THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

BY REV. PROFESSOR JOHN DUNCAN, LL.D.

[DR. DUNCAN, Professor of Hebrew and Oriental Languages, New College, Edinburgh, was one of the most remarkable men Scotland ever produced. Endowed with an intellect of the very highest order, he was simple as a little child, and willingly and humbly took his place in the lowest room, and was pleased to receive any crumb that fell from the Master’s table. The beautiful humility of the great scholar and the saintliness of his life are features of a character rarely found among men. The following lecture was one of those delivered by the Professors of the New College when it was opened in November, 1850. His colleague, Dr. James Buchanan, knowing his strong aversion to writing, and jealous for the credit of the College, called on him the night before the date of the delivery of his lecture to see how matters stood. He found Dr. Duncan in deep depression. “Well, are you ready?” was Dr. Buchanan’s first salute. “Ready with what?” was Dr. Duncan’s question. “Why, with your lecture, to be sure.” “Lecture? I have other things to attend to just now than writing lectures.” “But what else can you have to attend to more important than the preparation of your lecture?” “The state of my own soul.” “But, Doctor, will your soul come into a right state by neglecting your professional duties?” This question touched him to the quick, and wakened him suddenly out

of his depression to a practical view of his position. “But what am I to do?” he asked. “Come,” said Dr. Buchanan, “give me your desk, pen, ink, and paper, and I’ll write to your dictation.” So, pacing up and down the room, Dr. Duncan dictated while Dr. Buchanan wrote, and ere they stopped the whole lecture was dictated and written, and, surprising to say, was delivered verbatim from Dr. Buchanan’s manuscript (Brown’s Memoir of John Duncan, pp. 388, 389).]

As the Holy Scriptures are the source and storehouse of all true and saving knowledge of God—the subject about which Christian theology is conversant—it is of extreme importance for all who “desire the office of a bishop” to become intimately acquainted with them in those languages in which it pleased the inspiring Spirit to communicate them, by which original documents, all versions and comments, must be tried, all controversies in the last resort determined, and all difficulties and obscurities, as far as possible, removed.

It were desirable, therefore, that persons entering on the professional study of theology should bring with them an intimate or, at least, a very competent acquaintance with the Hebrew as well as the Greek languages, that so, during their attendance at the hall, their attention might be directed to a very close and thorough investigation of some considerable portion of the Divine Word, and that, drinking the healing waters directly from the inspired fountains, they might be furnished, as by one very important mean, to be able expositors of the Word to others.

This object we have not hitherto been able, in anything like fulness, to attain; neither yet are we able. We have had it, indeed, always in our view and aim, as far as our limited time would permit; but it is hoped that arrangements will be made by which this great desideratum may be reached, and two sessions devoted entirely to the exegesis of the Old Testament, the study of Jewish antiquities, and the acquiring of such acquaintance with the languages cognate to Hebrew as is needful to a full and scholar-like knowledge of that ancient tongue.

Your earnest attention is, therefore, in the meantime, claimed to the study of the Hebrew language and the contents of the sacred books which compose the canon of the Old Testament.

I know that it is irksome at the period of life to which you have now attained, and when your minds have been excited and trained to employment with things, to be sent back again to the comparatively dry and irksome task of loading your memories with a new set of words. But the end gives dignity and importance to the means.

Save where an oppressed and impoverished state of the Church may preclude, it is disgraceful to profess to be an expositor of a book with whose contents one is not intimately acquainted, by direct and habitual perusal, in the language in which it was originally written. That we possess an admirable translation is a blessing for which we cannot be adequately thankful; but it were base to abuse this consideration as a pillow on which sloth

may repose. To be at the mercy of commentators is disgraceful; nor can anyone use them with discretion and to due advantage but he whose own requirements entitle him to some place among their number, to the extent at least of being able to sift the value of their opinions, to discern the ground on which they stand, and the weight which ought to be given to them. What an amount of shallow criticism and impertinent mending of our noble, though not absolutely faultless, version would have been avoided if none had ventured to propose such variations till the language of the holy books had become familiar in his mouth as household words.

However well the task of translation may be accomplished, there is always, in every work of high merit, something not trans-fusable. To imbibe the author’s meaning entire—to catch and appropriate every shade of thought and feeling—we must be with him alone, no interpreter casting his shade between and marring the closeness of our communing. Each word he utters, each turn of phrase, each idiomatic peculiarity gives its shade of meaning a force or beauty, delicate it may be, like the effect which a peculiar light casts on a landscape, yet such as we would not willingly lose.

The very sound, strange as it is at first, once become familiar, exercises a vivid power on our imagination—places us in the old times and distant hallowed places—is rich in associations, and stamps the thought in our minds by the unvaried mark which issued from the mint of the writer’s mind. And once the arduous ascent is climbed, and the free and gladsome height attained, how good is it to be there! to listen to Moses, Elias, and all the prophets! the simple beauty of the divinely commissioned and inspired lawgiver of Israel—the varied tones of the harp of the sweet singer of Israel—the apothegms of Solomon, the majestic lays of Isaiah, the plaintive strains of Jeremiah, the terrible grandeur of Ezekiel! Here we soar far above the Aonian mount, for the human mind, with all its varied powers, is the organ merely—it is not the origin. “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;” and destitute as this literature is of the refinements of human culture and the persuasive words of man’s wisdom, it is redolent everywhere with the beauties of holiness, and marked throughout with a theoprepes*, whose very simplicity infinitely transcends man’s attempt at the sublime. Jehovah-God speaks, as He is His own witness. None can speak, as none can act like Him.

