IT would be observed by our readers that, at the last Assembly of the Free Church, an overture was submitted from one of its Presbyteries, asking the Assembly to appoint a Committee “to consider any difficulties which may still be in the way of a union between this Church and the Free Presbyterian, and the best means of overcoming such difficulties.” It would also be observed that the proposal of the overture was not adopted by the Assembly, but that a deliverance, moved by Mr. A. MacNeilage, was carried by a considerable majority, the substance of which was that the Assembly had, by Acts and Resolutions, already removed all the obstacles to union, and had recognised that the testimony of the Churches was identical. Mr. MacNeilage, in the course of his speech, said that the door was wide open for the Free Presbyterians if they chose to enter it, that they (the Free Church) had removed all the obstacles they knew of, and that he had no knowledge of anything further that they could do.
Now, let this deliverance be carefully weighed by our readers. Perhaps some of them have charitably entertained the idea that there was a burning desire universally cherished in the hearts of present Free Churchmen for union with the Free Presbyterian Church, and that if only an opportunity was given for the consideration of difficulties that might bar the way, they would greedily avail themselves of it; but the case is not so. The proposal is made by members of their own body who may not be supposed as for a moment undervaluing their own Church position, or seeking to steal a march upon their brethren, but the proposal is no sooner made than it is rejected. More than that, in the resolution which was adopted, and in the speech of the mover, a direct denial has been given to the statements that have been made time and again by responsible Free Presbyterians, to the effect that the Free Church possessed within her own borders serious obstacles to union, and that these obstacles have not, up to the present moment, been cleared away. Only a few weeks before the Assembly met a discussion took place in the pages of the Northern Chronicle between Professor J. Kennedy Cameron, of the Free Church, and the Rev. D. Beaton, of the Free Presbyterian Church, on the very subject now in hand, and Mr. Beaton made it exceeding plain that there were grave differences between the two bodies which Free Presbyterians regarded as abundant and warrantable reason for a separate position. The Free Assembly has now pronounced these grave differences, so recently stated, to be nothing, and declares that there are no obstacles to union. By this decision she justifies her past proceedings, which we shall refer to later on, and raises an additional bar to the union that some of her members appear to desire. We are told at the
same time that “the door is wide open,” as if, by the way, the only path to union—if such were desired—was entrance at her door. We are not standing at her door, nor do we desire to do so. But if we were so standing, the above deliverance, while professing to leave the door “wide open,” at the same moment shuts the door in our faces.
A brief allusion to the discussion in the press just referred to may here be necessary, especially as we intend to deal with some of the points therein taken up, in treating more explicitly of obstacles to union. Professor J. Kennedy Cameron was the originator of this discussion. In a new book of his, entitled “The Church in Arran,” he went out of his way to bring a charge of schism against the Free Presbyterian Church, because it still maintained a separate position from the Free Church. A copy of this book was sent for review to the Editor of the Free Presbyterian Magazine. A brief notice of it in its literary aspect was published in our March number, with, at the same time, a special article on the charge of schism, written by the Rev. D. Beaton, Wick. Shortly after this number appeared, we received a letter from Professor Kennedy Cameron with the enquiry as to whether we would open our pages to admit a reply from him to said article. Considering that our Magazine is not a newspaper with open columns for correspondence, and is not designed to afford space (which we anticipated rightly would be of considerable length) for the expression of views directly antagonistic to the Church it represents, and perceiving further that Professor Cameron had at his disposal a more appropriate medium for the publication of his views, namely, the Free Church Record, we declined to open our columns to his reply, and made plain the reason. The next thing we saw was Professor Cameron’s reply in the pages of the Northern Chronicle, the Oban Times, and the John o’ Groat Journal. Mr. Beaton sent a rejoinder, and the discussion went on for several weeks. The general impression produced was that Professor Cameron entirely failed to justify his contentions, and that he would have been a wise man if he had left matters alone.
We now proceed to notice the main differences which exist between the Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church. These may be dealt with under three general heads:—(1) The Declaratory Act and the Separation of 1893; (2) The Free Church Assembly and the case of Professor Alexander; and (3) Certain Practices in the Church life of the Free Church.
