Tennessee Evolution Case

AS the trial of Prof. Scopes at Dayton for teaching of Evolution contrary to the law of the State of Tennessee has awakened wide-world interest and called forth a great deal of hostile criticism against the law passed by the State of Tennessee, we give for the benefit of our readers a copyright article which appeared in “The Protestant” (Washington, D.C.) before the trial, in which some of the points are dealt with from an American point of view:—

“The controlled newspaper press has devoted thousands of columns within the last few weeks to the concerted effort to ridicule out of court the case of the State of Tennessee against John T. Scopes on the charge of having violated a penal statute of that State by teaching the hypotheses of Darwinism in a public high school. Newspaper editors with little or no expert knowledge of either legal or scientific issues that may develop in the case, lecture the Christian scholarship of the United States as though the crude and immature views of those editors were a finality and should forever dispose of the issues involved.

“If the Darwinists are as sure of their footing as they and their editorial propagandists assume, it is not clear why they are so excited over the Tennessee case. That a State has the right to prohibit the teaching of pernicious doctrines in school or elsewhere is apparently conceded by reason and precedent. It has long been a penal offence in most jurisdictions to teach the doctrines of anarchy. Nobody but anarchists seems to question the righteousness and constitutionality of such statutory prohibitions. The Mormons have finally been compelled to obey statutes that prohibit the teaching or practice of polygamy.

“But the question of Tennessee’s constitutional right to enact a statute prohibiting the teaching of the Darwinian theories is a question of constitutional law. It should be decided in the same manner as other constitutional questions. Its decision by judicial authority in the light of arguments and briefs prepared by able and careful lawyers will be safer than any prejudiced opinions which the controlled and agnostic press can bring about. Let the courts decide the case. It has long been the custom of the controlled and agnostic press and of the Darwinists to answer all critics by calling them ignoramuses. No custom could be more unscientific or intolerant. But the tons of deceptive propaganda now being directed against the prosecution in the Tennessee Evolution case indicates that apologists of Darwinism fear that Mr Bryan is not so ignorant as they have been pretending.

“The fact that two lawyers as talented and renowned as Clarence Darrow and Bainbridge Colby have been retained to defend the case indicates the grave misgivings with which the Darwinists face their adversaries in a judicial forum. It will require more than vituperation to sustain their hypotheses there. The case will be considered on the basis of law and fact. Charges of ignorance hurled at opposing advocates may avail in the controlled press and in the class-room. But it will not suffice in court. The methods that have been used to propagate Darwinism cannot endure the light of searching investigation. They consist largely of sophistry and unverified assumption. It is not strange that they face judicial investigation with grave misgivings.

“But if Clarence Darrow and Bainbridge Colby cannot establish the Darwinian guesses in court, those guesses are too questionable to be imposed on immature minds in the class-room as established principles of organic science. The scoffing newspaper press has

suggested that Tennessee might be consistent by enacting a statute to prohibit teaching that the earth is round. But the rotundity of the earth is better established than the theories of Darwinism. It can be established by millions of witnesses who have gone around the earth, while Darwinism cannot produce one witness that man is the offspring of dumb brutes.

“No issue of freedom of thought or speech is involved in the Tennessee case. If the question concerned mature minds of substantially equal attainments it might be considered in relation to freedom of thought. But the Tennessee statute is designed to protect children and youth from baseless and pernicious theories imposed on them by teachers whose maturity and authority and presumed scholarship give them an irresistible advantage over their pupils. Let the pending case be tried according to law and facts. Let the decision be made in court, where lawsuits are usually decided. If the final judgment is not satisfactory, let other cases be filed and presented till the truth is judicially ascertained. The issues are too vital and profound for editorial charlatans. Let them be determined in the full light of truth.

“There is more at issue in the Tennessee case than the Darwinists are willing to admit. With constantly increasing boldness they have been instilling their unverified theories into text-books and propagating them in the class-room as if those theories were as firmly established as the axioms of mathematics. Of necessity and of right children and youth in our schools regard their teachers and especially the text-books approved by school authorities as accurate and final in their statements purporting to be scientific. The pupils are hardly permitted to challenge such statements even if equipped by maturity and expert knowledge to do so.

