| | PAGE. |
|——————————————————————–|——-|
| “IRISH PROTESTANTS AND THE FEAR OF PERSECUTION,” | 165 |
| A SERMON. By the Rev. D. Macfarlane, Dingwall, | 169 |
| MEMOIRS OF THE LIFE AND EXPERIENCE OF MARION LAIRD OF
GREENOCK, | 178 |
| A NOTE ON CONTROVERSY, | 182 |
| EASTER. Is the Word “Easter” in the Scriptures? | 183 |
| THE PREACHING OF THE REV. DR. MACDONALD, FERINTOSH, | 184 |
| INDUCTION AT KAMES, KYLES OF BUTE, | 188 |
| THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST. By the late J. C. PHILPOT, M.A., | 189 |
| EACHDRAIDH EAGLAIS NA H-ALBA, | 191 |
| NOTICE OF A DAY OF HUMILIATION AND PRAYER, | 197 |
| NOTES AND COMMENTS, | 198 |
| CHURCH NOTES, | 201 |
| THE MAGAZINE, | 204 |
N. ADSHEAD & SON,
Printers and Bookbinders,
11 and 92 UNION STREET, GLASGOW.
Decorative border element
Decorative border element
PRICE TWOPENCE
THE Free Presbyterian Magazine And MONTHLY RECORD.
VOL. XVII.
SEPTEMBER, 1912.
No. 5.
“Irish Protestants and the Fear of Persecution.”
WE have read in the “Protestant Observer” for last month a very instructive article on the above subject—an article by a Mr. Arthur Walsh, which originally appeared in a Belfast newspaper. It embodied a number of telling quotations from Roman Catholic documents and books, which clearly show that the principle of persecution holds the same place as ever in the creed of the Roman Church, and that it is the want of power and not of will that prevents her from putting the principle into practice in the present day to the extent she did in the days of old. Mr. Walsh supplies ample proof that Irish Protestants have abundant reason to fear Home Rule, as behind the Nationalists they discern the Church of Rome, with all her intolerant and persecuting principles. He makes it plain that Irish priests are taught the doctrine of persecution in the Maynooth College at the present moment. We take the liberty of reproducing, among other things, a number of Mr. Walsh’s quotations in the remaining part of this article, which speak for themselves, and which our readers should bring before the notice of any of their friends who see no danger in the Home Rule scheme.
Mr. Walsh gives the following quotations to show that the Pope claims property in every person that is baptised in the name of the Trinity, whether Protestant or Papist. All, without exception, “belong” to the Pope. Pius IX., in an epistle to the German Emperor in 1873, wrote: “Everyone who has been baptised belongs in some way or other—which to define more precisely would be here out of place—belongs, I say, to the Pope.” Thomas Slater, a Jesuit theologian, in his work, “A Manual of Moral Theology for English-speaking Countries,” declares: “Men become subject to the Church by Christian baptism. . . . Heretics and schismatics who are validly baptised are subject to the Church’s laws.” Again, Edmund J. O’Reilly, S.J., sometime a professor at Maynooth, states in his book, “Relations of the
Church to Society”: “A Protestant clergyman or a Protestant layman introduces the child whom he validly baptises into the Catholic Church, as the Pope could, and into no other.” This theory does not seem consistent with the doctrine of the excommunication of Protestants, but consistency is not in Rome’s line, and she is determined at all costs to frame her creed so as to justify in some way her tyrannical assumptions of authority over Protestants.
Mr. Walsh then points out that the Roman Church claims supremacy over the State. He gives the following definition of the relation of Church and State from “A Manual of Church History,” by Gilmartin, a Maynooth professor:—”There should be a union between the Church and State as between the two great constituent elements of one moral body, each working in its proper sphere for the common good. This union must be effected by subordination of the one to the other, and not by co-ordination. For the latter would require that a third authority should be established on earth, to which disputes between the Church and State would be referred for settlement. As one of the powers must, however, be subordinate to the other, it follows, as a matter of course, that the spiritual should rule, at least so far as to define the limits of its authority, and direct the movements of the State according to the law of God, as the human soul directs the body.”
It may be clearly seen from this what task the Church of Rome will set before her, if Home Rule is granted to Ireland. The Church (so-called) will “direct the movements of the State.”
Mr. Walsh gives quotations on the subject of persecution from the class books which are used at Maynooth College. These quotations prove beyond contradiction that the Irish priesthood is educated in the doctrine that Protestants may be put to death for their religion. Toleration is only exercised when it is more to the advantage of Rome to do so. The moral theology of Thomas Aquinas is still taught. The following is his doctrine:—”With regard to heretics two elements are to be considered: one element on their side and the other on the part of the Church. On their side is the sin whereby they have deserved not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be banished from the world by death. For it is a much heavier offence to corrupt the faith, whereby the life of the soul is sustained, than to tamper with the coinage, which is an aid to temporal life. Hence, if coiners or other malefactors are at once handed over by secular princes to a just death, much more may heretics—immediately they are convicted of heresy—be not only excommunicated, but also justly done to die. But on the part of the Church is mercy in view of the conversion of them that err, and therefore she does not condemn at once, but ‘after the first and second admonition,’ as the apostle teaches. After that, however, if the man is still found pertinacious, the Church,
having no hope of his conversion, provides for the safety of others, cutting him off from the Church by the sentence of excommunication; and, further, she leaves him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated from the world by death.”
Again, Gilmartin, Professor of Ecclesiastical History in Maynooth, writes as follows:—”Universal religious toleration is as indefensible in theory as it has been found impossible in practice. A man is said to tolerate religious error when he can put an end to it, but for some reason or other fails to do so. Such toleration is incompatible with the love of truth and the obligations of charity. And the more one loves religious truth and the spiritual interests of his neighbour, the more must he seek—within the limits of justice and prudence—to stamp out heterodoxy. Hence must the Catholic Church, ‘the pillar and the ground of truth,’ be ever intolerant of heresy, as truth must be of error. . . . From these principles it follows—(a) that the State can punish heresy as an evil in itself and as an offence against the Church; and (b) the Church can require the assistance of the State in suppressing heresy, if its interference be deemed necessary for the good of society. This, however, would occur only in exceptional circumstances. From the fact that the Catholic State can consistently punish religious dissent it by no means follows that a Protestant State can do the same. For the former has the guarantee of infallibility on its side in deciding what is heresy, while the latter repudiates any such privilege in its Church.”
Edmund J. O’Reilly, S.J., already quoted, is the author of the following:—”Suppose the Catholic religion to be recognised as divinely true by all sovereigns, as God wished it to be. Suppose the Catholic religion to be united with every State in friendly alliance, as God wished it to be. Suppose, further, that in the midst of this condition of things a few men—or even not a few—rose up in some country and sought to disturb this divinely-appointed system, would they or ought they to have been left free to do so? Certainly not. . . . It is the undoubted duty of Catholic Governments to protect the Catholic religion, to promote its interests, to guard their subjects against the encroachments of heresy, so far as circumstances permit. The followers of false religions may sometimes have acquired such a footing in the country that they cannot legitimately be disturbed. . . . But the theory that unbounded liberty of conscience, in the received sense of the word—unbounded liberty of religious profession and worship—the theory, I say, that this liberty is a thing originally and fundamentally right is a false theory. . . . It is our interest to take our stand on the broad principle of liberty of conscience for all; on the doctrine that differences of religion are not to be minded by Governments—that they are to be settled with God, not with man. I freely admit that this doctrine is convenient for Catholics who have to do with Protestant Governments. The principle of liberty of conscience—unbounded liberty
of conscience—once admitted, is a strong shield and a powerful weapon against oppression of Catholics. The unexclusiveness of the principle commands it to many an adversary of our faith. Hence it is that Catholics have been led to proclaim it, emphasise it, and extol it in the most eloquent terms. I do not mean to imply that the Catholics I allude to consciously put forward a false theory for a purpose. . . . The convenience of the ultra-tolerant theory we have been considering commands it to those circumstanced as Catholics are in these countries, and helps to make many of them believe it; while, on the other hand, they are disposed to look on an opposite view as not only incorrect but dangerous. But for all that the principle is not true, and we must not sacrifice truth for convenience, not even to what may seem the public good. The principle is one which is not, and never has been and never will be, approved by the Church of Christ.”
Still further, let our readers study the following quotation from a Maynooth text-book by F. X. Schouppé:—”What must be thought of civil tolerance from the point of view of right? In principle absolute civil tolerance is bad and unjust, and contrary to both natural and Divine right. (1) Truth has a right to be protected against error as much as virtue against vice and order against disorder. A legislator is, then, bound to protect the true religion, and to repress error, just as much as he is bound to protect order and repress disorder. . . . Can we, then, establish in principle the separation, or we may say the divorce, of the Church from the State? . . . This assertion, so justly condemned by the Church, is contrary alike to Divine and natural right, and to the persuasion of mankind. In a country where there are many religions, but where the Catholic religion predominates, it must be the favoured one. False worships may be tolerated so long as they remain inoffensive. Persecution cannot be lawful in favour of truth or error. I mean persecution properly so called—that is to say, violence employed against an unoffending religion or error. But if such religion or error becomes, on the contrary, turbulent and hurtful, its acts may be repreved like any other offence, in which case it suffers punishment, not persecution. In the same way, if a member of the Church becomes unfaithful, and falls into heresy, or commits some other great crime, such member can be punished by the ecclesiastical authority on whom he depends. The Church has a right not only to censure her subjects, but, if she thinks proper, she can also inflict external penalties, and have recourse to the secular power. In this case also it would be punishment and not persecution that the offender would undergo.”
A final note of Rome’s doctrine of persecution is from a Professor M. de Luca, who wrote as follows in 1900:—”The good that is most necessary to the church is the unity of the true faith, and that cannot be preserved unless the heretic be handed
over to death. . . . So when heretics have been left to the secular arm the judges must inflict on them the penalty, not of death only, but of fire.”
In view of all these sentiments, held by the Roman Church of to-day, can any reasonable Protestant say that it is at all safe to grant Home Rule to Ireland? Where is the guarantee for safety or peace? Let our Government, and all who support them in this pernicious Home Rule scheme, be warned that they are handing over the Protestants of Ireland to the peril of suffering and death.
A Sermon.
BY THE REV. D. MACFARLANE, DINGWALL.
“Therefore also now, saith the Lord, Turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning; and rend your heart and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil. Who knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him, even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the Lord your God.”—JOEL ii. 12-14.