(1) Let us first observe the Declaratory Act and the Separation by the Free Presbyterians in 1893. It may be useful to give some details, as all our readers are not equally well acquainted with the history. This Act was drawn up by the leaders of the new light party in the then Free Church, with the ostensible purpose of relieving “difficulties and scruples” which were “felt by some in reference to the declaration of belief required from persons who receive licence, or are admitted to office in this Church,” and
embodied a series of statements on the love of God, the atone-ment, the work of the Spirit, the Gospel call, foreordination, the Fall of man, the authority of the Church, etc., etc.—all expressed in such ambiguous and indefinite terms as that Arminians; Semi-Pelagians, Voluntaries, and Higher Critics could easily subscribe them. It was already well known that many men of the various classes mentioned were already in the Church, and it was thus plain to any discerning observer that the Act was designed to give them a safe standing within her pale, while at the same time it opened the door for the easy entrance into office of persons like minded. Previously entrants were understood to be bona-fide believers in the doctrines of the Confession of Faith, but now this was decidedly changed, and while they were still required to answer the same Questions and sign the same Formula as to doctrinal belief, they were at liberty (on a dishonest principle) to hold the new doctrinal views covered by the Declaratory Act. Now, this Act was passed in 1892, under the terms of an old Act of the Church of Scotland known as the Barrier Act, which provided that any Acts which were to be “binding Rules and Constitutions to the Church” should be first remitted by the Assembly “to the consideration of the several Presbyteries of this Church,” and after the general sanction of these Courts was received, might be passed into Acts of this standing. After this manner the Act of 1892 was adopted, with the general consent of Presbyteries—a few dissenting—and became thus the declared creed for all practical purposes of the then Church calling herself the Free Church of Scotland.
Those, who, shortly after the passing of the Declaratory Act, formed the Free Presbyterian Church, saw at the moment that a change of a very fundamental nature had been made. They did not allow that the Barrier Act was designed to provide facilities for the passing of Acts interfering with the doctrinal constitution of the Church, otherwise they could not make, as they did, the just charge that the Declaratory Act of 1892 was a violation of the constitution. It was a violation de facto (in fact), though not de jure (by right). Practically a new Church had come into existence. It was not now the Church of the Confession of Faith unalloyed, but the Church of the Declaratory Act, which was to be henceforth of necessity the chief regulative standard of belief. A considerable number of people, especially in the north and west of Scotland, who were steadfast upholders of Free Church principles and doctrines, were deeply moved and felt that they could no longer remain in fellowship with this new Church. At the Assembly of 1893—the year immediately after the Declaratory Act was passed—the Rev. Donald Macfarlane, then of Raasay, tabled a protest against the Act, and declared his intention of abiding by the original constitution of the Church. He was shortly after joined by the Rev. D. Macdonald, Shieldaig, and these two ministers, along with elders, took the serious and
important step of forming themselves into a separate Presbytery, under the name of the Free Church Presbytery of Scotland. They boldly and justly claimed to be the only consistent representatives of the original Free Church. They were joined by a number of office-bearers, students, and people scattered through various parts of the country, and after two Presbyteries were formed, they assumed the name of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the word “Presbyterian” being inserted simply to make a plain distinction before the eyes of the country between this Church and the Church of the Declaratory Act, which still, of course, retained the name, Free Church. Besides, the Free Presbyterians had decided not to involve themselves in litigation about Church property, but to devote themselves entirely to the abundance of spiritual labour which was now given them in ministering ordinances to congregations and stations which had taken up a separate position on behalf of “the truth.” They allowed themselves to be deprived of Churches and manses without appeal to the law courts. The movement, it may be said without exaggeration, took, under the blessing of God, the form of a spiritual revival. There was a republication by its preachers of the doctrines of grace in their Scriptural setting and comprehensiveness, with special exposition and enforcement of these precious, fundamental truths that had been called in question by the men of the newer light. The Spirit of God set His seal to what was done by His manifest presence in the public assemblies, and the movement which, under the undesirable influence of secular strife, might have amounted only to a brief exhibition of ecclesiastical fireworks, proved the occasion of a time of “refreshing from the presence of the Lord.”
