THERE is no people in the world to-day with such a wonderful history as the Jews, and there is no land so widely known as their ancient home. For centuries it lay under the withering rule of the Turk, but among many other mighty changes brought about by the Great War was the deliverance of this once highly favoured spot of the earth, and the Balfour Mandate made it clear that this country wished Palestine to become a national home for the Jews. The interest awakened in this event made the profoundest impression on the religious world, and whether it awakened special interest in the chancellories of Europe in particular and of the world in general, there can be no doubt of the interest it awakened in the professing Church of Christ. That interest had its origin in the seeming fulfilment of prophecies which evidently pointed to the restoration of the Jews to their fathers’ land. After long years of exile this people resting under the heavy curse of God and persecuted in almost every land where they sought a home, heard, as if in a dream, that this land was now open for their return. What a wonderful history lies behind this people, “scattered and peeled, meted out, and trodden down!” Forty long centuries have run their course since Abraham, in obedience to the call of God, left Ur of the Chaldees to become “a great nation.” That nation, so small in its beginnings, is now a mighty nation of thirteen million souls, and notwithstanding that it is scattered among all nations, it still retains its national individuality. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Balaam as he beheld their tents stretched before him on the plains of Moab “from the top of the rocks, as the valleys spread forth, as gardens by the river’s side, as the trees of lign aloes which the Lord hath planted and as cedar trees beside the waters” —”Lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be
reckoned among the nations.” To the student of the Bible their marvellous preservation is not a matter of mere historical interest, but is full of tremendous significance in view of the high destiny awaiting this people and its bearing on the well-being of the Gentile nations. No believer can read the Epistle to the Romans (Chap. xi.) without being profoundly impressed by the Apostle’s words:—”For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?”
But does this restoration, so far reaching in its effects, imply restoration of the Jews to the land of Palestine? To this question modern pre-millennarians give an unhesitating answer in the affirmative. But as we reject the pre-millennialian view of the Lord’s Second Coming, we will not consider the question of the restoration of the Jews from this standpoint. At the same time it may be noted, in passing that the pre-millennialian fathers were at one with their opponents in rejecting the restoration of Israel literally to Palestine. And when we come down to later times we find in the first century of the Reformation not one of those recognised as orthodox theologians held the restoration of the Jews, but with the opening of the second century this view began to attract attention, and as the century advanced, divided the soundest divines. In regard to the position taken up, in modern times, by those who reject the pre-millennialian view, there are two classes: (1) Those who reject the doctrine of the restoration of the Jews to their own land, and (2) those who hold that there are scriptural grounds for believing that there will be such a restoration. The arguments adduced by the former, are, as given by Dr A. A. Hodge, (1) The New Testament is entirely silent on the subject of such a return; (2) The literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies concerned would be most unnatural (a) because if the interpretation is to be consistent, it must be literal in all its parts, e.g., the Levitical priesthood must be restored (Ez. xl. to xlvi.; Jer. xvii. 25, 26; (b) because the literal interpretation of these passages is plainly against what the New Testament teaches against the abolition of all distinctions between Jew and Gentile; (c) because this interpretation is inconsistent with the New Testament teaching of the final abolishment of the Levitical priesthood and their sacrifices; (3) On the other hand, the spiritual interpretation of these Old Testament prophecies is both natural and accordant with the analogy of Scripture. In the New Testament Christians
are called Abraham’s seed (Gal. iii. 29); Israelites (Gal. iv. 16), etc. There is also a Christian priesthood and spiritual sacrifice (I. Pet. ii. 5, 9; Hebs. xiii. 15, 16; Roms. xii. 1). This view is advocated by Principal Fairbairn in his “Typology of Scripture,” and in his Exposition of Ezekiel.
The position taken up by those who hold the view that Israel will be restored to Palestine rests on the proposition that the people and land of Israel are so connected in numerous prophecies of the Old Testament that whatever literality and perpetuity are ascribed to the one, must in all strict principles of interpretation be attributed to the other also. Those who hold this view are careful to state that not a shred of Judaism do they expect to see restored, and if the restoration of the Jews cannot be maintained without these Judaisms, then they will willingly give it up. They willingly concede to those who are opposed to the view of the restoration of the Jews (1) that the middle wall between Jew and Gentile has been broken down, never to be rebuilt; (2) that the Gospel Church is not a different Church from that which existed before, but the same Church of God, formerly confined to the Jews, but now under a new form embracing all nations. Dr Brown, whose classical work on the Second Advent, controverts the pre-millenarian view, adopts this position.
It will thus be seen that there is diversity of opinion among sound divines on this subject, and our purpose in referring to the matter is not so much to enter into a thorough discussion of the subject, as to direct our readers’ attention to it in view of what we have to say about the present position of the Jew in Palestine. At present we have two peoples descended from the same ancestor striving for the mastery in the Holy Land. The Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael, and the Jews, the descendants of Isaac (both having Abraham as their ancestor) are as opposed to-day as they were in ancient times. Moussa el Husseini, the president of the Arab delegation to Britain, stated the Arab case as follows:— “I think the issue may be made quite plain by a reference to your English conditions. I believe that, some time after the Jews conquered and temporarily occupied Palestine, German tribes conquered and temporarily occupied a part of England. Would you be content now that England should be made a national home for Germans, even though you were assured that for quite a long time the English would not be expropriated?” The Arabs are Moslems, and believe in the dying injunction of the False Prophet (Mohammed) that there should
be no non-Moslem control over the Jazirat ul Arabia (Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia). These two antagonistic races, widely differing in character and religious beliefs, constitute a problem for the governing authorities in Palestine to-day.
The Arabs are charging Britain with having given over their land to the Jews, while the Jews declare that Britain has not fulfilled the promise set forth in the Balfour Declaration. The strife between the two nationalities, it is maintained, has been kept up by a religious political community which aims at the Papacy getting a leading interest in the Holy Land.
In regard to the present Jewish population of Palestine, it is stated that it is smaller to-day than before the War. This is accounted for by the large number of Jews who died through privations caused by the War, thus counterbalancing the inflow of Jewish colonists. These colonists are, many of them, highly educated men. However long the purposes of God may tarry as to the ingathering of His ancient people, there can be no doubt that such a day is appointed in the counsels of Heaven, and nothing that man can do will hinder the divine purpose. For this ancient people God has appointed a time when the dispersed of Israel will be gathered into one; for the conversion of the Jews is to be on a scale that will be world-wide in its compass. In that day Israel will look unto Him whom they have pierced, and as they look they shall weep as one weeps for an only son, and in bitterness for a first-born. That great day is yet to come, and when it does come it will be as life from the dead to the Gentile nations. In a pre-eminent sense Israel will hear the words—”Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. . . . And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising” (Isai. lx. 1-3).
Dr Dick Wilson’s Visit to the Eastern Mission Field.