WE are not told in this book when Joel began to prophesy, or how long he was employed in that work. But we may infer from the nature of the message he was divinely commissioned to deliver that it was—like our own day—a time of great declension in the Church and in the nation. The first part of his prophesy contains awful denunciations of impending judgments on the people for their sins. Of these judgments the prophet was commanded to give due warning to the people, and to call them to repentance. He was to blow the trumpet in Sion and to sound an alarm in God’s holy mountain. It is the duty of ministers to give warning to their people when God threatens to pour out his judgments upon them for their sins. Our text is a call to repentance. In endeavouring to speak from the words of the text, as the Lord may enable me, I shall direct your attention to four things:
I.—The reason for the call;
II.—The call itself;
III.—The encouragement to obey the call; and
IV.—The door of hope that is here set before us.
I.—The reason for the call.—The Lord was threatening to come forth with an army to punish the people for their sins. His army was composed of two kinds of soldiers: (1) insects to destroy the fruits of the earth; (2) wicked men to oppress and kill the people. In these two ways the Lord had often punished the people of Israel and Judah for their sins—especially the sin of idolatry, to which they were prone, and into which they had so
frequently fallen. Famine and sword were scourges He often used to speak to them when they refused to hearken to His word through His prophets.
The people to whom the message in our text was originally addressed have been removed to the world of eternity long ago, and it speaks to us now; and we are commanded to blow the trumpet of warning in Sion, and to sound an alarm in the holy mount, as sure as Joel was commanded to do so in his own day. Does the Lord threaten to punish us as a Church and as a nation? Yes, and for the same reason for which He threatened to punish the people of Israel—for our forsaking of Him, the fountain of living waters, and hewing out to ourselves broken cisterns that can hold no water. We have committed these two great evils. We, as a Church and as a nation, are guilty in the sight of God, and are deserving the righteous judgment of the Most High. Notwithstanding that, some leaders in the Church, who are under the influence of spiritual blindness, say that religion was never purer and never more prosperous than it is at the present time. It can be proved that religion, as taught in the most of churches, was never more corrupt and of less influence for good on the lives of men since the Reformation than it is at the present day. The same may be said of our nation. “From the sole of the foot even to the head there is no soundness.” In their legislation our rulers have no regard for the Word of God, and the people as a rule follow their evil example. Therefore we cannot, without repentance, expect to escape the judgment which the Lord threatens to pour upon us as a Church and nation.
What are the instruments that are likely to be used by the Lord to punish us for our iniquities? When He punished the people of Israel He employed, as the rod of His anger, outside enemies—the Babylonians and others. He may take the same way to punish our nation. There are great preparations being made for a European war, and Britain is looked at with an envious eye by the other Powers. But although our nation should not be attacked by outside enemies, there are many enemies within our borders who are plotting for our destruction. Among these are those who call themselves Socialists. There are forty-two of these Members of Parliament, and they have agents in the Army, Navy, Schools, Churches, etc., who are doing their utmost to win to their side from these different sources recruits to strengthen them to overthrow our monarchy when the fit opportunity comes. That this is their intention may be proved by their own public utterances. J. Keir Hardie, M.P., is reported to have said: “There are differences of opinion about the wisdom or unwisdom of having a King. I have no doubt whatever in my mind on the subject. I regard the existence of a King as a proof of lunacy among the people. A sane people would insist on ruling themselves; but for the moment we have a King. Those who assume the people of this country are intensely loyal are making a
profound mistake.”—(Daily Express, 25th July, 1910.) This is treason! In the Socialist organ of the Socialist Labour Party, April, 1908, the following statement to the same effect is found: “There is no reason why a Socialist Labour Party man should take an oath of loyalty to King Edward the Seventh and heirs for ever, and swear to uphold the constitution we are out to destroy.” That extreme Socialism is bound up with the grossest infidelity may be seen in the following statement that appeared in the Clarion, 23rd September, 1904:—”I deny the existence of a Heavenly Father. I deny the efficacy of prayer. I deny the Providence of God. I deny the truth of the Old Testament and the New Testament. I deny the truth of the Gospels. I do not believe that any miracle was ever performed. I do not believe that Christ was divine. I do not believe that Christ died for man; I do not believe that He ever rose from the dead; I am strongly inclined to believe that he never existed at all.”—(R. Blatchford.)
It is a bad sign of the system of Socialism when it is opposed to religion in any form. But while it seeks to rob man of his religion, it aims also at depriving him of his worldly substance, which he acquired in an honest way by his industry. Socialism holds that no man should be richer than his fellow. God did not find fault with Job for being richer than his neighbours. But Satan came forward as a Socialist leader, and stirred up the Sabeans to rob the man of God of his wealth. This is what Socialism seeks to do. In prosecuting their work of spoilation, Socialists say that they must begin with the middle class. E. Belford Bax, in an essay on Socialism, says, “The small middle class in its various sections is the great obstacle which will have to be suppressed before we can see even the inauguration of a consciously Socialist policy. It must be destroyed or materially crippled as a class before real progress can be made.” If men of this class in Scotland, and in the Highlands of Scotland, who support Socialists by their vote, understood that they were helping to deprive themselves of their worldly goods, they would not act so foolishly against their own interest. When the Socialists succeed in crippling or destroying the middle class, they shall proceed to attack the richer class, of whom some are millionaires, and reduce them to the level of the poor or labouring class. The only rich class shall be the Socialists themselves! The Socialists profess to work for the benefit of the labouring class, but they only make a tool of these in order to accomplish their own selfish ends. They know that without the aid of the labouring class they cannot accomplish their own revolutionary plot. The labouring class would be content with their lot if their leaders would not interfere with them. Their leaders keep up the agitation, not to benefit the labouring class, but to cause a general revolution in the country. This is evident from the fact that no sooner one strike is settled than another begins. Indeed, the Socialists do not conceal their
intention. They say, “We are accused of preaching discontent and stirring up actual conflict. We do preach discontent, and we mean to preach discontent, and we mean, if we can, to stir up actual conflict.”—(H. M. Hyndman.)
To accomplish their evil design they are prepared to use force and violence should milder means fail. H. Quelch is reported to have said in October, 1893, “We are prepared to use any means, any weapon, from the ballot box to the bomb; from organised voting to organised revolt; from Parliamentary contests to political assassination—which opportunity offers, and which will help on the end we have in view. Let this be understood, we have absolutely no scruples as to the means to be employed.”
Now, this deplorable state of matters in our once Christian land is a plain indication that we as a Church and as a nation have fallen from the high position to which God had raised us by means of the Gospel, and that He is now threatening to punish us for our apostacy. Surely this is a reason why we should humble ourselves in the dust before the Most High, and seek grace to return to Him with repentance, confession of sin, and earnest prayer, in response to His gracious call addressed to us in our text.
II.—The call to repentance.—On this head we shall notice:—
- The persons exhorted to engage in this necessary duty. We learn from the context that all persons in the Church and in the nation—from the new-born child to the oldest man and woman—were called to repent. The divine command was: “Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts; let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet. Let the priests—the ministers of the Lord—weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare Thy people, O Lord, and give not Thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: Wherefore should they say, among the people, Where is their God?” The duty of repentance was enjoined on all the people without exception. National sin deserves national judgment, and calls for national repentance. It is to be observed that those in authority in Church and State were to take the lead in this work, as probably they were ringleaders in the apostacy. The Elders and the Priests—the ministers of the Lord—are mentioned in particular. It is well known by readers of the Old Testament that almost every declension in the Church began with the teachers of the people, and that when an ungodly king ruled, the nation relapsed to idolatry. This is the cause of the deplorable declension in the Church and the State in our own day. It cannot be denied that the present ministers in the Church are responsible for much of the idolatry and infidelity that are rampant among the rising generation; and the rulers of our nation—from the king downward—have been, and are still, co-operating with the backsliding Church in leading the people to idolatry. The Popish altar gifted by the King to Crathie Parish Church is one
instance of this. Therefore, as these have taken the lead in causing the people to forsake the Lord, His Word and worship, they ought to be the first to obey the call to repentance. If they were to do so, their good example would be followed by the people. But whether they do so or not, it is our duty to declare to them what the Lord commands them to do in order to avert the threatened calamity.
- The manner in which the duty is to be performed. The first thing is to turn unto the Lord: “Turn ye even to me.” This implies that those addressed had forsaken the Lord. He had chosen them from among all other nations in the world, brought them nigh to Himself, delivered them out of the bondage of Egypt, led them through the wilderness into the good land that flowed with milk and honey, set up His tabernacle among them; and they entered into a solemn covenant with Him, and promised that they would continue in His covenant and never forsake Him. But they broke the covenant; forsook the God of their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and began to worship idols—gods that could not save them or do them any good. Their sin was great—greater than that of the heathen—and yet He calls them to turn unto Him, and promises to receive them into His favour, notwithstanding the aggravation of their sin. Oh, how good God is! But did they return to Him and accept of His gracious offer? No; for we see that they were soon after reaping the fruit of their sin and folly in captivity, where they had been left till they were brought to repentance.
Are we, as a nation, of whom better things might be expected, better than they? We are not. We are as guilty in the sight of God as they were. When our forefathers were “sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death,” the Lord caused a great light to arise unto them. He sent to them the glorious Gospel, which they left as the best legacy to their posterity. It was the Gospel that made our nation great, powerful, and prosperous. It exalted us far above the other nations of the world in respect of religion, civilization, and true virtue. But what are we now? We have, like Israel, forsaken the Lord; we are fallen from the high position to which the Lord had raised us. We have turned away from the living and true God to worship idols. Yea, many in our nation have sunk into deeper degradation than the heathen, inasmuch as they deny the existence of God—a state in which no heathen people have ever been found in any part of the world. They are worshippers of some god or gods, and they acknowledge one Supreme Spirit, though, without the Word of the Gospel, they do not know who that glorious Being is. To deny the existence of God is the lowest state of degradation to which man, possessed of a moral nature, can come. Into this state many in our much-privileged nation have fallen. But in our text we hear the voice of the Lord crying unto them, “Turn ye even to me.” Oh, that they would obey the gracious call!
(1) It must be a hearty turning. There may be a turning to the Lord by profession without a change of heart. But where there is a sincere turning it has its spring in the heart. The backsliding began in the heart, the turning to the Lord begins there too. So it was in the case of the prodigal. The resolution to return to his father was formed in his mind or heart before he took the first step homeward, “I will arise,” etc. The whole heart must be in this work: “Turn ye even to me with all your heart.” The Lord seeks the whole heart—”Son, give me thine heart.” A heart divided between the Lord and the world, between Christ and Belial, will not be accepted. The people of Israel were charged with turning feignedly to the Lord. They flattered Him with their lips while their heart was not right with Him. Before there can be a true turning to the Lord a “new heart” is given—a new creation is made by the Holy Spirit by means of the Word of Scripture. This is the Lord’s work, but it is the sinner so changed that turns to the Lord. It will then be a hearty turning, a turning with all the heart without any reserve.