Let it be here noticed that those who now form the present Free Church (or rather those who were then Free Churchmen, for a number have come in since from various quarters) contented themselves with a simple dissent from the adoption of the Declaratory Act. Protest, in the constitutional sense of the word, they did not, for they could not do so, and remain part of the body. Thus they continued right on to recognise the Declaratory Act Church in all her courts as the Free Church of Scotland, and to acknowledge the members of the majority party as ecclesiastical brethren—from 1893 to 1900. They now maintain that they were then a Church within a Church, but such a claim is entirely inadmissible. They were one with the main body in Church organisation, and the Declaratory Act was entirely operative in those Presbyteries where dissenters were found as well as in other courts. Adverse statements by individuals could not alter the actual operation of the Act. Any candidate for office was fully entitled, no matter in what Presbytery he might be, to avail himself of the liberty of belief provided in said Act, contrary, as we hold, to the Confession of Faith. In this way dissenting Free Churchmen, by their co-operation with the majority, failed to perform their solemn obligations
to assert, maintain, and defend “the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith, as founded upon and agreeable to God’s Word.” They surrendered their moral and Christian rights (whether their legal rights or not) as Free Churchmen to the dominance of the majority. No considerations as to the future could justify their action or the want of it, and nothing that has happened since, such as the property victory in the House of Lords, has justified it. Every Christian person ought to view such proceedings as all else in the light of God’s word and eternity.
Now, let us observe that the Free Presbyterians not only separated from the majority in 1893, but formally renounced the Declaratory Act of 1892 and other innovations, giving express reasons for the position they took up—reasons which show that there was a marked difference between them and those who simply dissented and remained in association with the majority. The position is fully stated in our Deed of Separation, and “Reasons for forming a separate Presbytery.” In the latter, for example, the effects of the passing of the Declaratory Act are expressed under three heads, as follows:—“(1) The constitution of the Church has been altered and vitiated where we ought to hold it most sacred and inviolable; (2) The Church, as a whole, has become involved in the guilt of past backsliding, in a way in which it was not involved before this Act became law; (3) Additions are made to our confession and profession of faith which we regard as not in accordance with the Westminster Confession of Faith or with the Word of God.” And the following sentences occur towards the close of these “Reasons”:—“We are called upon at this crisis to assert and act upon a fundamental principle of Presbyterianism. All the congregations of our Church, on a principle different from that of Independency, form but one Church, and are members one of another, having ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism.’ When the Church has erred from the faith, we refuse to shelter ourselves in a species of Independency, as if congregations might be free, while the Church as a Church is involved in guilt . . . We repudiate the allegations so often made that, by taking this step, we have ceased to be Free Churchmen. On the contrary, we assert that we have been compelled, in order that we might righteously claim to be Free Churchmen, to renounce the jurisdiction of the courts of a Church, which by passing the Declaratory Act (1892) into law, has ceased to be the true Church of Scotland, Free.” It may be seen from these statements that the Free Presbyterian Church at its very formation cast off the Declaratory Act and maintained in organised unity the Free Church of Scotland as settled in 1843. On the other hand, the mere dissenters never formally renounced the Declaratory Act, until 1906—six years after they took up a separate position as the present Free Church, in consequence of the formation of the United Free Church. What was the reason of this delay? The only reason that appears is that the property case was undecided,
and that they were afraid their temporal claims might be impaired by the renunciation of a Church Act, however bad. Thus in 1905—about a year after they gained the property—they sent down an overture to Presbyteries, and, in the following year, rescinded and annulled the Declaratory Act. In this way they served themselves heirs to the Declaratory Act during this period, while, at the same time, professing to dissent from its provisions.