AS is generally well known, Dr Dick Wilson, Princeton Seminary, is one of the most learned, if not the most learned, of Semitic scholars. Even the ablest scholar in the ranks of the Higher Critics who claim to have a monopoly of scholarship must take off his doctor’s cap to the Princeton Professor. To enumerate the various languages that form part of Dr Wilson’s linguistic equipment would convey little meaning to
those who may not have tackled even one of them, but it will interest our readers to know that Dr Dick Wilson is using the results of his forty years’ original research and study of the Old Testament text in defence of the Word of God. Last summer Dr Wilson paid a visit to Korea, China, and Japan, and delivered lectures at various conferences of missionaries and theological students. At Kuling (China) the Professor was politely told that it was not in accordance with the Kuling Convention custom for a speaker to deal with “controversial subjects.” This was too much for the learned doctor, and called forth a severe rebuke to his compromising monitors. In an interview, Prof. Wilson thus refers to the incident:—”To think that a defence of the Old Testament Scriptures should be regarded by any missionaries as a ‘controversial subject’! I was thoroughly aroused. I brought my fist down on the table, and I said to them—I’ll not speak on such conditions. I came to China at the invitation of missionaries to lecture in defence of the Scriptures, and if I do not speak on that subject in your meeting, I’ll go out on the hillside and speak there, and let any come to hear me who want to do so.” The Convention management, however, gave the Professor permission to deliver the lectures. That Dr Wilson did not spare the Higher Critics is evident from a letter written home by a missionary who was present at Kuling, who wrote as follows:—”The course of lectures Professor Robert Dick Wilson has just given here at Kuling has stirred up more comment and made the ‘liberals’ among us rage more than perhaps those of any other speaker we have ever had here. They tried first to prevent his giving the lectures, but since that did not succeed, have opposed in other ways, and are now determined to prevent the coming of any other such champion of the Word of God here in the future.” The lectures, like the Apostle’s letters, must have been powerful when it had such an effect on the ‘liberals.’ It is inexpressibly sad to think that men who have gone out professedly with the Word of God to the heathen should be unbelievers in it themselves. Like the false teachers in Apostolic times, these missionaries are causing great confusion in the minds of the native Christians, who appear to be more loyal to the Word of God than many of their teachers. It is extremely disheartening to the missionaries who are loyal to their Lord, faced as they are with the dead mass of heathenism around them, that they should thus have to combat the views of professed brethren and nominal followers of Jesus Christ. Dr Dick Wilson, on his
return home, wrote a short account of his visit to “The Presbyterian,” which we herewith quote:—
“Having just returned from a tour of Japan, Korea, and China, where I have been lecturing for five months to the students of many of the colleges, seminaries, and conferences, I take pleasure in stating that most of our own missionaries whom I met are above suspicion, both as to their life, doctrine, and efficiency. It is my belief that the ordained missionaries of our Church are as true to the teachings of the Confession and as loyal to the Word of God as the ministers at home . . .
“Nevertheless, while believing that it is our duty to give adequate support to the missionaries already on the field who are loyal to the doctrine of the Church, I cannot refrain from stating my conviction that the Board, and especially some of our secretaries, have erred grievously in some of their policies with regard to the work entrusted to them by the Church. The first of their errors is the entangling alliances made with bodies of missionaries differing from us in doctrine and polity. There is no better reason that I have heard for such unions on the foreign field than there is at home. If a man believes the Bible to be the Word of God, how can he teach in harmony with a man who does not so believe? If some professors teach the Apostles’ Creed and the inspiration of the Scriptures, while others deny them, how can they teach in harmony, and what must be the effect on the students?
“These Chinese students (as well as the Japanese and Koreans) are just as keen at discerning inconsistencies and incongruities in their professors and teachers as our American students are; and what would the students of Princeton Seminary think if the faculty were teaching diverse views on nearly every great question of theology—What would they have a right to think? Why, that we were sure of nothing, or the biggest lot of cowards and hypocrites they ever laid eyes on. Union in medical or social work, or in religious work with men who agree with our views of the Bible may be justifiable; but when attempts are made to combine in religious work men of fundamentally different views, these attempts are bound to be disastrous to the more conservative side. Why, then, should our Board force, or even allow, our missionaries in China to unite in faculties, some of whose members are radically different from us in their beliefs and teachings? And yet this is what our Board has deliberately done, with the result that there are but a very few
union institutions in China whose faculties would subscribe to the essential doctrines set forth in the deliverances of our General Assemblies of 1910, 1916, and 1923. It is my judgment that the Board of Foreign Missions would do much to relieve the suspicions of the Church at home and abroad if they would themselves take the initiative and resolve to withdraw as far as possible from the vain attempt to unite in harmonious missionary work those who do and those who do not believe in the essential doctrines of our Church.” From these words of Prof. Wilson it appears that union in the Mission Field has been purchased at a terrible price, if we are to judge by its fruits.
The essential doctrines to which Professor Wilson refers as the Presbyterian General Assembly deliverances of 1910, 1916, and 1923, are as follows:—1. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and our standards that the Holy Spirit did so inspire, guide, and move the writers of Holy Scripture as to keep them from error. 2. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and our standards that our Lord Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. 3. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and our standards that Christ offered up Himself as a sacrifice to satisfy Divine justice and to reconcile us to God. 4. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and of our standards concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, that on the third day He arose again from the dead with the same body with which He suffered, and with which also He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of His Father, making intercession. 5. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God as the supreme standard of our faith that our Lord Jesus showed His power and love by working mighty miracles. This working was not contrary to nature, but superior to it.
MERCY IN GOD’S FROWN.
“Oh what mercy in that frown, however awful and terrible, by which the Lord vindicates His majesty, holiness, justice; filling the soul with approving dread, and laying it low at His feet. And then when He is heard saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him,’ and when our eye meets the Father’s eye fixed on His Son, O how the divine majesty, holiness, and justice become the full brightness of Jehovah the Father’s smile! and it reaches us both by reflection and direct transmission.”—Dr Duncan.
The Redeemer’s Teaching on Endless Punishment.
THE mind naturally shrinks from the thought of endless punishment, and it is to this feeling that the deniers of this doctrine make an easy appeal. But, in this matter, as in others, our feelings are not the judge of what is true and what is not. We must appeal to a less uncertain judge in a matter so fraught with eternal interest to responsible and accountable moral agents. And in doing so we carry our appeal to the One to whom all judgment has been committed by the Father, and would with reverence and a mind sobered by the solemnity of the subject, listen to what He says on the matter. It was He who sounded the note of warning as it never had been sounded before, and there is an added solemnity in His words when it is borne in mind that He shall act as supreme Judge in those transactions which culminate in the dread and irrevocable sentence so weighted with everlasting doom:—”Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” The Lord never would have spoken as He did of the “fire that never shall be quenched,” and “the worm that dieth not,” if the punishment of the finally impenitent was not endless.
