* The Psalms in Public Worship: United Presbyterian Board of Publication, Pittsburgh, 1907. See first article, page 249.
These words record an incident in the solemn and ever-memorable transactions of the night in which the Son of God was betrayed into the hands of His enemies. The Lord’s Supper had been instituted by the Lord Jesus, and the solemn announcement made to the disciples that He would not drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when He should drink it new with them in the Father’s kingdom. Thereafter, according to the record of Matthew and Mark, “when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives” (Matt. xxvi. 30, Mark xiv. 26). Here a matter of no small importance presents itself in regard to the exclusive use of the Psalms in divine worship. If the “hymn” which was sung on this memorable night was one of human composition then the advocates of the use of hymns in divine worship have certainly gained a point. But here we join issues with them, and in doing so we ask ourselves the question—Are we in a position to affirm that the hymn sung on the night of the betrayal was neither more nor less a portion of the Book of Psalms? If this point can be established, with a high degree of probability, if not with absolute certainty, then the position of the advocates of the exclusive use of the Psalms in the worship of God is strengthened. Meantime we need not stay to discuss the usage of the word “hymn” as applied to some of the Psalms; we shall have occasion to do so later on in dealing with the classic passages in Ephesians and Colossians where references are made to “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” Our purpose meantime is to get some definite idea of what was sung by the Lord Jesus and His disciples on the occasion referred to by the Evangelists.
Now it so happens that there is a remarkable consensus of opinion among commentators that the Hymn which was sung by the Lord Jesus and His disciples was what is described as the Hallel, or at least a portion of it. The Hallel consists of the group of Psalms from the 113th to the 118th inclusive. These are thanksgiving Psalms in which the word “hallelujah” often occurs. These Psalms in the later Temple worship at any rate were sung in connection with the service of the Passover, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles. Dr. M’Clenahan in an excellent paper—”The Psalms in the Old Testament Church”—in the volume under review quotes extensively from distinguished Christian Hebraists, and from acknowledged rabbinical authorities, in order to prove that the Hallel was sung at the Passover. We cannot do better than quote at length from his paper. “Dr. Lightfoot,” he says (p. 77), “of Westminster Assembly fame, who still remains one of the greatest authorities on the Talmud and Mishna, and as well on the services of the Temple, in speaking of the Passover, says, ‘Now the song that was sung at this time while they were killing the Passover, was called the Hallel.’ The Babylonian Talmud says: ‘Every company said over the Hallel three times; for their paschals were many and they were bound to the singing of the Hallel at the slaying of them.’ They chanted during the killing of the Passover Psalms cxiii. and cxviii. inclusive. Maimonides, on the authority of the Talmud, says: ‘All the time they were killing and offering the Levites said over the Hallel; if they had finished the Hallel, and the company had not yet done, they said it over again; and if they had finished saying it over again and the company had not yet done, they set to it a third time.’ In another paragraph Maimonides says: ‘This Hallel was said over eighteen days in the year and one night, viz.: at the killing of the Passover, at the Feast of Pentecost, on the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles, on the eight days of the Feast of Dedication, and on the night of the Passover.’ The ‘saying of the Hallel’ means of course the chanting of it. The same authority in his treatise on Megillah and Chanuchah says: ‘The custom of saying over the Hallel in the days of the former wise men was thus: The chief among them that was to read the Hallel, after he had said a prayer, began thus, Hallelujah; and all the people answered Hallelujah. He goes on and says ‘Praise ye the servants of the Lord,’ and all the people answered Hallelujah. He proceeds and says ‘Praise the name of the Lord,’ and all the people answered Hallelujah. He says further, ‘Blessed be the name of the Lord from this time forth, even forever more’; and all the people answered Hallelujah. And so at every passage till they answered Hallelujah one hundred and twenty-three times over; and of that number were the years of Aaron. Now when he that read it came to the beginning of any Psalm as when he read ‘When Israel came out of Egypt,’ the people repeated and said ‘When Israel came out of Egypt,’ but when he said ‘And the house of Jacob from a strange people,’ then the people answered Hallelujah; and so forward until he came to ‘I love the Lord because He hath heard my voice,’ and there the people repeated ‘I love the Lord because He hath heard my voice.’ And so when he said ‘Praise the Lord, all ye nations’ they repeated ‘Praise the Lord, all ye nations.’ And when he came to ‘Save now, Lord, I beseech Thee,’ the people repeated ‘Save now, Lord, I beseech Thee’; though it be not at the beginning of a Psalm. And when he said ‘I beseech Thee, now, send prosperity,’ they rehearsed and said ‘I beseech Thee, now, send prosperity.’ And when he said ‘Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord,’ all the people answered ‘Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.’ A careful comparison of this long quotation with Psalms cxiii. and cxviii. inclusive will show the following order of service: When the leader repeated the first line of any one of these Psalms the people chanted it after him. But when the leader repeated any of the other lines in these Psalms, the people answered Hallelujah. To this order there were two exceptions, viz., when the leader read the first lines of verses 25 and 26 respectively in Psalm cxviii., the people chanted them after him, instead of saying Hallelujah as in all the other lines. It should be noted that while the first line of Psalm cxiii. is translated, ‘Praise ye Jehovah,’ it could as appropriately be translated Hallelujah, for in the Hebrew it is just the compound word Hallelujah. No one can doubt that the Hallel consisted of Psalms cxiii. and cxviii. inclusive. These Psalms were sung over and over again at every feast observed by the Jews. The Talmud and the Jewish writers generally go into further detail describing just how and when these Psalms were sung. There were four cups of wine drunk in observing the Passover. Dr. Lightfoot in his great treatise on ‘The Temple Service,’ says: ‘And now we are come to the fourth cup. which was called the “cup of the Hallel”; for he finished the Hallel at it, and at it he said the blessing of the song. He had begun the Hallel over the second cup; for he concluded the Haggadah, or showing forth of their deliverance (as 1 Cor. xi. 26), with the rehearsal of the cxiii. and cxiv. Psalms. And now he begins with the cxv., and reheareth that and the cxvi., and the cxvii., and the cxviii.; for these six Psalms were the Hallel, as was observed even now.’ If a fifth cup was drunk, they sang with it what is called the Great Hallel. What was the Great Hallel? Rabbi Judah says, from ‘O give thanks’ to ‘By the rivers of Babylon,’ that is Psalms cxxxvi. and cxxxvii. inclusive. Rabbi Johanan says from ‘A Song of Degrees’ to ‘By the rivers of Babylon.’ Psalm cxx. has at its head ‘A Song of Degrees’; it is the first of the fifteen ‘Songs of Degrees.’ Rabbi Johanan’s testimony is to the effect that the Great Hallel which was sung with the fifth cup consisted of Psalms cxx. and cxxxvii. inclusive. Sometimes also at these feasts they sang Psalm cv., and at others Psalm xcvii. In connection with the bringing in of the first fruits Psalms cxxii., cl., and xxx. were chanted. Psalm xxx. was also sung at the Feast of Dedication. All this and more is given on the authority of the Talmud, the Mishna, Maimonides, Dr. Lightfoot, and Jewish Rabbis who are recognised authorities in such matters.”