It seemed necessary to give the foregoing resumé of the relative positions of the Free Presbyterian Church and the present Free Church to the Declaratory Act of 1892, in order to show the grave difference between the two bodies, before coming to the last point under this head, namely, the terms under which the Free Church rescinded the Declaratory Act. These terms were condemnatory of the position formally taken up by the Free Presbyterian Church in 1893. The preamble to the rescinding Act runs as follows:—”Whereas this Church adheres, as she has always adhered, to her Subordinate Standards,” etc. Free Presbyterians object to the statement that the Free Church as a Church “has always adhered to her Subordinate Standards,” as it was on the very ground that the Church as such had departed from the Standards that they took up a separate position in 1893. Thus, the F.P. Synod in July, 1905, came to the finding that this preamble practically condemned the separate position taken up in 1893 by our Church, and “fixed these Churches in their present separate positions.” We have now noticed one important difference between the two Churches. As our space is limited, we must notice the other differences to be touched upon with greater brevity.
(2) The Free Church Assembly and the case of Professor Alexander. By the decision of last Free Assembly it would appear that the majority are still determined to justify past procedure in this case, and to reject the reiterated declaration of Free Presbyterians that the procedure was not satisfactory. If a Free Church majority are content to maintain this impassable barrier between the Free Presbyterians and themselves, let them do so; the responsibility is their own. What we are concerned about is that the truth of the situation should not be obscured or forgotten, as the cry of “No difference between the two bodies” still goes the rounds on the lips of Free Churchmen.
Now, let it be distinctly understood, to begin with, that we have no personal animus to Dr. Alexander, and that we do not regard him as the chiefly-responsible party in this business. The onus must be laid on the Assembly and the Church Courts. The history may be briefly told. Dr. Alexander was at first a member of the United Free Church, but two years after the union—for no published reasons—he joined the present Free Church, just when the latter was requiring help on its theological staff. He was almost immediately appointed tutor to the divinity students. In 1904 he was ordained Professor of Divinity. Shortly thereafter it
was made known in the press by a dignitary of the Established Church that Dr. Alexander was the author of a book entitled “Demonic Possession,” containing principles of biblical criticism that the Free Church professed to condemn—a book which was only published a few months before he joined that body. Let this point be particularly noted. He entered the Free Church evidently holding the views contained in his book. The book was procured by others, and the report was found to be perfectly correct. Several articles appeared in the Free Presbyterian Magazine, in which it was clearly shown that the author of “Demonic Possession” was a disbeliever in the verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and a believer in some of the leading ideas of the “higher critics.” The book was professedly an assault upon extreme Rationalists, who denied the miraculous in the New Testament, but in reality it gave away more truth than it conserved. Dr. Alexander wrote a letter to the papers, largely in self-defence and only very partially in retraction. The subject came before the Assembly in 1905. Rev. D. M. Macalister intimated that Dr. Alexander had withdrawn his book, in deference to the requirements made in various parts of the Highlands. In the discussion of overtures on the subject, the general line of remark was that there were a few objectionable things in the book, but nothing to be alarmed about. It was reported that one member asked that Dr. Alexander give an apology before the Assembly, but he was ruled out of order. The Assembly were satisfied with the mere withdrawal of the book. The last that was heard of the matter from the Free Church Courts was a statement made by Professor Alexander at a meeting of Commission held in December, 1905, when some Free Presbyterian ministers were received into the Free Church. In this statement he affirmed his belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures (not in terms sufficiently definite to our mind), while there was no mention of “Demonic Possession,” nor any explicit disowning of the errors of that work. Thus the matter was left in an atmosphere of uncertainty. The Free Church Assembly never appointed a Committee to deliberately examine the book or pronounce upon its contents. The errors contained in it remain to this day uncondemned by the Free Church. Her loyalty to the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God has been put to the test, but has been found wanting. Even in the matter of the withdrawal of the book, the thing has not been pursued with such scrupulous care as it might have been; otherwise, a leading bookseller in Glasgow might not have been, last year, ignorant of its withdrawal, or have had a copy of it advertised in his catalogue among other second-hand books, as a book also “to be had new.” It may suit Free Churchmen to say that they are satisfied with their procedure in this case, and that they have received all satisfaction from Professor Alexander as to change of mind. They may be satisfied, but the public have no ground for
satisfaction. No more serious obstacle to union can exist than disloyalty to the Scriptures as the Word of God. This fundamental point of difference was also noted by the Free Presbyterian Synod which met in July, 1905.
