eile gus an d’ eirich an ginealach bruideil so. Tha eadhoin reusan fein a teagasg so cho math ri focal Dhe ; ach ‘s e forail Dhe a mhain an aon riaghluit chum ar seoladh. Feudaidh e bhi gun robh agus gum bheil cuid a leantuinm a chleachdaidh so do bhrigh ‘s nach do rannsaich iad riambh a chuis air an son fein bho Fhocal Dhe. Chan eil sinne diteadh duine ann an ni sam bith a leantuinm a oradh Dhe a tha reir an ordugh a shuidhich Chriosd ann an Eaglais an Tíomnadh Nuaidh ; ach tha sin ag radh nach do shuidhich Críosd’ no na h-Abstoil an ni so, agus nach robh a leithid de chleachdadh anns an Eaglais aig an am sin, cho fad ‘s leir dhuinne bho fhocal no bho eachdraidh. Is e thann pairt de’n tuil a thug an namhaid a stigh.
- Ciod na nithean as coir iarruidh ann an urnuigh? An ceud ni, gun d’ thigeadh rioghachd Dhe air an talamh ; oir bha so
domhain ann an run Dhe n-nair a chuir E Chriosd suas gu bhi na Righ ann an Sion, agus thairis air righrean agus tighearnan an t-saoghail so. Bha so na phairt mhor de urnuighean Dhaibhidh, agus is ann le bhi guidhe so a chriochnaich e urnuighean:—“Bithidh ainmsan buan gu siorruidh; comb-mhaireann ris a ghrein bithidh ainmsan; agus annsan beannaichear na sloigh uile, agus beannaichidh iadsan e.” (Ps. lxxii. 17.) Tha tighinn rioghachd Dhe agabhail a steach ann gum biodh sloigh an t-saoghail air an tabhairt a mach a rioghachd Shatain, an dorchadais, agus an diomhanais, agus iad a bhi air an tabhairt a stigh tre’n dorus chumhann do rioghachd Chriosd, an t-soluis, agus na naomhachd. Agus a ris gum biodh daoine anns na h-uile rioghachd dhe’n t-saoghail a gabhail focal Dhe mar lochran da’n cois, agus mar sholus da’n cenm.
An dara ni a tha coir aig daoine bhi ‘g iarruidh anns an urnuigh, gum biodh righrean uchdarain, agus breitheana an t-saoghail so na’n daoine air am biodh eagal Dhe, chum ‘s gun riaghladh iad an sluagh ann an eagal Dhe, agus gun cuireadh iad eisimpleir dhiadhaidh fan chomhair. Thi feum mor air a bhi ‘g urnuigh air son an da ni a dheanmaich sinn anns an latha thruagh so; oir tha an luchd riaghlaidh bho ‘n righ a nuas a cur droch eisimpleir roimh ‘n t-sluagh, agus a cuideachadh dhaoinne gu bhi cumail suas rioghachd an diomhanais agus an t-Satain anns an t-saoghail.
‘Se an treas ni, bhi ‘g urnuidh air so Eaglais Dhe anns an t-saoghail. Tha e na dleasdanas air sluagh a bhi ‘g urnuigh air son teachdairean Chriod. Air son gum biodh iad air an deanamh agus air an cumail dileas do dh’fhirinn Dhe, do theagasgan agus bunaitean na h-Eaglais, agus mar an ceudna do dh’anamaibh dhaoinne. Tha e mar fhiachibh air teachdairean a bhi ‘g urnuigh air son an comb-thional mar anamaibh air leth, mar theaghlachean, agus mar chomh-thional; agus mar an ceudna air son aobhar Chriosd tre ‘n t-saoghail uile. Tha e dleasdanach do pharantibh a bhi ‘g urnuigh air son an cloinne, do mhaightiribh air son an seirbhiseach, do na h-uile air son cach a cheile.