The perusal of the Redeemer’s words should convince any candid mind that He taught that for Impenitent men and devils there was endless punishment. We adduce the following words in proof of this:—”When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory; and before Him shall be gathered all nations, and He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall He say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, and these shall go away into everlasting punishment” (Matt. xxv. 31-33, 41, 46). “If thy right hand offend thee cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than
having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; it is better for thee to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark viii. 36; Luke ix. 25). “The rich man died and was buried, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments.” (Luke xvi. 22, 23). “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. x. 28). “The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of His Kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. xiii. 41, 42). “Many will cry to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? Then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. vii. 22, 23). “He that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. Unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall never be forgiven” (Luke xii. 9, 10). “Woe unto you, ye blind guides. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matt. xxiii. 16, 33). “Woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. xxvi. 24). “The Lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for Him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and appoint him his portion with unbelievers” (Luke xii. 46). “He that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark xvi. 16). “Thou Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell” (Matt. xi. 23). “At the end of the world, the angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire” (Matt. xiii. 49, 50). “Then said Jesus again to them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whether I go ye cannot come” (John viii. 21). “The hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall hear my voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John v. 28, 29). To these may be added the references in the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins to the shut door (Matt. xxv. 10), and to the “casting the
unprofitable servant into outer darkness where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. xxv. 19, 20), in the Parable of the Talents.
Do these words leave the impression on the mind of the reader that the future punishment of sin is temporary? In the words of Dr Shedd:—”Is it possible to believe that that holy and divine Person who uttered these fearful and unqualified warnings eighteen hundred years ago, respecting the destiny of wicked men and devils, knew that a time is coming when there will be no wicked men and devils in the universe of God, and no place of retributive torment? . . . Did He know that in the far-off future, a day will come when those tremendous scenes which He described—the gathering of all mankind, the separation of the evil from the good, the curse pronounced upon the former, and the blessing upon the latter—will be looked back upon by all mankind as ‘an unsubstantial pageant faded’ as a dream that is passed, and as a watch in the night?”
Hesitation to proclaim these awful truths on the plea of revulsion to our feelings brings us into the dangerous position of asserting that we are more compassionate than the Son of God, in whose heart there was infinite compassion to sinners. While the daring attempt to minimise the meaning or deny altogether the solemn import of the above-quoted utterances is rebellion, open and undisguised, against the Lord. The inexpressible solemnity of the subject is, and ought to be, felt by every true servant of Christ who feels that unless his hearers are regenerated that Christ’s warning so solemnly spoken was not uttered in vain. And believing what the Master said, they, too, shall warn with all tenderness, and direct the attention of their hearers to the Son of God, who delivers from the wrath that is coming.
The Remarkable Story of General Sir John Field’s Conversion.
SIR JOHN FIELD, whose conversion to God was a striking illustration of how the Lord works in a mysterious way for the accomplishment of His purposes, was one who attained to high rank in the Indian Army. As a young subaltern he went out to India, and rose step by step, and served with distinction under Lord Napier in the Magdala Expedition. Our main interest in General Field, however, is more in his being a good
soldier of the Lord Jesus than in being a brave soldier of Queen Victoria. When he went out to India as a young man he made up his mind to have a good time. Anything savouring of religion was distasteful to him, and so prejudiced was he against godliness that he tells of the hatred he had to a young brother officer for no other reason than that he was a Christian. Lieut. Field’s conversion was remarkable by reason of the means God used and in its thoroughness. No one can read his life without being deeply impressed with the humbling views the Holy Spirit gave him of the total depravity of our fallen nature, and the absolute necessity of being born again if we are to escape the consequences of our sins. It was indirectly through the young Christian officer that Lieutenant Field was turned from the error of his ways. While he was out one morning at drill, a native orderly left a religious book belonging to this officer in his room. On returning from drill, Field, catching sight of the title of the book, threw it, in a temper, to the furthest end of the room, where it lay for many hours. At night he picked it up with anything but friendly feelings to the supposed sender, but he soon put it down again. Next day the orderly came, and with many salaams asked for the book which he had left by mistake in Lieutenant Field’s room—it had been meant for another gentleman. The unwelcome book was given back, but it had done its heaven-commissioned work. We are not told what truth in the book touched his conscience, but Lieutenant Field now gave up swearing, and turned to praying and reading his Bible. His reading of the Bible led him to see his ruined state, and his need of looking to Christ alone for salvation. Some time after deliverance came he writes:—”I am very thankful indeed to say that I now look forward to the arrival of the Lord’s Day with pleasure and impatience, and experience great gratification and much comfort in the performance of my devotions. I feel that, although still very awful, I am by God’s grace gradually progressing in the way which leads to eternal happiness; and the more I reflect upon the enormity of my sins the more deeply do I feel the great mercy of the Almighty in preserving me so long, and awaking my heart to a sense of my ingratitude and utter unworthiness, and most fervently do I pray that I may never relapse into any of my former crimes, but continue to walk in the paths of righteousness and truth.”
A book which he found very helpful—Caesar Malan’s “The True Cross,” fell into his hands about
this time in a rather unexpected way. It had been sent to Ensign B., a very irreligious man in the regiment. On receiving it the Ensign said to himself:—”What does the man mean by sending me such a book as this? Just as if I should read it! But there is young Field; he is trying to be religious. I will give it to him.” Field was driven more and more to his Bible, as his fellow-officers were many of them not only irreligious, but immoral. His real concern for Ensign B. is beautifully set forth in his biography. He describes him as “a very profane, immoral character,” but he never gave up hopes that one day he might be turned to the Saviour, in whom he himself had found mercy. He followed him with his prayers, and often wrote serious letters to him, and at length, after sixteen years, he had the joy of hearing of this officer’s conversion.
He now began to conduct services for the soldiers, and the burden of his message may be gathered from what he says about the necessity of the New Birth:—”I find in general this most important truth is wholly lost sight of by the unconverted, and, therefore, whenever I commence to talk upon religion, I always insist upon this in the first place, as I think that, until a person is conscious of his lost and ruined state, there can be but little hope of profiting him in preaching Christ.”
In speaking of a period of spiritual declension in his experience, he says:—”The principal cause of it, I can trace, as is generally the case in all backslidings, to less frequency in prayer and reading and meditating upon the Word of God. I had allowed myself in my visits to relatives to fall into the error of thinking I should not suffer loss in faith by allowing their company to encroach upon the seasons of retirement which I had set apart for reading and prayer, supposing that, because I felt obliged to give myself up to them, God would preserve me from growing cold and lukewarm in spirit. Thus have I again been deceived by my wicked heart.”
The firm stand General Field took against dancing, card playing, and concerts showed that his Christianity had given him true moral courage. We quote from a letter of his in another place bearing on this subject.