(3) Certain practices in the Church life of the present Free Church. These also constitute an obstacle to union. What are they? Well, they are such things as bazaars, sales of work, and social meetings. These things may appear to some people mere trifles, but we do not regard them as such. The Lord Jesus warned the Jews against turning the house of God into a house of merchandise. It is not the province of the Church to set up a shop within her domain and carry on business. Let people make useful articles as they may and go to them that buy and sell in the ordinary manner, and then give the proceeds, if they chose, to the cause of Christ, but don’t turn the Church of God, or any part of it, into a drapery warehouse, or place of secular entertainment. Such proceedings come from worldliness, and lead to worldliness. Congregational meetings do not need cups of tea to make them attractive to those who are truly interested in the kingdom of God. “Have ye not houses to eat and drink in?” saith an inspired Apostle, the messenger of Christ. Such sales of work and social meetings are not to be found in the Free Presbyterian Church, and, we trust, never shall be. They may co-exist with a dead orthodoxy, but not with a living fidelity to the truth and spirituality of God’s house. We regard them as symptoms of spiritual disease and death wherever they are to be found. It is impossible in this article, which is longer than originally intended, to enter into a discussion of the arguments used to defend the practices mentioned. Enough it is to affirm that they are strongly objected to by Free Presbyterians, and constitute an obstacle to union.
We now conclude. There are many aspects of the points noted left untouched. One serious feature of the present Free Church (it may be added), which does not encourage to union, is the calibre of not a few of the ministers who have been received from various quarters of the globe, without supplying, in our judgment, very satisfactory guarantees of loyalty to Free Church principles and doctrines. But we have stated enough meantime to show that there are serious bars to union.
J. S. S.
The Wrong Kind of Light.—”They will help me in a devotional sense,” so said the vicar of St. Cuthbert’s, Durham, to the members of his vestry meeting. Our readers might be a long time guessing to what he alluded, so we shall at once tell them. These aids to devotion are two candlesticks to be placed upon the Lord’s Table. The words we have quoted imply great spiritual darkness, but we fear that it will not be enlightened by the candles. The Holy Spirit alone can illuminate our souls and help our infirmities in every act of devotion.—English Churchman.
Cunntas mu’n D’usgadh Spioradail ann an Sgireachd Ibhilsyth.
AIR A THARRUING AMACH LE MAIGH’STIR BURNS, MINISTIR NA
SGIREACHD, AIR IARRTAS PRESBITRI, GHLASCHU.
(Concluded from page 116.)
R IABH o’n là gus an d’ thug mi an eachdraidh ath-ghearr, agus neo-choimhlionta so, tha coinneamh urnuigh aguinn, agus mur is tric searmonachadh an fhocail, gach feasgar. Air an t-sè la do cheud mhios an fhoghair (an là air an d’ fhag mo mhac sinn, an deigh da còdhail a chumail ri buidheann do’n digridh a bha leantuin ris le gràdh ro-mhor), bha coinneamh dhomhail ann an tigh-aoraidh comunn nan Relief agus dh’ aontaich na ministearan a bha lathair Maighstir W. Anderson a Glaschu, agus Maighstir Banks a