It is to be feared that, in the present day, a tendency, which in other churches and lands has produced the most deleterious effects—I mean the denial of the inspiration and permanent authority of the Old Testament Scriptures—may begin—nay, in some quarters has begun—to show itself in the form of, at least, a lamentably low estimate of the excellency and power of these oracles of God, which were given by His inspiration, and “are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction in righteous-

* A character worthy of God.

ness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work.” Attempts to tear asunder the volume of the Old and that of the New Testament cause us to shudder at their impiety and tremble at their awful effects on the souls of deluded or ignorant and unstable men, but leading us to review more closely the indissolubleness of the connection—strengthen, as a mean, our faith in the utter futility of any effort of puny man to break up, I would say, not the closeness only of their relation and adhering contact, but their mutual impenetration, through the vitality of the one Spirit which pervades them, the manifestation of the one divine Spirit which inspired them. “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son,” and taking together the words of the holy prophets and of the apostles of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ we have not a thing of shreds and patches, but “words of the wise, which are as goads and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.”

To surrender the Old Testament is to surrender also the New, nay, virtually to deny the Messiahship of Jesus, who, by His appeal to these writings, certifies His high claims with their divine authority. “Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.” “Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods? If He called them gods to whom the Word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God.”

By these Scriptures our Lord, who is also our pattern, having left us an example that we should follow His steps, and to whose image God hath predestinated believers in Him to be conformed—by these Scriptures He Himself, being made under the law, lived, fulfilling all righteousness. The marks of His own Messiahship He from them unfolded. “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into His glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.”

On the promises made by Jehovah, His Father, to His righteous Servant, He of whom these words of a prophet are quoted by an apostle, “I will put my trust in Him,” and who is thus our pattern in living by faith as well as living in obedience, was supported when, for the joy which was set before Him (in the Scriptures to His humanity, as well as in the everlasting counsels, of which these are a transcript, and which lay ever patent to His omniscient divinity), He endured the cross, despising the shame. These Scriptures furnished the matter of His devotions when the Messenger of the Covenant came to His temple; by them He, the seed of the woman, bruising the head of the serpent, repelled the assaults of Satan’s temptations—”It is written, it is written,” and again, “It is written;” nothing but “It is written.”

“It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” The words of God are food for man, even for the Son of God as He is man, and they possess the power of supporting life in the soul of man, when he finds and eats them.

Who, then, who believes in and loves the Lord Jesus, and is solicitous that the same mind which was in Him should be formed and maintained, should grow and be perfected in himself, would not shudder at the thought of admitting into his thought the least shade of derogation from the highest possible reverence for these His Scriptures? As we tell the Jew, in the name of Jesus, that by refusing Him he virtually, and to every saving effect, denies the Messiah, and Moses, and the prophets, so we must be bold to say to this professor of Christianity, who rejects or lightly esteems the Old Testament, that he virtually rejects Jesus of Nazareth. For to believe that Jesus is the Messiah is to believe the concentration of both Testaments in Him. “The promise which God made unto the fathers, He has fulfilled unto the children, in that He hath raised up Jesus.”

It is rather a corollary from this than an entirely distinct view of the subject to remark that low views of the Old Testament would separate us in spirit from the primitive disciples—from those who, being taught of God, were delivered from the prevailing Pharisaism, and who, feeling the burden of sin, mourned after Jehovah, waited for consolation in Israel, and recognised in Jesus the voice of the good Shepherd—of Him whom they had (taught of the Father by His Word and Spirit) learned to expect as anointed of God, to comfort all that mourned in Zion. These, amid deep searchings of heart and of Scripture, under Jehovah’s eye, with strong crying and tears, and groanings unutterable of their spirit under the mighty working of His Spirit, had come to know, in no vague, conjectured, and dubious way, whom and what they needed, and whom and what Zion’s God had promised, and so were prepared to recognise and welcome Him when He came. He that is of God heareth God’s words. It were a more interesting topic to go through the whole gospel, and to note how every word that Jesus spoke was adapted to the felt wants and promise-excited expectations of such waiters, who, having obtained by the law the knowledge of God and the knowledge of sin, had been led, with broken and contrite hearts, to inquire and search diligently what and what manner of times the Spirit of the Messiah, which was in the prophets, did signify, when it testified before of the sufferings of the Messiah, and of the glory which should follow. Could we thus search into the heart of Nathaniel, “the Israelite, indeed, in whom there is no guile,” we could not, if we be not carnal, but have the same spirit of faith, think meanly, I say not of the Old Testament, but of the Old Testament saints, Jews, not outwardly only, but inwardly, whose circumcision was that of the heart in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise was not of men, but of God; nor could we be at a loss for the evidence on which he, when told

that he was seen when under the fig-tree—his soul seen in its secret communing with God, exclaimed in the language of the second Psalm (I can scarcely doubt the subject of his exercise then and there), “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God! thou art the king of Israel.” It was, no doubt, by the same means—namely, a heart-breaking, heart-reviving knowledge of God, produced by the Spirit unfolding and applying Old Testament Scripture, in connection with what he saw and heard in Jesus—that the heavenly Father revealed to Simon Barjona that Jesus, the son of man, was, according to the same second Psalm, the Christ (the anointed), the Son of the living God.

What, then, is the spirit indicated by undervaluing or by the practical neglect of Old Testament Scripture? It is redolent of Antinomianism. Jehovah, the great and terrible God, the holy and just, the jealous, and sin-avenging God, is distasteful to the carnal mind; the strictness of His requirements is inconsistent with that licentiousness, refined if not gross, which is the only liberty man’s flesh knoweth; therefore, they have forsaken Jehovah—they have spurned away the Holy One of Israel, they are gone away backward. When the enemy cometh like a flood, may the Spirit of the Lord raise up a standard against him.

I would not for worlds be another kind of Christian than these holy men of old—have a faith that excluded any element that was in theirs, especially its very root, though, blessed be God, things infinitely great and glorious have been done and recorded since, that they without us might not be made perfect, and that our faith and hope and love might grow exceedingly, according to our high privileges, living under the pentecostal dispensation of the Spirit outpoured through the crucified, risen, and exalted Saviour.

“After this way (saith Paul) which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.” The Lord grant that so may I and so may you worship and believe!