In the very nature of things it was to be expected that the “hymn” referred to by Matthew and Mark should have been one or some of the Psalms used at the Passover, and in favour of this view, as has already been observed, there is a remarkable consensus of opinion among divines and commentators. Edersheim says:—“The ‘hymn’ with which the Paschal Supper ended had been sung. Probably we are to understand this of the second portion of the Hallel sung some time after the third cup, or else Psalm cxxxvi., which in the present Ritual stands near the end of the service. The last Discourses had been spoken, the last Prayer, that of Consecration, had been offered, and Jesus prepared to go forth out of the city, to the “Mount of Olives”—(Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah, vol. ii., 533).
Geikie, in referring to the subject, writes:—”Now, at the close, the voices of the eldest of them chanted, with slow, solemn strains, the remainder of the Hallelujah—the rest responding with the word Hallelujah, at the close of each verse. The anthem began fitly—’Not unto us, not unto us, but unto thy name, give glory for thy mercy and for thy truth’s sake,’ and closed with the words of the hundred and eighteenth Psalm—’Blessed be He that cometh in the name of Jehovah;’ the Apostles responding—’In the name of Jehovah, Hallelujah.’ And now all was over, and the Eleven, following their Master, went out into the night. They were on their way to Gethsemane”—(The Life and Words of Christ, vol. ii., p. 475). So also Meyer, in his Commentary on Matthew, in commenting on the Greek word translated in the Authorised Version, “They had sung an hymn,” says “the second portion of the Hallel.” Alexander thus refers to the passage in the Gospel according to St. Mark:—”When they had sung a hymn, in Greek a single word, hymning (or having hymned), referring, no doubt, to the series of Psalms usually chanted at the Passover, and known in the later Jewish ritual as the great Hallel”—(Commentary on Mark’s Gospel). It would be an easy matter to multiply quotations all pointing in the same direction. The main point to be observed, however, in these quotations is the unanimity of the different writers as to the opinion that it was Psalms that were used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Whatever differences exist among these writers, and we need not commit ourselves to tell the positions they lay down, yet notwithstanding these differences they are agreed on this point, that when the Supper of the new Dispensation took the place of the Passover of the old Dispensation the Psalms were sung at the inauguration of this solemn Feast.
From the evidence produced Dr. Binnie is justified in saying—”The singing of the Hallel by Christ and the Eleven in the guest-chamber on the night of His betrayal may be said to mark the point at which the Psalter passed over from the old Dispensation into the new; for it accompanied the celebration of the new ordinance of the Lord’s Supper as well as the celebration of the expiring Passover”—(The Psalms, their History, Teachings, and Use). No doubt it is owing to this ancient custom observed at the Passover, of singing the Hallel, that the Church in Scotland has in her best days used, in connection with dispensation of the Lord’s Supper, such Psalms as the 116th and 118th, both of which are included in the Hallel.
In a future issue we purpose to return to the discussion of the classic passages in Ephesians and Colossians, and in doing so to call attention to an excellent paper—one of the best in the whole volume—by Prof. John M’Naugher, D.D., LL.D., on “A Special Exegesis of Col. iii., 16, and Ephesians v., 19.”
D. B.
Interesting Document Discovered in Egypt.
To Old Testament students Egypt is, in interest, third with Israel and Assyria. At the present moment Egypt is of supreme interest on account of the valuable finds which the spade of the excavator is every now and then turning up. Its climate and soil are so dry that its dust heaps have preserved unimpaired, for thousands of years, documents of great interest, albeit written on fragile papyrus. Perhaps the most valuable document of this kind which has hitherto come to light, is one, of which a translation from the original Aramaic, by the capable scholar, Professor Margoliouth of Oxford, appears in the December number of the Expositor. This document, which is in the form of a letter, whose date is 20th November of the 17th year of Darius, was discovered recently at a place called Elephantine (near Syene) in Upper Egypt. The letter was written on behalf of a colony of Jews who must have settled in the Syene district a considerable time before the date now given, and it was sent to one Bagoas, Governor of Judea at the time.
Readers of the Bible will remember that shortly after Nebuchadnezzar had, in the 11th year of Zedekiah, burnt Jerusalem with fire and carried most of its inhabitants captive to Babylon, a miserable remnant of Jews, dragging Jeremiah, the Prophet, and Baruch, the son of Neriah, along with them, made their way into Egypt (Jerem. xliii. 5, 6). One of the last glimpses we get of Jeremiah is in expostulating in Upper Egypt (Pathros) with his fellow Jews on account of their idolatrously cleaving to the queen of heaven (Jerem. xliv. 15). That was shortly after the year 587 B.C. Now, this recently discovered letter, whose date, as we saw, is 20th November of the 17th year of Darius was, as we shall show, written some 117 years after Jeremiah and his company came into Upper Egypt, and probably by descendants of that very company. The 17th year of Darius is 410 B.C., for Darius II. must be here intended, Darius I. being out of the question, and Darius III. not having ruled for 17 years altogether, and the 17th year of Darius II. is 410 B.C. Mr. Stanley A. Cook, of Cambridge, I observe, gives 410 B.C. without hesitation as the date of the letter. From this letter we learn that some time before 525 B.C., when Egypt became part of the Medo-Persian Empire, the Jews had built a temple at Elephantine to the God of heaven. That Cambyses, the Medo-Persian King, shortly after subduing Egypt, destroyed a great part of its temples, has been a long known fact. This letter corroborates the truth of that piece of ancient history, and, in addition, gives us for the first time the interesting item, that the temple raised to Jehovah by the Jews of Elephantine was not interfered with by Cambyses. “When Cambyses,” we read, “came to Egypt, he found the temple built. And they destroyed all the temples of the Egyptian gods, but no one did any injury to that temple.” But the Jewish temple was not destined to be thus favourably treated for all time. In the year 414 B.C., i.e., 111 years after the demolition of the Egyptian temples by Cambyses, one Vidrang, Medo-Persian Governor of this district of Egypt, having been moved thereto by the heathen priests of the locality, utterly destroyed this Jewish temple, and from that time up to the time at which this letter was written, that is, from 414 B.C. to 410 B.C., the Jews of Upper Egypt “were clad in sackcloth and fasting, they had not anointed themselves with oil nor drunk wine.” Hence the letter, in which Jedoniah and other priests plead with Bagoas on behalf of this Jewish colony, that he might use his influence towards the rebuilding of their temple at Elephantine. And they promise Bagoas one thousand silver talents if he should do this for them.