Paisley, gu cridheil leis gach ni a chaidh air adhairt. O thoiseach bha comh-pairt a reir coslais aig muinntir na Relief cho maith ruinn fhein san obair agus gus an la ‘n diugh tha moran do spiorad graidh na ‘n meag. Tha atharrachadh iomlan air tighinn air aghaidh na agireachd. Tha ‘n iomairt anns am b’ abhaist moran iad fhein agus feadhainn eile a chumail, le bhi sior-dheas-boireachd mu ghnothuichean na Rioghachd air sgrur gu builleach. ‘Sann mu chreidimh ambain tha tlachd aig daoine a bhi labhairt; agus chithear feadhainn nach abradh facal ri cheile o chionn ‘ghoirid, nis a labhairt le ‘n uile dhùrachd mu ‘n “aon ni.” Tha an spiorad so air a sgaol e cho farsuing nar meag ‘s nach b’urrain coigreach dol astigh do thigh sam bith, air thuiteamas, gun a thoirt fainear dha. O ‘n àm anns an d’ thug mi ‘n cunntas mu ‘n Dùsgadh so don Phresbitri tha an obair a sgaoleadh air mhodh taitneach, anns an sgireachd ùr Banton. Aig cruinneachadh airson urnuigh o chionn ghorrid ann an tigh-sgoil na sgireachd sin, far an robh oscionn ceud pearsa lathair, agus a chuid bu mhò dhiubh nam mèinearean agus nan gualadairean borb agus aineolach, bha gach aon air an toirt fo churam; agus o chionn seachdainn tha cruinneachadh ‘san eaglais aca gach oidche, agus tha moran a feoraic “ciod is coir dhoibh a dheanamh.” Tha Maighstir Lion, ministear eudmhor na sgireachd, a shaoraich le mor-thairbhe nam meag o chionn bliadhna a faotainn cuideachadh, mar a fhuair mise o iomadh deagh charaid ‘sa mhinistearalachd, agus tha an obair dol air a h-aghaidh an sin, ceart cho miorbhui-leach ‘s a tha i ‘n so. Tha mi gu mor an comain mo bhràithrean airson cho deas agus cho tabhach ‘s a bha an cuideachadh dhomh.
Faodaidh mi ainmeachadh, gu bheil mi, gu sonraichte an comain Mhaighstir Duncan aon do mhinistearan Ghlaschu, Mhaighstir Moody, aon do mhinistearan Dhun’-eidin—ministear an Toisich—agus Maighstir Willis, chionn gur iad a b’ fhaide a dh’ fhuirich comhl’ ruinn, agus gun d’thug iad cuideachadh
luachmhor dhuinn; agus mar an ceudna dh’ainmichinn Maighstir Salmon, duin-uasal a bha na fhear-teagaig ‘san sgireachd aon uair, agus a chuir seachad là no dha am measg dhaoine air an robh e eòlach fad thri-bliadh’n-deug; bithidh ann cunntas a dh’ aodas esan a thoirt mu ‘n Dusgadh so ro-luachmhor.
Tha Luchd-teagaig comheach a tighinn gu bicheanta air feadh na Sgireachd a bhios ma’ dh’ fhaoighte ullamh gu roinnean a thogail n’ar measg; cuid diubh, gun teagamh ni ‘s lugh cunnart na cheile. Tha coigrich cuideachd tighinn gar ‘n amharc a dh’ fhaodas cron a dheanamh le’n anabhara caoimhneis dhoibh-san nach ‘eil ach òg ‘sa chreidimh. Tha naimhdhean a feitheamh airson an tuisleachaidh; tha mar an ceudna luchd-àiteachaidh nach ‘eil fuar nan cridhe ann an teagamh, agus tha cuid a’ saoil-sinn gu ‘m bu choir uine mhor a leigeil seachad mu ‘n toir iad breith mu ‘n chuis: Gidheadh, tha an obair, gun an teagamh is ‘ugha, dol air a h-aghaidh, agus o là gu là tha muinntir “air an lur ris an Eaglais diubh-san a bhios air an tearnadh.” Cha robh ca searmoin a bha cho mor air am beannachadh air sheol sam nith iongantach, no ni s innleachdaich air an cur an ordugh na bha cumanta, ach fallain agus sgrìobturail; agus cha ‘n eil am tmeasg an t-sluaigh a nis, a bheag sam bi do’n spiorad sin a dh aomadh iad gu bhi tarruing coimeas eadar mhinistearan; tha iad nan luchd-eisdeachd da rireadh, agus sin airson beatha agus bàis.