(2) With fasting. The ministers of the Church were commanded to sanctify a fast, that is, to set apart a day or more, and gather the people, young and old, rich and poor, and of all ranks, to humble themselves before the Lord, to confess their sins, and to pray for mercy and pardon. This is the kind of fasting that is acceptable to God. In this exercise they were to deny themselves to some extent of food and drink, lawful on other occasions. A time of fasting is not a time of feasting. We have several instances in Scripture of literal fasting when the Lord threatened to pour out His wrath on the people for their sins. When He threatened to destroy the people of Nineveh they believed His word through His prophet, humbled themselves, fasted, and turned from their evil ways, and the Lord owned their exercise, and spared them because of their repentance. Although outward obedience to God’s command by unconverted men, or even converted men, does not merit eternal life, yet it prevents temporal judgments, from which otherwise there would be no escape. When King Ahab, though a wicked man, humbled himself, the Lord took notice of it, and delayed to cut him off for his idolatry. If the people of our nation rendered even outward obedience to His command, which is within their power to do as reasonable creatures, the judgment which is ready to fall upon us would be averted.
(3) “With weeping and with mourning”—weeping more for our sins than for the many miseries to which sin made us liable. The cause of misery—even eternal punishment—is a greater evil than its effects. Sin is an unrighteous thing. The punishment of sin is just. If you do not weep more for your sins than for your miseries, your weeping is not that of God’s people. Many weep for their miseries who never wept for their sins. In true repentance there is mourning as well as weeping. There is some
difference between weeping and mourning, as they are spoken of here as distinct, though connected. The difference is this: mourning is more lasting than weeping. The Lord’s people are not always shedding tears, but they are mourning all their days in the wilderness. Even their rejoicing is mixed or accompanied with mourning so long as they are in this world. They are characterised by Christ as “they that mourn”—(Matthew v. 4). Those who never weep for their sins now shall be weeping for ever in eternity.
(4) With rending of heart: “Rend your heart and not your garments.” In Old Testament times rending their garments was practised by penitents as a visible sign of inward grief for their sins against God. But this was so easy a thing to do that others might do it without any true sense of sin or any real grief of heart for it. Therefore they were commanded to rend their heart and not their garments. When God turns sinners to Himself, He rends their heart by conviction of sin, and they themselves begin to rend their heart too. And when He stops to rend their heart by pardoning their sins and speaking peace to them through the blood of Christ, they shall not stop that work. They shall continue it during their course in the world till death. Then they shall not rend their heart any more for ever. The broken heart is then completely healed. But those who do not rend their heart in time shall be rending it throughout eternity; their worm shall not die, and the fire that torments them shall never be quenched. Oh, careless sinner, begin to rend your heart now!
(5) With turning unto the Lord: “And turn unto the Lord your God.” The call to repentance begins with this exhortation and closes with it. The people were so far gone astray, and so tied to their idols, that they needed “precept upon precept” to bring them back to the living and true God. Although they would perform all the other duties enjoined on them, unless they turned to the Lord, all would be in vain. The threatened judgment would fall upon them, and they would perish in their sins. “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” Repentance is a continual exercise of the believer in turning from sin to God, till he is made perfect in holiness at death. Then it ceases for ever; there is no repentance after death.
III.—The encouragement to obey the call.—There is nothing in those called that can be the least ground of encouragement to obey the call. On the contrary, everything in them, and done by them in departing from the Lord is enough to keep them for ever away from Him, if they are dealt with according to their ill desert. But there is every encouragement in Him that calls them. “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.”
(1) Are they so impressed with the heinousness of their sins, as against light and privileges, that they are now afraid that they put themselves beyond the possibility of forgiveness? To meet their desperate case, the prophet tells them that the Lord against
whom they had so grievously sinned, is gracious. He is gracious in His nature, and is naturally disposed to deal graciously with offenders, who come to Him repenting, confessing their sins, and praying for pardon and acceptance. They cannot plead merit or worthiness. But grace in God does not look for merit in the guilty sinner. It flows out freely to the guilty, through and on the ground of the merit of Jesus Christ, and on that ground alone. This was the ground of forgiveness under the Old Testament, and it is the ground under the New. Not only forgiveness, but the whole of salvation from beginning to end is by the grace of God. “By grace are ye saved” (Eph. ii. 8).
(2) “He is merciful.” Are they miserable, as all men are by nature? The prophet brings the remedy before them. The Lord is merciful, yea, He is rich in mercy, so that they cannot have sunk into such a state of misery but God’s mercy can deliver them, and raise them up out of the fearful pit, and out of the miry clay, and set their feet on the firm rock—Christ. Yea, He can change their mournful complaint of misery into the joyful song of praise!
(3) “He is slow to anger.” They cannot say that He was too hasty to mark iniquity against them, and visit them with tokens of His wrath. No, He bore long with them in their sinful course; and even now, after all their provocations, He is ready to turn away His anger from them, if they only turn to Him. What more could they reasonably expect?
(4) “He is of great kindness.” If they turn to Him even now, He will meet them with open arms, and treat them with the greatest kindness, as if they had never offended Him. Their sins and iniquities He will remember no more. O, “Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgressions of the remnant of his heritage? He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.”
(5) “He repenteth of the evil.” That is, He will change His manner of dealing with them. He will not change His mind—as the word repentance means. He is of one mind. But He changes His way of dealing with those who return to Him at His reproof. He will not execute His threatenings against them. His threatenings were conditional on their obedience or disobedience to His call to repentance, just as His threatening to destroy Nineveh was. This leaves the responsibility at the door of those to whom the divine message comes. They are thus left without any excuse. Every barrier is removed out of the way on the part of the Lord. If they perish, they must blame themselves, and justify the Lord in punishing them in time and in eternity.
IV.—The door of hope that is here set before them: “Who knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind
him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the Lord your God.” Here is a door of hope. It may look small; yet it is an open door, however small. The prophet cannot meantime open a wider door for them. He did not yet know whether the Lord would return and leave a blessing behind Him or not. That depended on their turning unto Him. “Turn ye unto me and I will turn unto you,” is the divine order in this matter. If they returned unto the Lord there is no doubt but He would return unto them, for He has given His word for it. And if He returned unto them He would leave a blessing behind Him—a temporal and spiritual blessing. On account of their sins they were, it would seem, deprived already of the fruit of the earth by the insects mentioned in the first chapter and fourth verse, to such an extent that they had not wherewith to offer a meat offering and a drink offering unto the Lord. Just as in our own day the Churches that forsook the Lord confess that they are not able to provide the people with Gospel ordinances for want of money. The meat offering and drink offering are withheld in judgment for their apostasy. The only cure for this deficiency is to return unto the Lord; then He would be as good as His word. He would supply them with sufficient funds to carry on His work in their several spheres of labour, as He has wonderfully done and is still doing to those who, in the midst of the general declension, “kept the faith,” and are determined, through grace, to keep it to the end and to hand it down pure and entire to coming generations, as the faithful Reformers left it to us. If they returned unto the Lord He would give them greater, richer, and more lasting blessings than these. He would pour out His Spirit upon them and make them partakers of Christ and of the benefits of His redemption—even eternal life!
The call to repentance contained in our text may be the last call to us as a Church and as a nation till the threatened judgment is poured out; and nothing can prevent the catastrophe but a sincere turning from our evil ways unto the Lord in the manner described by Himself, which we have endeavoured to point out. In connection with repentance let there be earnest prayer and intercession by His own people, and let His public messengers take the lead in this necessary work, according to His own command: “Let the ministers of the Lord weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: Wherefore should they say among the people, Where is their God?”
Omission from Synod Report.—We regret that we overlooked to report among other apologies for absence from ministers, that of the Rev. Alexander Macrae, Portree. We expect (D.V.) to have in next issue the Synod Sermon by the Moderator, the Rev. D. Mackenzie, Gairloch.
Memoirs of the Life and Experience of Marion Laird of Greenock.
(Continued from page 105.)
AFTER some time I found a cloud arising, which I may say as the Prophet in another case, that, at first, it was a man’s hand, but gradually increased till it covered the whole heavens, as it were, and hid from me the refreshing and lightsome rays of the Sun of Righteousness; and it was a cloud of the longest continuance that ever I as yet met with in the house of my pilgrimage. So great a deadness seized my soul, that I could not think that such sins and grace could dwell together, upon which I razed the very foundations.
About this time I heard Mr. Smiton preach. He insisted very much upon the law, and I was sore afraid to hear the law preached when I could not see my interest in glorious Christ. Whereupon Satan, after all, did so hotly pursue me, that he violently suggested to my soul that God would suddenly destroy me as with a thunder-clap; which filled me with great fear and sore pain, inasmuch, that I thought I was under the sentence of condemnation, and had lost all right to any of God’s mercies. And the enemy strongly suggested to me that I should not eat, because I had no right to food; or, if I did, the wrath of God would go down with it. This filled my heart with grief and sorrow.
At one time when we were going to take some food, a young man asked a blessing: he spoke a little upon these words, Isa. xlv. 22, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else.” Upon which I thought, O! is there such a word as that, that calls all the ends of the earth to look to God and be saved? I reasoned with myself, surely that word takes me in, for I would have been glad to be saved both from sin and wrath. The enemy, however, strongly suggested to me that, though I had the external call, that I would never get the internal call of God’s Spirit, and, without that, the external will not do. O! I was sore grieved at the melancholy thoughts of having deceived myself; so rude was I, and, as a beast before Him, that I could not in this dark hour live by faith. I was loath to call all that ever I met with a delusion, yet, so strong was the temptation, I could not read my evidences or a title to his favour.
One time I took my Bible in my hand, but I could not find any comfort in it. Whereupon, the restless enemy did sorely assault me to burn it in the fire, seeing I could find no comfort in it. To this onset I was made to say, by the Lord’s pity, it hath been refreshing to me before now; and I held it with both my hands, and was made to say, through the Lord’s strength, I never will do it. At this time I would often wonder to see any laugh that I thought had not an interest in glorious Christ, it was such a burden to me to think of wanting Him.
On the Sabbath-day I was much burdened with indwelling sins: and, O this is my misery and burden, “When I would do good, evil is present with me.” When I design to draw near to God and promise myself comfort and redress in communion with Him, then is evil present. O! could I but enjoy my freedom from it in the seasons of duty, what a comfort would that be, but then is the special season of its operation. Sometimes I had liberty in our society when I could have none in secret, and this made me to think that I was nothing but a hypocrite, but, this day, I could not get liberty either in public or private.