Ere the end came he had real heart sorrow through the agnostic views adopted by a well-beloved son. His father had hoped that he would go to the mission field, and when it became clear that his son was turned aside,
it filled the heart of the father with real sorrow, but he never gave up hopes but that his son would be converted, and he prayed earnestly for him. And in God’s time his prayers were answered, and it was this son who wrote his father’s life. In an introductory poem, he says:—
I had a father; when he was alive,
I did not greatly care his will to please;
I did not know his habit was to strive
For me, his son, upon his bended knees.
I did not know how fervently he longed,
In me deep-cherished hopes to realise;
Too late I see it now, the love I wronged,
Then in my reach, now out of reach, the prize.
Though they are lost, which might have once been won,
Rich opportunities I cast away;
I trust that even now he sees his son,
Tracking his footsteps to the land of day.
His deep concern for the salvation of his family is shown in one of his diary entries:—”God and Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and all spiritual things are so real to me, increasingly so as year after year passes, that it is dreadful to think that to my sons all is unreal at present, and that the tremendous guilt of rejecting the only Way, the Truth and Life, rests upon them. My prayer ascends unceasingly, and He heareth; and this gives hope and comfort.” Those who are parents and yearn for the salvation of their offspring will be able to enter into the meaning of these words.
General Field died on 16th April 1899, and was buried in Stoke Cemetery, Guildford.
General Sir John Field on Christians and Worldly Pleasures.
In a letter to his son, soon after the conversion of the latter, Sir John Field gave the following faithful advice, in which he makes reference to his own practice as an officer in India:—”I remember,” he writes, “how this subject pressed itself on my conscience in 1844, after my conversion. I had been very fond of gaieties, and it was a struggle to me to give them up. I had
no one to consult, but I went to God’s Word to find out, and the Spirit soon made me feel that I must separate from my old life and give up my worldly pleasures, that I might walk in newness of life and please the Lord. I gave up at once balls, theatres, cards, and other things (such as concerts), and I have never been to any places of the kind nor touched cards since. I look back over these nearly fifty years and I thank God, who enabled me to act thus. I feel quite sure from Scripture and from observation that no true Christian can enter into such pleasures without injuring the spiritual life and grieving the Holy Spirit. After our marriage, your dear mother in India acted with me, and we refused all invitations to balls and gave our reason, i.e., that we found such things injured our walk with God. On one occasion, after dinner at Government House, dancing was introduced. I went to the hostess and asked her to excuse us, saying we did not go to dances, and we both left. Of course, this gave offence. I very sincerely hope that you will take a decided stand, and not go to worldly amusements.”
The Guest Chamber.
Oh! where is the guest chamber?
The Master asks to-day,
Oh! where is the guest chamber
That I therein may stay?
The Master came from glory
Poor souls from sin to win;
The world gave Him a chamber,
The stable of an Inn.
But where is your guest chamber?
The Master seeks the heart;
Oh! mine is like the world’s one,
Unclean in every part.
And does He seek that chamber
Unclean in every part?
Oh! hear His gracious word now,
My Son, give me thine heart.
Alas! my heart’s no chamber
That He should stay therein;
But yet I find I’m crying,
Oh! do thou enter in.
The Master is the Saviour
Whose blood doth cleanse from sin,
Whose love will make my chamber
All glorious within.
Standing at Prayer.*
BY THE LATE REV. H. C. B. BAZELEY, B.C.L.
A CHANGE in the attitude from standing at prayer to sitting is not to be objected to simply because it is a change, but those who have introduced it may fairly be asked to state, as we believe they have not yet done, their reasons for altering a usage that has prevailed for many generations. In anticipation of a statement of these reasons we propose to bring to the notice of our readers some considerations which seem to us to vindicate forcibly the retention of the posture of standing, which was universally practised in our Presbyterian Churches till a few years ago.
Two postures during prayer are recommended by precept and example in Holy Scripture—namely, standing and kneeling. For instance, when Jehoshaphat set his face to seek the help of the Lord against his confederate enemies, he stood in the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem in the house of the Lord and prayed, while all Judah, who had gathered themselves together at his summons, stood with him before the Lord with their little ones, their wives, and their children (2 Chron. xx. 5-13). So in the time of Ezra, the Levites stood upon the stairs and cried unto the Lord, while the seed of Israel, who had separated themselves from the strange children, stood and confessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers (Neh. ix. 2-4). In the New Testament the publican is represented as standing while he offered his humble and acceptable petition, “God be merciful to me, a sinner” (Luke xviii. 13). Moreover, Christ has distinctly recognised this posture as one for general adoption in His rule as to the spirit which must be cherished by us in prayer, “And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any” (Mark xi. 25). Kneeling, on the other hand, is yet more frequently referred to. Ezra fell upon his knees, and spread out his hands unto the Lord, when he prayed with confession of sins (Ezra ix. 5). Solomon apparently knelt during some part of the prayer which he offered at the dedication of the temple (I. Kings viii. 54). In the early days of the Christian Church Stephen knelt in his last prayer (Acts vii. 60); Peter knelt when he besought God for the life of Dorcas
* This article appeared some years ago in the Magazine, with a biographical sketch of the Rev. H. C. B. Bazeley by the present Editor, and it is reprinted at the request of some of our readers.
—Editor.
(Acts ix. 40); Paul knelt when he prayed with the Ephesian presbyters (Acts xx. 36). It is perfectly plain, from these instances, that both postures, standing and kneeling, are acceptable to God. And if this be the case, it surely cannot be right to neglect the use of either of them altogether. Now Presbyterians have herein—as in so many matters—followed more closely than some other Christians the guidance of Holy Scripture. They have adopted the posture of kneeling as the more frequent posture, the ordinary posture in family worship, and at their private devotions; whereas in congregational worship they have been accustomed to stand. Would it not be a serious mistake—to say the least of it—for them to give up standing at prayer in the congregation, and thus to abstain entirely, as Episcopalians probably do, from one of the two postures which are sanctioned by the authority of God?
Moreover, when we remember that it was the almost universal custom in the Church during the first few centuries of the Christian era to stand in public prayer on the Lord’s Day, it certainly seems peculiarly appropriate that this very ancient usage should be retained by us. No doubt the practice of the early Church is not in all respects worthy of imitation, for corruptions of the simple Apostolic order soon crept in; but when an ancient practice is quite in harmony, as this is, with Scriptural precept and example, it has, we think, some legitimate claim on our regard. Two or three testimonials to this ancient custom may be cited here. Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 67), describing in the second century Christian worship, tells us that after Holy Scripture had been read and the minister had preached, “they all rose together and prayed.” Augustine (Ep. 55 ad. Jan.) writes, “We pray standing, which is a sign of the resurrection.” The last canon of the Ecumenical Council, held at Nicæa, 325 A.D., enjoins that prayers be offered to God by the worshippers standing on the Lord’s Day, in order that all things may be observed with due uniformity in every parish. Irenæus, writing in the second century, traced the custom to an ordinance of the Apostles.