Faodar ainmeachadh mür chomharan taitneach agus cinnteach gur fior-bheothachadh spioradail a thainig. ‘n ar measg, an doigh anns am bheil sean agus òg a buanachadh ann an tighinn thugainn an deigh gach coinneamh a dh’ fhiosrachadh “ciod is coir dhoibh a dheanamh”—an spiorad beothail agus aoibhneach anns am bheil iad a seinn moladh do Dhia, ni tha gach aon a tha tighinn g’ar ‘n amharc a toirt fainear—gu bheil gach mionnachadh agus comhradh faoin air sgr, n’ ar sràidean—an gluasad faicilleach agus soleimte tha ri fhaicinn aig gach àm—guth shalm agus urnuigh re chluinntinn, ach beag o gach tigh—cagadh buaireas an t-sluaigh—leabhraichean mi-dhiadhaidh agus neo-ghlan bhi gu follaiseach air an tilgeadh ‘san teine leo-san a bha roimh a’ gabhail tlachd annta—àireamh cho mor do ‘n t-sluagh a bhi cruinneachadh comhlath là an deigh là airson aoraidh Dhe, agus gu bhi air an teagasg ann an nithibh neamhaidh—mheud ‘s a tha a’ giarraidh gu bhi nan luchd-comh-pairt do shuipair an Tighearna, agus a tha labhairt air an doigh is taitniche ma na nithibh is cudthromaiche —urrad do shean pheacaich mhi-chreidmheach, agus luchd-fuar-chrabhaidh a bhi air an dùsgadh, agus air an deanamh beo do Dhia—iompachadh mhoran do na gualadairean bochd, a tha toirt cunntais ro-thaitnich mu ‘n atharrachadh a thainig air an cridhe ‘s air an inntinn; tha so uile gu cinnteach, ga chur a teagamh gur fiorbheothachadh Spioradail leis am bheil sinn air ar fiosrachadh.
Faodar cunntas a thoirt mu D— S— gualadair airidh; bithidh e taitneach ri chluinntinn. Bha ‘n duine so smaoin-teachail o chionn ùineachd, agus bha e gu builleach air sgr
do ‘n mhisg; b’ann do ‘n fheadhainn e mu’n robh dòchas againn roimh ‘n d’usgadh mhor, agus o ‘n am sin, bha e fo throm-mhoothachadh ciont agus truaighe; fad mios gu h-àraid bhuaìnich e ann an staid thrioblaidich, a’ builleachadh moran uine ann an urnuigh dhiomhair, agus ann an leughadh nan sgiobtuir. Air feasgar an 21 la do cheud mhios an fhoghair bha coinneamh aige ri cuid d’ a chairdean a bha cleachdadh urnuigh a dheanamh, agus bhuaìnich e re na h-oidche sin ann an urnnigh, moladh agus comhradh cràbhadh. Is coltach gu d’ fhuair a chogais sìth air an oidhche sin, agus gun deachaidh e dhachaidh ‘sa mhaduinn ro-shona n’ a inntinn. An deigh dha dà uair a chadail a ghabhail, rinn e aoradh le a theaghlach, agus dh’ fhalbh a ionnsuidh oibre. Be a chrannchur dol sios an toiseach do’n t-slochd ghuail ni a rinn e gu mor ni bu shuillbhir na b’ abhaist da, agus le urnaigh. Cha bu luathe a rainig e iochdar an t-sluic na ghabh an t-àile àitidh teine gu h-obann, agus ri tiota bha e ann an siorruidheadch! Tha a bhantrach bhochd le cuignear dhilleachdain, agus a mhàthair a tha dlu air cuig fichead bliadhna a dh’ aois ri caoidh agus bròn air a shon; ach, O! cia solasach agus taitneach ri smaointeachadh gu bheil e sabhailt o’n teine shiorruidh, gu ‘n deachaidh e da rìreadh, troimh ‘n teine gu Rioghachd na Gloire!