On the Sabbath evening after our meeting was parted, I went to the fields for prayer very much burdened with my sin, saying, with the apostle, “O wretched” woman “that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of sin and death?” O Lord, I long for victory over it and that through the blood of the Lamb. Now, the Lord dealt kindly with me and rebuked Satan, and He has never suffered me to be tempted above measure, but has to this day always with the temptations given a way of escape.
When I went to prayer the Lord so shined upon His own word, Isa. xii. 1, 2, “Though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me. Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid.” O with what joy did this fill my soul! I was filled with peace, joy, and comfort. In this season of duty I got all scruples and fears banished away; now, I got my love inflamed, renewed care, deep abasements, increase of strength, a desire to be with God, and improved mortification to the world.
Some time after this my spirit was overwhelmed within me on account of the Church and for a departing God and glory. Alas! what matter of grief is it to see so few owning a covenanted work of reformation! So long as our Church clave to these our covenants it fell out with them as it did with King Asa, 2 Chron. xv. 2, “That the Lord was with them, while they were with Him.” But, alas! many are going off these foundations both as to doctrine and government. The judicatories of this Church are so far infatuated as to thrust out from church communion and society, faithful watchmen, because of their faithfulness. This was matter of great grief to my soul, and it caused Christ’s sheep who know His voice, but will not follow a stranger, to wander from sea to sea and from one part of the land to another to hear the pure and savoury word of the Lord: and for no other reason, but because of their non-submission to intruders and hirelings, and such as the Scripture denominates to be wolves, thieves, and robbers. With many such our pulpits are filled, and many also were the provocations of sons and of daughters. And our solemn covenants, wherewith this land had bound themselves to the Lord, were too little to be regarded by a great many; I, myself, was witness to hear one of our ministers say, “We of this generation had nothing to do with these old covenants.”
All this filled my soul with fear lest glorious Christ should be provoked not to return again to poor Scotland. And, if He would not return with a preached gospel in plenty and purity, we had been the cruel generation who sinned Him away from ourselves and posterity.
One time when much perplexed in spirit I went to prayer, and the Lord was graciously pleased to give me some sure grounds of hope. I got leave to lay claim to Him as a covenant-keeping God, although we be a covenant-breaking people. Ah! when these covenants shall be revived, that shall be like a resurrection from the dead; they were buried in dishonour, but they shall rise in honour. My soul longs to see it. The Lord has taken possession of the “utmost ends of the earth for his possession,” (Psalm ii. 8,) to be the Father’s gift to the Mediator; it is His own ground by gift, conquest, infestment, and possession. And the Lord bore in my mind by an irresistible gale of His Spirit that He would yet say concerning this part of Sion, “Here is my rest, and here I desire to dwell.” At which my soul cried, So be it, O Lord, although thou shouldst cast us into a seven times heated furnace of affliction.
Another thing that still burdened my spirit was the want of a faithful minister amongst us to break the bread of life to our souls. One day after this our societies appointed a day of fasting. They desired to humble themselves for the many dishonours done to God by themselves and others; and, likewise, desired that the Lord would remove all stumbling-blocks out of the way of our getting a faithful shepherd among us. And here I desire to remark to the glory of the blessed hearer of prayer that He sent His word with such power and life into my soul, that it made me believe that our Lord beholds his Church with affectionate concern; for the words were, “I have seen, I have seen the afflictions of my people which are in Egypt; and I have heard their groanings,” Acts vii. 34. “And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, saith the Lord.” Now I got a ground of hope to believe that God would give us pastors in His due time. And I never got leave to raise the foundation of my hope; but, one time, a very contrary providence seemed to counteract the accomplishment of the promises, then I thought I had believed in vain. Now, I was afraid that all I had met with was a delusion of Satan, but, when I was raising the grounds of my hope, the Lord so eminently shine upon His word, Isa. lxvi. 5, “Let the Lord be glorified; but he shall appear to your joy.” This revived my hope again to wait upon the Lord till he should accomplish His promise, which he did about two years thereafter. And, O but the mercy that cometh to a Christian through a promise is sweet!
Some time after this I heard that the sacrament was to be dispensed at Stirling, at which I was very glad, and many a day before it came these words haunted my mind, Gen. xxxv. 2, 3, “Put away the strange gods that are among you, and arise and go
up to Bethel;” together with these words, “So much the more as you see the day approaching.” But I desired to put the work back into the Lord’s own hand. I looked for a refreshing time at the sacrament, and it had been so to me before. But, upon the Saturday, my heart-plagues were so strongly raging within my soul, that I was afraid all that ever I met with was but a delusion of Satan; for my heart, I thought, was as hard as the ground I then sat upon, and was sore grieved at the thought of my having deceived myself, and my grief lasted till the Sabbath-day. One of the ministers serving a table spoke upon these words, “This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.” When I heard these words, I thought, O if I could apply them to myself, I would rather than ten thousand worlds. Whereupon, the glorious Hearer of prayer was pleased to give me my request; for then the Lord so shined upon these words, “This is my beloved, and this is my friend,” that I was made to say, O what wonderful love is this! Well may I say, His love is not after the manner of man. O His love filled my soul with wonder, joy, and believing! I rejoiced with joy unspeakable, and arose and came to the table of the Lord. Mr. John Cleland served it, and he spoke on these words, “What is thy petition, Queen Esther? and what is thy request? and it shall be granted thee.” He addressed himself to the communicants, and said, “What is your request, communicants? Is it your request to get indwelling sins subdued?” To which I said, Amen, with all my heart and soul; I earnestly want to have my heart-plagues subdued, especially that sin of unbelief by which I had so much dishonoured God and was afraid that I would dishonour Him again. But then these words were borne in upon my mind with power, 2 Cor. xii. 9, “My grace is sufficient for thee;” after which my soul was filled with joy and peace in believing. Again, Mr. Cleland said, “Communicants, ye are at the banquet of wine, what is your petition? Have ye any petitions to put up for the Lord’s cause and testimony and for the gospel to the poor West of Scotland?” At which I was exceeding glad, for that had been often my petition before this time. This solemnity happened in the month of June, 1743.
Here I desire to remark to the praise of the faithful God who grants us our petitions and the accomplishment of the promises, that the giving of the promises occasioneth much spiritual joy; and when the promise travaileth in birth and bringeth forth, that occasioneth much more spiritual comfort. O but it is a pleasant matter to behold love making promises and faithfulness accomplishing them!
“Yea, I remember will the works
Performed by the Lord;
The wonders done of old by thee,
I surely will record.”
(To be Continued.)
A Note on Controversy.
HOW common the phrase to-day, “I hate controversy”; it is in most people’s mouths; it is constantly on the lips of the people of God. We venture to assert that controversy is essential to the existence of the Church of God. What did Jesus Christ mean when He said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword.” He did come as the Prince of Peace, to bring peace between God and men; but He did not come to bring peace between the righteous and the wicked (Matt. x. 34), for those who “will live godly, shall suffer persecution,” they will be opposed by the ungodly. Truth and error, light and darkness, love and hate, cannot walk together; their very nature is to turn one against the other—this is controversy! That men may rightly hate many of the methods of controversy is true; but to be a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, in His Holy Gospel and Truth, and at the same time to hate controversy is an impossibility. Yet we hear many of the Lord’s people talking of their hate of controversy. We can only hope that it is rather hatred of a word than of the thing itself; rather hatred of the methods of controversy than of controversy.
At the same time we cannot blind our eyes to the fact that the phrase, “I hate controversy,” represents a condition of things that does exist in the Church of God; there is an increasing opposition to all controversy, to all decided stand for truth. “Peace at any price,” even though it involve the betrayal of truth, is the coward cry of many in our day. Ease at any price; we cannot be troubled; let us sleep on, why disturb our rest; there always have been differences of opinion, and we do not see that, after all, it matters much who is right or wrong; truth can take care of itself, etc., and many similar expressions all indicate the loss of a vigorous manhood, and are the signs of effeminacy and weakness.
We believe that much of the opposition to controversy arises from the consciousness of weakness; a weak grasp of truth will never move a man to contend earnestly for truth. When God burns His truth into the conscience and life of a man, both as to the guilt of sin, and deliverance from guilt by the blood of Christ, that man will speak out of the abundance of his heart; he has a hold of truth because truth holds him; such a man is strong in his convictions, he does not think and suppose, but he knows, and his words have a power and authority about them that demonstrate clearly that he is a man taught of God. It was this inward Divine teaching that made the Reformers strong in the Lord; it is the lack of it that makes us to-day cowardly and weak. Where love to Christ is at a low ebb, there love to truth will be at a low ebb; when love is cool there is no motive power strong enough to make men “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.” If God has “placed us in trust with His gospel,” it is all important that we be found faithful to Him and to that which is
committed to our trust. Much of our opposition to controversy arises from faithlessness to our trust. This is a solemn charge, but many consciences know it is true.
A just cause of opposition to controversy is when the controversy is about words and not about principles. “But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.” How sad when God’s people make use of set phrases as a sort of party cry! How ungodly to brand a brother as a heretic, because he may not see his way to adopt some phrase that I insist on as a test phrase, but for which I have no Scriptural warrant!
Let us conclude by saying there are godly methods of conducting controversy as well as ungodly methods. The latter tend to drag truth itself down into the mire; the former have been used by God in all ages for the exhibition of His truth in its purity. Where should we be to-day were it not for the controversial sayings of the Lord Jesus Christ, the holy apostles and prophets, and of men of God all down the ages—Luther, Calvin, Owen, and a host of others innumerable?
The following exhortation is still in force, and is binding upon every member of the Church of God, “earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints.” This is the revealed will of God as to controversy. The Lord give us more grace, that in His fear and in love to the truth and the souls of men we may obey His counsel. M. J. TRYON.
Easter.
IS THE WORD “EASTER” IN THE SCRIPTURES?
“Intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”—ACTS xii. 4.
THE Rev. Josias Wilson, a Presbyterian minister in London, having occasion to read this chapter to his people one Sabbath morning, paused for some time after repeating the words, “Intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.” Instantly all eyes were fixed on the preacher and every ear pricked. Then in a commanding and impressive tone he burst forth with the following striking apostrophe:—”You Presbyterians say that you observe no saints’ days, feasts, or festivals, just because they are not sanctioned in your Bibles; but here I find Easter is mentioned, and apparent reverence shown to it. Now, then, how readest thou, or what sayest thou to this? Brethren, be not deceived, for from the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation no such word ever occurs. It is a false and infamous translation of the Word of God, and it ought to have been expunged long ago. The original Greek word here translated Easter is Pascha, which signifies the Passover, and ought to have been so rendered; but King James, who was half a pope, told the translators that they must retain as many of the old ecclesiastical terms as possible, and hence we have this word disgracing these venerable pages in the 19th century.”—British Messenger.