“Millions of high school pupils are being mentally saturated every year with pure guesses and sophistries fitted and apparently designed to subvert their faith in God and in the biblical account of creation, which, by the way, is the only account we have. In spite of boundless arrogance and presumption, high school teachers, college and university professors and biologists and anthropologists of the most eminent attainments are utterly powerless to account for the origin of man and of the earth. They differ with one another by billions of years in their guesses as to the age of the earth.

“Their theories and hypotheses present insuperable difficulties at every turn. Assuming that blind, insensate rocks by some unexplainable spontaneous generation have brought the infinitude of organic forms that inhabit and beautify the earth, the most eminent scientists are as powerless as the rude swain to produce from those rocks even the most elementary forms of organic life. They as the finished product of Evolution are totally unable to produce what they assert that the rocks produced millions of years ago—organic life. It is time to challenge the right to teach such sophistries to our boys and girls as science. The civil courts are a very good place to meet the issue. Let the Darwinists produce the evidence in support of their hypotheses. Let it be weighed by the standards applied to all evidence in the courts. Let the truth be ascertained.”

Thomas Cartwright.*

AMONG the names of the great Puritan leaders of the 16th century that of Thomas Cartwright occupies a very high place. He is of special interest to us as a pioneer of Presbyterianism, and though at his time Presbyterianism was the driving force of Puritanism, yet it never made headway in England, largely, we believe, through a mistaken policy of the great Puritan Presbyterian leader, who believed in remaining in the Church of England while advocating the principles of a thorough-going Presbyterianism. At first sight it appears incredible that a man of Cartwright’s thorough grasp of the points involved should have compromised his own position by remaining in a prelatical Church while doing all in his power to overturn it. And as we read the biography by Dr Scott Pearson, in which he surveys the ecclesiastical situation of the time, we feel strongly convinced that Thomas Cartwright was ill-advised in fighting the battle from within. The biography which has been recently published by the Cambridge University Press is the product of an exceptionally careful study of the period along the lines of modern historical research, and while it cannot be described as a book that will appeal to the general

* Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism (1535-1603), by the Rev. A. F. Scott Pearson, M.A., B.D., D.Th., F.R. Hist. S., F.S.A. (Scot.) Cambridge; University Press. 25s net.

reader, the facts gleaned by Dr Pearson from a wide field will be invaluable to the student of the period.

Thomas Cartwright studied at Cambridge, where he graduated in Arts. In 1562 he became Fellow of Trinity College, and as he was regarded as one of the four “eminentest men” in the University, he was chosen to make an oration before Queen Elizabeth on the occasion of her visit in 1564. The story of his long contest with Whitgift is told with great thoroughness, and the long-drawn-out conflict with the leader of Episcopal ideals must have tried Cartwright’s patience and scholarship to the uttermost. In a short notice like this it is impossible to give even a brief resume of his writings, or to even enter into an account of his contentions and sufferings in connection with the cause of Presbyterian Puritanism. It is interesting to note that the Presbyterian leaders in Scotland were keenly interested in the struggle in England; and in 1580 he was invited to St Andrews to fill one of the new Chairs instituted by Andrew Melville in St Mary’s College. The invitation set forth that he along with Travers, instead of hiding their lights under a bushel, should be engaged in public teaching and preaching, and now that an opportunity had come, these noted leaders of Presbyterianism were asked to come north. Both, however, refused the invitation.

Cartwright as a controversialist was the author of many books and pamphlets. He was wrongly charged with being concerned with the famous Martin Mar-Prelate tracts. His Treatise or Larger Catechism and Shorter Catechism occupy a prominent place in those catechetical manuals which were so useful and popular among the Puritans, and which were the forerunners of the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the 17th century.

Christ in You, the Hope of Glory.

We must know this for a ground, whatsoever is done to us, is done to Christ first; and whatsoever we have, Christ hath it first. Therefore, life is first in Christ, and then in us; resurrection first in Christ, and then in us; justification from our sins first in Christ—He is freed from our sins—and then in us; ascension first in Christ, and then in us; glory in heaven first in Christ, and then in us. We have nothing in us, but it is derived from Christ.—Sibbes.