There is also a very practical reason for the continuance of our usual posture of standing. It is hardly possible, from the construction of the seats in our Churches, to kneel during prayer; and to render this posture possible, alterations involving considerable expense and inconvenience would have to be made.
There is, besides, a great tendency, where kneeling is the professed practice, as it is in Episcopalian congre-
gations, to lounge, the worshippers half-sitting on the seats, and resting their heads and arms in a listless and drowsy fashion upon the desk in front of them. This posture is certainly uncomely and irreverent. Indeed, there is but slight difference, or none at all, between this lounging and sitting, which attitude is largely practised by English Dissenters. We need hardly point out that there is not a vestige of authority for it in Holy Scripture. The only text we have seen quoted in favour of sitting is 2 Sam. vii. 18, where David is said to have “sat before the Lord.” But the word (yashav) is improperly translated here: “Remained, tarried,” is the proper rendering, as in Gen. xxiv. 55; xxix. 19, not sat. The custom of sitting before the Lord in the sanctuary, as the posture in prayer, cannot be deduced from Exod. xvii. 12, where Moses is compelled to sit from simple exhaustion (Keil and Delitzsch, Comment in loc.). Moreover, as Bingham says in his Antiquities of the Christian Church (xiii. i., 7), “It never had any allowance in the practice of the ancient Church. . . . The primitive Christians did never use or take sitting for a posture of devotion, . . . because it looked more like an heathenish than a Christian practice.” It is, in fact, a novelty of recent date, and probably very few, if any, will undertake seriously to defend it. We fear the adoption of it is due, in some measure, to the most erroneous notion—strange, indeed, and startling in a Protestant Church—that it is the duty of the people in public worship to listen to, and not to join with, the minister in supplication. To judge from the demeanour of many worshippers, this notion must be widely prevalent. We are all aware that one of the chief charges brought by the advocates of prescribed liturgies against Free Prayer is that the people cannot readily join in it; we know that the charge is unfounded, but we cannot profess to be greatly surprised at it, when we remember the irreverent appearance of not a few in most congregations during the time of public prayer. We have never seen anyone remain seated while leading the devotions of others; and we are very sure that the sitting members of a congregation would be amazed and even scandalized if their minister was to continue seated in the pulpit while offering the prayers of the Church. And this really settles the question. For if the sitting posture would be an indecency—and no one doubts that it would be—on the part of the minister, it must be precisely as great an indecency on the part of the congregation, who ought to be praying every whit as hear-
tily as their leader. Let us, by our practice, contend against the Romish error, that the minister is nothing more than the intercessor for the people, and illustrate the Protestant truth that he is, in public worship, the mouthpiece of those whom Christ has made priests unto His Father.
What our fellowmen may think of our worship is of course of infinitely less consequence than what God thinks of it, but we cannot refrain from pointing out that the irreverent appearance of sitters and loungers during prayer often prejudices devout Episcopalians, who may happen to be in our Churches, against our form of service as a whole. We cannot pretend to be surprised that this should be so, and that the superiority of our more excellent way of worship should be thus obscured to outsiders. Let us see that our good be not evil spoken of.
As to the standing posture, we are not aware of any reasonable objection that can be brought against it. We know that it is said to be too fatiguing, but we cannot persuade ourselves that Christians of the present day are more feeble than those who worshipped standing in the early age of the Church—and, indeed, than the Christians of the last generation. We are sure that—with the exception of the old and infirm, who, of course, are expected neither to stand nor kneel beyond their ability—all the members of our congregations are quite able to stand without difficulty or discomfort for the few minutes during which prayer is offered. Public prayers are now, as a rule, by no means lengthy, nor is it desirable, from a Scriptural point of view, that they should be so. At all events, if ministers can and do invariably stand during the prayers, the reading of Scripture, and the sermon, we are persuaded that we are not making an unreasonable request when we entreat our congregations to associate themselves with them in a posture of becoming reverence during the few minutes of united prayer.
The only other objection that we have ever heard adduced is that by urging so earnestly the use of a particular posture we are in danger of lapsing into formalism, and perhaps, at last, into ritualism. It is well known, however, that those ministers who plead for standing in prayer are the very last to desire the introduction of the rites and practices of the English Church. It is most true that God looks not merely on outward appearances, but on the heart; and if the heart be not washed from its filthiness in the opened fountain, no acceptable prayer can proceed from it. But, at the
same time, we do strenuously contend for the order and decency in worship enjoined by Christ’s Apostle, and for the due external expression of that reverence and godly fear which is to be rendered to God in the assembly of His Saints. We are confident that the Apostle Paul would say to the sitters and loungers at public prayer, “Judge in yourselves: is it comely to pray to God in such a posture? Doth not even nature teach you that you ought not to approach the throne of the King Eternal in an attitude which you would not dare to adopt in the presence of an earthly monarch? But if any seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God.” There is certainly no reason why we should apologise, as some of our brethren seem disposed to do, for our manner of worship, any more than for our form of doctrine and mode of ecclesiastical polity. We do not wish to speak boastfully, but we should be untrue to our convictions and unfaithful to our trust if we did not plainly declare that we believe our manner of worship to be incomparably more Scriptural than the Episcopalian manner. We heartily wish that other Christian Churches would join with us in following what we are persuaded is the Apostolic pattern.
Canterbury and Rome.
IN a recent communication to the press, the Archbishop of Canterbury disclosed the fact that conferences with his approval had been proceeding between representatives of the Church of England and the Church of Rome at Malines, in Belgium. In his communication the Archbishop reviews the developments which have followed the Lambeth Conference’s appeal three years ago. He says that, from overseas, reports have come steadily, showing the eager welcome which the appeal for reunion has received in both Episcopal and non-Episcopal Churches.
The relation of the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church forms the most notable reference in the Archbishop’s communication. “I have myself been repeatedly warned,” he says, “that to touch that subject is unwise—that it is easier and safer to let it severely alone.” That, he concedes, may be true, but he finds it difficult to reconcile the appeal for reunion with an attitude of apathy or sheer timidity as to touching the Roman Catholic question.
“At the Lambeth Conference in 1920,” he con-
tinues, “we there expressed our readiness to welcome any friendly discussion between Roman Catholics and Anglicans for which opportunity might be given.” The Archbishop goes on to reveal that, two years ago, a private conference took place at Malines, Belgium, between Cardinal Mercier, the Archbishop of Malines, and a few Anglicans, with a view to the discussion of outstanding and familiar barriers between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. Those on the Anglican side were Dr Armitage Robinson, Dean of Wells; Dr Walter Frere (now Bishop of Truro), and Lord Halifax; and on the Roman Catholic side, Cardinal Mercier, Monsignor Van Roey, and the Abbe Portal.