The Preaching of the Rev. Dr. Macdonald, Ferintosh.
“THE APOSTLE OF THE NORTH.”
THE following interesting and graphic description of Dr. Macdonald’s preaching is taken from the memoir of the Rev. Duncan Campbell, Kiltearn, a godly and able minister, by the late Rev. Duncan M’Gregor, Dundee. Mr. M’Gregor had a vivid pen, and his portraiture of Dr. Macdonald is perhaps more striking than any other description we have of him:—
A vast crowd assembled to hear the great preacher (at Lawers in Perthshire). I heard him preach four times. First, upon his favourite subject, Justification. His text was Isaiah liv. 17, last clause, “And their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.” Second, upon the conflict between the old and new man in believers. His text was Romans vii. 14, “For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.” Third, upon one of Christ’s miracles, I forget which, but I remember his argument. He asserted and maintained that Christ’s miracles proved—(1) His divinity; (2) His divine mission; (3) The truth of His doctrine; and (4) His mercy. At some one of these services, he read Ezek. xxxvii. 1-10 before sermon, and a good old man, a Mr. Campbell, then a merchant in Killin, who sat beside us, whispered to his neighbour, “He’s to be on the work of the Spirit to-day.” It was not so, however. On the Monday, “the last day of the feast,” he preached the most extraordinary sermon I ever heard from him upon Isa. xxxv. 10, “And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.” I can remember the portly figure, the long glossy satin vest, the cheery, joyous expression of his eye, as he rose in the tent to begin the service, and scanned the mighty crowd; the eager and breathless expectancy of the people, when the preacher had fairly begun, the masterly analysis of his text, the enunciation of his topics, and how, as the sermon rolled on, the mighty, trumpet-like voice went pealing through the crowd, and the subject stood out in vivid realization before our very eyes and souls. The body of the sermon was one glowing description of the bright ascent of the ransomed. The far-off land seemed very near. “We could almost think we gazed through golden vistas into heaven.” But at the close he made an appeal to the unsaved which was literally overwhelming. After speaking of the need of a ransom, an atonement, a satisfaction by blood, in consequence of man’s deep guilt, and the spirituality and unchangeableness of God’s law, he shewed the impossibility of justification by works, and urged all to accept the glorious righteousness gratuitously offered in the gospel. Then he pointed out the terrible doom of despisers,
slowly quoting the words of Heb. x. 26, 27, “There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries”; and suddenly raising his voice, he cried in his very loudest tone “Agus a chnuimh nach básaich ged chagnadh gu siorruidh” (And the undying worm gnawing for ever)! It was as if a flash of lightning had struck the congregation. The effect was indescribable. Hundreds wept as they sang the parting psalm—
“They shall be brought with gladness great,
And mirth on every side,
Into the Palace of the King,
And there they shall abide.”
NOTE FROM APPENDIX.
Dr. Macdonald’s preaching on this occasion realised my conception of Whitfield’s more than any preaching I have ever heard. His sermon was a sacred prose poem. The theme was idealised, so to speak, in his mind and heart and soul: he enjoyed the special assistance of the Holy Spirit: his words flowed like a stream of fire. And the power of music was superadded. He sang his sermon, and his voice at its full swell was equal to a whole orchestra of singers. How that magnificent chaunt thrilled the audience! They say that Ralph Erskine sang his sermons. The tradition still lingers in Dunfermline.
His voice was of course the first thing that struck a stranger hearing him for the first time. I have never heard a preacher’s voice—any voice—of such compass, richness, and power. It could sweep through two octaves. If I may be pardoned for using technical language, it could sweep the scale easily from C below the treble staff, to G, or even B flat, above it. It was a most wonderful instrument. I have been told that on a Communion Sabbath, if the weather was fine, when he preached in the Burn of Ferintosh, it could easily be heard at Dingwall, and many words, and even sentences, could be distinguished at his own house, a thousand yards off.
I heard him preach at Killin the following day, to an intensely responsive audience, from Isa. lv. 2, “Eat ye that which is good.” He assisted his son-in-law at the Communion in Glenlyon in 1839. It was the 24th of August. He concluded the open-air services with an address from 1 Kings xviii. 21, “How long halt ye between two opinions?”—which was accompanied by the power of the Holy Ghost. The arrows of the King of Zion were sharp in the hearts of His enemies. It was a day of espousals. Many made haste and came down, and received Jesus joyfully.
In July 1842 he assisted at the Sacrament in Blair-Athole. His subject was Gal. iii. 12 (1st clause), “And the law is not of faith.” It was a profound and masterly exposition of the doctrine that the way of salvation by the law is not the same as the way of salvation by faith; that the two are essentially different; that
while the law says Do and live, the gospel says, Live and do; that in the one case you work for life, in the other you work from life. A good deal of the sermon was perhaps beyond the capacities of the audience, but the application was overwhelmingly solemn. He first drew a broad line of demarcation between those who had found salvation by faith, and those who were seeking it by the works of the law. He then divided the unconverted into classes—”according to their tribes,” “according to their families,” “by households,” “man by man.” Josh. vii. 14. He spoke of the several paths by which they go down to the chambers of death—ignorance, enmity, self-righteousness, unbelief, worldliness, thoughtlessness, sloth, sleep, procrastination, sinful habits—and then cried, “Bithidh scread ghoirt an ifrinn an lorg sin” (There will be a bitter cry in hell in consequence)! It was the hammer striking the rock. How every face in the vast crowd turned pale!
I have heard old people speak of his sermon upon Ruth, i. 16, “Entreat me not to leave thee,” &c., preached in 1817, in the Hogs’ Park at Milton, Lawers, on the Monday of the Communion. They described it as perhaps the most powerful and affecting sermon he ever preached. “The fervid eloquence, and the pathetic appeals near its conclusion seemed to move and to constrain even the most careless. Many were deeply affected and agitated both in mind and body.”—(Memoir of Findlater, p. 196.) One man who was present told me that the weeping towards the end reminded him of the bleating when lambs are being weaned—toud, general—as if the whole hillside were bleating! I do not in the least doubt it. At the same time, having heard him often, and had abundant opportunities of judging, I believe the sermon he delivered that day at Blair-Athole, in point of profound theological knowledge, argumentative power, luminous illustration of some of the most difficult heads in divinity, and close, inevitable application to the conscience of the hearer, was among the most remarkable he ever preached.
He assisted regularly in the Gaelic Church, Edinburgh, for many years. Here are some of his texts—”We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ,” John i. 41; “Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults,” Ps. xix. 12; “The Lord Thy God in the midst of thee is mighty, He will save thee,” &c., Zeph. iii. 17; “By His knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many,” &c., Isa. liii. 11; “Neither give place to the devil,” Eph. iv. 27; “The full soul loatheth an honeycomb, but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet,” Prov. xxvi. 7; “And if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth there it shall be,” Eccl. xi. 3; “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him. . . . Every man, therefore, that hath heard and learned of the Father, cometh unto me,” John vi. 44, 45; “As the Father knoweth me, even so know I
the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep,” John x. 15; “I am that bread of life,” John vi. 48; The parable of the wheat and tares, Mat. xiii. 24-30; “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen,” &c., 2 Cor. iv. 18. On one occasion, after the Disruption, when the prospects of the Free Church were dark, and fears were entertained that no adequate provision could be made for her ministers, he made his hearers smile by reading for his text, 1 Kings xvii. 14, “For thus saith the Lord God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the Lord sendeth rain upon the earth.” Fragments of these sermons, like particles of gold dust, still lie in my memory.
It is unnecessary to attempt a characterization of his preaching, as this has been done by Dr. Kennedy of Dingwall in his memoir of him. It was doctrinal rather than experimental. He felt that the greatest thing in preaching is the presentation of Christ, the setting forth of the matchless glory of His person, and love, and death. He fixed his eye on the grand objective facts of the gospel. He directed the eyes of his hearers to them. For every one look at himself and his mental states he gave ten at Christ. This was the secret of his unfailing cheerfulness. He was like Charles of Bala: it was a good sermon to see him. “The joy of the Lord was his strength.” He knew and understood well “that tragedy of the Christian life”—the struggle with indwelling sin. He had been under the penumbra of doubt. But he was always bright and sunny—had a smile and a kind word for every one—threw himself into his work with hopeful and joyous alacrity—and never complained of fatigue when he did the work of two.
His taste was beautifully severe. He was exceedingly chary of using anything for purposes of illustration in preaching, except what lay within the four corners of the Bible. His illustrations were exquisite, but they were almost invariably Biblical. One who did so much evangelistic work, who preached all over Scotland, who met and personally dealt with so many anxious inquirers, must have had a great store of materials that men of less fastidious taste would feel warranted in using in the pulpit to illustrate such points as conviction of sin, repentance, saving faith, and the like. He scarcely ever drew upon it. But when he told an anecdote, it was never forgotten. On a Communion Sabbath evening, about the year 1841, he preached in the Gaelic Church, Edinburgh. He had been in Skye shortly before, and had seen “a noise and a shaking among the dry bones.” A young woman had been awakened, and had sobbed aloud. The service was concluded, the benediction was pronounced, but she followed him weeping bitterly. Like Evangelist, when he found Christian weeping outside the walls of the City of Destruction, he turned and asked her, “Wherefore dost thou cry?” “Oh,” she said, “Tha firinnean Dhè a tolladh mo chridhe” (God’s truths are piercing my heart through and through !)
The last time I saw him at Dunoon in October, 1848. He preached there on a Tuesday evening, from Rom. iv. 5, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Jehovah Tsidkenu—Justification by faith—was his theme to the last! Like Whitfield, he would say, “O the righteousness of Christ! The righteousness of Christ! Excuse me if I speak of it in every sermon!” Next day he preached twice at Kilmun, in English, from 1 Thess. i. 4, “Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God;” in Gaelic, from Ps. cxix. 105, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” Curious, when crossing with him in the steamer, I noticed that his boots were tight. In a few days I heard that a tight boot had hurt his foot, and that the wound festered. It was the beginning of the end. His last text was Ecc. ix. 10, “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest.” On the 16th April, 1849, he fell asleep.
Induction at Kames, Kyles of Bute.
