[We reprint in our pages this excellent pamphlet for the benefit of our readers. The talented author, who did so much in his day to defend the doctrines of the Reformed faith, has passed to his rest since this pamphlet was first published in this country. Dr Warfield did noble work in defending the great doctrines of the faith against modern attacks, and in this pamphlet he has successfully met some of the most subtle objections against the observance of the Lord’s Day.]
I AM to speak to you to-day, not of the usefulness or of the blessedness of the Sabbath, but of its obligation. And I am to speak to you of its obligation, not as that obligation naturally arises out of its usefulness or blessedness, but as it is immediately imposed by God in His Word. You naturally dwell on the joy of the Sabbath. This is the day of gladness and triumph, on which the Lord broke the bonds of the grave, abolishing death and bringing life and immortality to light. As naturally you dwell on the value of the Sabbath. This is the day on which the tired body
rests from its appointed labour; on which the worn spirit finds opportunity for recuperation; an oasis in the desert of earthly cares, when we can escape for a moment from the treadmill of toil of daily life, and, at leisure from ourselves, refresh our souls in God. I am to recall your minds—it may seem somewhat brusquely—to the contemplation of the duty of the Sabbath; and to ask you to let them rest for a moment on the bald notion of authority. I do not admit that, in so doing, I am asking you to lower your eyes. Rather, I conceive myself to be inviting you to raise them; to raise them to the very pinnacle of the pinnacle. After all is said, there is no greater word than “ought.” And there is no higher reason for keeping the Sabbath than that I ought to keep it; that I owe it to God the Lord to keep it in accordance with His command.
It may nevertheless require some little effort to withdraw our thoughts even for a moment from the utility of the Sabbath and fix them on its bare obligation. Since Prudhon taught the world the natural value of the Sabbath, its supernatural origin and sanction have, in wide circles, passed perhaps somewhat out of sight. In its abounding usefulness to man, it may seem so obviously man’s day that we may easily forget that it was for two thousand years before it was discovered to be man’s day already the Lord’s day; and, stretching back from that, from the creation of the world God’s day. The Sabbath is undoubtedly rooted in nature; in our human nature and in the nature of the created universe. Unbroken toil is not good for us; the recurrence of a day of rest is of advantage to us, physically, mentally, spiritually. But had we been left to find this out for ourselves, we should probably have waited very long for it. Certainly Prudhon tardily learned it from observation, not of pure nature, but of the Sabbath-rest ordained by God. We are told on the highest authority that “the Sabbath was made for man.” Man needs it. It blesses his life. But man apparently would never have had it, had it not been “made” for him; made for him by Him who from the beginning of the world has known all His works, and, knowing man, has made for him from the beginning of the world the day of rest which he needs. He who needed no rest, in the greatness of His condescension, rested from the work which He had creatively made, that by His example He might woo man to his needed rest.
The Sabbath, then, is not an invention of man’s but a creation of God’s. “This is the day that Jehovah hath made”—a verse than which none in the Psalter has had a more glorious history—does not refer to the Sabbath; but
it is not strange that it has been so frequently applied to it that it has ended by becoming on the lips of God’s people one of its fixed designations. It is Jehovah who made the Sabbath; though for man, the Sabbath is not of man, but has come to man as a gift from God Himself. And, as God has made it, so He has kept it, as He has kept all else that He has made, under His own hand. It is in the power of no man to unmake the Sabbath, or to remake it—diverting it from, or, as we might fondly hope, adjusting it better to, its divinely appointed function. What God has made it, that will He Himself see that it shall remain. This in effect our Saviour tells us in that very saying to which we have already alluded. For, immediately upon declaring that “the Sabbath was made for man—with the open implication, of course, that it was by God that it was made for man—He proceeds to vindicate to Himself the sole empire over it. “So that,” He adds, “the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
The little word “even” should not pass unobserved in this declaration. “The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath,” or perhaps we might translate it “also” or “too”—”the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath,” “of the Sabbath too.” In the former case it is the loftiness of the lordship which is Lord even of the Sabbath which is suggested; in the latter, it is the wideness of the lordship which our Lord asserts for Himself which is intimated. Both elements of significance are present, however, in either case. The emphasis in any event falls on the greatness of the authority claimed by our Lord when He declared His lordship over the Sabbath, and the term “Lord” is in the original thrust forward in the sentence, that it may receive the whole stress. This great dominion our Lord vindicates to Himself as the Son of Man, that heavenly being, whom Daniel saw coming with the clouds of heaven to set up on earth the eternal kingdom of God. Because the Sabbath was made for man, He, the Son of Man, to whom has been given dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him—who reigns by right over man and all things which concern man is Lord also of the Sabbath. There are obviously two sides to the declaration. The Sabbath, on the one hand, is the Lord’s Day. It belongs to Him. He is the Lord of it; master of it—for that is what “Lord” means. He may do with it what He will: abolish it if He chooses—though abolishing it is as far as possible from the suggestion of the passage: regulate it, adapt it to the changing circumstances of human life for the benefit of which it was made. On the other hand, just because it is the Lord’s Day, it is nobody else’s
day. It is not man’s day; it is not in the power of man. To say that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath is to withdraw it from the control of men. It is to reserve to the Son of Man all authority over it. It is not man but the Son of Man who is Lord of the Sabbath.