The part of this letter which is of greatest interest to us is that in which the writers inform Bagoas that when the mischief was done in September of 414 B.C. they forthwith wrote to Johanan, the high priest, and his associates, the priests at Jerusalem, “but the nobles of the Jews,” say they, “sent no letter at all to us.” For it is extremely important for us in this way to learn that in 414 B.C., however much earlier, Johanan was high priest in Jerusalem. For the higher critics, relying upon Josephus, who wrote some five centuries after the event, place Johanan considerably later than 414 B.C., and have not hesitated on this ground to charge the book of Nehemiah, and especially that of Ezra, with glaring anachronisms. It was long known that Josephus had got mixed about the respective places of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes in Babylonian history, while the lately-come-to-light monuments of Babylon have proved the Bible history on those matters true. This letter which we are now noticing shows that Josephus is as little to be relied on in the dates he assigns to the high priesthood of Eliashib, Jehoiada, Johanan, and Jaddua (Nehemiah xii. 22), as in the places he assigns to Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, and once again the truth of Bible history is confirmed. Let me explain. Ezra, we read (Ezra x. 6), after having made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel to swear that they would put away their strange wives, “rose up from before the house of God, and went into the chamber of Johanan, the son of Eliashib.” The exact year in which Ezra did this is not known—we know that he came up from Babylon in the year 458 B.C., and that Nehemiah’s first visit to Jerusalem took place in the year 444 B.C. Ezra’s going into the chamber of Johanan may have taken place at any time between those years. Now, Ezra does not say that Johanan was high priest at the time. The manner in which his name is mentioned, as the son of Eliashib, looks rather as if he were not quite then high priest. But from this recently discovered letter we learn that Johanan was certainly in the high priest’s office in 414 B.C. He may have been high priest for many years previous to 414 B.C. The only contemporary documents are Ezra, Nehemiah, and this letter. Ezra, in effect, says that sometime after 458 B.C., possibly a good few years after that date, he had on a certain occasion gone into the chamber of Johanan, son of Eliashib. This letter, in effect, says that in 414 B.C., and possibly for several years before that date, Johanan was high priest. There surely is no discrepancy between these two statements, and they are the only contemporary statements bearing on the point. And yet Stade and other higher critics, with only Josephus to go upon, think it necessary to place the high priesthood of Johanan not earlier than 399 B.C., and on that reckoning impugn the veracity of Ezra. 399 B.C., it is now seen, is an impossible date for the commencement of Johanan’s high priesthood.
This letter also confirms as against Josephus and those higher critics who here build on him, the truth of the book of Nehemiah. Nehemiah, whose date is, say 432 B.C., places as we know the satrapy of Sanballat in Samaria contemporaneously with his own government in Jerusalem. Josephus on the other hand introduces Sanballat as a contemporary of Alexander the Great, say in 333 B.C. The letter in question corroborates the truth of Nehemiah’s history. For towards its close Jedoniah and his associates inform Bagoas that a copy of the same letter was being sent to Delayah and Shelamyah, sons of Sanballat. Nehemiah’s trouble with Sanballat was before or about the year 432 B.C. Twenty-two years later these Jewish colonists in Upper Egypt recognise Sanballat’s sons as in power. Could anything be more in order?
Josephus being thus shewn to be wrong not only about Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, but also about Sanballat, while the Bible is, by evidence unimpeachable and external to itself, shewn to be correct in both these regards, it follows that Josephus cannot be trusted in what he says about Jaddua, son of Johanan, as having met Alexander the Great in peace when the latter was approaching Jerusalem, nor is it worthy of men claiming to be scientific historians to conclude that Nehemiah xiii., 22, is too late for the Governor Nehemiah to have written it, merely because Josephus gives 331 B.C. as the date of the death of Jaddua, seeing that Jaddua’s father, Johanan, is now seen to have been high priest in 414 B.C., and Jaddua himself may have been high priest shortly afterwards. If Nehemiah was, say between 30 and 40 years of age in 432 B.C., he would have been by no means a very old man in 414 B.C., and he might have lived during part of Jaddua’s high priesthood.
This letter shews, we may add, by means of one word, that Nehemiah’s book bears the hall-mark of Nehemiah the Governor’s own time. Everyone knows what trouble Nehemiah had with the nobles of Jerusalem. The word Nehemiah uses for nobles is “Horim,” a rather unusual word, occurring, however, seven times in Nehemiah, and in that way more frequently than in the rest of the Bible altogether. When the writers of the letter reviewed remark that the nobles of the Jews had not replied to them, they used the same term “Horim.” The use of the term in these virtually contemporaneous documents helps to reveal to us more plainly where we are standing.
God’s word is true from the beginning. It is so, also, throughout. Corroboration after corroboration is being given to the truth of Scripture, and that as regards points concerning which objections were raised, to which it was difficult to give an answer that should silence gainsayers on grounds of reason alone. But there is not one of these corroborations but ought to give us to lay to heart that, as surely as the truth of the Bible on matters of past history are thus to our agreeable astonishment being daily vindicated, so surely will the truth of the Bible doctrine of reconciliation, of the new birth, of holiness, of death, of judgment, and of an endless eternity, one day be vindicated as being the weightiest and most solemn realities.
J. R. M.
The Memoirs or Spiritual Exercises of Elisabeth West.
(WRITTEN BY HER OWN HAND.)
(Continued from page 307.)
The Sabbath before the fast for the Union I came to Edinburgh to hear Mr. Webster, who was on the Prodigal Son, “who would fain have filled his belly with husks”; which he compared to false doctrine, and applied to the Church of England, which was corrupted with the false husks. He named very many of their errors, but my memory cannot retain them distinctly, which gave me occasion to think he designed this against the Union, though at this time he knew not the articles of it. When I came home to the rest of the family they told me that, had I been at Libberton-kirk, I would have been pleased, for he seemed to be flat against the Union. I told them I was at no loss, being so well where I was; but I was very well pleased to hear that any of the godly was against it, and the truth is, the most part of the godly in Scotland were against it, and that on just and solid grounds. As for my own private case, it seemed to leave me for a time so that I was not so much troubled anent my own perplexities concerning myself, for I thought, let the Lord do with me as He will, but Scotland, Scotland lies near my heart!
The night immediately before the fast-day I found myself in a very ill-frame, capable for no duty, I was so dead and lifeless, nowise in order for the day approaching, which was heavy on me. This ill frame continued with me until I was just casting off my clothes to go to rest; then I found a vehement desire arose in me to be at prayer again, which motion I followed, and desire to bless the Lord therefore. For in this place I enjoyed a sweet (though short) while of communion with God, where clouds were removed, and I got leave to plead for my mother-Church, that He would make Jerusalem a quiet habitation. What a comfortable time this was! I intended only to ask good things for the Church, but my liberal Lord not only gave me good things for Scotland, but many great and good things for myself too.