THE Southern Presbytery met at the Free Presbyterian Church, Kames, Kyles of Bute, on the Thursday evening the 22nd August. The chief business was the induction of the Rev. Ewen Macqueen, late of Dornoch, to the pastorate of the Kames congregation. The members of Presbytery present were the Revs. Neil Cameron (Moderator), John Robertson, and James S. Sinclair (Clerk), ministers, with Mr. John Auld, Glasgow, elder. Other office-bearers, members of Presbytery, were unavoidably absent. Rev. Neil Cameron presided, and preached an appropriate sermon from Acts x. 33. Public worship being ended, Mr. Cameron gave a brief narrative of the steps that had been taken for filling up the vacancy, and thereafter addressed the usual Questions to Mr. Macqueen, who satisfactorily answered the same. Mr. Cameron then engaged in prayer, and at the close admitted Mr. Macqueen to the pastoral charge of the congregation “by authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the name of this Presbytery,” giving him the right hand of fellowship, and wishing him all comfort and success in the Lord. The other members of Presbytery also gave the right hand of fellowship. Mr. Robertson then briefly and suitably addressed the newly-inducted minister as to his responsibilities, and Mr. Sinclair spoke to the congregation as to their obligations. The service was brought to a close with singing the last three verses of the hundred and twenty-second Psalm and the benediction. There was a good attendance. A number of friends were also present from the surrounding districts, and from greater distances. We earnestly hope that the ministry here begun after a lengthened vacancy may be attended with abundant blessing from on high.
The Ascension of Christ.
BY THE LATE J. C. PHILPOT, M.A.
THE Scriptures afford the clearest proof of the triumphant manner in which the Lord of life and glory went up on high. In Psalm lxxviii. there is a blessed description of the glorious convoy of angels which attended Him on His royal progress up to heaven’s gates; for as, when He shall “appear a second time without sin unto salvation,” He will be “revealed from heaven with his mighty angels” (2 Thess. i. 7), and shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels (Matthew xvi. 27), so thousands upon thousands of ministering angels attended upon Him at His triumphant ascension. “The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels; the Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended on high; thou hast led captivity captive; thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them” (Psalms lxxviii. 17, 18). This triumphant ascension of the blessed Lord is also clearly intimated in Psalm xlvi., “O clap your hands, all ye people, shout unto God with the voice of triumph; for the Lord most high is terrible. He is a great King over all the earth. God is gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet. Sing praises to God, sing praises; sing praises unto our King, sing praises; for God is King of all the earth; sing ye praises with understanding” (Psalm xlvi. 1, 2, 5-7). Nor are we left without scriptural intimations even of the blessed Lord’s reception at the very courts of bliss. When He reached the gates of heaven the celestial courts were moved at His approach, for then was accomplished that memorable transaction recorded in Psalm xxiv. As thus represented to our faith, it was as if the attendant angels that formed His glorious convoy shouted aloud before Him, as the heralds of His approach, “Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.” But from within is made the inquiry, “Who is the King of glory?” The answer is given from without by the attendants of His train, “The Lord, strong and mighty; the Lord, mighty in battle.” Then comes forth the universal chorus, from without and from within, “Lift up your heads, O ye gates, even lift them up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory.”
Nor were good angels the only attendants of His train. Ancient kings returning home after triumphant wars brought back conquered enemies as well as congratulating friends. In a similar way the blessed Lord is represented in Scripture as then manifestly triumphing over Satan and all his angels, as if in His glorious ascension, when He “led captivity captive,” He dragged
at His chariot wheels the infernal hosts of hell, and openly showed them to all the holy angels as vanquished prisoners. Thus, at least, the Apostle speaks, “and having spoiled principalities and powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it,” that is, the cross, or, to adopt the marginal reading, “in Himself” (Col. ii. 15). The ancient promise was that “the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head.” When Satan, by entering into Judas, and by instigating the chief priests and the people to demand that Christ should be crucified, had, as he thought, effectually succeeded in destroying Jesus, he little imagined that this was to be, by God’s eternal design, the very means of accomplishing that prediction. On the cross the seed of the woman bruised the serpent’s head, the seat of his poison-fangs, as well as of his infernal craft and cruelty. There Jesus spoiled principalities and powers, and cast them out of their usurped dominion. But when He ascended on high He “led captivity captive” (Psalm lxviii. 18; Eph. iv. 8); that is, He led captive those who had led poor fallen man captive, in the open sight of all the angelic host, that the elect angels might be eye-witness of the ruin and misery which had fallen on the heads of their apostate brethren in the defeat of all their schemes against the Holy one of Israel. The holy angels even now are waiting for further developments of the wisdom of God as therein displayed in the present grace and future glory of the Church of Christ. This was represented in the Levitical dispensation of the cherubim looking toward the mercy-seat of the ark, as Peter explains the figure, “which things the angels desire to look into” (1 Peter i. 12), and observe that the Apostle does not say “desired,” but that they “desire,” that is still desire, to look into these heavenly mysteries, to afford them renewed discoveries of the wisdom and glory of God; for it is not by creation with all its wonders, nor by providence, in all its displays, that the wisdom of God is made known to angelic minds, but by redemption. “To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. iii. 10, 11).
With what surpassing and resplendent glory, then, was the infinite wisdom of God displayed to those bright angelic intelligences when, at the ascension of their Lord and ours, they personally witnessed how, in that very nature which was “made a little lower than the angels” in His state of humiliation, He had defeated all the designs of Satan, vindicated the honour of God, glorified His justice, magnified the law given by their ministration and made it honourable; revealed the grace, mercy, and love of the Father in the salvation of millions of redeemed sinners, and was now returning triumphant into heaven to reign and rule at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Eachdraidh Eaglais na h-Alba.
CHA chomasach a rannsuchadh a mach a nis fuidh dhearbhadh
diongmhalta ‘s am bith, air mhodh Eachdraidh chinntich,
c’ uin chaidh an creidimh Criosduidh a thoirt a stigh do Alba air
tùs. Cha bhiodh e ach ‘n a dhionhanas dhunin ar taic a leagadh
‘s a’ ghnothuch so air sgeulachdaibh faoine ach beag, a chaidh a
sgriobhadh o chionn fada le cuid do shean luchd-Eachdraidh ar
Rioghachd. Tha e ro-shoilleir nach robh aig a’ chuid mhòr
dhiubh sin, làn-dearbhadh ‘s am bith mu fhirinn gach iomraidh
a rinneadh leo.
Dh’ fheudtadh gur h-e an ceud iomradh mu thimchioll so, ris
am feud sinn amharc mar ni dearbhta, agus tha a’ nochdadh gu ‘n
d’ thàinig an soigeul a stigh co moch d’ ar Tìr—ni a chuireadh
air chuibhne le ùghdair àraidh Ròmhanach, Tertullian. Tha esan
a’ sgriobhadh mar so—”Na h-earrannan do ‘n eilean Bhreatannach
a dh’ionnsuidh nach d’ fhuair armailtean cogaidh nan Ròmhanach
tighinn a stigh, tha nà càrnann sin air tighinn gu bhi ùmhal do
Chriosd.” Tha fhis againn gur h-e Alba, agus gu h-àraid Gael-
tachd na h-Alba, na h-earrannan sònruichte sin do ‘n Eilean
Bhreatannach, a dh’ionnsuidh nach d’ fhuair feachdan cogaidh na
Ròimhe ‘s na linnibh ud tighinn a stigh. Dh’ fhairtlich an
gnothuch sin orra, a dh’ aindeoin an cruadail. Cha ‘n e dìreach
Eachdraidh tha an t-ùghdair so Tertullian a’ sgriobhadh. Agus
cha ‘n fheud sinn gu cothromach an ni tha e ag ainmeachadh a
chur an suim mar Eachdraidh làn-dhearbhta. Ach ‘n uair smuain-
icheas sinn air luathas iongantach agus farsuingeachd a’ chomais
ruithe sin a fhuair focal firinn an t-soisgeil tre fhad agus tre leud
Impireachd na Ròimhe, ann an làithibh nan Abstol, no ‘s a’ cheud
linn sin, cha ‘n eil e idir neo-choslash nach d’ ràinig e air Breatan,
agus nach d’ fhuair e eadhon tighinn a stigh a measg bheanntan
agus ghleanntan na h-Alba, mu thoiseach an dara Ceud bliadhna
an deigh am breth an Fhir-Shaoraidh air talamh.
Tha fios, rè thri cheud bliadhna ach beag, an deigh do Chriosd
dol suas, gu ‘n robh geur-lean-mhuinnean uamhasach an aghaidh
nan creidmheach a’ briseadh a mach, cha mhòr gun sgrur, air feadh
Impireachd na Ròimhe o iomall gu h-iomall. Agus bha crìochan
na h-Impireachd sin, ‘s na linnibh ud a’ ruigsinn gu maith dlùth
air Breatan. Bha luchd-leanmhuinn Chriosd ‘s na linnibh ud, a
reir na h-àithne a thugadh dhoibh, a’ teicheadh o ionad gu
h-ionad: agus is ann gu mòr air a’ mhodh so, tre àrd-uachdaran-
achd a’ ghliocais shiorruidh tha ag òrduchadh agus a’ ceadachadh
gach ni—a bha an Soisgeul glòrmhor a’ faotainn comais ruithe.
Tha làn-fhis, gu ‘n robh, mar so, an Soisgeul air a chur an ceill
an taobh a mach do iomallaibh Impireachd na Ròimhe, ann an
iomadh càrna do n’ t-saoghail, nach do ghéill idir do ‘n Impireachd
mhòir sin. Agus cha chruaidh idir r’ a smuaineachadh, gu ‘m
feudadh cuid dhiubh sud bha air an geur-leanmhuinn, ‘s a theich,
dion agus fasgadh o ‘n luchd-tòireachd an-iochdmhor, fhaotainn,
araon an Alba’s an Eirinn. Agus cha ruig sinn a leas bhi ann an teagamh air bith—ge b’ e ionad no càrna’s am faigheadh iad fasgadh, nach oidhirpicheadh iad bhi a’ cur na Firinn an ceill, ‘s bhi ‘g a deanamh aithnichte do gach dream agus fine a measg an d’ fhuaireadh dion agus fasgadh leo. Eadhon rè linntean am buirbe, bha aoidhealachd agus caoimhneas do choigrich ‘n an subhaicibh aig sean shinnsireachd ar Dùthcha. Agus cha mhi-choslach idir, an lorg na fialachd nàdurrà so, air a nochdadh do chloinn rioghachd nan gràs, nach d’ fhuair iomadh do luchd-àiteachaidh ar Tire, eadhon ‘s na h-aimsiribh ud, mar ni a dh’ òrduicheadh ann an riaghladh an t-saoir ghràis, eòlas air an fhirinn mar tha i sin ann an Iosa Criosd.