When we wish to remind ourselves of the foundations of the Sabbath in the Word of God, it is naturally to the Decalogue that we go first. There we read the fundamental commandment which underlay the Sabbath of which our Lord asserted Himself to be the Lord, and the divine authority and continued validity of which He recognised and reaffirmed when He announced Himself Lord of the Sabbath established by it. The Ten Commandments were, of course, given to Israel; and they are couched in language that could only be addressed to Israel. They are introduced by a preface adapted and doubtless designed to give them entrance into the hearts of precisely the Israelitish people, as the household ordinances of their own God, the God to whom they owed their liberation from slavery and their establishment as a free people: “I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt out of the house of bondage.” This intimacy of appeal specifically to Israel is never lost throughout the whole document. Everywhere it has just Israel in mind and in every part of it it is closely adapted to the special circumstances of Israel’s life. We may, therefore, read off from its texts many facts about Israel. We may learn from it, for example, that Israel was a people in which the institution of slavery existed; whose chief domestic animals were oxen and asses, not, say, horses and camels; whose religious practices included sacrificial rites; and who was about to enter into a promised land, given to it of the Lord for its possession. We may learn from it also that Israel was a people to whom the Sabbath was already known, and who needed not to be informed, but only to be reminded of it: “Remember the Sabbath day . . .” Nothing can be clearer, then, than that the Ten Commandments are definitely addressed to the Israelitish people, and declare the duties peculiarly incumbent upon them.
Unless it be even clearer that these duties, declared thus to be peculiarly incumbent upon the Israelitish people, are not duties peculiar to that people. Samuel R. Driver describes the Ten Commandments as “a concise but comprehensive summary of the duties of the Israelite towards God and man. . .” It does not appear but that this is a very fair description of them. They are addressed to the Israelite. They give him a concise but comprehensive summary of his duties towards God and man. But the
Israelite, too, is a man. And it ought not to surprise us to discover that the duties of the Israelite towards God and man, when summarily stated, are just the fundamental duties which are owed to God and man by every man, whether Greek or Jew, circumcision or uncircumcision, barbarian, Syethian, bond or free. Such, at all events is, in point of fact, the case. There is no duty imposed upon the Israelite in the Ten Commandments, which is not equally incumbent upon all men, everywhere. These commandments are but the positive publication to Israel, of the universal human duties, the common morality of mankind.
It was not merely natural but inevitable that in this positive proclamation of universal human duties to a particular people, a special form should be given their enunciation specifically adapting them to this particular people in its peculiar circumstances; and it was eminently desirable that they should be so phrased and so commanded as to open a ready approach for them to this particular people’s mind and to bring them to bear with especial force upon its heart. This element of particularity embedded in the mode of their proclamation, however, has no tendency to void these commandments of their intrinsic and universal obligation. It only clothes them with an additional appeal to those to whom this particular proclamation of them is immediately addressed. It is not less the duty of all men to do no murder, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to bear false witness, not to covet a neighbour’s possession, that the Israelite too is commanded not to do these things, and is urged to withhold himself from them by the moving plea that he owes a peculiar obedience to a God who has dealt with him with distinguishing grace. And it is not less the duty of all men to worship none but the one true God, and Him only with spiritual worship; not to profane His name nor to withhold from Him the time necessary for His service, or refuse to reverence Him in His representatives, that these duties are impressed especially on the heart of the Israelite by the great plea that this God has shown Himself in a peculiar manner his God. The presence of the Sabbath commandment in the midst of this series of fundamental human duties, singled out to form the compact core of the positive morality divinely required of God’s peculiar people, is rather its commendation to all peoples of all times as an essential element in primary human good conduct.