How beautifully, how satisfactorily, with what indubitable security, is our faith established on the testimony of those two witnesses—the word of promise and the word of corresponding fulfilment. How delightful to contemplate the unity of the church of God under both dispensations, the expectant and the visited—the desolate and the sought-out, not forsaken—the heir, a child under tutors and governors, till the time appointed of the father, and the same heir in the fulness of time set free and rejoicing in the glorious liberty of the children of God—the first-fruits holy, and the lump also holy. “If ye be Christ’s, ye are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” “When,” says the Honourable Robert Boyle, “I listen to the accordant voice of all the holy prophets and of the apostles of our Lord and Saviour, methinks I stand in Jerusalem at our Lord’s triumphant entry, and hear the multitudes of those who go before and of those who follow after, crying ‘Hosannah to the Son of David, blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord to save!’”

The supreme excellency of these Scriptures is that they testify of Christ. It appears to me that the true Christology of the Old Testament is not to be sought merely in some isolated passages, which constitutes what I would call the Christologia vulgaris,* but as the pervading element of the whole book. “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.” “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy;” and though it be an error from which some of the fathers and other good men have not been freed, that of twisting the letter to find a spiritual interpretation, yet I think we may venture to say that the rule may be taken in a safe and true sense, that if Christ be there at all, He is there throughout. The passages, indeed, which, in the controversy with the Jews and others, have been selected as Messianic, are but the culminating points of the rock whose foundations lie deep in the ocean of Old Testament Scripture. The Messiah is the Theanthropos—Emmanuel, God with us; and the doctrine of the Theanthropos is the keystone of the theology and anthropology of the Old Testament. These writings teach us what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man. Their theology is not an abstract science, but practical (anthropological) teaching what “MAN is to believe concerning God.” Their anthropology, not like heathen ethics, but theological, “what duty God requires of man.” Herein is their infinite importance and solemnity, and they speak of Him with whom we have to do, or rather He with whom we have to do speaks to us in them. The doctrine of divine law, moral and positive, did not begin with the utterance of the decalogue at Mount Sinai. The commencement of the sacred volume sweeps away at once all systems of false religion, and introduces the self-existent Creator of heaven and earth. Its brief account of the creation speedily brings us to the stupendous knowledge of the true nature and end of human being; for God said, “Let us make man in our own image, after our own likeness.” “And God made man in his own image, after his own likeness”—the creature, not as others, of a simple fiat, but of a divine consultation, and possessing a dignity relatively infinite. God is an infinite spirit—holy, just, and good. Man, made in His image, is also a spirit (though finite)—holy, just, and good; but these are the properties of God’s law. The law is spiritual, and the commandment holy, just, and good. Mark these three: God, man in the image of God, and the law of their relation—all in glorious and blessed unison, and the holy creature inexpressibly happy in possession of the image and favour of God. But the narrative soon proceeds to the sad account of apostasy and fall, and all that follows has relation to this altered state of things. Man alone is changed. Change is impossible in the perfections of God—change is as impossible in the law of man’s relation to God as it is in the nature of God which it expresses—co-related to that nature which He imparted to man.

* i.e., the common or well-known sections in which reference is made to the doctrine of the Messiah.—(Editor.)

And yet, throughout the whole volume, we find, to our astonishment, a series of the most benevolent and friendly dealings of God toward fallen man—a people chosen of Jehovah, receiving tokens of His love, and rendering Him accepted worship. But the great dilemma is, How can this possibly be? Jehovah, the God of Israel, unlike the vanities of the Gentiles—Jehovah, the living and true God—“is glorious in holiness,” of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. When He loved the people He came forth with a fiery law for them in His right hand, and pronounced, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” Of this God every Jew must have been ignorant who was not constrained to cry out, “I am the man.” “Behold I am vile.” “Who knoweth the power of Thine anger?” “Who shall stand, if Thou, O Lord, shouldst mark iniquity?” “When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” Still there was hope. The name of JEHOVAH was a strong tower, to which the righteous ran and was safe—that name which He proclaimed to Moses, “Jehovah, Jehovah, God, merciful and gracious,” etc.—a just God and a Saviour. But how? “He hath no pleasure in wickedness—evil shall not dwell with Him—nor fools stand in His sight.” They that are cursed of Him shall be destroyed, and the curse is pronounced upon every violation of the law. The full and glorious solution of this most difficult question is to be found only in the appearing of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Yet, in the promises made to the fathers, the dawning Sun of righteousness cast His healing rays back along the whole dreary vista, reaching to the day when man was driven from the garden of the Lord.

I will put enmity, etc.—Sacrifice—Clothing with skins—Covenant with Noah—Covenant with Abraham—His seed—Sacrifice of Isaac—Confirmation of covenant with Isaac and Jacob—Proclamation of Jehovah’s name to Moses—The angel of Jehovah, who is himself Jehovah—The whole ceremonial law—High priest—Day of atonement—Daily service of the tabernacle—Isaiah liii.—Psalm ii., viii., xxii., lxxx., ex., etc.

The conclusion of all is, that the stupendous difficulty between the theology and anthropology finds its solution in the Theanthropos, the image of the invisible God, in whom the holy God and holy humanity are so closely united as to be one person. His obedience and sacrifice, by which He magnified the law and made it honourable, being made a curse for transgressors, redeems from the curse of the law, that the blessings of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. What is very remarkable is, that darkly in comparison—though not so darkly as we are apt to suppose—as this truth was revealed to the fathers, the way into the holiest of all not yet being manifest, the Spirit of God maintained in the hearts of true Israelites a religion which, in all the subjective elements of heart-acquaintance with a holy God, love to Him, broken-hearted contrition for sin, self-loathing and bewailing in His

sight, hope in His mercy, joy in His salvation, rejoicing in hope of His glory, is every way, saving the dimmer view of the objective, identical with the work of God’s Spirit in believers under the New Testament dispensation. This accordance with diversity is one of the most striking proofs of the divine origin of both volumes. And unspeakable is the light and the establishment which arises from the comparison and mutual elucidation of the two. The Old Testament becomes resplendently bright when the veil which is on Moses’ face is taken away in Christ, and the glorious superstructure of the New Testament refers back to, and stands immovably founded on, the sure word of prophecy.