I saw that sore judgments were abiding this land, and this Union was a forerunner of them; but that I might not be swallowed up in sorrow, these cordials were given me from His Word: “I will cause the enemy to entreat you well. Surely it will be well with thy remnant.” I also saw that there was a glorious day abiding Scotland, the like of which hath not been yet, and that my eyes should see it. This was confirmed to me by three Scriptures: “Thine eyes shall see the King in His beauty. Ye shall not taste of death till you see the kingdom of God come in power. Ye shall be brought to the grave in a good old age, as a shock of corn full ripe.” These sweet Scriptures came with life and power, and I was made to believe and lay stress on them. This bred in me hope of a good fast-day approaching, and I thought may be the Lord will confirm this to me in public. In the morning I was allowed near access to the throne of grace, when that word came with power, when I was pleading for the Church of Scotland, Christ’s married spouse, and my mother, “Ask what you will, and it shall be granted to you.” Where I was strengthened to put up these requests, “That God, for Christ’s sake, would preserve the ark among us, pure, without the mixture of popery, prelacy, and the Church of England, with its errors in doctrine and worship. O let us be a Church and nation as long as the sun and moon endure. Revive Thy covenant-work among us. O come back with days of Thy wonted power, and let the womb of the Gospel become fruitful, and bring forth many sons and daughters to Christ.” I also did put up some requests against the Union, and was answered with that word, Psalm xxxiii. 10, 11: “The Lord bringeth the counsel of the wicked to nought, but the counsel of the Lord that shall stand. He breaketh the ships of Tarshish with the east wind.” When I came to the public, where I thought to be strengthened, I found the contrary; for I was wounded, and that to the heart. Mr. Semple was on that place: “At what instant I spoke against a nation or kingdom,” &c., where he endeavoured to please both parties, but especially those that were for the Union. He said, “It is expected I will speak anent what this day is set apart for—concerning an Union betwixt Scotland and England.” “The truth is,” said he, “we are all one kingdom, we are all one island, we are all one religion, they are the greatest bulwark against popery.” Thus he went on, to the grief of some, and to my grief also, for the application was very easy, that he spoke here for the Union. After sermon, I got leave to tell my mind again in secret against this black bargain. I would fain have believed that a stop would be put to it, yet I remained very discouraged with fear it would be. I was enquiring how the ministers of Edinburgh were pleased ; they told me that Mr. Sandilands said in his sermon, that if this Union was carried on, England would make us hewers of wood and drawers of water. This, indeed, looked something like plain dealing, and, as he was watchman, to warn his people of their danger.
A little after this the articles appeared ; but this is such an unpleasant subject, that I weary to write how every thing contributed to the grief of my spirit. To see our noblemen and gentry, that were parliamenters, so mad as to go in with so unreasonable terms. There were none among them all to witness and appear for this poor nation but my Lord Belhaven, who spoke to good purpose in his two speeches against the Union ; but to no effect, for this was concluded.
After all was done and over I began to have some sad reflections on what had been done, and how melancholy it was that we were sold to the hands of our enemies, who ever sought our hurt, but never our well ; for then were these things brought to my consideration : First, It but fares with Scotland as it did with Christ Himself ; for He was sold into the hands of His enemies, and what needs it be thought strange though they have sold His house and family ! Secondly, Christ was sold by those in His own house and family, and so was poor Scotland ! It was our own nobles and some of our gentry that did this mischievous thing. Thirdly, Judas sold Christ for money, though he was not the richer of it ; so our Judases sold this land for money, as they call equivalent ; O sad equivalent ! Fourthly, After Christ was sold by Judas, then did they mock, reproach, and use all manner of contempt to this ever-blessed plant of renown ; so it is with us, are we not become a reproach to all our neighbours ? And those to whom we are sold, they use very bitter and malicious speeches against us, and with venom do they spue them out, to the grief of the most part of the godly in this land ; and even they that are but true Scotsmen cannot but be touched with such indignities done to us. There was a word went much with me for some time, which I applied to this case : Isa. xxiv. 16, ” The treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously ; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously.” I desire to bless the Lord however it went ; I was sometime, now and then, getting the King’s ear in secret, which kept up my heart when almost sunk. As for the public ordinances, they were much deserted as to me ; I found little of the Lord’s mind there. I shall lay the blame on myself and no other. I went to several places where the Sacrament was given, but I found an absent Lord ; yet I dare not say this altogether, for I heard Mr. John Flint at one of them on Rev. iii. 12, ” Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out.” O what I felt of the love of God in this sermon ! In every sentence I thought I found life and power, and a vehement desire to be where I would go no more out to sin and a vain world again.
(To be Continued.)
Searmón.
LEIS AN URR. MR. EON BROWN, WAMPHRAY, 1680.
“An sin thubhairt an Tighearn rium, Ged’ sheasamh Maois agus Samuel a’m’ láthair, cha bhiodh m’anam leis an t-slugh so; cuir a mach iad a m’fhanuis, agus siubhladh iad air falbh.”—IEREMIAH XV. I.
A NN an àm, do thaobh peacaidhean follaiseach a bhi ’meudachadh, ’sam bheil an Tighearn a’ tabhairt air aghaidh trioblaidean follaiseach agus coitchonn, air doigh àraidh an leithid ’sa tha sguabadh air falbh am firean maille ris an aingidh, agus nach b’urrainn sin a bhi air a bhacadh no air a chumail air ais, le uile urnuighean agus asluchaidh a phobuill, ciod sam bith co d’turachdach ’sa bhiodh iad a’ guidhe, cha mheasar e na mhìr ro bheag do dhoillbheachd, cionnas a choisneas creid’mhach gu beatha sam bith a bhi aige, no aithne a bhi aige ciod e sin beatha a bhi aige, ann an leithid sin do latha brónach. Feudaidh e uime sin bhi air son féum gu’n labhair sinn beagan uime so, gu sònruchte do bhrigh ’s gu’m bheil e gle chosmhail gu’r e so cor na ginealaich so.