It is clearly this view of the matter which was taken by our Lord. How Jesus thought of the Ten Commandments we may easily learn from His dealing with the rich young ruler who came to Him demanding: “Good Master,
what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” “Thou knowest the commandments,” our Lord replied; “if thou wouldst enter into life, keep the commandments.” Nothing new is suggested by our Lord; nothing but the same old Commandments which Jehovah had given Israel in the Ten Words. “Thou knowest the commandments,” says He: “the commandments.” They are the well-known commandments which every one in Israel knew well. “I have nothing else to say to thee except what you already know . . .” so one of the most modern of modern commentators (Johannes Weiss) paraphrases our Lord’s response: “He who would be worthy of the kingdom of God must keep the primeval commandments of God.” And that no mistake might be made as to His meaning, our Lord goes on to enumerate a sufficient number of the Ten Commandments to make it clear even to persistent misunderstanding what commandments He had in mind. “Thou shalt not kill,” He specifies, “thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, honour thy father and thy mother,” and He adds, summing up as much of them as He had repeated, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” So little does Jesus imagine that the Ten Commandments were of local and temporary obligation that He treats them as the law of the universal and eternal kingdom which He came to establish.
Nor has He left us to infer this merely from His dealing with them in such instances as this of the rich young ruler. He tells us explicitly that His mission as regards the law was, not to abrogate it, but “to fulfil it,” that is to say, “to fill it out,” complete it, develop it into its full reach and power. The law, He declares, in the most solemn manner, is not susceptible of being done away with, but shall never cease to be authoritative and obligatory. “For verily I say unto you,” He says, employing for the first time in the record of His sayings which have come down to us, this formula of solemn asseveration—”Verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.” So long as time endures, the law shall endure in full validity, down to its smallest details. “Till all be fulfilled” is not a mere repetition of “Till heaven and earth pass away,” but means, in brief, “until all which the law requires shall be done, until no item of the law shall remain unobserved.” So long as the world stands no iota of the law shall pass away—till all that it prescribes shall be performed. The law exists not to be broken or to be abrogated, but to be obeyed, not to be “undone,” to employ an old English phrase, but to be “done.” It is to be obeyed, and it shall be obeyed,
down to the last detail; and, therefore, in no detail of it can it be set aside or safely neglected. “The thought is,” remarks H. A. W. Meyer justly, that “the law will not lose its binding obligation, which reaches on to the final realisation of all its prescriptions, so long as heaven and earth remain.” Now, the law of which our Lord makes this strong assertion of its ever-abiding validity, includes, as one of its prominent constituent parts, just the Ten Commandments. For, as he proceeds to illustrate His statements from instances in point, showing how the law is filled out, completed by Him, He begins by adducing instances from the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill”; “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” It is with the Ten Commandments clearly in His mind, therefore, that He declares that no jot or tittle of the law shall ever pass away, but all must be fulfilled.
Like Master, like disciple. There is an illuminating passage in the Epistle of James, in which the law is so adverted to as to throw a strong emphasis on its unity and its binding character in every precept of it. “For whosoever shall keep the whole law,” we read, “and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all.” “The law is a whole,” comments J. E. B. Mayor; “it is the revelation of God’s will; disregard to a single point is disregard to the Law-giver, it is disobedience to God, and a spirit of disobedience breaks the law as a whole.” If then, we keep the law, indeed, in general but fail in one precept, we have broken, not that precept only, but the whole law of which that precept is a portion. We might as well say, if we have broken the handle or the lip or the pedestal of some beautiful vase, that we have not broken the vase but only the handle or the lip or the pedestal of it, as to say that we have not broken the law when we have broken a single one of its precepts. Now, the matter of special interest to us is that James illustrates this doctrine from the Ten Commandments. It is the same God, he declares, who has said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, and Thou shalt not kill. If we do not commit adultery but kill, we are transgressors of the holy will of this God, expressed in all the precepts and not merely in one. It is obvious that James might have taken any others of the precepts of the Decalogue to illustrate his point—the Fourth as well as the Sixth or Seventh. The Decalogue evidently lies in his mind as a convenient summary of fundamental duty; and he says in effect that it is binding on us all, in all its precepts alike, because they all alike are from God and publish His holy will.
(To be continued.)