- Feumaidh an urnuigh toiseachadh bho dhearbhadh peacaidh ann an coguis an duine. Rinn Saul bho Tharsis uime urnuigh mun d’ thubhairt Dia da thaobh—“Feuch tha e ‘g urnuigh”—ach cha’n an mar peacach le mothachadh air fheum air trocair a rinn e iad. Bha urnuigh fhada, bhreagha aig an Phaireasach, ach cha robh aig a chis-mhaor ach—“A Dhia dean trocair ormsa a tha nam pheacach”—agus chaidh e sios a dhiunnsuidh a thaighe fein air fhirinneachadh, nuair nach d’ thuair am fear eile ni air bith. So an duine tha feum na urnuigh; oir tha eifeachd mor ann an urnuigh dhurachdach an fhirean. Chan eil feum sam bith ann an urnuigh an duine air son muintir eile nach do thoisich ri bhi ‘g urnuigh mar pheacach aig robh feum ann am fairichdinn anam air trocair. Oir is E an Spiorad Naomh ughdar na h-urnuigh far am bheil i, agus mar sin far nach eil Esan chan eil urnuigh an sin, g e d’ dh’ fhaodadh gu leoir de bhriathran bhi ann, a reir mar a tha
sgriobhte :—“ Tha an Spiorad fein mar an ceudna a’ deanamh comhnaidh le ar n-anmhuinneachd : oir chan aithne dhuinn ciod a ghuidheamaid mar bu choir duinn ; ach tha an Spiorad fein a deanamh eadar-ghuidhe air ar son le osnaibh do-labhairt ” (Ro. viii. 26.)
- Co an t-ainm anns an feum urnuigh bhi air a deanamh? Tha an duine a thig, na ainm fein coltach ri duine briste a dol don Bhanc, cha d’thoir am Bancair da aon sgillin. Chaill an duine na h-uile, ann an Adhamh, a bha ann an cumbnanta nan gniomh, agus chan fhaigh duine air bith ni air bonn a chunaint sin ach am bas. Gidheadh, tha na h-uile de clann Adhamh ag iarruidh agus an dochas gum faigh iad moran air bonn na daimh anns am bheil iad a seasmh ris a Chruthiteir mar a chreutairean. Tha daoine leigdaeh air dichuine gun do chuir am peacadh dealachadh eadar an duine agus Dia ; agus gu bheil nadur an duine air a thruailleadh air chor as gu bheil fuath aige do Dhia, do naomhachd, agus do na h-uile ni bhuineas do riaghladh Dhe anns an t-saoghail so agus anns an t-saoghail a tha ri teachd. Tha an duine cho duinte a mach bho throcair a thaobh a sheasamh dealaichte ri Chriosd agus a tha na diabhuill ; ach do bhrigh gun d’ullaich Dia Fear-Saoraidh do dhaoinne tha trocair air a teargsadh tridsan, agus tha daoine air an gairm le Dia gu teachd da iannsuidh ag aideach am peacaidhean agus ag iarruidh trocair troimh eifeachd fhala-san.
Mar sin is ann an ainm Chriosd a tha’n ciontach gu teachd ; oir ged nach eil airridheachd air bith anns an duine, no na urnuigh, tha Criosd airridh air gun eisdeadh Dia ri glaodh an duine. “ Oir dh’ fhuiling Chriosd fein aon uair son pheacanna, am firean air son nan neofhirean, chum gnn tugadh e sinne gu Dia.” (i Peadar iii. 18.) The E mar sin comasach an dream a thig a dh’ iunnsaideh Dhe tridsan a thearnagh gu h-iomlan. Thug E mor-mhiseach da shluagh iarruidh na ainm :—“ Agus ge be ni a dh’ iarras sibh am ainm-sa, ni mise sin ; chum gu’m bi an t-Athair air a ghlorachadh anns a Mhac. Ma dh’ iarras sibh ni air bith a’ m ainm-sa, ni mise e.” (Jo. xiv. 13-14.)