Dr Moffatt’s New Translation of the Old Testament.

THE new translation is being widely advertised and actively discussed, extravagantly praised, and vigorously condemned. The publishers describe it as a monumental work. Our principle reason for devoting so much attention to it is because we believe that in a sense their estimate of it is correct. We do not mean by this that we regard it as a work of such conspicuous scholarship that it will obtain, or permanently hold, a place among the great translations of holy writ. On the contrary, a translation which aims primarily at novelty, which is full of inconsistencies and doubtful renderings, and which does not deal fairly with the original of which it purports to be a translation, cannot be expected to have more than ephemeral popularity. It will prepare the way for a whole series of new translations, each striving to outdo its predecessors in novelty and originality, or it will arouse Christian people who love the Bible to protest in no uncertain terms against this popular pastime of the critics, the “wresting” of the Scriptures in the interest of “Modern Thought.” This book is momentous, because it is, we believe, the boldest and most ambitious attempt that has yet been made to rewrite the Bible in the light of rationalistic criticism, to introduce purely conjectural changes into a translation of the Old Testament not merely without explaining or justifying them, but even without indicating their presence in any way. Except for the general statements in the brief (four-page) preface, in which Dr Moffatt states his acceptance of the views of radical critics as to the unreliability of the text and his attempts to amend it, there is nothing which could give the “ordinary reader,” whom Dr Moffatt tells us he has particularly in view, the slightest hint that he has changed the text of a passage.

The use of “dots” to indicate that the text is “corrupt,” and of italics and brackets to discriminate “documents” and editorial additions or later interpolations may lead him to feel doubtful of the text of a passage. But there is nothing to indicate that the translation is at all uncertain. No question marks, no foot-notes, nothing. There is not even an index. Yet Dr Moffatt frankly characterises some of his renderings as “guesses,” and he tells us, “When the choice lay be-

between a guess or a gap, I inclined to prefer the former, feeling that the ordinary reader, for whom this version is designed, would have a proper dislike of gaps.” This is in a sense true. A gap looks ugly, and we “dislike” it, because it is so conspicuous to the eye, and because it so obviously breaks the connection. But a guess is dangerous, just because it is not obvious to the eye and may make excellent sense, and therefore pass muster as something more than a guess. If Dr Moffatt’s translation had more obvious “gaps” and fewer unrecognisable “guesses,” it would not be so deceptive a version of the Old Testament. Dr Moffatt excuses himself from what would seem the obvious duty of calling attention to these “guesses” on the ground that there are so many of them. “Since nearly every page,” he tells us, “contains some emendation of the traditional text in the interests of accuracy and point, it has been impossible to annotate them.” As an indication of the difference between Dr Moffatt’s attitude towards the Old Testament and his treatment of the New, it is noteworthy that, while, as we have stated, there is not a single foot-note in his Old Testament (1031 pages).

His New Testament (327 pages) has about two hundred marginal notes. Yet the difference is not really as great as this would seem to indicate, for the same inconsistency which we have found to figure so prominently in Dr Moffatt’s Old Testament is no new feature in it, but one which is also observable in his New Testament.

The star example of this is Matt. i. 16, which Dr Moffatt renders “Jacob” (was) the Father of Joseph, and Joseph (to whom the Virgin Mary was betrothed) was the Father of Jesus who is called Christ.”

This is a rendering of Von Soden’s text regarding which Professor Armstrong tells us in Matt. i. 16, Von Soden inserts in his text the reading supposedly underlying the rendering in the Sinaitic Syriac—a reading which is not found in any primary authority.

This extremely questionable reading which makes Jesus to be the Son of Joseph in a literal physical sense, Dr Moffatt adopted without mentioning the vitally important fact that he was following Von Soden in the use of a reading “not found in any primary authority.” He did not add any foot-note at all. But in the case of I. Thess. v. 4, for example, he carefully stated that he read “thieves” instead of “thief” on the authority of “A, B, and the Bohairic Version.”