Searmoinean leis an Urramach Flongbas MacMhaolain.
Searmoin V.
Gniomhara, iii. Caib., 19 Rann.
“Air an aobhar sin, deanaibhse aithreachas, agus bithibh
air bhur n-iompachadh, chum gum ’m bi bhur peac-
anna air an glanadh as an uair a thig àmanna fionn-
uaireachd o lathair an Tighearna.”
(Air a leantuinm o t.-d. 158).
- Tha gràs iompachaidh a tionndadh cridhe an duine
gu h-iomlan o ghràdh a pheacaidh, agus ga tharruing gu
toileach a dh’ ionnsuidh an Tighearna. Tha cridhe nuadh
agus spiorad nuadh air an compartachadh ann an obair
iompachaidh; agus uime sin, tha ’m fior iompachan, cha
’n e mhàin a pilleadh a dh’ ionnsuidh an Tighearna, ach a
dlùth leantuinm ris le rùn cridhe. Cha ’n ’eil gràs iom-
pachaidh a cruth-atharrachadh an duine o ’n leth a mach,
agus ga fhàgail gun atharrachadh sam bith ’s an leth a
steach; oir tha ’n gràs so a deanamh grèim air uile bhuaadh-
ibh an amama, a soillseachadh na h-inntinn, a glanadh na
coguis, ag ath-nuadhachadh na toil, agus ag aomadh a’
chridhe gu h-iomlan a dh’ ionnsuidh Dhè. Tha ’m moth-
achadh a th’ aig an iompachan air a steid chailte mar
pheacach, ga bhrosnachadh gu bhi tréigisinn a pheacaidh;
agus tha ’n sealladh a fhuair e air glòir Dhè, agus am
blas taitneach a th’ aig air nithibh spioradail, ga threòr-
acladh gu toileach a dh’ ionnsuidh Athair nan spiorad,
Tha cridhe ’n duine gu nàdurrà cho ceangailte ri iodhol-
aibh, as nach dean ni sam bith a sgaradh uatha, agus a
philleadh a dh’ ionnsuidh Dhé, ach gràs iompachaidh.
Cha dean comhairle caraid air bith feum, cha dean cuir-
eadh, no rabhadh, no smachdachadh air bith an gnothach,
cha ’n ’eil ni sam bith fo neamh a philleas droch chridhe
mhi-chreidimh a dh’ ionnsuidh an Dè bheò, as eugmhais
gràs iompachaidh. Ach ciod air bith cho cruaidh ’s a tha
’n cridhe gu nàdurrà, ciod air bith cho ceangailte ’s a tha
e ris an t-saoghail, na cho diam ’s a tha e dol an deigh iodh-
olaibh, no cho iomlan ’s a tha e fo uachdaranach a pheac-
aidh agus an Droch-spioraid, tha gràs iompachaidh leòir-
fhoghainteach chum a sgaradh o ghràdh a pheacaidh,
chum a leaghadh ann am bròn diadhaidh,—seadh, chum
an cridhe cloiche dheanamh na chridhe feola, ’na chridhe
briste, ’na iobairt thaitnich ann am fianuis an Tighearna.
Is tric a rinn gràs iompachaidh na cridhheachan a bu
chruaidhe, ’mhaothachadh, na ceannaircich a bu mho, irios-
machadh, agus cinn-fheadhna nam peacach, deonach, toil-each, striochdadh do Chriosd, an cridheachan a thabhart da, agus a leantuinn tre urram, agus eas-urram, gu uair am báis. Ciod a tha do-dheanta do chumhachd a ghràis a lùb, a dh’irioslaich, agus a ghlan cridhe Mhanaseh, a sgar an t-àrd cheannairceach so o ghràdh a pheacaidh, agus a phill e o dhroch shlighibh uile, dh’ ionnsuidh Dhé le fior aithreachas?