“The substance of the conversation which took place was reported to me,” he states, “both by the Cardinal and by my Anglican friends. It necessarily turned in large part upon the position and claims of the Roman See, or in other words, the Primacy of the Pope. It was suggested that, with a view to a second visit, the two English Archbishops might informally nominate delegates and might suggest the outline of discussion to be followed. I did not see my way to doing this; but, in the correspondence which ensued, I expressed my readiness to have official cognisance of the arrangements, provided that a corresponding cognisance were given by the Vatican. Satisfied, after correspondence with regard to that point, I gave what was described as friendly cognisance to a second visit of the Anglican group to Malines in March 1923.”
The conversation on this occasion, it is explained, turned in part on certain large administrative problems which might arise, if and when a measure of agreement had been reached on the great doctrinal and historical questions sundering the two Churches. It was agreed that a third Conference should take place. A wish was expressed on both sides that the number of participants should be enlarged, and additions were made of Dr Charles Gore, late Bishop of Oxford, and Dr Kidd, Warden of Keble College, Oxford (both of whom had given special attention to the Roman question), to the Anglican group. The third Conference was held at Malines a few weeks ago. There has not yet been time to weigh adequately the record of the conversations, but I may say at once that, as was inevitable, the discussions are still in a quite elementary stage, and that no estimate, as far as I can judge, can yet be formed as to their ultimate value.
“Needless to say,” the Archbishop adds, “there has been no attempt to initiate what may be called ‘negoti-
ations’ of any sort. The Anglicans who have, with my full encouragement, taken part, are in no sense delegates or representatives of the Church as a whole. They have sought merely to effect some re-statement of controverted questions, and some elucidation of perplexities. And to me it seems indubitable that good must in the Providence of God ensue from the mere fact that men possessing such peculiar qualifications for the task should, in an atmosphere of good-will, on either side, have held quiet and unrestrained converse with a group of Roman Catholic theologians similarly equipped. No further plans are yet prepared, but it is impossible, I think, to doubt that further conversations must follow. The difficulties are immense,” the Archbishop concludes. “You know them as clearly as I do. They may prove, for some time to come, insuperable.”
Such in brief outline is one of the most extraordinary movements since the Reformation, when it is remembered that the Pope and the Primate of the Church of England have given their friendly cognisance. It is to be hoped that it will arouse the sleeping Protestants of England and Scotland from their lethargy.
Searmoinean leis an Urramach Honghas MacMhaolain.
Searmoin VI.
Lucas, vii. Caib., 50 Rann.
“Agus thubhaint e ris a mhnaoi, Shlànuiich do chreidimh
thu, imich an sìth.”
(Air a leantuin o t.-d. 278).
Bha na briathra so air an labhaint le Criosd ri mnaoi, a bha aon uair na bana-pheacach mhòr, ach a bha air a dusgadh, air a h-irioslachadh, agus air a toirt gu fior aithreachas. An ‘uair a bha ‘n t-atharrachadh gràsmhor so air a dheanamh oirre, bha miannam spioradail air an dùsgadh suas ann a cridhe, an geall air a bhi leantuin Chriosd, agus ag èisdeachd ris na briathraibh gràsmhor a bha sruthadh o a bhlìbh. Air dhith a chluimtinn gu robh Criosd air aoidheadh car tamull ann an tigh aon d’ a chomhearsnaich d’ am b’ ainm Simon, lean i e, ann an dòchas ri tuille buannachd fhaotainn d’ a spiorad leònta; agus air dhith teachd na làthair, agus a bhi ‘g èisdeachd r’ a chomhradh spioradail, bha i air a leaghadh gu mòr ann am bròn diadhaidh. Sheas i air a chulaobh
a gul, agus air cromadh sios dith, “nigh i a chiosan le a deuraibh, agus thiormaich i iad le folt a cinn.”
Ach anns a cheart am an robh a bhean so a leaghadh ann am bròn diadhaidh, agus a taisbeanadh teas-ghràdh do Chriosd, bha Simon am Phairiseach a gabhail oilbheum, agus a gearan ann féin an aghaidh Chriosd, do bhrigh gu robh e ceadachadh do ‘n bhana-pheacach mbór so beantuin ris. Gidheadh, bha spiorad briste na mna so na iobairt ni bu taitnich gu mór, ann an sealladh Chriosd, na cuirm, agus deadh choslas am Phairisich. Cha do chuir Chriosd cùl rithe air son meud a cionta, cha d’ rinn e dimeas oirre air son lionmhoireachd a lochdan, cha do chron-aich e i air son a dànachd; ach chuir e ‘n ceill gu follais-each, gu robh a peacantna bha lionmhor air an maitheadh dhith; seadh, chuir e air falbh i leis na briathraibh sólasach so—”Shlànuih do chreidimh thu, imich an sìth.”
Ann an labhairt o na briathraibh so, bheir mi fa ‘near,
I. Nadur fior chreidimh, na ciod a tha air fhilleadh ann an creidimh tearnaidh.
II. An seadh anns am bheil creidimh a tearnadh, na slànachadh an anama.
III. Ainnichidh mi cuid do na nithibh a tha mar thoradh a leantuinm creidimh slàinteil anns an Tighearn Iosa Chriosd.
I. Ann an labhairt mu thimchioll nadur creidimh tearnaidh, bheir mi fa ‘near.
- Anns a cheud àite, gu bheil creidimh slàinteil, na ghràs a tha air a chompartachadh gu saor le Dia ri amamaibh a phobuill. Cha ‘n eil creidimh tearnaidh na ni a tha nadurra do pheacaich—cha ‘n ‘eil e na luibh a tha cinneachduinn, na fàs, na giùlan toraidh gu nadurra ann an cridhe neach air bith; ach na thiodhlaic a tha os ceann naduir, agus air a chompartachadh gu saor le Dia. Tha eadar-dhealachadh mór eadar gibhtibh nadurra agus gràsaibh an Spioraid. Tha gibhtean nadurra ann an tomhas eigin coitchionn do na h-uile dhaoibh, do ‘n àrd agus do ‘n iosal, do ‘n ionraic agus do ‘n aingidh. Tha e fior, cha ‘n ann san aon tomhas a tha iad air am buileachadh le Dia air na h-uile; oir tha tomhas gu mór is àirde do thalama nadurra aig cuid do dhaoibh, na aig cuid eile; gidheadh, tha gibhtean nadurra ann an tomhas eigin coitchionn; ach cha ‘n ‘eil creidimh tearnaidh na ni coitchionn, “oir cha ‘n ann aig na h-uile dhaoine a ta creidimh.”