Tha na briathran so, agus an leithid so do dh’earrainnean, a’ nochdadh dhuinn, gu dearbh gu’m bheil àm ann, ’nuair a tha Dia mar so air a bhrosnachadh le peacaidhean an t-slugh, an deigh mòr fhoighidinn agus fhad-fhulangais a mhíghnathachadh, naca éisd e ri athchuinge gus a bhuille a chumail air ais a tha e h’ rùnachadh a chuir, no a bhagair e do thaobh brosnachaidhean, ni mò a bhitheas a chuid is urramaich do a luchd fàbhair agus gleachd, a bhuadhaich aig cuid do dh’amaibh mar phrionnsaibh maillte ris, nach bi iad comasach air seasamh ’san rathad, agus a bhuille a chuir seachad, le’n uile urnuighean agus athchuinge’ dh’turachdach. Bha Dia a’ rùnachadh a thabhairt air sluagh Iudah an fhàsalachd a bhagair e o chian-fhada, an ni a chuir e an céill le a sheirbhiseach Ieremiah, ag radh anns vii. caib. 14, 15, Gu’n deanadh e r’a thigh aig Ierusalem a dh’ainmicheadh air-san, agus anns na chuir iadsan an dòchas, mar a rinn e ri Siloh; agus gu’n tilgeadh e iad a mach as a shealladh, mar a thilg e mach am braithrean, an t-iomlan de shliochd Ephraim. Agus a chum ’s gu’n tuigeadh Ieremiah cinnteachas a bhagair so, tha e ’cuir ris, anns an 16, “Uime sin na dean thus urnuigh air son an t sluagh so, ni mò a chuireas tu suas glaodh no athchuinge as an leth, ni mò a ni thu eadar-ghuidhe rium-sa, oir cha’n éisd mise riut.” Cha’n ’eil an Tighearn a’ ciallachadh cho mòr le so is gu’m b’áill leis gu’n sguireadh Ieremiah, agus nach deanadh e urnuigh tuille as an leth, mar air son cinnteachas a rùn agus a shuidheachadh gus a bfreith-eanas a thoirt air a h-aghadh, air a leithid do dnoigh ’s nach buadhaicheadh uile luchd eadar-ghuidhe no eadar-mheadhoin. Agus tha so a ris air ath-nuadhachadh, anns a xi. 14. Uime sin na dean thus urnuigh air son an t-slugh so, ni mò a thogas tu suas glaodh no athchuinge as an leth, oir cha’n éisd mise ‘san àm anns an glaodh iad rium ‘nan airc. Mar gu’n abradh e, tha’n t-òrdugh a nis air dol a mach, ni mò a bhuadhaicheas iad air an son féin, no thus as an leth. Gidheadh cha b’urrainn do Ieremiah tròcaireach an di-chuimhneachadh ann a chuid urnuighean, ach tha e ag eadar-ghuidhe gu dúrachdach ris an Tighearn air an son, Ieremiah xiv. 1, ‘o thus a chaibideil gus an 10 rann. Ni mu’n dubhairt an Tighearn ris an treas uair, rann 11, Na guidh as leth an t-sluagh so air son an leas. Gidheadh air son so uile, tha Ieremiah o’n 19, gu deireadh a chaibideil, a’ dol air aghaidh ann an obair na h-urnuigh, a’ guidhe sa’ tagair gu dúrachdach air an son. Ach a nis tha’n Tighearn ag innseadh dha, caib. xv. 1, Nach buadhaicheadh Maois no Samuel as an leth; agus uime sin gu’m feudadh esan a bhi na’s fearr air a thoileachadh gu chluinn-tean nach deonaicheadh Dia athchuingean féin air an son.
Tha’n leithide sin againn air a rath ceithir uairean thairis, Esec. xiv. 14, 16, 18, 20. Ged’ bhiodh an triuir fhear so, Noah, Daniel, agus Job, innte, cha saoradh iad ach an anama féin le’m fireant-achd, deir an Tighearn Dia. Agus a ris, ged’ bhiodh an triuir dhaoinne so ann, mar is beò mise, tha’n Tighearn Dia ag rath, cha saoradh iad aon-chuid mic no nigheanna, shaointeachd iad féin a mhain, ach bhiodh am fearann fàs. Tha chòis ma seadh, air am bheil sinne gu aire thabhairt follaiseach; ‘se sin, gu’m bheil àm ann, ‘nuair a thig peacaidhean sluagh gu a leithid sin do dh’airde, ‘s nach caomhainn Dia air sgàth eadar-ghuidhe duine beò. Cha’n éisd e ri athchuinge sam bith. Bha sin na bhinn neo-choachluid-each agus dosheachanta ann an aghaidh tigh Eli urramaich, 1 Sam. iii. 14, Agus uime sin mhionnaich mi do thig Eli, nach glanar as aingidheachd tighe Eli, le h-iobairt no le tabhairteas gu bràth. ‘Nuair a b’aill leis an Tighearn toiseachadh, b’aill leis crochnachadh mar an ceudna, mar a tha e air a rath, rann 12. Mar an ceudna, Isa. xx. 14. Agus dh’fhoillscheidh le Tighearn na’n sluagh ann mo chluasaibh, gu deimhin cha ghlanar an aingidheachd so air falbh uaibh gus am faigh sibh bàs. Tha àm ann, ‘nuair a tha chroich air teachd, agus ‘nuair a bheir an Tighearn breith air sluagh do reir an slighbh, agus a dhiolas e orra an grainealachdan uile; agus nach caomhainn a shuil, ni mò a ghabhas e truas; mar ann an Esec. vii. 2-10. Agus nach gabh an Tighearn seachad orra nì’s mò, Amos vii. 8; viii. 2.
Cha’n urrainn a leithid do dh’àm agus do fhrithealadh ‘sa tha’n so gun bhi trioblaideach agus doighiosach do gach neach a tha fo churam mu thimchioll na cùis, agus feudaiddh beachd air na nithe sonraichte so bhi nochdadh cia dubhach ‘sa ta e, ‘nuair a tha’n Tighearn air a bhosnachadh ann an aghaidh sluagh ann an leithid do dhoigh ‘s nach dean eadar-ghuidhe na dream is mo fabhair maille ris, muintir aig cuid do amaibh, aig an athchuinge gu’n d’fhoillsich e co-aontachaidhean iongantach de e ghras, nach buachaich iad gus a bhuille a chumail air a h-aig; cha dean aon chuid Maois no Samuel so le cheile.
1. Gu’n d’rinn an Tighearn moran air eadar-ghuidhe agus athchuinge an dithis so, air mhodh araiddh Maois agus Samuel;
air son Mhaois, faic Exod. xxxii. far an robh an Tighearn fo’ leithid do dh’fhearg is do dhiumadh ris an t-sluagh air son pilltinn cho grad as an t-slighe, agus deanamh an laoigh Óir, is gu’n dubhairt e ri Maois, rann 9, 10, Chunnaic mi an sluagh so, agus feuch is sluagh rag-mhuinealach iad. ‘Nis, uime sin, leig leam, a chum ‘s gu’n las mo chorruich ‘nan aghaidh, agus claoidhidh mi iad; agus fathast air eadar-ghuidhe Mhaois, ag radh, ann an rann 11, 12, 13, C’ar son, a Thighearn, a ta do chorruich a’ lasadh an aghaidh do shluaigh, a thug thu mach a talamh na h-Eiphit, le cumbachd mhòr, agus le laimh threin, &c. Tha e air a radh, rann 14, Gu’n do ghabh an Tighearn aithreachas d’an olc a bhagair e a dheanamh air a shluagh. Air an doigh cheudna mar air son Shamel, chi sinn, 1 Sam. vii., ‘Nuair a bha clann Israeil fo’ eagal mhòr mu na Philistich, thubhairt iad ri Samuel, rann 8, Na sguir do ghlaodh-aich ris an Tighearn ar Dia, air ar son, a chum’s gu’n saor e sinn o laimh na Philistich. Agus air son so ghlaodh Samuel ris an Tighearn air son Israeil, agus dh’eisd an Tighearn ris. Faic, mar an ceudna Salm xci. 6. Nach brónach an ni, gu’m bheil an Tighearn, a rinn aig cuid do dh’amaibh cho mòr air eadar-ghuidhe na dream so, a nis co mòr air a bhrosnachadh ‘s nach gabhadh e suim d’an eadar-ghuidhe, ‘s nach caomhnadh e air an iarrtais?