- Tha ‘n t-atharrachadh gràsmhor a tha air a dheanamh air cridhe an duine ann a iompachadh, air fhoilleachadh o ‘n leth a mach ann a chaithe-beatha. Cha ‘n ‘eil fior iompachadh a co-sheasamh gu h-iomlan, ann an ath-leasadh sam bith o’n leth a mach; oir feudaidh daonu ath-leasachadh mòr a dheanamh as eugmhais a bhi air an iompachadh,—feudaidh iad cuid d’ an sean-chleachdain-nibh a thréigsinn, a bhi dol as o shalachraibh an t-saoghail, a bhi glanadh an taobh a muigh do ‘n mheis ‘s do ‘n chop-an, agus gidheadh a bhi as eugmhais cridhe glan, agus spiorad ceart. Cha ‘n ‘eil teagamh sam bith nach robh na h-oighean amaideach fo dheadh choslas o ‘n leth a mach, co maith ris na h-oighean glic, oir bhunaich iad an cuid-eachd nan òighean glic gus an d’ rinn glaoth a mheadhon-oidheche an sgaradh o chéile; gidheadh, tha e na nì cinnt-each gu robh iad gu uair am báis ‘nam coigrich do ghràs iompachaidh. Tha obair iompachaidh a tòiseachadh anns a chridhe, agus a tionndadh a chridhe o dhorchadas, agus o ghràdh a pheacaidh, a dh’ ionnsuidh Dhé; ach tha atharrachadh slàinteil a chridhe air fhoillseachadh o ‘n leth a mach ann an nuaidheachd beatha. Tha ‘n solus nuadh a ta soilleachadh an duine san leth a stigh, a dealradh a mach ann an caithe-beatha nuadh, a réir mar a dh’ àithn Chriosd d’ a dheiscioibluibh, ag ràdh, “Gu ma h-ann mar sin a dhealraicheas bhur solus an làthair dhaoine, chum gu’ m faic iad bhur deadh oibre, agus gu ‘n; toir iad glòir do bhur n-Àthair a ta air neamh.” Tha e ‘na nì faoin do dhaoibh a bhi ‘g aideachadh gu bheil iad ‘n an deiscioib-uil do Chriosd, mur ‘eil spiorad Chriosd aca, agus mur eil iad a leantuinn òisimpleir Chriosd, a glusad eadhon mar ghluais esan. Tha gràs iompachaidh gu nàdurrna teagasg do dhaoibh, gach mi-dhiadhachd, agus ana-mianna saoghalta àicheadh, agus am beatha chaitheadh gu stuama, gu cothromach, agus gu diadhaidh anns an t-saoghail so làthair.” Uime sin, tha ‘n dream a ta ‘g alt-trum ana-mianna na feòla, a tha beò ann an gràdh, ‘s ann an cleachdainn a pheacaidh, a dearbhadh gach là nach ‘eil an cridhe ceart ann am fianuis Dé, nach ‘eil iad na ‘n creutairean nuadh. “Ma tha neach sam bith ann an Chriosd,” deir an t-Abstol Pòl, “is creutair nuadh e, chaidh na seann nithean seachad feuch rinneadh na h-uile nithean nuadh.”
II. Rachamaid a nis air n-aghaidh gus an dara ceann teagasg, le bhi toirt fa ‘near, gu bheil iompachadh gu neo-fheilnichte feumail, chum ‘s gu ‘m biodh peacanna dhaoine air an glanadh as.
I. Anns a ceud àite, cha ‘n ‘eil e iomchuidh gu ‘m faigheadh daoine maitheanas peacaidh co fhad ‘s a tha iad a buanachadh ann an gràdh do ‘n pheacadh. Tha na h-uile dhaoine gu nàdurrà, cha ‘n e mhain ‘nam peacaich, ach a caitheadh am beatha gu toileach anns a pheacadh. Cha ‘n ‘eil am peacadh ‘na ni a tha ‘n aghaidh an toil, ‘na ni d’ am bheil iad a toirt fuath, na chuing a b’ àill leo a thilgeadh dhiubh, oir tha cuid a giùlan na cuing gu toileach; tha iad beò ann an gràdh ‘s ann an cleachdaimn a pheacaidh gach là. Tha daoine, thaobh nàduir, cha ‘n e mhain beò anns a pheacadh, ach mar an ceudna ‘meudachadh ann, a cuir peacadh ri peacadh, ag antromachadh an cionta, agus a “tasgaidh suas feirg fa chomhair là na feirg, agus foillseachadh ceart bhreitheanais Dé.” Cha ‘n eil iad idir a fàs sgith do ‘n pheacadh. Feudaidh daoine fàs sgith do iomad ni anns an t-saoghal so,—feudaidh iad fàs sgith do aon àite, agus dol a dh’ ionnsuidh àite eile, na feudaidh iad fàs sgith do aon obair, agus toiseachadh air obair eile,—ach ‘s ann a tha e nàdurrà do dhaoine dol air an aghaidh anns a pheacadh gun sgios, gun fhois. Cha ‘n fhàs iad idir sgith, cha sguir iad, agus cha phill iad uath am feasd le ‘ni uile chridhe dh’ ionnsuidh Dhé, as eugmhaas a bhi air am fiosrachadh le gràs iompachaidh. A nis cha ‘n ‘eil e iomchuidh gu ‘m faigheadh daoine maitheanas peacaidh, co fhad ‘s a tha iad