(To be continued.)

Modern Evangelism.

BY REV. JOHN KENNEDY, D.D., DINGWALL.

WHEN a movement* is in progress in our land, during which many are awakened to thought and feeling as to eternal things, who were utterly unthinking and insensate before, when thousands think that they have lately believed in Christ, and with the joy of assurance profess that they have found Him, when from the church are seen issuing many, who have enlisted as recruits, in a crusade against the ungodliness and unbelief of the world, when so many, who have a high position and commanding influence in the church, declare it is a gracious work of God by which these results have been produced, and when many more, believing this, are exceeding glad and abound in thanksgiving, sad, yea, strained to breaking, must be the heart of one, who seeks the glory of God and the salvation of souls, if he cannot share in the present hopefulness and joy. Being one of those, to whom the present movement has hitherto yielded more grief than gladness, I feel constrained to tell why I am a mourner and apart. . . .

I make no attempt to trace to its source the influence exerted in producing the marked effects resulting from the present religious movement. I confine my attention to the advantage, afforded by the state of feeling, which preceded that movement, and to certain elements of power in the means employed to advance it.

It was preceded by a very prevalent desire for a change. All classes of religious society seemed to be stirred by a wistful longing for something to break up the dead monotony, of which all were wearying. Some were actuated by genuine spiritual feeling. They felt that tokens of the Lord’s absence abounded, and turning to the Lord they cried for the manifestation of His power and glory. Others, strangers to stated spiritual enjoyment in the means of grace, were longing for some change—some excitement to lift them out of their dulness, and for some bustle in

* The reference is to the movement connected with the first visit of Messrs. Moody and Sankey to this country.

which they might take their share of service. Others, still, who knew no happiness in the house of God, and had no desire for His presence, would fain that something new were introduced into the mode of service which they felt so jading. The excitement of a revival would be to them a relief. “Special services” they strongly craved. Prayer for a revival was called for, and many were ready to take part in the meetings convened for that purpose. These meetings resulted in the hope of an answer. Though but few truly appreciated what was needed, and really dealt with God, we cannot but hope that something was done by the Lord in answer to their cry. But many there were who merely craved a change—something to relieve them of the tedium of a routine in which they found no enjoyment, because they were estranged from God, and who joined in asking this with those who were asking something better. These were the persons disposed to make much of their prayers, and who found it easy to hope just because they had chosen to ask; and they may have received, though not in mercy, what they sought. The expectation of a change, at any rate, was general. There was an opening up of men’s minds to an expected influence. This tended to affect even the Gallios, who “cared for none of those things.” A revival was talked of, prayed for, and expected, and thus a general susceptibility of impression was produced. Prayer meetings, fostering the desire and expectation of a change, were in all places the pioneers of the movement. Those who heard that a revival had taken place elsewhere sought that it might reach their own locality. Many blindly asked for what was done in other places, instead of seeking the fulfilment of the Lord’s promise.

In course of time musical practisings were added to prayer meetings as preparation for a revival! From both the addresses and the music much was expected when evangelistic deputies arrived.

What the effect would have been had the awakened expectancy been left to be operated on by the stated ministrations of the sanctuary, or by extraordinary efforts that introduced no departure from the usual mode of worship, no one can tell; but I cannot refrain from expressing my persuasion that the result would have been a healthier one than that which new appliances developed.

But on this wakeful state of mind was brought to bear a system of doctrine that ignored those aspects of the truth which are most offensive to “the natural man,” and that, while offering something that seemed plausible to an unenlightened conscience, seemed to conserve the old heart’s imagined independence of the sovereign and almighty grace of God, and by ignoring repentance preserved to it its idols. The gospel, modified to suit the taste of unrenewed men, was welcome. The recommendations of it, given by men of influence, tended to put down suspicion, and to induce the public to receive it as “the gospel of the grace of God.” The new style of teaching made it seem such an easy thing to be a Christian. To find oneself easily persuaded to believe what was presented as

the gospel, and to think that by this faith salvation was secured, and that all cause of anxiety was for ever gone, gave a new and pleasing sensation which thousands were willing to share.

And once the movement had begun it could command an indefinite supply of agents. All who say they were converted are set to work. Any one who can tongue it deftly can take a part—he requires neither knowledge nor experience. The excitement is kept up by the bustle of public service. No fear is felt of lifting up novices “lest they fall into the condemnation of the devil.” That feeling may have been suitable in Paul’s day, but it has now ceased to be so regarded. But there is a fear of converts ceasing to seem to be so if they are not kept busy in religious service. A proselytising bustle must therefore be the outcome of their faith. There is an utter avoidance of testing work on the part of their instructors; but attesting work enough is done. They have at once been proclaimed Christians in their own hearing and in the presence of thousands, and those who presume to tell them this are quite ready to join with themselves in thinking that they are fit for any service that they may choose to try. A season apart, to be alone with God, a solemn time for careful counting of the cost, has from Christ the double recommendation of His example and of His precept, but is desired neither by nor for these so-called converts.

To these advantages for effect were added various devices which, though quite unscriptural, or rather because they were so, were fraught with impressing power.

1. Excessive hymn-singing is one of these. The singing of uninspired hymns, even in moderation, as a part of public worship, no one can prove to be scriptural; but the excess and the misdirection of the singing in this movement were irrational as well. Singing ought to be to the Lord, for singing is worship. But singing the gospel to men has taken the place of singing praise to God. This, at any rate, is something new—that, indeed, is its only recommendation—and when the singing is also good its melody combines with its novelty to make an impression. The singing produced an effect. Many professed to have been converted by the hymns.