It is hard to avoid the impression that such inconsistency is more than mere inconsistency. This is unfortunate, to say the least. For we believe that if all the “guesses” were annotated the “ordinary reader” would be able to see what havoc “criticism” has played with the Scriptures, and would revolt against it. As it is, he must either follow Dr Moffatt blindly, accepting without question his statement that no emendations of the traditional text have been made “except upon what the translator regards as sufficient evidence,” or else he must compare every passage with a reliable translation, or have recourse to a scholarly commentary to find out whether the surprisingly “fresh” rendering which Dr Moffatt gives of a passage has substantial evidence back of it, or is simply a “guess” of the critic.

In stating that Dr Moffatt has deliberately falsified the text in such passages as those just cited, we have no intention of bringing a railing accusation against a distinguished scholar. Dr Moffatt has no intention of being dishonest. He speaks of himself as an “honest translator,” who must recognise that “the books of the Old Testament are, for the most part, books which have been either made out of books or edited more or less drastically by later hands.” He has become so imbued with the spirit of conjectural criticism that he perhaps thinks his new translation a decidedly conservative piece of work. He doubtless aims to be candid when he assures the reader that no emendation of the traditional text “has been admitted, except on what the translator regards as sufficient evidence.” He can cite the names of eminent scholars in favour of his rendering of Ps. xiv. 6, and of his interpretation of Isai. liii. But that does not alter the fact that his rendering of these and of other verses is a literal forgery, i.e., the substitution of a purely conjectural reading for one the correctness of which cannot be questioned on objective grounds. Dr Moffatt, like many others, does not recognise that the fact that he feels that he can improve on a passage of the Bible is in itself no sufficient proof that the passage in question is corrupt, or that his emendation would be an improvement upon it. But our quarrel is not with Dr Moffatt personally, but with his method; and Dr Moffatt learned his method in a celebrated school of theology in Scotland, sitting at the feet of one of the most widely known Bible scholars of to-day. It is the method of rationalism. Yet it is being taught in theological seminaries, and finding expression in new translations of the Bible. This shows the seriousness of the issue with which Protestantism is confronted.

Mohammed, in the Koran, classes the Jews and the Christians with his own followers as people of a book. Radically as Islam differs from Judaism and Christianity, Mohammed recognised that the Jew and the Christian shared that belief in and reverence for a Divinely authoritative revelation which is characteristic of the followers of the Crescent. The most noticeable thing about the “higher critic” of to-day and his pupil the “liberal” Christian, is his slight regard, or, to put it more strongly, his entire disregard for the authority of Scripture, for all external authority. He is a law unto himself. A hundred years ago, even fifty years, such a translation as Dr Moffatt’s would have aroused a storm of protest. How it will be received to-day is not yet clear. One thing is certain. If the generations that are gone had permitted themselves the same liberties with the Scriptures which Dr Moffatt and other critics are taking to-day, there would now be no Old Testament, no Bible to which to appeal. The mass of conjectural changes would be so great that it would be impossible to get back to the original. We are heirs of those who even in the face of persecution cherished the Bible as the Word of God.

It is because of the care with which they treasured it that we can say to-day, as we read its precious pages, “Thus saith the Lord God!” The question for us is this, shall we allow this Bible after nineteen Christian centuries of blessed witness to the things of God to be at the mercy of any and every critic who has a new theory as to what it ought to say and mean? Or shall we expect, as our fathers did three centuries ago, that a version which is to gain acceptance with Christian people will be one of which it can honestly be said that it is “translated out of the original Tongues; and with the former translations diligently compared and revised” by the command, not of king or prince, however “Christian,” but of Christian people who love the Bible and will tolerate no substitute for it however “modern” or “scholarly” it may claim to be. Our answer to this question will determine whether our faith is to rest upon the wisdom of men or upon the Word of the Living God.—Professor O. T. Allis, in the “Princeton Theological Review” (April).

“Albeit that grace is perfectly free to men, in pardoning and saving of them; yet justice must be satisfied, and Christ was abated nothing.”—Elisha Coles.