a buanachadh air an doigh so anns a pheacadh; cha deanamh iad ach an tròcair so a mhi-bhuileachadh, ach an gràs so a thionndadh gu macnus, ach an ni naomha so shaltairt fo ‘n cosaibh, gus am bheil iad an toiseach air an deanamh tinn le mothachadh air olc a pheacadh, agus le duraichd cridhe ag iarraidh saorsa uath. Cha ‘n ‘eil cunntas againn ann an leabhar Dhé, o thoiseach gu deireadh a Bhiobuill, air aon neach a fhuair maitheanas ‘na pheacadh, a fhuair ‘e tròcair folach air a chionta is easaontas, ann an staid neo-iompaichte. Tha maitheanas peacaidh, ” ionnlad na h-atnghineamhuinn, agus ath-nuadhachadh an Spioraid Naoimh,” ‘nan sochairibh a ta ghnàth dol an cuideachd a chéile; agus uime sin, na mealladh daoine iad féin le dòchas faoin ri sonas an taobh thall do ‘n bhàs, as eugmhaas a bhi air an saoradh o chionta, agus o uachdaranachd a pheacaidh an taobh a bhios. ‘S e ‘n ti a dh’ aidichieas, a dh’ fhuathaicheas, agus a thréigeas a pheacanna, a gheibh tròcair.
- Co fhad ‘s a tha ‘n duine buanachadh ‘na staid neo-iompaichte, tha ‘m peacadh ‘na luidhe aig a dhorus; tha cionta pheacaidh a dlùth leantuin ris, agus tha e gach la buailteach do ‘n fheirg a ta ri teachd. Tha gach bris each lagha anns an robh e riabh ciontach, an diomhair agus am follais, làn shoilleir do ‘n Dia a ta uile-léirsinneach, agus tha iad uile air cuir sios ann an leabhar a chuimhne, tha iad uile air chunntas an aghaidh a pheacaich. Mar is fhaide tha ‘m peacach a buanachadh ‘na staid neo-iompaichte, tha ‘n cunntas a ta ‘na aghaidh a ghnàth a meudachadh, tha e dol am meud gach là is bliadhna, gus am bheil an duine air a thoirt gu còir shlàinteil anns an Tighearna Iosa Crìosd. Ach an uair a tha e air a ghairm gu h-éifeachdach, agus air a cheangal ri Crìosd tre chreidimh, tha pheacanna air an glanadh as, tha na fhiachan a bha ‘na aghaidh air an dubhadh a mach gu h-iomlan a leabhar cuimhne Dhé. Agus tha so air a dheanamh, cha ‘n ann air sgàth aon ni rinn am peacach e féin, no tha e comasach a dheanamh, ach air sgàth na rinn agus na dh’ fhuiling Crìosd air a shon. Tha e feumail domh a thoirt fa ‘near, gu bheil na nithe a rinn Crìosd air son nan daoinn taghta air chuimhne aig Dia, co maith ri peacanna a phobuill so. Tha ‘n umhlachd a thug e do ‘n lagh, an dioladh a fhuair ceartas, agus an t-saorsa cheannaich e air son a shluaigh, air chuimhne mhaith aig Dia, agus ro thaithneach ann a shealladh; agus an uair a tha e faicinn neach air bith do ‘n t-sluagh air son an do cheannaich Crìosd saorsa shiorruidh, air a thoirt gu fior aithreachas, tha e ‘g amharc, cha ‘n e mhain air a chunntas a tha ‘na aghaidh ann an leabhar a chuimhne, ach mar an ceudna, air a chunntas a ta air a thaobh, air an dioladh iomlan a thug Crìosd air a shon, agus air sgàth an diolaidh a thug an t-urras so air a shon, tha pheacanna uile air an glanadh as, tha fhiachan air an dubhadh a mach a leabhar Dhé, chor ‘s nach cuimhnichear iad ni ‘s mo, chor ‘s nach tog iad ceann am feasd anns a bhreitheanas an aghaidh a chiontaich. Aig là a bhreitheanas, “iarrar aingidheachd Israeil, agus cha bhì i ann, agus lochdan Iudah, ach cha bhì iad r’ am faicinn,” do bhrigh gu robh an t-iomlan diubh air an glanadh as, an uair a phill iad a dh’ ionnsuidh Dhé le fior aithreachas. Bha ‘n dream a bha ‘nan lobhair fo ‘n t-Sean-Tiommadh, fo neo-ghloin dheas-ghnàthach a bha gan druideadh a mach o ordugh-ean Dé, agus o chomh-chomunn maillle r’ a phobuill, gus an robh iad air an glanadh. Bha ‘n luibhre so ‘na samh-ladh air cionta, agus neo-ghloin a pheacaidh, a tha druideadh dhaoine mach o chomh-chomunn maillle ri Dia, gus am bheil iad air am fiosrachadh le ionnlaid na h-ath-ghin-
mhuinn; ach an uair a tha peacaich air an ionnlaid air an doigh so, tha iad mar an ceudna air am fireanachadh, air an uchd-mhacachd, agus a faghail còir air gach soch-chair agus urram a bhuineas do chloinn Dé.