2. The use of instrumental music was an additional novelty, pleasing to the kind of feeling that finds pleasure in a concert. To introduce what is so gratifying there into the service of the house of God is to make the latter palatable to those to whom spiritual worship is an offence. The organ sounds effectively touch chords which nothing else would thrill. To Scottish Presbyterians it was something new; but as their spiritual guides did not object to it why should they? Tided thus by their pastors over all difficulties which their scruples might occasion, they found it pleasant to enjoy the new sensation. They could be at the concert and in church at the same time. They could get at once something for conscience and something for the flesh.

And yet it is not difficult to prove that the use of instrumental music in the worship of God is unscriptural, and that, therefore,

all who have subscribed the Confession of Faith are under solemn vow against it. There was a thorough change in the mode of worship effected by the revolution which introduced the New Testament dispensation. So thorough is this change that no part of the old ritual can be a precedent to us. For all parts of the service of the house of God there must be New Testament precept or example. No one will pretend that for instrumental music in the worship of God there is any authority in New Testament Scripture. “The fruit of the lips,” issuing from hearts that make “melody to the Lord,” is the only form of praise it sanctions. The Church of Rome claims a right to introduce into the worship of God any innovation it lists; the Church of England allows what is not expressly forbidden in Scripture; but Scotch Presbyterians are bound by the Confession of Faith to disallow all that is not appointed in Scripture (Conf. chap. xxi). How those who allow the use of instrumental music in our Assembly Hall can reconcile their doing so with their ordination vows I cannot even conjecture.

It may seem strange, but it is quite as true as it is strange, that those who are ready to plead that principles and doctrine inculcated under the former dispensation are no longer entitled to our acceptance, unless re-delivered with New Testament sanction, are just the parties who are also ready to go back to Old Testament antecedents in the mode of worship. What is eternally true is treated as if it were temporary, and that which has “vanished away” is regarded as perpetual. But if the ancient mode of conducting the service of praise furnishes an example for all times, on the self-same ground you are entitled to choose what you list out of the ceremonies of Old Testament worship. The altar and the sacrifice may be defended as surely as the organ.

“But we use the organ only as an aid,” it is said. “It is right that we should do our best in serving the Lord; and if the vocal music is improved by the instrumental accompaniment, then surely the organ may be used.” On the same ground you might argue for the use of crucifixes and pictures, and for all the paraphernalia of the Popish ritual. “These,” you might say, “make an impression on minds that would not otherwise be at all affected. They vividly present before worshippers the scenes described in Scripture, and if, as aids, they serve to do so, they surely cannot be wrong.” To this there are three replies, equally good, against the argument for instrumental music. 1. They are not prescribed in New Testament Scripture, and therefore they must not be introduced into New Testament worship. 2. They are incongruous with the spirituality of the New Testament dispensation. 3. These additions but help to excite a state of feeling which militates against, instead of aiding, that which is produced by the word. An organ may make an impression, but what is it but such as may be made more thoroughly at the opera? It may help to regulate the singing, but does God require this improvement? And whence arises the taste for it? It cannot be from the desire to make the praise more fervent and spiritual, for

it only tends to take attention away from the heart whose melody the Lord requires. It is the craving for pleasurable aesthetics, for the gratification of mere carnal feeling, that desires the thrill of organ sounds, to touch pleasingly the heart, that yields no response to what is spiritual. If the argument against the use of the organ in the service of praise is good, it is at least equally so against its use in the service of preaching. If anything did “vanish away,” it surely is the use of all such accessories in connection with the exhibition of Christ to men.

1. The novelty of the “inquiry room” was another effective to come into close personal contact with the hearers of the gospel aid in advancing this movement. It is declared to be desirable immediately after a sermon in order to ascertain their state of feeling, to deepen impressions that may have been made, and to give a helping hand to the anxious. Such is the plea for “the inquiry room.” In order that it may be supplied, hearers are strongly urged after a sensational address to take the position of converts or inquirers. They are pressed and hurried to a public confession. Strange means are resorted to in order to commit them by an open avowal of a certain state of feeling. But what right has any individual, not authorised by a Church of Christ, to do so—to insist on a public confession on the part of any one? Even the Church can admit to a public confession only after trial. And the admission must be in connection with the dispensation of the appointed sealing ordinances. But here is a stranger, who never saw their faces before, hurrying people whom a sensational address has excited to make public profession of faith, thus associating them, without possibility of trial, with the Christians of the locality, and involving the credit of religion in their future conduct before the world. This, surely, is both unwise and presumptuous. How unlike this to the Divine Teacher’s way! When a crowd of seemingly anxious souls gathered around Him, instead of urging them to confession He tested them by searching doctrine, and the result was that, instead of crowding an inquiry room, they “went away and walked no more with Him.” I feel persuaded that if an excited crowd at a revival meeting were to be addressed as were the multitude at the Sea of Galilee the conductor would put the speaker down, denounce him for casting a gloom over the meeting, and give him no other opportunity of dealing with inquiries.

Why are men so anxious to keep the awakened in their own hands? They, at any rate, seem to act as if conversion was all their own work. They began it, and they seem determined to finish it. If it is at all out of their hand, they seem to think that it will come to nothing. They must at once, and on the spot, get these inquirers persuaded to believe, and get them also to say that they do. They may fall to pieces if they are not braced round by a band of profession. Their names or number must, ere the night passes, be added to the roll of converts. They are gathered into the inquiry room to act in a scene that looks more like a part of a stage play than aught more serious and solemn.

Oh, what trifling with souls goes on in these inquiry rooms as class after class is dealt with in rude haste, very often by teachers who never “knew the grace of God in truth!” The inquiry room may be effective in securing a hasty profession of faith, but it is not an institution which the Church of Christ should adopt or countenance.