Ciod na dòighean fa leth’s an do thòisich na coigrich bhochd agus bheannaicht’ ud air teagasg a thoirt do ‘n dream mar so a measg an do chomharraicheadh an crannchur dhoibh ann an gliocas Dhé—is ni so, air nach ‘eil dearbh-shoilleireachd chinn-teach air bith againn ann an Eachdraidh. Bhiodh iad, gun teagamh, a’ deanamh mar tha’s an là an diugh féin, an luchd-teagaig, no na “Missionaries” tha air a cur a mach leis an Eaglais, a measg fhineachan borba, tha ‘n an luchd-iodhol-aoraidh. Tha cuid do Luchd-eachdraidh a’ cumail a mach, gu ‘n deachaidh a’ chuid mhòr do na coigrich dhiadhaidh ud a null a dh’ Eirinn :—gu ‘n do chruinnich buidheann dhiubh an ceann a chéile’s an Tìr sin, ‘s gu ‘n do shuidhicheadha Eaglais leo an Eirinn, a reir an dòigh-riaghlaidh, teagaig, agus oilein a chleachd iad, roimh dhoibh bhi air am fògradh tre gheur-leanmhuinn as an càrnaibh agus an dùthchannaibh féin. Ged nach ‘eil sinn a’ faicinn gu ‘m bheil làn-bharantas Eachdraidh a’ giùlan so :—tha, gidheadh, caochladh nithe mu thimchioll nan cùisean so air an cur air chuimbne, ann an sean Eachdraidhibh tha air an aideachadh leis na h-uile bhi a giùlan coslais na fìrinn co dhiubh. Agus, an uair a tha buidheann agus buidheann ag iarruidh, ann an rannsuchadh nan nithe so, cuideachadh a tharruing o shean eachdraidhibh, d’ am beachdaibh sònruichte féin ; tha e ro-fheumail gu stiùirteadh sinn, ann an iomradh a dheanamh orra, gu cothromach, agus go neo-leth-bhreitheach.
Tha, mar thubhaint sinn cheana, iomadh aobhar bhi a’ creidsinn, gu ‘n d’ thàinig an Soisgeul do Alba agus do Eirinn, an taobh stigh do dha cheud bliadhna an deigh do Chriosd bhi air a bhreth o mhnaoi. Agus cha mhi-choslach idir, eadhon gu ‘n d’ thàinig e rè linn nan abstol. Tha eadhon cuid do luchd-Eachdraidh a’ smuaineachadh gu ‘n do shearmonaicheadh an soisgeul le Pòl, ann am Breatann. Air so, gidheadh, cha ‘n’ eil solus eachdraidh againn air mhodh diongmhalta’s am bith. Ach, gu h-araid, ‘s an Treasamh ceud bliadhna o linn Chriosd air thalamh, feudar a radh gu ‘m bheil làn-sholus Eachdraidhean a’ nochdadh dhuinn, gu ‘n robh an soisgeul an uair sin, air tighinn a stigh do Alba agus do Eirinn. Ann an àrd-uachdaranachd Dhé, bha gach geur-leanmhuinn uamhasach a rinneadh ‘s na linnibh ud air Eaglais
Chriosd, ‘n am meadhonaibh, an Soisgeul bhi air a chraobhsgaoileadh, ni ‘s mò agus ni ‘s mò.
Cha ‘n ‘eil, gidheadh, lán-bharantas againn o Eachdraidh air bith, gu ‘n d’ oidhirpich an dream leis an d’thugadh a stigh an Soisgeul do Alba agus do Eirinn air tús—an am dhoibh tòiseachadh ri a chur an céill—gu’n d’ oidhirpich iad Riaghlaidh Eaglais air dòigh fhaicsinnich no fharsuing ‘s am bith chur air chois. ‘S e tha air a nochdadh le sean eachdraidhibh mu ‘n timchioll, co fad ‘s a dh’ fheudar fhaicinn leinn, gu ‘n do chòmhnuich iad thall ‘s a bhos air feadh na Tire, ann an tomhas mòr gu h uaigneach agus air leth; gach neach dhiubh ag oidhirpeachadh a réir a chomais ‘s a thiodhlacan, bhi a’ cur na fhrinn an céill do ‘n dream mu ‘n cuairt da féin mar choimhearsnaichibh, agus mar fhuair gach neach, ann am matheas Dhé eisdeachd, o luchd-àiteachaidh nan dùthchannan ‘s an robh iad a nis air chuaire.
Co fad ‘s a tha Eachdraidh nan linnean o shean ud, ‘n ar Tìr féin agus an Eirinn, a’ toirt soluis dhuinn; ‘s ann bha o àm gu h-àm a leithid do shior chonnsachaidhean agus do chogaidhean borba eadar fine agus fine, eadar sluagh agus sluagh, araon an Alba ‘s an Eirinn, ‘s nach coslach gu ‘m faigheadh na daoine diaidhaidh ud, a dh’ aindeoin an euda, mòran comais no saorsa, no cead, bhi a’ suidheachadh riaghailtean Eaglais air bith, air mhodh follaiseach. Is ann bha araon Alba agus Eirinn an uair ud, air an roinn a mach ann an rioghachdaibh beaga fa leth: agus cogaidhean fuitheach gach dara la eadar aon ‘s a h-aon eile dhiubh. Agus mar so, fhad ‘s a bha an Soisgeul fuidh chumhachd grais, ann an anamaibh fa leth a’ faotainn tomhais soirbheachaidh, rè ùin ‘fhad; ‘s ann gu h-uaigneach, ach beag, tha aobhar bhi a’ creidsinn, bha e a’ tighinn air aghaidh. Ach, air an dòigh so, tha e gu maith soilleir, gu ‘n do shoirbhich leis; agus sin gu farsuing, a measg shinnsireachd nan linnean ud ‘n ar Tìr, tre dhìchioll nan creidmheach bochd ud agus na dreama a ghabh, tre ghràs ri an teisteas; gun chomhairle shuidhichte ‘s am bith bhi aca eatorra féin mu ‘n chuis, ach a mhàin, mar threòraichteath fuidh ghràs iad ‘n an ionadaibh féin fa leth, “‘s an aon spiorad,” bhi a’ cur saoibhreis Chriosd an céill do na cinnich. ‘S an doigh so tha e ro-choslach, gu ‘n robh an Soisgeul gu maith farsuing air a chur an céill, agus eadhon air ‘aideachadh, am Breatann agus an Eirinn, agus anns na h-eileanaibh timchioll, roimh do Eaglais fhaicsinnich ‘s am bith bhi air a cur suas gu coitchionn a measg luchd-còmh-nuidh ar Tìre.
Cha robh an uine, gidheadh, ro fhad, a dh’ aindeoin gach geur-leanmhuinn a fhuair an creidimh air feadh Impireachd na Ròimhe, gus an do bhuadhaich an fhèirinn, agus gus an d’ thàinig an Impireachd mhòr agus fharsuing ud air fad, gu bhi ag aideachadh a’ chreidimh Chriosduidh. Sguir, an sin, geur-leanmhuinn rè tamuill. Fhuair an Eaglais a ris, sith o ‘n leth muigh. Ach ma fhuair, cha b’ fhad, mo thruaighe, a ris, gus an do thòisich olc eile—olc agus dòruinn bu truime eadhon no geur-
leanmhuinn—cùl-sleamhnachadh farsuing o ‘n chreidimh. ‘S ann mu ‘n am sin, a thòisich a nis duine a’ pheacaidh bhi air a nochdadh. Thòisich cumhachd na Pàpanachd. Ghlac Easbuig na Ròimhe ain-tighearnas os ceann nan Eaglaisean air feadh taobh an Iar na h-Impireachd fharsuing ud; agus o cheum gu ceum, shoirbich leis ‘n a chomhairlibh agus ‘n a as-innleachdaibh truailidh. ‘S e dh’ iarr, a nis, Easbuig na Ròimhe gu ‘m biodh e fèin air ‘aideachadh ‘n a Cheann do ‘n Eaglais fhaicsinnich air feadh an t-saoghail gu léir. Cia mar a thàinig so gu bhi a’ buadhachadh; cia mar a fhuaireadh daoiné air an glacadh ann an ribbh a’ mhillidh eagalaich so, cha ruigeadh ar cothrom, ann an gèarr-iomradh ‘s am bith mar so, a chur gu farsuing an ceill. Ach feudaidh sinn, direach a thoirt fainear, gu ‘n d’ fhuaireadh, eadhon ‘s na h-amannaibh ud, mar gheibhear anns gach linn do ‘n t-saoghail, ach a mhàin mar bhacar tre ghràs e—gràdh an t-saoghail a ta làthair, a’ rioghachadh ann an aignibh luchd-aideachaidh na fhrinn o’n leth muigh; mar Luchd-dreuchd agus mar bhuill Eaglais, agus mar luchd-riaghlaidh ann an inbhibh saoghalta. Dh’ éirich, mar so, cumhachd na Pàpanachd; agus cha b’ fhada gus an do mhothaicheadh an cumhachd truailidh so, eadhon an Alba, air feadh Bhreatainn, agus na h-Eirinn.
A réir Eachdraidh àraid, a sgrìobhadh leis an àrd-Easbuig Usher—(duine diadhaidh, ro-fhoghlumte an Eirinn), chuir Easbuig na Ròimhe teachdair, no duine mòr, d’ am b’ ainm Palladius, “a dh’ ionnsuidh luchd-àiteachaidh na h-Alba a bha creidsinn ann an Criost,” ‘s a’ bliadhna o bhreith an t-Slànughir, 431.—Tha cuid do luchd-Eachdraidh a’ cumail a mach, gur h-ann do Eirinn a mhain, a chuireadh an duine so le Easbuig na Ròimhe: agus gur h-ann a chuireadh e gu bhi ‘n a Ard-Easbuig air Eaglais na h-Eirinn. Tha e dearbhta co dhiubh gu ‘n d’ thàinig an duine ceudna do Alba; agus gu ‘n do bhàsaich e aig Fordun, air Ghalldachd, dlùth air siorramachd Abair-eadhoin. Ged nach ‘eil làn-shoilleireachd Eachdraidh againn air na croichaibh àraid bha aig Easbuig na Ròimbe ‘n a amharc, ‘s an duine so a chur air theachdaireachd do Eirinn agus do Alba; tha ni ‘s leòir air a leigeil ris dhuinn, gu a nochdadh gu ‘n robh aon ni àraid ‘n a amharc: agus ‘s e sin, Eaglaisean na h-Alba agus na h-Eirinn a thoirt mar dh’ fheudadh e, gus an aon ghnè shuidheachaidh agus riaghailt ‘s a bha a nis Easbuig na Ròimhe ag iarruidh gu ‘n géilleadh gach aon Eaglais ‘s am bith dhoibh. Cha robh, fathast an t-ainm Pàpa, air a thoirt do Easbuig na Ròimhe ‘s an là ud. Tha e soilleir gur h-e so a’ cheud ghnothuch a bha eadar Easbuig na Ròimhe agus Eaglaisean na h-Alba ‘s na h-Eirinn.