- Anns a cheart àm am bheil peacaich air an iompachadh, tha iad air an toirt a dh’ ionnsuidh Chriosd, agus air an aonadh ris trid beò chreidimh; agus co luath ‘s a tha iad air an ceangal ri Criosd, tha còir aca air maitheanas peacaich. ‘S e Criosd Fear-saoraichd dhaoine taghta Dhé; cheannaich e saorsa shiorruidh air an son an uair a leag e sios a bheatha air a chrann-chéusaichd; ach cha ‘n ‘eil buannachd spioradail na saorsa cheannaich Criosd aig neach sam bith, gus am bheil e air iompachadh. Tha e fior, gur ann air sgàth na nithe a rinn, agus a dh’ fhuiling Criosd a tha peacaich air an iompachadh; ach tha e fior mar an ceudna, nach ‘eil buannachd, na comh-fhurtachd nan nithe so aig duine air bith, co fhad ‘sa tha e deal-aichte o Chriosd, agus na choigreach do ghràs iompachaidh. Bha Pòl na shoitheach taghta; ghràdhaich Criosd Pòl; leag e sios a bheatha, agus cheannaich e saorsa shiorruidh air a shon; ach cha robh buannachd na saorsa so aig Pòl gus an robh e air a ghairm o dhorchadas gu solus. Tha uile bheannachdan na saorsa cheannaich Criosd air an tasgaidh suas anns an lànachd neo-chriochnach a tha gabhail comhnuidh ann féin, agus tha iad air an tasgaidh suas, cha ‘n ann air son a bhuanachd féin a mhain, ach buannachd a phobuill, chum a bhi air an roinn orra-san gu saobhir agus gu saor, ‘na dheadh àm féin. Ach tha àm iompachaidh ‘na àm graidh, ‘na àm anns am bheil Dia a nochdadh a dheadh-ghean do dhaoineibh, anns am bheil an Spiorad Naomha tòiseachadh air a bhi compartachadh na saorsa cheannaich Criosd ri anamaibh a phobuill. ‘S ann a nis a tha peacaich air an toirt a dh’ ionnsuidh Chriosd, air an dlùth cheangal ris, agus a faotainn còir air maitheanas peacaichd, air saorsa o chionta agus o thruaighe. ‘S ann a nis a tha iad air an ionnlaid, air an naomhachadh, agus air am fireanachadh ann an ainn an Tighearn Iosa, agus tre Spiorad ar Dé-ne. Tha pobull taghta Dhé fo chionta a phéacaichd, fo mhallachadh an lagha, agus ‘nan cloinn feirge eadhon mar chàch, gus am bheil iad air an gairm gu còir shlàinteil anns an Tighearn Iosa Criosd; ach an uair a tha iad air an gairm gu staid gràis, tha Criosd air a dheanamh dhoibh le Dia na ghliocas, ‘na fhreantachd, na naomhachd, agus ‘na shaorsa. Do bhrigh gur leò Criosd, is leò na h-uile nithe; air sgàth an daimh ri Criosd, tha còir aca air maitheanas peacaichd, air uchd-mhacachd na cloinne,—seadh air uile bheannachdaibh a choimhecheangail nuaidh.
(Ri leantuin.)