1. Even prayer meetings are converted into factories or sensation. Brief prayers and brief addresses to the stroke of hammer or the toll of bell—silent prayers, hymns which often contain a considerable amount of nonsense, and occasionally of something worse, sung to the strains of an organ, and a chance to address or pray given to any one who chooses to rise and speak—such are the arrangements of the new prayer meeting. The silent prayer, what is it? It is secret prayer, and therefore ought to be prayer in secret. It must be secret, just because it is silent. And where is it engaged in? In the closet? No; it was Christ who directed it to be there. There are other leaders now, and they direct that it should be in open assembly. Christ would have men when they pray secretly to enter their closet and shut the door. Now it must be done so that those who do it “may be seen of men.” And this device, so directly opposed to the mind of Christ, is lauded as if nothing could be better. And it is becoming the habit now of worshippers as they enter the house of God. They assume, before the eyes of hundreds, the attitude of prayer, to do, in the public assembly, what Christ directed to be done in the closet. If they intended this as a public confession of their sin, in neglecting prayer in their closet, such confession would not be at all uncalled for if duly made. They who forget to do it where Christ required it to be done are the persons most likely to do it where it can only be a bit of will-worship and formality.

The device of “open meetings,” what of it? It is simply ceasing to take care that, in the worship of God, “all things be done decently and in order,” and giving the place to those who have conceit and tongue, and nought beside, which ought to be filled by those who in honour prefer others to themselves, and who seek grace to “serve with reverence and godly fear.”

I have had to endure the trial of watching over a darling child during her dying hours. Spasm succeeding spasm was the only movement indicating life, each one as it came shattering the frame which it convulsed, and thus wearing out its strength. While the spasms lasted I knew there still was life, but I also knew that these must soon end in death. There was life, but it was dying, and the convulsions of life soon ended in the stillness of death. But after the double pain came the ecstasy of a resurrection hope, and my heart could sing beside the grave that covered for a season my dead out of sight. With still greater grief should I look on my Church, in a spasmodic state, subject to convulsions, which only indicate that her life is departing, the result of revivals got up by men. It will be a sad day for our country if the men who luxuriate in the excitement of man-made revivals shall, with their one-sided views of truth, which have ever been

the germs of serious errors, their lack of spiritual discernment, and their superficial experience, become the leaders of religious thought and the conductors of religious movements. Already they have advanced as many as inclined to follow them far in the way to Arminianism in doctrine and to Plymouthism in service. They may be successful in galvanising by a succession of sensational shocks a multitude of dead till they seem to be alive, and they may raise them from their crypts to take a place amidst the living in the house of the Lord; but far better would it be to leave the dead in the place of the dead and to prophecy to them there till the living God Himself shall quicken them. For death will soon resume its sway. Stillness will follow the temporary bustle, and the quiet will be more painful than the stir. But to whatever extent this may be realised in the future of the Church of Scotland our country shall yet share, in common with all lands, in the great spiritual resurrection that will be the morning work of that day of glory, during which “the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth,” and “all nations shall be blessed in Messiah, and shall call Him blessed.” Meantime, were it not for the hope of this, it would be impossible to endure to think of the present and of the immediate future of the cause of true religion in our land. The dead, oh, how dead! the living, oh, how undiscerning! And if there continue to be progress in the direction in which present religious activity is moving, a negative theology will soon supplant our Confession of Faith, the good old ways of worship will be forsaken for unscriptural inventions, and the tinsel of a superficial religiousness will take the place of genuine godliness.

Report of the Committee on Religion and Morals.

Submitted to the Synod by the Rev. D. M. Macdonald, Portree.

It is painfully obvious that since the end of the War neither true religion nor morals have advanced in our nation. Inside and outside the Churches all sorts of unscriptural theories are advanced, and Scepticism, Romanism, Spiritism, and indifference are growing apace. This is very disquieting, and cannot but be viewed with alarm by all who have the welfare of the nation at heart.

There is an inordinate craving for pleasure amongst all classes, especially the young. Promiscuous dancing, which appears to have a demoralising effect on young people, is becoming a craze in our towns and villages, while theatre-going and sport are more popular than ever. All these combined are more or less bound up with the moral and spiritual evils of impurity, profanity, drunkenness, and gambling. They are sapping the lives and destroying the usefulness of the young.

The Committee view with the greatest sorrow the encroachments

that are being made on the Sabbath Day. There are no signs of improvement. Many spend the day in idleness, reading secular news, travelling about for pleasure, while the means of grace are neglected. Conferences on secular matters are frequent on the Day of Rest, our Prime Minister setting the evil example, so that it is no wonder our national affairs should be in such an unsettled condition.

It is with some concern that the Committee learn that the Government propose taking the retrograde step of sanctioning again the collection of letters on the Lord’s Day. When this was prohibited some time ago the results were satisfactory from every point of view.

They are glad to observe that a bill has been presented to Parliament prohibiting the teaching of Socialistic views in Socialist Sabbath schools, and they trust that this bill will be passed into law by Parliament.

The Lord’s Day has been a safeguard to the moral purity of our nation for centuries, and unless an improvement takes place we shall soon have the Continental Sabbath in Britain, with disastrous consequences to our national and spiritual welfare. In an evil and adulterous generation there is more need than ever of a strict observance of the Lord’s Day.

With regard to Romanism, the Committee would point out that it appears to be advancing, especially in England. The Papacy is putting forth every effort to capture Britain, and its most zealous minions in this work are turncoat Protestants, some of whom in Glasgow were presumptuous enough to urge in public that Rome should win first the youth of our colleges. We are glad to note that Glasgow’s answer to this challenge was the severe defeat of Roman Catholic and Socialist candidates at the recent Education Authority Election.

The heart of the community may be sound with regard to Protestant sentiment, but at the same time the public conscience should be kept alive to the danger and evils of Romanism.

A great step forward was made by Rome when it succeeded in getting its religion taught at the expense of the ratepayers of the country. The 1918 Education Act has practically endowed Roman Catholicism in Scotland. To prove this the following statistics may be submitted:—

When the Education (Scotland) Bill, 1918, was before the country there were differences of opinion, especially with regard to Clause 18, providing for the transference of the Denominational Schools. The clause, however, after minor changes, was passed, and became part of the Bill, and through its operation these schools have become public schools under the respective Education Authorities of the areas in which they were originally planted.