2. Gu’n do chaomhainn an Tighearn gu minig, agus gu’n do chum e bhuille air ais o a shluagh air sgath eadar-mheadhonair-eachd mhuinntir eile,
mar Amos vii. 2, 3, 5, 6, ‘Nuair a rinn e urnuigh air son an t-sluagh, agus a thubhairt e, O Thighearn! Dhe, maith, guidheam ort; co thogas suas Iacob? oir tha re o bheag. Ghabh an Tighearn aithreachas dheth so: cha tachair so. Agus a ris rinn e urnuigh an dara h-uair, agus fhuair e am freagrath ceudna. Air an doigh cheudna Nehemiah ix., agus Daniel ix., agus Asa, 2 Eachd. xiv. 11, agus Iehosaphat, 2 Eachd. xx., agus muinntir eile.
3. Gu’n do chum an Tighearn aig cuid do amaibh air ais a bhuille, eadthon ‘nuair a rinn muinntir gun ghras, aig nach robh maoidhean araiddh ann am fabhair Dhe, ‘nuair a rinn iad urnuigh agus a dh’irioslaich siad iad fein;
mar a chaomhainn e Ninebbe, an deigh gn’n d’rinn an sluagh nàdurach sin iad fein irioslachadh. Agus an duine aingidh sin, Ahab, a rinn olc ann an sealladh an Tighearn os-cionn na h-uile a bha roimhe, 1 Righre xvi. 30, 33, ‘nuair a reub e eudach, agus a chuir e saic-eudach air fheoil, agus a thraisg e’sa luidh e ann an eudach-saic, agus a dh’umhailidh se e fein, chuir an Tighearn dàil anns a bhuille agus cha d’thuigadh e an t-olc air a thig na là, 1 Righre xvi. 27, 29. Cia dubhach a dh’fheumas e bhi ma ‘seadh, esan, aig cuid do amaibh a phill o ghaire a chorruich, agus a chum air ais an t-olc a bhagair e, air son glaodhaich muinntir gun ghràs, nach éisd e a nis ri guidhe na dream a’s mò na fhabhair?
4. Taisbeanaidh am frithealadh so mar an ceudna nì’s ro thrioblaidich’ agus dhubhaich’,
ma bheir sinn fainear am meas mor a th’aig an Tighearn ann an urnuighean agus ann an eadar-ghuidhe a phobhail ainmeil. Leithid do chliu ‘sa tha aig orra, ‘s gu’m bheil aithris air gu dearbh gle ainneamh agus comhraithe. Leig dhomh, a deir e ri Maois, Exod. xxxii. 11, mar gu’m bu treise Maois na esan, agus gu’n do cheangail e suas a làmhan; no mar nach b’urrainn Dia a bheag sam bith a dheanamh as eugmhaís ordugh no aont’ Mhaois. ‘S amhuiil a thubhairt e ri Iacob, Gen. xxxii. 26, ‘nuair a bha e ‘gleachd ris le urnuighean agus athchuingean, Hosea xii. 4. Leig as mi; mar nach b’urrainn e falbh a dh’earshuidh cead agus ordugh Iacob; agus tha e air a radh mu Iacob gu’n d’thug e buaidh mar phrionns maillte ri Dia, agus uime sin gu’m bheil ainm air ath’raichadh gu Israel.
5. Cuir ri so mar-an-ceudna na geallaidhean minig a rinn an Tighearn gu’n éisdeadh e ri’n leithide sin do thoibh muinntir eile,
Gen. xx. 7. Thubhairt an Tighearn ri Abimelich, thoir air a h-ais do’n duine a bhean, oir is faidh e, agus ni e urnuigh air do shon, agus bithidh tu beò. Mar an ceudna, Job. xlii. 8. Sheòl an Tighearn cairdean Ioib gu a chuir air obair na h-urnuigh air an son, le gealladh gu’n soirbhicheadh e leis. Rachaibh a dh’ionnsuidh m’oglach Job, agus iobraidh e iobairt loisgte air bhur son féin, agus ni m’oglach Job urnuigh air bhur son, oir ris-san gabhaidh mi. Cia brònach ma ‘seadh a dh’fheumas e bhi, ‘nuair nach éisid an Tighearn ri’n leithide sin. Faic mar an ceudna, Seumas v. 14, 15, 16.
6. ‘Seadh aig cuid dò amaibh tha sinn a’ leughadh, gu’n do shaor an Tighearn, ‘nuair nach robh eadar-mheadhonair ann,
Isa. lix. 16, 17. Agus chunnaic e nach robh eadar-mheadhonair ann. Uime sin dh’obrach a ghairean féin slainte air a shon, agus ‘fhireantachd féin chum i suas e. ‘Nach e a chorruich ma ‘seadh a dh’fheumas bhi mòr, ‘nuair nach caomhainn e, agus nach gabh e truas, eadon ge d’ bhiodh a phobull a’s ro-ainmeil, air am bheil e a’ cuir mòr urram, na’n seasamh ‘na lathair, agus a’ cuir suas an athchuinge air son sluagh peacach?
7. Thubhairt e, Salm l. 15, Gairm orm ann an latha teanntachd, agus saoraidh mise thu.
Nach brònach an ni ma ta, ‘nuair a tha aingidheachd air teachd gu leithid do dh’airde, ‘s nach e a mhain nach éisid an Tighearn ris an t-sluagh iad féin ‘nuair a ghlaothas iad; ach mar an ceudna nach éisid e ri guidhe no ri aslachaidh na dream a’s mò a bhuadhaich maillte ris aig amaibh eile?
8. Mar an ceudna ma bheir sinn fainear cia co neo-fhreagair each ‘sa tha so a’ taisbeanadh a bhi do’n ainm agus do’n tiotal a fhuair e,
agus thug beachdachadh air an ni cheudna, misneach do sheirbhisich gu gairm air-san: Mar Salim lxv. 2. “O thus a dh’eisdeas ri h-urnuigh, thugad-sa thig gach feòil.” Cha’n urrainn a leithid do fhritheladh ‘sa tha so gun bhi dubhach agus craiteach.
Ma bhitheas e air fheorach c’uin a thugheas sinn an t-àm a bhi a leithid as nach éisid an Tighearn ri eadar-ghuidhe, no urnuighean, no athchuinge an dream a’s mò fabhair, air son sluagh peacach, an aghaidh am bheil an Tighearn a’ teachd ann an breitheanas? Freagram, ged’ nach feud sinn a bhi iomlan ann an so, a’ fos-rachadh gu’m bheil an Tighearn aig cuid do amaibh a’ gabhail tlachd ann a bhi gniomhrachadh do reir ard-uachdranachd a thròcair, air son gloir a shaor-ghràis agus a thruais; agus uime sin feumar rùm fhàgail do dh’uachdranachd saor-ghràs: gidheadh, ma bheir sinn fa’near staidean t-sluaigh so, mu’m bheil so air a radh, agus gu’m faic sinn ciod an aingidheachd d’an robh iad ciontach aig an àm so, feudaidh sinn a bheachdachadh gu’m feud suil a bhi ris an ni cheudna, far am bheil Dia anns an ni cheudna agus air an doigh cheudna air a bhrosnachadh, agus ‘nuair a tha e a’ teachd ann am breitheanas ann an aghaidh sluagh, aig am bheil na h-uile cheudna ri chuir as an leth, tha e na aobhar eagail nach dean urnuigh, no eadar-ghuidhe aon neach no neach eile an gnothach gus a bhuille no a bhreitheanas a chumail air a h-aids. Mu pheacaidhean an t-sluaigh so air son nach éisdeadh an Tighearn ri eadar-ghuidhe sam bith, ainnichidh sinn tearc dhiubh, a chum’s gur fhear a thuigeas sinn cainnt frithealaidd Dhé san àm air lathair; agus a chum rannsachadh agus fhaicinn co-dhiubh a tha aobhar eagail ann no nach ‘eil, air son an ni breitheanas do-sheachanta is crannchuir do na ghinealach so.