Tha ‘n t-iomlan do shloechd Adhamh gu nadurra falamh do ghràs, nan coigich do bheò-chreidimh, agus a buanachadh anns an staid bhrònach so, gus am bheil iad air am fiosrachadh le gràs iompachaidh. Tha siol gach gibht agus tioclac nadurra, air a chompartachadh ris an duine
na cheud chruthachadh, an uair a tha e ‘n toiseach air a ghairm gu bith, agus air a dhealbh le corp fior agus anam reusonta; ach ‘s ann anns an nuadh-chruthachadh, anns an ath-ghineamhuium, a tha siol gach uile ghràs air a chompartachadh ris a chreidmheach. Ciod air bith tomhas do ghibhtibh nadurra, no do choslas na diadhachd a dh’ fheudas a bhi aig duine, tha e na choigreach do bheò-chreidimh, gus am bheil e air a bhreith o ‘n Spiorad, agus air a dheanamh na chreutair nuadh.
(Re leantuin).
Sgeul Ioseiph.
Bha duine bochd ann am baile Lunnuin, do ‘m b’ainm Ioseph, leth-amadan, a b’ abhaist bhi ruith air ghnothaich-ibh agus ag giulan eallaichean feadh a’ bhaile. Là do Ioseph ag gabhail na sràide, agus pocan sntha air a ghuail-ainn, thachair dhà bhi dol seachad air eaglais; chuinneair sailm ‘g an seinn, agus rachar a steach a dh’ fheuchainn ciod a chitheadh na chluinneadh e. Chunnaic e minsteir ‘s a’ phùpaid, agus comhthional de dh’ uaislibh urramach uigheamail ‘n an suidheadh ‘n a fhochair. Sheall gach fear is té a dh’ fhaicinn an duine bhochd luideagaich a thainig a steach air an dorus: ach dh’ amhaire Ioseph gu geur air a’ mhinsteir, ag eisdeachd ciod a theireadh e. B’e ‘n ceann teagaig a leugh e na briathra brioghmhor blasda ta ann, 1 Tim. i. 15:—”Is fior an ràdh so, agus is fù e air gach aon chor gabhail ris, gun d’thainig Iosa Críosd do’n t-saoghal a thearnadh pheacach, d’am mise an ceud fhear.” Shearmonaich am minsteir, gu glan soilleir, fior theagasc an t-Soisgeil, mar a rinn na h-Abstoil o shean, ag taisbeanadh gu bheil slàinte shiorruidh ann do na peacaich a’s gràineile, tre thoillteanas Iosa Críosd amhain, neach is e an Dia mòr a rinn na h-uile nithe. “Cha ‘n iomadh duine glic a thaobh na feola, cha’n iomadh duine cumhachdach, cha ‘n iomadh duine urramach, a ta air a ghairm,” mar a deir an t-Abstol, “ach roghnaich Dia nithe amaid-each an t-saoghal so, chum gu n euireadh e nàir air na daoinibh glic”—1 Cor. i. 26, 27.
An uair a bha na h-uaislean ag chuinntinn briathra fallain na searmoin le beag suim, bha fear nan luideagan a toirt geur aire do gach focal; agus gus an do sguir am minsteir, cha do thog Ioseph a shùil dhèth. Sgaol càch mar a chrunnich iad, gun umhail, gun chuimbne, air na chualadh; ach bha cridhe Ioseiph làn, agus e ‘g imeachd dhachaidh ag comhradh ris fein; “Cha chual Ioseph sud riamh roimhe; Iosa Críosd—an Dia a rinn na h-uile nithe
—gun d’ thainig e do ‘n t-saoghal a thearnadh pheacach truagh mar Ioseph: agus gu bheil so gle fhior, agus gur cinnteach am focal e.”
Goirid ‘n a dheigh’sud, dh’ fhàs Ioseph tinn, agus bha e ri h-uchd bàis. “Na laidhe ‘g a charuchadh air a leabaiddh, b’i so an comhnuidh bu chainnt da, “Se Ioseph ceann-cinnidh nam peacach; ach thainig Iosa Criosd do ‘n t-saoghal a thearnadh pheacach; agus is ro chaomh leamsa Criosd air a shon sin.” Bu mhòr iongantas nan coimh-earsnach a thainig g’ a shealltainn, ag cluinntinn an fhocaill ud an comhnuidh ‘n a bheul. Thubhairt cuid bu mhò foghluim na chèile ris, “Ach ciod do bharail mu do chridhe, Ioseph? Am faic thu comharan iompachaidh ort fein, a dhuine bhòchd? An d’fhuair thu cridhe naomha? Am bheil creideamh fior agad? An do dhùin thu ri Criosd? An aithne dhuit sin a dheanamh, a thruaghain?” “Och: ar’s esan, “cha’n aithne do Ioseph ni sam bith a dheanamh. Cha’n aithne dhomh ach so, gur mi fein ceann-cinnidh nam peacach; ach ma ‘s fior am focal agus is deimhin leam gur fior, gun d’thainig Criosd do’n t-saoghal a thearnadh pheacach, c’uime nach feud Ioseph bhi air a thearnadh leis?”
An sin dh’ fhiosraich iad c’ait an cual e an teagasg, a bha co thaitneach dha; agus an uair a fhuair iad brath, chuir iad fios dh’ ionnsuidh a’ mhinisteir ag iarraidh gun tigeadh e a shealltainn Ioseph. Thainig esan air ball, ach bha ‘n duine tinn air fàs co lag gum bu ghann a bheireadh e an aire do ni. Thòisich anna ministeir air labhairt, agus cha bu luaithe a chual Ioseph a ghuth na dh’ eirich e gu grad air uilinn, rug e air a laimh, agus thubhairt e le guth fann, “O Ghaolaich, is tusa caraid an Tighearna Iosa; is toigh leam gu bràth thu air son mar a dh’ innis thu an deadh naidheadh mu Chriosd: is mise ceann-feadhna nam peacach; ach is fior am focal so, gun d’thainig Criosd do’n t-saoghal a thearnadh pheacach, agus c’uime nach tearnadh e Ioseph? O dean thusa ùrnuigh air mo shon; guidh gun saoradh Criosd mise; abair ris gur mòr, thar leam, mo ghràdh dha, air son gun d’thainig e do’n t-saoghal a thearnadh pheacach mar mise.” Rinn am ministeir ùrnuigh. Air dha sguir, thug Ioseph buidheachas dha o’ chridhe. An sin, chuir e a lamh fo’n chluasaig, agus thug e as sin sean chlùdan ainn an robh aige cuig ginidhean ceangailte. Chuir e sud an laimh a’ mhinisteir. “So dhùitse,” arsa Ioseph, “an t-airgiod a bha mise tasgaidh fa chomhair feum na sean aoise. Ach chan fhaic Ioseph gu bràth sean aois. Gabh thus e, agus roinn e am measg chàirdean bochda an Tighearna Iosa; abair riu gun d’fhàg Ioseph sud aca air sgath am Fhirsacoraidh a thainig do’n t-saoghal a
thearnadh pheacach, seadh a thearnadh ceann-feadhna nam peacach, ‘s e sin Ioseiph.”—Leis an t-saruchadh a bha air ag labhairt dh’ fhalbh a lùgh, dh’ fhannaich a chridhe, leag e a cheann ris an adhart, agus thug e suas an deò.