The full meaning of this new departure may be seen by a comparison of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, with that of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918. Under the former the Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, and others surrendered

their school buildings, covering the whole of Scotland, with their sites and lands, without price, or rent, or lease, or compensation, or consideration; a secular education was provided for all children without distinction, and religious instruction was left to the determination of the respective School Boards, only, where given, a time-table was fixed and provided a conscience clause. Under the latter the managers of the Denominational Schools are empowered to claim a price or rent for their school buildings, school furniture, school sites and lands, and Education Authorities are bound to satisfy their claims out of the public purse; the schools thus transferred are maintained and managed as public schools, and receive grants as such; but their teachers and supervisors of religious instruction must be of the same religious belief as the representatives of the Church or denominational body in whose interests the school is conducted; the time set apart for religious instruction or observance in these schools must conform to the use and wont of the former management of the school; and ample provision is made for any Church or denominational body, acting on behalf of the parents of the children of their respective communions, to add to the number of their public denominational schools, solely at the public expense.

From this comparison it will be seen that the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, has quietly, but nevertheless effectively, introduced into our Scottish educational system a principle opposed to that on which our whole public school organisations have hitherto been built, and laid the lines of a far-reaching scheme of sectarian elementary and secondary education at the public expense.

The increasing cost of this new departure to the ratepayers year by year may be gauged by the cost even now at the beginning of the departure:—

| GLASGOW—ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. | |
|———————————————————————————-|———-|
| Salaries of teachers, | £283,023 |
| Rents and taxes, fuel, light, and cleaning, books and stationery, repairs, etc., | 132,225 |
| 10 per cent. of Authority’s offer for furniture, | 4,832 |
| | £420,080 |
| Deduct 47 per cent. of teachers’ salaries, | £133,021 |
| Deduct 52 per cent. of other expenditure, | 71,270 |
| | 204,291 |
| Net cost to ratepayers of Glasgow. | £215,789 |

In this connection the state of Ireland may be alluded to. The foolish boasting of our politicians that the Irish question was solved when our Government came to agreement with the Irish rebels has been shown by the subsequent events to be utterly out

* Grant approximately.

of place. A settlement appears to be further off than ever. The curse of God seems to be on that miserable country. Crime and lawlessness are rampant, while the authorities look on powerless to stop the evils that abound. The Roman Catholic Church might help to put an end to the murders and robberies that are continually taking place, but so far as one can judge it is doing little or nothing to help in putting down these crimes.

The state of our country and Ireland calls for humiliation, penitence, and heart searching all round.

The late Mr. Hugh Mackay, Elder, Dornoch.

IN a recent issue of the Free Presbyterian Magazine a brief reference was made to the removal of the above-named servant of the Lord by death. We now give a more extended sketch of Mr. Mackay, not that we knew him so intimately as other members of the Church did, but we willingly offer our tribute of regard for our late friend, and sincerely mourn his loss to the Church on earth.

It was not altogether easy to ascertain much regarding him beyond the several general facts of his life, especially concerning his spiritual experiences. Yet this itself, where grace finds a home and reigns, is a very high commendation. A certain writer put on record that people are blessed whose annals are vacant. If rightly applied this is a good sign of the true Christian, that his annals are vacant regarding any outstanding events which can be chronicled. Yet his life may be a useful and rich one for all that, and the remembrance of such an one beneficial to those who came in contact with him to the end of their days.

Hugh Mackay was born of respectable parents at Droman, in the parish of Kinlochbervie, in the year 1842, and at his death, on the 6th day of January of this year reached the age of 79 years and some months. He lost his parents when young, and was brought up by friends. In days when education was not so easily got as at present he had the opportunity of attending school, and at the age of 17 years became an under-shepherd. He was given a place as a shepherd at the age of 20, and, for the main part, followed that occupation until well on in life, until he reached the threshold of old age. He left Kinlochbervie when 34, spent twenty years at a place called Polly, not far from Ben Armine, and from there came to Skelbo, in the parish of Dornoch. After some changes, he finally got a house about a mile from our church at Evelix, where he spent the remainder of his days. It was quite unusual for him to be so near a church, for when living near Ben Armine he had to walk some eleven miles to the Free Church at Rogart. We may here remark that he and his wife, who is still spared, were very sorely afflicted with family bereavements. He left one child buried in his native

parish, and lost two daughters when living at Skelbo, and other two abroad—one in Canada and the other in the United States.

It is believed that it was about the time of the death of the first daughter who died at Skelbo that he was brought especially under concern for the welfare of his soul. He was brought up under the preaching of the Gospel like many of the rest of us, and yet had no understanding in the way of salvation. In his early days there was a Rev. Mr. Corbett in his native parish who was highly regarded by those who feared the Lord. He was not without the strivings of the Holy Spirit in those days. On one occasion he was so much impressed with the words in Psalm lxxviii. verse 18, “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,” that he went to Mr. Corbett to get them explained; but it was later on that there was the change whereby he himself consciously felt peace, and which soon made itself evident to the world. From that time forward he became more and more known as a God-fearing and praying man. He was called upon both by Mr. David Ross and by Mr. Angus Murray, Dornoch, to engage in public prayer before becoming a member in full communion.

He was elected an elder in 1913, and sought by grace to fulfil conscientiously the duties of that office as long as he was able. He had a very low estimate of himself and his endeavours. On being asked to speak first at a Fellowship meeting, he remarked that surely the cause was very low when it was he who was called upon to speak first. He was a most sincere man, a solid Christian, and, above all, a man of prayer. It was latterly his complaint that he could not get to a place where he might feel alone. Although often left alone, he was not always feeling able to pour out his heart without restraint.