- Ciod e urnuigh ? Chan e urnuigh briathran breagha air an cur r’a cheile le duine, agus gun buadhan anam an duine, anr am fianuis Dhe, a comh-chordadh ri bhriathran. Is e tha’n sin cealgaireach. Cha ghabh Dia bhi air a mhealladh mar a ghabhas daoine ; oir amhaircidh Esan air a chridhe. A ris chan e urnuigh a th’ann duine bhi leubhadh a leabhar urnuigh, na bhi ri beulatharais air briathran a dh’ fholum e bho neach eile, no chuir e fein ri cheile aig am a dh’ fhalbh ; oir cha’n e dortadh a mach a chridhe an lathair Dhe tha’n sin, ach fuaim a dh’ fheudadh eun dol roimh. Is e urnuigh, am peacach a dol a dh’ ionnsaidh Dhe tre Chriosd le mian a bhi air a shaoradh bho pheacadh tre trocair Dhe ann an Criosd, agus e bhi air a ghabhail a steach gu fhabhar ; no an duine, a thuair trocair, a tighinn le uaillich gu bhi dortadh a mach iarrtus a chridhe an lathair an Tighearna. Chan eil feum air briathran a chluinneas daoine gu so a dheanamh. Cha chuala
Eli focal a beul Hannah, ach chuala agus freagair Dia a h-urnuigh. Anns an tigh, aig aoradh teaghlaich, agus anns an aoradh fhollaisheach, tha e rianail mas comasach am fear labhairt, gun cluinn na h uile a bhios a lathair na h-uile focal. Than an Fhirinn ag agradh urnuigh bha air a deanamh ann an caint a thuigeas an luchd eisdeachd; chan ann an teangaidh choimhich mar a tha Eaglais na Roimh a cleachdaidh. Tha am mian a chruthaich E anns an taobh a stigh de’n chridhe, na ghlaodh na chluasan naur a thig an t anam na eigin da ionnsaidh ged nach d’ thigeadh focal a mach as a bheul:—C’ ar son a tha thu ‘g eigheach reumsa? Abair ri cloinn Israel dol air an aghaidh (Ecsod. xiv. 15). Tha glaodh a cruthichidh nuaidh, ged nach cluainn cluas creutair e, ann an cluas an Tighearna mar tha glaodh an leinibh ann an cluas a mhathar.
- Gu de cho tric ‘s as coir urnuigh a dheanamh? Cha’n eil ua briathran so a cialachadh gur coir do dhuine a dhleasdanasan laghail saoghalta fhagail agus dol mar a tha na Papanach a deanamh air leth chum urnuigh agus trasgaidh gu Monasteries, far am bheil cha’n e urnuigh ach peacaidean granail a dol air aghaidh. Tha’n fhirinn ag iarruidh air an duine e dh fhantuin anns a ghairm anns an robh e nuaair a ghairmadh e le Dia, ma bha e ann an gairm laghail. Tha e ri chreidsinn, a thaobh na h-uile air an d’rin Dia troair, gun toisich iad leis an dleasdanas so anns a mhaduinn, gun d’ theid iad na cheann anns an teaghlaich an da chuid air maduinn agus feasgar, agus gun lub iad an glun mun d’ theid iad ‘s an leabaiddh. Tha moran de anamaibh neo-iompaichte a theid tre na dh’ eanmaich sinn gu cumabhalach, air chor as nach ann an sin a tha an t-eadar-dhealachadh, ach ann an Spioradalach an ni. Far am bheil Spiorad a Mhic air a chur a mach le Dia gu bhi anns a chride tha an Spiorad a deanamh eadar-ghuidhe anns an anam a reir toil Dhe, agus is ann an sin a mhain a tha urnuigh gun sgur. Tha anns an neach a tha air a bhreith a ris an ni sin a tha air a bhreith on Spiorad agus is ann tre’n cruthachadh nuadh so a tha an osnaich do-labhairt a dol suas a la agus a dhoiche am fianuis Dhe. Tha an neach so ag urnuigh aig obair, ‘s an t-slighe, ‘s an tigh—ag urnuigh gun sgur.
Memoir of Rev. D. Macdonald.—Orders for this memoir may now be sent direct to the Rev. D. Macfarlane, F.P. Manse, Craig Road, Dingwall. The price is 2s. 6d. per copy, postage 3d. extra.
Acknowledgments.—Rev. Neil Cameron begs to thank “Free Presbyterian,” Bonar Bridge, for 5s., and “Carrbridge” for 5s. towards St. Jude’s Building Fund.—Contributions to Dingwall Manse Building Fund have been received as follows:—A Friend, per Rev. Mr. M’Farlane, £5; Mr. D. Fraser, Balintore, per Treasurer, £1.