Sermon

PREACHED BY THE REV. D. MACFARLANE, DINGWALL.

“When the poor and the needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongue faileth for thirst, I the Lord will hear them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them. I will open rivers in high places, and fountains in the midst of the valleys; I will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water. I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the shittah tree, and the myrtle, and the oil tree; I will set in the desert the fir tree, and the pine, and the box tree together, that the hand of the Lord hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it” (Is. xli. 17-20).

In this chapter the Lord begins to appeal to the islands whose inhabitants were idolaters, and Britain was one of these islands, and He challenges the false gods they worshipped to do good or evil, to save their worshippers or to punish them. They could not do either, and then He shows what He Himself as the only living and true God can do to those that look to Him for salvation. He can save them but their idols could do nothing to give the good all sinners need. There was a missionary sent to a heathen land, and a large number of idolaters gathered to hear him and brought an idol in the shape of a man with them, and placed it in a prominent place in the congregation. In the course of his address the missionary in order to show the vanity of idols walked up near to the false god they worshipped and spoke thus: “Your god has a mouth but cannot speak, has ears but cannot hear, and eyes that cannot see, feet and cannot walk, and hands but cannot work, therefore, it cannot save you, for it is a dead god.” His hearers were convinced of this, and with the consent of the whole congregation a number of them went up to the idol, removed it and cast it away, and they became worshippers of the God the missionary preached to them. Since the Gospel began to be preached the Lord had a people in the world. In the time of Isaiah the prophet speaks of these as a small remnant (Is. i. 9). It is of these that the Lord speaks in our text. In addressing you from these words we shall call your attention to the following particulars:—

I. Those described as poor and needy.

II. Their endeavours to get their needs supplied:— they seek water.

III. The promise that is made to them:—I the Lord will hear them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them.

IV. The Lord’s purpose in this connection in doing what He promised:—that they may see and know and consider and understand together that the hand of the Lord hath done this and the Holy One of Israel hath created it.

I. Those described as poor and needy. The Lord’s people are often spoken of in Scripture as poor. By nature all our fallen race are poor, having lost God and all the good we had in our first creation. We are all poor spiritually but the Lord’s people are poor in spirit. By spirit here we mean the new nature born again of the Spirit: “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John iii. 6). The old nature considered itself rich and having need of nothing but it is not so with the new nature, it is conscious of its need of everything which God provided in Christ for salvation.

In what sense are the Lord’s people poor? Negatively, they are not poor. (1) As to their state they are justified and there is no condemnation to them. In this sense they are complete in Christ. (2) They are not poor as to their rights. Christ is theirs; for all the benefits of His redemption are theirs. Christ in His Sermon on the Mount says of them “blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (3) They are not poor as if they had not received anything of the blessings of salvation, for they have received the earnest of the inheritance. They have a covenant right to all the good things of this world which they need to support their bodies during their time on earth. Christ promised them this. “Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”

Positively, they are poor (1) In their own experience; the Psalmist was rich, for he could say that God was his portion and yet he said:—”I am poor and needy” (Ps. lxx. 5). (2) They are comparatively poor. They have not yet received all the blessing that they shall receive. And this is true of them during their time in the state of imperfection, but when they are brought to heaven they shall be filled with the blessings of glory in the full enjoyment of God to all eternity.

They are described not only as poor but needy. They are not like some beggars who have hoarded up much money and yet pretend to be poor and beg alms from door to door. We have heard about some such

beggars that after their death it was discovered that they left behind them hundreds of pounds. These were not needy but the Lord’s people are needy as well as poor. Many professing Christians are poor in mouth but not conscious of their need. Through the power of unbelief the Lord’s people are often poorer in their own experience than they really are: that is when they come to doubt their interest in Christ and in the blessings of His purchase.