In the year before his death he had an attack of influenza with complications, and never completely got over it. He recovered to the extent of attending the public services for a time, but by the autumn of last year became completely confined to the house. At the Dornoch Communion in November of last year he was visited by Rev. E. Macqueen and the several elders and some others present, and was much gladdened by their visits. We saw him afterwards on more than one occasion. He was much comforted by hearing read the first and second chapters of the Epistle to the Ephesians and by Psalms xliii. and cxvi., particularly by the words at verse 7, “Return unto thy rest, O my soul; for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee.” He was generally conscious to the last, and there is reason to believe by what he said that he did not expect to be called away until the Friday, when the end did actually come. He entered into his eternal rest on the 6th day of January, leaving a blank in the home and in the congregation in Dornoch. We desire that the Most High may raise up men and women like-minded to Hugh Mackay, who lived a life of faith upon the Son of God, who loved him and gave Himself for him. “Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

With his widow and the surviving members of his family we sincerely sympathise in their bereavement. We need daily like precious faith with him that unto us to live may be Christ, and then to die will be gain.

D. A. MACF.

The late Mrs. Janet Shaw, Glenlewin, New South Wales.

THE following appreciative notice of this attractive Christian lady appeared in The Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record for January, 1917:—

“It is with deep regret that we have to record the death of Mrs. Shaw, Clarence River, New South Wales. Mrs. Shaw has acted as Hon. Secretary of the large Northern Rivers Auxiliary for a good number of years, aided by a willing band of collectors. The work entails immense labour year by year, and what the Trinitarian Bible Society owes to these ‘helpers in the work’ can never be fully told. Mrs. Shaw did all she could to make the visit of the Association Secretary in 1911 helpful and fruitful; and he remembers now with chastened interest the happy visit he paid to her house on the banks of the beautiful Clarence. Mrs. Shaw was a woman of noble presence, of a ‘meek and quiet spirit,’ and of transparent reality of character. The death of Mrs. Shaw is a great loss to the Society; but her good daughter has kindly taken her mother’s place, and is acting as Hon. Secretary in her stead. For this we are thankful to God. Two of Mrs. Shaw’s sons are in the Army. We express our deep sympathy with the family, and also our sincere thanks to Miss Shaw for her willing and welcome help.”

J. C. S.

The Northern Rivers Auxiliary, of which Mrs. Shaw was Secretary, was, at first, connected with the British and Foreign Bible Society, but, at the suggestion of the late Rev. Walter Scott, Brushgrove, Clarence River, latterly of Chesley, Ontario, connection with that Society ceased, because it published the Roman Catholic version of the Scriptures.

An obituary notice is also given of the Rev. J. Ormiston, Rector of St. Mary-le-Port, in The Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record for January, 1917. There it is stated: “For fifty years he was a staunch and faithful supporter of the Trinitarian Bible Society. He was led to join the Society, which was, in those early days, a matter of controversy with many of God’s people, viz., that the British and Foreign Bible Society did not open their meetings with prayer.”

A sketch of Mrs. Shaw appeared in the Free Presbyterian Magazine for January, 1917.

D.V., at some future time, extracts from Mrs. Shaw’s letters will be given in our Magazine.

D. MACK.

An t-Urramach Aonghas MacMhaoilin.

Searmoin I.

(Continued from page 92.)

“Oir pheacaich na h-uile, agus tha iad teachd gearr glòir Dhé.”—
Ròmhanach iii. 23.

1. Tha daoine, mar pheacaich, ann an cunnart teachd goirid air glòir agus sonas siorruidh ann an t-saoghail ri teachd. Bha ‘n ceud Adhamh air a chruthachadh beagan ni b’ isle no na h-aingil; chrùn Dia e le glòir agus le urram, agus thug e uachdaranachd dha air oibrbh a lamh; ach ciod air bith cho glòrmhor ‘s a bha chrùn, no co sona, sólasach, ‘s a bha staid ann an gàradh Edein, cha robh aig’ ach samhladh fann air an t-sonas a bha feitheamh air ann an rioghachd neimh, nam buanaicheadh e, rè aimsir a dhearbhaidh, ann an umhlachd iomlan a thoirt do ‘n lagh. Nan coimhlonadh an ceud Adhamh coimh-cheangal nan gniomh, blitheadh e air àrdachadh ann an àm iomshuidh, o ‘n t-sonas a bha aig’ air thalamh, gu glòir, urram, agus neo-bhàsmhoireachd ann an saoghail nan spiorad. Ach cha do ghleidh e gu daingean na nithe a bha aige; dh’ eisd e r’ a nàmhaid, agus rinn a nàmhaid a chreachadh agus fhagail reubta, lomnochd, agus leth-mharbh. Pheacaich e ‘n aghaidh Dhé, agus air ball thaing caochladh brònach air a staid; dh’ eirich a choguis féin ‘n a aghaidh; thuit an crùn d’ a cheann; agus dhealaich a ghloir ris. Ach cha b’ e glòir agus sonas a cheud staid an t-iomlan a chaill Adhamh, tre cheannaic an aghaidh Dhé; oir chaill e mar an ceudna còir air an t-sonas a bha air a ghealltain d’ a, air beatha mhaireannach anns an t-saoghail ri teachd. Chaill e na bha aig’ an seilbh, agus chaill e còir air na bha aig’ anns a ghealladh, agus dh’ fhagadh e féin agus a shlochd ann an cunnart a bhi caillte, eadar anam agus chorp, gu siorruidh. Feudaidh Dia, ann a àrd-uachdaranachd, tròcair a dheanamh air pheacaich, agus an saoradh o dhòl sios do ‘n t-slochd, air sgàth na h-éiric a fhuair e féin a mach; ach cha ‘n ‘eil leigheas air an creuchd, na leasachd air an uireasbhuidh, ann an ni ‘s am bith a tha iad féin comasach a dheanamh, agus ni mo tha iad airidh na tolteanach air an tròcair is lugha o ‘n Tighearna. Uime sin, tha e ro shoilleir, gu bheil daoine mar pheacaich ann am mòr chunnart teachd goirid air sonas siorruidh, agus a bhi air am fuadachadh fa-dheoidh o làthaireachd Dhé, agus o ghloir a chumhachd, a dh’ ionnsuidh truaighe bhith-bhuan anns an t-saoghail ri teachd.