1. ‘Nuair a tha peacaidhean agus ceannairc ann an aghaidh an Tighearn air teachd gu airde ro mhòr,
agus ‘nuair a tha claon-aidhean mòr agus soilleir air tòiseachadh, agus air an tabhairt air an aghaidh le cuirt agus duthaich, an sin tha’n Tighearn fo cheangal air son ainm agus a cheartas a dhion ‘an sealladh an t-saoghail, a chum as gu’m faic na h-uile nach ‘eil esan na fhear dion aingidheachd, eadhon ann an sluagh a ta air an gairm air ainm. Mar so bha e ann an laithean Mhanaseh, neach maile-ri a chüirt a gniomh’raich a leithid do dh’aingidheachd .anl tromaichte, nach robh riamh roimhe ‘san àite sin air an cuir an gniomh, mar a chithear ann an 2 Righre xxi. 1-10, 2 Eachd. xxxiii. 1-11, anns an robh an tìr gu h-iomlan air a ribeadh. Uime sin bhagair an Tighearn, 2 Righre xxi. 12, 13, 14, &c., Agus sinidh mi mach os cionn Ierusalem sreang-thomhais Shamaria agus sreang-riaghailt thigh Ahaib; se sin, gu’n deanadh e ri Ierusalem mar a rinn e ri Samaria agus ri tigh Ahaib, agus nach caomhnadh e iad so ni ‘s mò na iad sud. Agus (ni a tha gle chomhraichte) an aingidheachd so cha mhaitheadh an Tighearn, ge d’ fhuair Manaseh féin tròcair, agus ge do dh’ath-leasaich e ann an iomadh ni roimh a bhàs, fathast ge do bha ath-leasaichadh ni bu ro choitchionn ann an laithean Iosia ogha, mu am bheil e air a radh nach robh a leithid do righ ann; oir tha e air a radh, 2 Righre xxiii. 25, 26, 27, “Cosmhail ris-san cha robh righ air bith roimhe, a phill a dh’ionnsuidh an Tighearn le uile chridhe, agus le ‘uile anam, agus le ‘uile neart, a reir lagh Mhaois uile; agus na dheigh cha d’etrich a shamhuil. Gidheadh, tha e air a radh, cha do phill an Tighearn o theas fheirge mhòr, leis an do las fhearg an aghaidh Iudah, air son na’n uile bhrosnachadh leis an do bhrosnaich Manasch e. Agus thubhairt an Tighearn, ath’raichidh mi Iudah mar an ceudna as mo shealladh, &c.; agus anns an aite cheudna, Ierem. xv., an deigh gu’n d’thubhairt an Tighearn, rann 1, Ge do sheasadh Maois agus Samuel na lathair, nach biodh inntinn leò; ach gu’n tilgeadh se iad a mach as a shealladh, “a chum a bhàis, a chum a chlaidhe, a chum na goirt, agus a chum na braighdeanais,” rann 2, “gus a chlaidheamh, a chum na’n con, a chum eunlaith an athair, agus a chum beathaichean na machrach,” 3. Tha e ag ràdh, anns an 4 rann, Agus fuadaichidh mi iad air feadh uile rioghachdan an domhain, air son Mhanasch, mhic Heseciah, righ Iudaih, air son na nithe sin a rinn e ann an Jerusalem.
(Ri leantuin.)
Sermons by J. K. Popham.*
* London: Farncombe & Son, 30 Imperial Buildings, E.C.
Brighton: Mr. Popham, “Normandien,” Surrenden Road.
This tastily-got-up volume of 283 pages contains twenty-five sermons, which are arranged in four groups. These groups are: Justification. Confession and Prayer, Constraining Reasons to live to the Lord, and Restoration. These discourses are serious and godly. The book is really a unit, and ought to be read from beginning to end. The doctrine of these sermons will be then seen to be comparable to a stream which, breaking forth from the roots of great mountains, after passing through places—some smooth and others rough, some sombre and others bright—at length issues in a sweet, broad river, whose waters are peaceful and exhilarating.
To those of our readers who do not have the privilege of a personal acquaintance with this Strict Baptist preacher, we shall most easily and faithfully convey what is his theological standpoint by saying that he belongs to the same school of thought as did the late well-known Mr. J. C. Philpot. Not that Mr. Popham’s preaching—save for its clearness, seriousness, and spirituality—reminds one much of Mr. Philpot. Mr. Philpot was one of the greatest textual preachers of modern times, and his expositions, which, as a rule, are at once so energetically and spiritually true, remain ever after with spiritual readers as a precious inheritance. As an experimental preacher, Mr. Philpot had a remarkable insight into, and dwelt very largely upon, the doctrine and experience of effectual calling. Mr. Popham’s mind, although not trained altogether as Mr. Philpot’s was, is, in the technical sense, of a more theological cast, the doctrines to which his soul most fully responds being such as the Trinity, the Person of Christ, and Justification. In the field of experience we find Mr. Popham’s great exercise to be concerning indwelling sin and sanctification.
We prize these sermons on account of the persistent manner in which, in order to salvation, a thorough change of a sinner’s state and nature is insisted on. We prize them for the comfort which they are fitted to convey to those whose experience is that “the depths have closed them round about, that the weeds are wrapped about their head;” and we prize them still further for the sane, practical advice given to anxious enquirers. As illustrating our last remark, take the following from a sermon whose heading is “Faith’s Labour For Rest”:—”These and all other other gracious invitations,” says Mr. Popham, “such as ‘Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool’—these all constitute a great and immovable, gracious and suitable warrant for poor people to stand on, mention, and plead in prayer before the Almighty. You may stand and hesitate, saying to yourself, ‘I do not know if my thirst is right, if my convictions are of the Spirit, if my want of rest is not only natural.’ Or you may say, ‘Those portions have not been given me.’ But do let me invite your strict attention to this—do you find such a point raised in any of the Scriptures I have quoted, or in any part of the Word of God? There is His revealed will, our warrant—not only the portions that have been made over to us, nor whether we have grace already wrought in us according to our own judgment. Christ says ‘the sick need a physician, etc.'” We should like, did not space forbid, to give several quotations from these practical and savoury discourses, but let what has been quoted for the present suffice.