Tha cuid do luchd-eachdraidh, a ris, a’ cumail a mach, an deigh Phalladiuis, gu ‘n robh duin’ ainmeil àraid eile, air a choisrigeadh le Easbuig na Ròimhe, mar àrd-Easbuig os ceann Eaglais na h-Eirinn, an Naomh Pàdruig, mar theirear ris a measg Phàpanach na h-Eirinn fathast; agus an uine dha fhichead bliadhna gu ‘n robh luchd-àiteachaidh na h-Eirinn uile air an tionndadh leis chum
a’ chreidimh. Ach, tha làn-dearbhaidhean againn ann an Eachdraidhibh eile an aghaidh so. Cha ‘n ‘eil dearbhaidhean air bith againn ann an aon Eachdraidh, càirdeas no gnothuch idir bhi eadar an duine so agus Eaglais na Ròimhe. Tha na h-uile h-aobhair bhi a’ creidsinn gur h-ann a mach á Alba chaidh an duine so; agus an teagasg a thug e seachad an Eirinn, gu ‘n d’ fhoghlum e fein e an Alba. Agus ciod e am fonnsuidheachaidh agus riaghlaidh-Eaglais a chuir e air chois; tha so air a dheanamh aithnichte ni ‘s leòir, le Eachdraidh an duine fhoghlumte urramach sin a dh’ainmich sinn cheana, an t-àrd-Easbuig Usher. “Tha sinn a’leughadh,”—deir e, “ann an eachdraidh Nennuis, gu ‘n do shuidhich an Naomh Pàdruig an Eirinn Trì cheud trì fichead ‘s a’ cuig Eaglais; agus gu ‘n do choisrig, no gu’n do chuireadh air leth leis a chum na dreuchd, Trì cheud trì fichead ‘s a’ cuig Easbuig, a thilleadh air Trì mile fear-cléire,” (no seanair). A nis, ma ‘s e ‘s gu ‘n robh Easbuig fa choinneamh gach Eaglais; agus ma ‘s e agus gu ‘n robh a leithid sud do àireamh luchd-cléire, air an cur air leth; mu ochdnar do gach easbuig; tha so ‘g a fhágail làn-shoilleir dhuinn, nach b’ i an Eaglais Easbuigeach a chuireadh air chois an Eirinn idir leis an Naomh Pàdruig. Tha fios gur h-e suidheachadh agus dòigh na h-Eaglais sin, eadhon o shean, na h-Easbuigean bhi ‘n an daoinibh mòra, aig am bheil tighearnas os ceann iomadh Eaglais fa leth. Agus a leithid sud a dh’ àireamh luchd-cléire, no sheanairean bhi anns gach aon Eaglais, no anns gach coimhthional; so ni nach ‘eil idir air ‘òrduchadh no air a cheadachadh, ann an Eaglais nan Easbuig. Agus ‘n uair tha sinn a’ coinneachadh an duin’ urramach sin Usher, a bha e féin do ‘n Eaglais Easbuigeach, ag aideachadh gu’ m b’ e sud suidheachadh na h-Eaglais ann an Eirinn a chuireadh air chois leis an Naomh Pàdruig—tha so ‘n a dhearbhadh nach beag dhuinn, nach b’ i an Eaglais Easbuigeach, a chunncas leis an Naomh Pàdruig an Alba; ach an t-aon suidheachadh ceudna agus an dòigh-riaghlaidh Eaglais ‘s a tha a nis, eadhon fathast, air ‘eideachadh ann an Alba, o ‘n leth muigh. B’ i Eaglais nan Easbuig dòigh-riaghlaidh Eaglais na Ròimhe o a tùs, ‘s a tha fathast air a chumail suas innte sin, mar ann an Eaglais Shasuinn. Agus ge b’ e mar shoirbhich le Palladius a theachdaireachd-sa, an Alba no ‘n Eirinn, agus gur h-ann an déigh a là-sa, chaidh an Naomh Pàdruig a null do Eirinn; tha e soilleir, nach do chinnich le Palladius an Eaglais a bha ‘n uair sin an Alba, a thoirt gu dòigh-riaghlaidh no frithealaidh Eaglais na Ròimhe aideachadh no a chleachdamh.
Agus tha sinn ag ainmeachadh so uile, do bhrigh agus gu ‘m faighear araon Pàpanaich agus luchd-Eaglais Shasuinn a ghnath dian ni ‘s leoir ‘n am beachdaibh féin, a’ cumail a mach gu ‘n do thòisich dòigh-riaghlaidh Eaglais na h-Alba a mhàin an làithibh Knox, agus aig àm an Ath-leasachaidh. Ma tha an dòigh-riaghlaidh a réir nan Sgriobtur, is e sin an gnothuch a ‘s mò, ge b’ e àm no meadhanan tre an do shuidhnicheadh e. Ach, ged ‘eil
iomradh agus Eachdraidhean cheud linnean an t-Soisgeil ‘n ar Tir, neo-iomlan gun teagamh; gidheadh, tha ni ‘s leòir anns na h-eachdraidhibh sin, gu a leigeil ris dhuinn, nach b’ e dòigh Eaglais nan Easbuig, an ceud suidheachadh, no dòigh-riaghlaidh Eaglais a bhuadhaich ann an Alba; ach gu ‘n robh am Fear-teagaig agus an Seisinn, no an cuid seanar féin, aig gach coimhthional fa leth, anns gach càrna, eadhon ‘s na linnibh ud, far an do ghabh an sluagh ri teaeasgaibh an t-Soisgeil.
Ach thig sinn a nis air aghaidh, gu bhi deanamh iomraidh aithghearr air aimsribh, agus air cuisibh mu ‘m bheil tuilleadh do sholus Eachdraidh mar chuideachadh againn.
Dh’ ainmich sinn cheana, gu ‘m b’ ann le daoinibh bha air am fògradh tre gheur-leanmhuinn a mach thar iomallan Impireachd na Ròimhe, bha an Soisgeul air tús, air a shearmonachadh, no air a shuideachadh a measg luchd-àiteachaidh na h-Alba, agus gu h-àraid ann an criochaibh Gàidhealtachd na h-Alba; càrnann nach d’fhuair cumhachd cogaidh agus ceannsachaidh nan Ròmhanach an toirt fuidh chìs dhoibh féin. Tha làn-shoilleireachd againn eadhon o eachdraidhibh nan Ròmhanach féin, gu ‘m b’ iad na h-earrannan so gu h-àraid—Gàidhealtachd na h-Alba. Tha e aithnichte gu ‘n robh an luchd-teagaig ud, a thàinig do Alba, air an sloinneadh le luchd-eachdraidh fuidh ainn àraid—’s e sin, na Cùil-dé-ich; no mar sgriobhar ‘s a’ Bheurla e, “Culdees.” Tha iomadh mineachadh air oidhirpeachadh air an ainn féin. Tha cuid a their gu ‘m bheil an t-ainm air a tharruing o dhà fhocal ‘s an Laidinn—Cultores Dei—’s e sin, Luchd-aoraiddh Dhé. Their cuid eile, gu ‘m bheil an t-ainm air a tharruing o dha fhocal ‘n ar cànain féin—Gille Dé—no seirbhiseach Dhé: agus cuid eile a their, gu ‘m bheil e o aon fhocal eile ‘n ar cànain—Cùildich, o ‘n fhocal Cùil, no Ceal, a’ ciallachadh, mar is aithne dhuinn, ionad uaigneach, no aonaranach. Tha e gu maith coslach gu ‘n d’ éirich an t-ainm, no ‘n sloinneadh o ‘n dà aobhar maraon—an comh-nuidh bhi aca mar bu trice ann an ionadaibh uaigneach na dùthcha; agus mar an ceudna gu ‘n d’ aidicheadh leis na h-uile iad bhi ‘n an luchdseirbhis Dhé, ‘n an caithe-beatha diadhaidh, mar le an teagasg.
Tha fios gu ‘n do ghabh iad seilbh gu moch ann an Eilean I, no I-Challum-cille, mar shloinnear gu coitichonn. B’ e an t-eilean sin an t-ionad ‘s an do shuidhich iad an ceud chòmhnuidh, no anns an robh aca an àrd-ionad-teagaig agus riaghlaidh. Tha iomadh ni ris am feudadh sinn amharc gu cothromach mar aobharaibh dh’ fheudadh an treòrachadh chum an eilein bhig ud. Cha mhi-choslaich idir nach d’ thàinig iomadh cruaidh-chàs ‘n an caraibh, an déigh dhoibh an toiseach tighinn a dh’ Alba. Cha ‘n urrainn sinn smuaineachadh nach robh an sluagh a measg an d’ thàinig iad, ‘s na làithibh ud, ann an tomhas mòr, borb agus mi-riaghailteach. B’ e cogaidhean, aimhreit, agus connsachaidhean, cleachdamh na dùthcha. Bu mhaith leis na Cùil-dé-ich, agus cha b’ iongnadh e, ionad bhi aca, a dh’ionnsuidh am feudadh iad
teicheadh, ann an amaibh trioblaideach. Bha, anns na linnibh ud, dlùth-chomunn air iomadh dòigh eadar Eirinn agus Alba. ‘S ann a mach á Eirinn a thàinig sluagh àraid, a bha ‘n uair sin air an còmhnuidh a ghabhail ‘s an Earraghaidheal, agus taobh an iar Gaidhealtachd na h-Alba ach beag air fad. Bha an t-eilean so, I-Challum-cille, co-ionnan freagarrach ach beag, araon do Eirinn agus do Alba. Bha e furasda dhoibh dol nò tighinn do gach aon d’ an dà thir. Mar so, ghabh iad an còmhnuidh ann; agus is ann an sin air tùs, tha aobhar againn a chreidsinn a chuireadh air chois an dòigh-riaghlaidh Eaglais sin, an dara cuid a dh’fhogh-lumadh leo anns na h-Eaglaisibh, no anns na càrnaibh as an d’fhògradh a mach iad le geur leanmhuinn, no mar a theagaig-eadh an Soisgeul e féin do dhaoibh simplidh, aon-chridheach, agus aon-fhillte ann an eòlas na Fìrinn, a chur air chois.
An Fhianuis.