Ach, cha neil e comasach dhomh a bhi leudachadh ni ‘s fhaide air an am. Si mo bharrail gu bheil an obair dol air a h-aghaidh, agus a meudachadh. Tha criochan rioghachd Shatain ‘san àite so, agus a luchd-seirbhis gach la dol an lughad. Se an cunntas tha moran a toirt air an iompachadh gu robh oillt orra gu ‘m biodh iad fhein air am fàgail mar chobhartach aig an Nàmhaid an uair a bha càch a faotainn dol as. Tha an t-eud diadhaidh so gam brosnuchadh gu bhi domhlachadh a stigh mu ‘m bi an dorus air a dhruide, agus mur so tha rioghachd Chriosd gach là dol am meud.
Tha moran o chionn ghreis a’ tighinn thugam airson an gabhail a stigh mar luchd-comanachaidh; agus cha d’ fhuair mi riabh urrad do riarachadh ‘s a tha mi faotainn a nis, ann an eisdeachd ris a chunntas tha ‘n taon is òige, gus an taon is sinne a toirt, air an staid inntinn anns am bheil iad. Cha bhiodh e iomchuidh cunntas mionaideach a thoirt air iomadh cuis iompachaidh mu nach ‘eil riasan againn a bhi ann an teagamh sam bith. Fodhnadh e, aig an àm so a ràdh, ged a tha cuid diubhsan air am bheil e coltach gu ‘n do dhruigh an fhirinn le cumhachd, a toirt cunntais nach ‘eil h-uile a’ giulan cho taitneach ‘s bu mhiann leinn, gidheadh, gu bheil a chuid is mò gu mor a labhairt gu tuigseach agus gu sgiobturail ma ‘m mothuchadh agus an steigh air am bheil iad a socraichd an dochuis. Tha do dh’atharachadh ‘sa chunntas a tha gach aoin a tort ‘s nach urrainear a shaolsinn gu bheil an dara aon gu thoirt o’n aon eile, gidheadh, tha iad air fad a togail air an aon steigh fhiar, Criosd anns a ghealladh, agus Criosd air a chruthachadh annta. Tha e nadurra ftheoraic, agus chuireadh a cheist uair is uair. “Bheil ni sam bith sonraicht anns an teagasg
no ‘san doigh air an robb na searmoin air an liuthairt a bha cho mor air am beannachadh?” Mar fhreagairt do’n cheist so, faodaidh mi ràdh gu robb an teagasg fallain, a reir na firinn, air a liuthairt air mhodh so-thiugsinn agus le tomhas mor do ghràdh, agus le asluchadh d’urachdach maille ri lan-fhoillseachadh air saoibhreachd agus saorsa an t-soisgeil, air chor ‘s nach b’urrainn an luchd-eisdeachd gun a thuigsinn gu robb an searmaiche da rìreadh, agus gu bheil an Tighearna Iosa saibhir ann an gràs; tha daoinn mar an ceudna a toirt fainear gu bheil ùngadh agus soleim-teachd nach ‘eil cumanta ann an urnuighean an òganaich a bha na mheadhon anns an obair mhor so a dhusgadh, ni a dhruigh, theagamn, nis mo na shearmonachadh air cridhe an t-sluagh. Bha moran a dh’ fhirinn phriseil air a liuthairt dhuinn le ‘r brathairean gradhach ‘sa mhinisteiralachd, agus is eigin gu’m bi e taitneach leo a chluinntinn, gu bheil moran do ‘n t-sluagh ag aideachadh gu robb gach searmoin fa leth a chual iad uatha, araon taitneach agus tathach dhoibh, agus air dhuinn na h-urrad do chuideachadh agus do ghnuis fhaotinn o’n Phresbitri, gu bheil sinn ag altrium an dochuis thaitnich, tre bheannachadh sonraichte Ard-cheannard na h-Eaglais gu bi so, cha ne mhàin na dhusgadh fior, ach na dhùsgadh farsuing agus buan, an aon ni gu ar cumail o dhol ni ‘s fhaid air seacharan, agus gu ar toirt ionnsaidh na staid shona sin gus nach d’thoir eolas aimsireil sinn a chaoidh.