Mr. Popham has, no doubt, followed in the line of the greatest Strict Baptist preachers in maintaining, as in the sermons, “Justification Twofold,” that Justification is a state belonging to the people of God ever since Christ rose from the dead on their behalf. We prefer the Westminster Confession’s way of stating this matter:—”God did from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins and rise again for their justification: nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth in due time actually apply Christ unto them.”
We hope it shall not be thought ungracious that we have thus referred to the solitary doctrinal point with which we find it difficult to agree with Mr. Popham in a volume of sermons which we have experienced as being well fitted to solemnise, to convict, to instruct, and to comfort, in a healthy manner, precious, sinful souls. We hope the volume may have a large circulation.
J. R. M.
A notice of the late Mr. Thomas Forbes, elder, Inverness, is, we regret, held over till next issue. Death is busy at present. Mrs. M’Callum, Auchenlochan, Kames, a very aged and worthy person, known to some of our readers, has just passed away.
The late Mrs. Macleod, Laide.
It is now nearly a year since the subject of this brief notice came, we believe, to the end of the days of her mourning. Mrs. Macleod, Laide, was born some 73 years ago at Sheildaig, Lochcarron. When a comparatively young girl, she heard that eminent Catechist, William Urquhart, father of the late William Urquhart, Cove, conducting a prayer meeting in Plockton, and the impressions that day received lasted with her throughout life. In 1873 she was left a widow, with a young helpless family of three sons and one daughter. Even then the Lord Himself was her stay and her help; and her experiences of the faithfulness of her God during those years of trial were, it is not too much to think, a means of disciplining her, so as that in later years, when the cause of truth became low, and its friends few, she was enabled without shame or slavish fear to be foremost among those who identified themselves with the much despised and suffering cause.
Mrs. Macleod, besides being a woman of deep experience of the power of the truth, and strong in faith in her reliance on it, was a person whose intelligence was considerably above the average. Her talents, in this regard, were recognised by the Free Church, who at one time employed her for several years in succession as a Bible reader among the Highland fisher girls employed at Fraserburgh and Peterhead. In this capacity Mrs. Macleod was very acceptable, and won the confidence of those to whom, in a humble way, she ministered. After this she received some training in nursing in a hospital at Gairloch, which the late Mr. Francis Mackenzie, of Bulgaria, had established and was then supporting. With this training she came, some 31 years ago, as a nurse to Laide, Aultbea, and at Laide she continued to live until her course here below was finished, on the 25th January, 1907. It is not too much to say that Mrs. Macleod was the most noted Christian woman in that district, at least within recent years. Ever since the appointment, in 1889, of Dr. Dods to the Professorship of New Testament Exegesis in room of the godly Dr. George Smeaton, she felt her position in the Free Church an uncomfortable one, and used, we are told, to be much exercised in those days with the words of Isaiah lii. 11—”Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing, go ye out of the midst of her, be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord.” The separation, which took place in 1893, was, on this account, a relief to her; and she was, besides, oftentimes the means of comforting those who, along with her, stood for the truth with those consolations wherewith she herself was upheld by the Word of the Lord.
The writer cherishes the sincerest reverence for her precious memory, and on that account, though a reference to her removal is so delayed, trusts even at this late hour that some space may be found in the pages of the Free Presbyterian Magazine for a brief notice.
J. R. M.
The late Mrs. Mackenzie, Dochnaclair, Fodderty.
While we ought to be thankful that our Dingwall Congregation is somewhat increasing in numbers, we regret to have so often to mention the removal by death of some of God’s people from our midst.
The subject of this sketch was an eminent Christian woman—brought under the saving influence of the Gospel, and nourished, under the ministry of some of the most eminent ministers of Christ that lived and laboured in the Highlands of Scotland in the past, and who have long since entered the rest that remains to the people of God. Mrs. Mackenzie was brought under the saving influence of the Gospel at a comparatively early age. We are not able to give the exact date of her conversion, but from information received it would appear that she would be between twenty-five and thirty years of age when the great change took place. She was brought under conviction of sin by means of a sermon preached by Dr. Kennedy from Rev. iii. 20, and brought into the liberty of the Gospel by a sermon preached by the Rev. John Macrae (Big M’Rae) from Jer. xxiv. 7. Being near Dingwall she often heard Dr. Kennedy, for whom she had the greatest regard, and under whose ministry her soul was fed and edified. After that majestic preacher had been removed to his eternal rest, she sat under the ministry of that sweet and neat preacher of the Gospel, the Rev. Mr. Macdougall, Fodderty. Under the ministry of these eminent men of God she grew in grace, and bore the stamp of the bright Christians who are now fast disappearing out of this sinful world, to shine in the perfect image of Christ in the world of purity, light, and happiness.
When the banner was displayed in 1893 in defence of the truth—when an indefinite Creed was adopted by the Free Church, which allowed its office-bearers and members to do what was “right in their own eyes,” Mrs. Mackenzie joined the Free Presbyterian Church, that adhered steadfastly to the principles and doctrines of the Free Church of 1843; and she was to the end a worthy member and liberal supporter of our Congregation at Dingwall. As an evidence of her attachment to the cause of God in our Church, and of her liberality in support of it, she gave £20 sterling in aid of our Church Building Fund. She was a widow for eighteen years. Her husband, though not a professing member of the Church, was believed to have had “good hope through grace” towards the end of his course in this world. On his deathbed his prayer was that of the Psalmist in the Fifty-first Psalm (verses 7, 8, and 9), and Forty-third Psalm (verse 3). His last prayer the morning he died was that of the publican, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner.” They had a family of twelve—eight sons and four daughters. Five sons and three daughters were present at her funeral. Mrs. Mackenzie, on her deathbed, felt greatly concerned about the eternal salvation of her family, and prayed earnestly for them. She wished them to acknowledge the testimony our Church had raised in defence of God’s cause in the land, and to support it. One, at least, of her family is connected with our Congregation in this town, and is a member in full communion, who is enabled by grace to follow the good example of her godly mother.
Mrs. Mackenzie was, for some years before her end, unable to move much from home, but she made an effort to be present at our Communion till, through the infirmity of old age, she could not venture the journey to Dingwall. In her last illness, which lasted two months, the Rev. J. R. Mackay, Inverness, and the writer visited her. Though weak in body she appeared happy, and when she began to speak of “the days of old” her face beamed with joy. She expressed her great admiration of the late Dr. Kennedy, and told us that it was when hearing him, in her younger days, preach from the text already mentioned that she was brought under concern about the salvation of her immortal soul. She knew she was dying, but death had no terror for her—the sting was taken out of it. She was weary of the body of sin, and was longing to be delivered from it. She loved the singing of Psalms, and shortly before she expired she repeated the Twenty-third Psalm, and spoke of the efficacy of the blood of Jesus Christ to cleanse us from all sin. She fell asleep in Jesus on the eleventh day of April, 1907, at the ripe age of eighty-one years.
D. M.F.