A leughadair, ciod i do bharail mu sgeul Ioseiph?
- Nach fhaic thu an so àrd uachdranaichd agus saor gras an Tighearna? Bha an comhthional ud uile a chual a t-searmoin ‘n am peacach co mhath ri Ioseiph; bha iad uile ciontach ann an sealladh Dhe, a ‘s glaine sùil na gùn amhairc e air peacadh ach le fuath agus gràin; bha iad uile feumach air an t-slàinte mhòir sin a chuireadh an céill doibh anns an t-soisgeul. Ach am feadh a bha an co-chruinneach ag cluimtinn an teagaig gun umhail gun sgoinn, thainig am focal le cumhachd an spioraid gu cridhe Ioseiph, agus dh’ fhaireich e a bhrigh. Ciod a b’ a as bhar air so, ach saor ghràs tabhachdach an Ti sin a ni tròcair air an dream air an dean e tròcair; neach a dh’ fholach na nithe sin o dhaoibh eagnaidh agus tuigseach, agus a dh’ fhoillsich do leanabaibh iad; neach a thagh bochdaimn an t-soaghail so gu bhi saibhir ann an creideamh, agus ‘n an oighreachaibh air an rioghachd a gheall e dhoibhsan aig am bheil gràdh dha.
A chum gu faicte cia saor agus cumhachdach gras Dè tha an t-Abstol ag innseadh gu’n do roghnaich Dia nithe amaideach an t-soaghail, chum gu’n cuireadh e nàire air na daoinibh glìce; agus nithe anmhunn an t-soaghail chum gu’n cuireadh e gu nàire na nithe laidir; agus gu’n d’rinn e mar sin chum na ceart crìche so, nach deamadh feòil sam bith uaill ‘n a fhiamais, ach esan a ni uaill gu’n deanadh e uaill anns an Tighearn—1 Cor. i. 27—31. Cha n iomann so agus barail ioma duine. Mar is tric, nuair a bheirear duine fuidh fhaireachdaim pheacaidh, ‘s ann bu mhath leis ni eigin a dheanamh leis an tugadh e as e fein o fheirg Dhe, agus leis an cosnadh e a dheadh-ghean. Is iomadh iad a ta ‘g iarraidh am fireantachd fein a chur air bonn, gun strìochdadh do fhireantachd Dhe; agus muintir eile ag iarraidh an cridhe leasachadh le ‘n dichtioll fein agus a chur am fònn gu gabhail ri Criosd. Cha b’ i sin idir barail a bha aig Ioseiph mu shlighe na slàinte.
- A leughadair, nach fhaic thu an so gur e toradh an t-Soisgeil gràdh do Dhia agus d’ a phobull? Ghabh Ioseiph ris an fhocal a chual e, cha b’ ann mar fhocal dhaoine ach mar fhocal Dhe; ghabh am focal sin freumh ‘n a chridhe tre chreideamh; agus an sin dh’ fhàs e suas gu tarbhach. Fhuaradh ann an cridhe Ioseiph an gràdh do Chriosd mu n do labhair an t-Abstol Eoin, “Tha gràdh againne dha-san do bhrigh gu’n do ghràdhaich esan sinne an toiseach.”—1 Eoin iv. 19. “O dean ùrnuigh,” arsa Ioseiph ris a mhinist-
eir, “air mo shon; guidh gu’n saoradh Criosd mise. Abair ris gur toigh le Ioseph e air son gu’n d’ thainig e do’n t-saoghail a tearnadh pheacach mar Ioseph.” Ged dhligh-eair mor gràdh agus urram do Dhia mar a ta e ann fein, iomlan ‘na fheartaibh glormhor; gidheadh b’ e gràdh Dhe ann a Mhac h-uile ionmhuinn a thabbhairt thairis air son pheacach; b’ e gràdh Chriosd ann a theachd a shireadh agus a shaoradh pheacach truagh caillte; b’ e so an ceud ni a bhean ri cridhe Ioseph, a dhuig ‘fhaireachdainn, agus a bhuiing a ghràdh. Is ann mar sin a tharlas a thaobh gach anama a chosnar le saor ghràs. ‘Se gràdh Chriosd, air a sgaoleadh feadh a’ chridhe leis an Spiorad naomh, a bheothaicheas gràdh ann an cridhe a’ pheacaich. Taisbeanaidh an gràdh so e fein le umhlaichd do uile aithnte an Tighearna, agus ann dichioll air “teagasg an Tighearna sgeadachadh,” agus maise chur air aidmheil no diadhaidheachd, le death bheus agus caithe beatha do reir an t-Soisgeil. Cha b’ urrainn Ioseph, air adhart a’ bhais, a ghradh do Dhia a thaisbeanadh le a chaithe-beatha; ach nochd e durachd a chridhe ‘n a dheadh rùn d’ a phobull air soin gu b’ iad cairdean Chriosd. Co luath s a chual e guth a’ mhinisteir aig oir a leapa, ghlaodh e, “O is tusa caraid an Tighearna; is maith a dh’ innis thu m’ a thimchioll; is toigh leam gu bràth thu air son mar a labhair thu mu Chriosd; is ionmhuinn leam gach aon leis an ionmhuinn Chriosd.” Agus dhearbh e gu’m b’ fhiar mar thubhairt, ‘nuair a thug e na bh’ aige ‘s an t-saoghail do chàirdibh bochda an Tighearna Iosa.
- Nach fhaic thu an so rithist, gur e creideamh an t-Soisgeil an t-aon ni a chumas suas misneach duine, ‘nuair a chi e am bàs teann a thoirt? Cha b’ ann a ghlaic Ioseph misneach, ri àm bàis, a chionn gun robh a pheacan beag no tearc. Cha dubhairt e “tha iomadh fear a’s miosa na Ioseph anns an t-saoghail; tha Dia tròcaireach, agus tha mi ‘g earbsadh nach cunnart domh; bu mhath do’ iomadh fear mur biodh r’a agairt air ach ‘na tha air Ioseph bochd.” Cha b’ i so idir bu chaimnt da. B’ i iobairt Chriosd an t-aon bhonn air an do leag e a thaic agus air an do thog e a dhòchas, an uair a bha e mar cheum do’n bhàs; an uair a bha breitheanas agus bithbhuantaichd lùn shoilleir ‘n a bheachd. Air ‘fhireanachadh tre e chreideamh, bha sìth aige ri Dia trid an Tighearna Iosa Chriosd, agus rinn e gairdeachas ann an dochas glòire Dhe.
We need grace alike to keep us from breaking the weightiest commandment of the law, and from falling into the most trifling vanity of the age.—Athanasius.