II. Their endeavours to get their needs supplied. A sense of need leads to this: they seek water. All living creatures labour to get their needs supplied; even the fowls of the air do so. You see them working diligently in the fields to get food to support them. Water in Scripture has several significations. Sometimes it signifies the Holy Spirit, as Christ spoke of it to the Woman of Samaria: “If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee: Give me to drink; thou wouldst have asked of Him and He would have given thee living water” (John iv. 10). See also John vii. 38. It signifies also the blessings of salvation. As these blessings are spoken of in Isaiah lv. 1: “Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters.” This, we think, is the meaning of water in our text. Where do they seek this water? They seek it in the means of grace, private and public. They seek it in the closet and family worship, and in the public means of grace. These are wells of salvation as they are spoken of in Isaiah xii. 3: “Therefore, with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.” They attend these means not only in obedience to God’s command but from a sense of need, and a desire to receive good to their souls. When Christ manifests Himself to His people in the means of grace they find it good to be there as Peter said on the Mount of Transfiguration: “Lord, it is good for us to be here.” You have been many years coming to the means of grace: Have you ever found good in these means? Alas! many have to say that they have not. That is not a good sign, at least, if you are satisfied with your condition. It is sad to think that the great majority that attend the means of grace perhaps for scores of years cannot say from their own experience that they got good for their souls. And yet are not troubled on that account, but it is not yet too late. Cry to God to awaken you out of the sleep of death; convince you of your sins, and of your need of salvation, and change of nature and state. God is the hearer of prayer. He hears the prayer of the poor and needy.

These are discouragements which the poor and needy meet with in seeking water. They seek water and for a time they find none. This was a great discouragement and trial of faith. Perhaps they were seeking water under the ministry of graceless men where living souls can find no good. A certain man said that it would be as unlikely that you should go to the top of the highest hill expecting to get shell-fish there as to go to hear a graceless minister expecting to receive spiritual good under his preaching. And that is quite true, and even where the Gospel is preached by Christ’s ambassadors the Lord’s people may for a time be seeking water and finding none. This is a greater trial, and when they are long in that state our text says that their tongue faileth for thirst or, as we have it in the Gaelic translation, their tongue is dried with thirst. A great and long continued thirst affects the tongue so that they cannot speak or express in words their desires to God. They cannot pray, and they are on the verge of despair thinking that God will not hear their prayers at all. Although this is hard to bear, it is a better sign than to be indifferent resting on their lees without any real concern as to whether He will hear you or not. I would have more hope of your salvation on the verge of despair than to be indifferent concerning the things which pertain to your everlasting peace. Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity.

III. The promise: (1) “I the Lord will hear them.” This is a word in season, a word of comfort and encouragement. He has His own time to hear prayer. There is nothing so comforting to the poor and needy as a word from the Lord. His people would rather hear a word of threatening from Him than to be silent to them altogether. There was a godly man who enjoyed much of the comfort of the Gospel and who, after that fell into a disconsolate state of mind because the Lord was not speaking to him as on former occasions, and he was for a number of days in a very gloomy frame of mind. Still he was praying, and on a certain day he was praying in some corner outside his house, and when he came home his wife observed that his face was shining as with delight. She said to him you must have received some token for good since you left home. “Yes,” he answered, “the Lord has spoken an awful threatening to me to-day, and this is a token that He has not forsaken me utterly.” Some have found comfort from the words: “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath

of God abideth on him” (John iii. 36). If God speaks to you by the threatenings of His Word it is a sign that He is still striving with you, but be not content till He begins to speak to you by the still small voice of the Gospel.

(2) “I the God of Israel will not forsake them.” Having been long seeking water and finding none they were ready to conclude that God had forsaken them, but in this part of the promise He assures them that He has not forsaken them and that He shall never do so. “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.” This also, is, a word in season to the poor and needy. Oh! what a comfort it is to hear this promise from the mouth of the Lord. What a lift it gives to a poor soul seeking comfort and finding none! No tongue of man can express the joy which it brings to a sorrowful soul. It is a joy unspeakable and full of glory. It moistens the tongue that was parched with thirst, so that now it is like the pen of a ready writer. Praising the Lord and calling upon others to join in praising Him like the Psalmist: “Oh! that men would praise the Lord for His goodness and for His wonderful works to the sons of men” (Ps. cvii. 21). He tells them that He is their covenant God—”the God of Israel.” In another part of Scripture He says: “The mountains shall depart and the hills be removed; but my Kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord who hath mercy on thee” (Is. liv. 10).

(3) “I will open rivers in high places and fountains in the midst of the valleys.” The high places here mean heathen lands. High places, such as high hills, are places where one would not expect to see rivers of waters. Such were the Gentiles before the Gospel came to them. In connection with this we may quote the words of the Psalmist: “There shall be an handful of corn in the earth on the top of the mountains, the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon” (Ps. lxxii. 16). The rivers that were to be opened are the means of grace opened for the Gentiles who were by these means brought to be fellow heirs and of the same body, and partakers of His grace in Christ by the gospel (Eph. iii. 6). This was a mystery which was not made known to (or at least understood by) the sons of men in other ages as is now revealed unto His holy Apostles by the Spirit (Eph. ii. 5). These rivers of living water were not like stagnant water but water that flowed far and wide till it reached our country. It flowed to the High-

lands of Scotland. It came to Ross-shire, where there was no parish without the means of grace, and poor and needy souls found plenty of water at last. There was scarcely a parish without a godly minister who preached the gospel. Is it so now in Ross-shire? No! You may go from sea to sea and not hear a sermon that will do good to a needy soul. Where are the poor and needy in Dingwall? They are very few indeed. The most do not know where the gospel is because they are dead. They have no spiritual understanding and therefore go anywhere to hear and are satisfied with anything delivered to them from the pulpit under the name of Gospel which is no gospel at all but in name.

(4) The fountains opened in the valleys may mean the means of grace set up; for the Jews to whom the Apostles, and especially Peter preached the Gospel to many, were blessed. Three thousand were converted on the day of Pentecost under the preaching of Peter, and many others were added to the number afterwards.

(5) “I will make the wilderness a pool of water and the dry land springs of water.” This is the effect of the Gospel preached. Those men that were formerly like a dry wilderness were now like a pool of water and springs of water. Men by nature are like a barren wilderness bearing no good fruit but are by means of the Gospel so watered and saturated that they bear the fruits of the spirit whereby God is glorified as Christ says: “Herein is my Father glorified that ye bear much fruit” (John xv. 8). And thus they were to prove that they were His disciples. Have you found out that by nature you are like a wilderness, and are you dissatisfied with your condition and praying that God would change you by His Spirit from a state of nature to a state of grace? If so, I would not lose hope of your salvation. It is sad to think that so many are careless about the salvation of their immortal souls, but if they die in that state they are lost for ever. I beseech you to have a real concern about your soul’s salvation before it is too late. This may be the last warning which you may have. You are now in the land of the living; to-morrow you may be in eternity. Oh! rest not this night till you find rest in Christ and then although you should not see another day you may be sure, like the thief on the cross, to be with Christ in the glorious paradise of God.

(6) “I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the shittah tree, and the myrtle, and the oil tree; I will set in the desert the fir tree, and the pine, and the box tree together.” These trees may symbolize believers of every shade and degree who are public witnesses for Himself in the Church who are like trees that are a shade and a shelter from the heat of the sun and are thus a shelter or protection to others from many evils to which they are liable and instruments for good to those who associate with them. It is said that those who dwell under the shadow of Israel shall return or be converted, and that they shall revive as the corn and grow as the vine (Hos. xiv. 7). This was fulfilled in the past in the family of Abraham. Isaac dwelt under the shadow of his godly father, and he was converted and revived as the corn. Jacob dwelt under the shadow of his godly father Isaac, and he also was converted; and the twelve tribes of Israel sprang from Jacob and many of them were converted too. Although grace does not run in the blood, yet it runs from generation to generation in families and tribes. True godliness was found to run in the line of Seth in Old Testament times. While in the line of Cain, who killed his brother, we see no trace of true godliness but rather the opposite. There is a promise to the children of godly parents unto the third and fourth generation of them that fear Him—that God will bless them with the blessings of salvation.

IV. The purpose in this connection—”That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together that the hand of the Lord hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it.” The Lord’s purpose in fulfilling His promise to the poor and needy, in such a gracious and wonderful manner, was to convince them and idolaters that He as the only living and true God could do, and did, what idols could never do. He appeals to them to know this, to consider, and understand together that His hand hath done this “and that the Holy One of Israel hath created it.” The idols could not do either good or evil, they could neither punish transgressors nor save them, but He could and does both. When the Lord’s people are in doubt as to whether they had undergone a saving change, they will admit that they had undergone a change from what they had formerly been. They ought to examine themselves on the Shorter Catechism answer to “What is effectual calling?” And to ask themselves—”Have we been convinced of our sins and misery? Has our mind been enlightened in the knowledge of Christ? Has our

will been renewed? Have we, in consequence, been persuaded and enabled to embrace Christ freely offered in the Gospel?” We have no hope for eternity but in Christ alone, and if we cannot say that we have faith of assurance we cannot deny that we have faith of adherence, that is to say, if we cannot say with some believers: “My beloved is mine and I am His;” we can say with others who have a weaker faith: “To whom shall we go, thou hast the words of eternal life; and we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ the Son of the living God” (John vi. 68-69). Neither their own power or any finite power could effect this change, therefore, it must be the power of God through the agency of His spirit and the medium of His word even law and gospel that did it, and that it was the Holy One of Israel that created it. On the other hand, if many professing Christians examine themselves on effectual calling they might find by that test that they are still in a state of sin and misery notwithstanding their high profession. The Lord add His blessing to our meditation upon His Word. Amen.

The Suffering Saviour.

BY REV. JOHN MACDONALD, CALCUTTA.

V.

(Continued from p. 151.)

ONCE more, what say you? “I know that He is lovely, but I dare not say that I love Him.” Then I would next ask: Do you wish to love Him; from the heart, do you wish it? Does your conscience say, No? Does your conduct say, No? Then I can do no more but leave you in the hands of your God; let Him do with you as seemeth Him good. To know Jesus is to be worthy of love, and yet not wish to love Him! Oh, my dear reader, I conjure you, by all that is awful in Eternity, to strive to awake from this awful condition.

Is your reply, “I would indeed wish to love Him, if I knew but how. I am grieved from the heart that I do not and cannot love Him.” If in this answer you be sincere, as in the sight of God, then, indeed, there may be hope; and if I were by you, I would stretch out the hand of affection to you. “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted” (Matt. v.). Behold the gift of the Holy Spirit freely promised to perform all that you desire.

1. It is the office of the Spirit to give “a new heart and a right spirit.” Your natural mind is enmity against God and Christ; but the renewed mind loves Him. Oh plead then earnestly for the fulfilment to you of that precious promise in Ezekiel, xxxvi. 26—”A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you;” for to you it is addressed, if you but believe and trust in it.

2. It is the office of the Spirit to reveal Christ, in all His loveliness and excellency, to the heart and spirit thus renewed. Christ says to His sorrowing disciples, “The Spirit shall testify of Me,” “He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine and shall show it unto you” (John xv. 16.) Plead, then, this promise also, that the Spirit may reveal Christ to you in all His glory, as “Immanuel, God with us.”

3. It is the office of the Spirit to “shed abroad in the heart the love of Christ” (Rom. v.) thus revealed. He has done so to others. Oh, plead that He may do so to you also; for, hear the promise, “Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find” (Luke xi.)

If, then, you are sincere in wishing to love Jesus, and yet know not how, oh be earnest night and day in pleading for His Holy Spirit to renew you in the spirit of your mind; to reveal Christ to your soul, and to shed abroad the love of Him in your heart. This is what is meant by being born again; and remember what Jesus Himself says—”Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John iii.).

II. Another question I would now put to you, and grant, O Almighty God, for the sake of Him with whom Thou art ever well pleased, that whosoever readeth these lines may not pass it by, without laying it to heart! It is this—”Wilt thou go with this man,” even with this Jesus? Yea or Nay; for there can be no silence, no half-way. Consider with whom I ask you to go. It is with Jesus, the “Lord of Glory,” the eternal Son of God, “fairer than the sons of men,” the “chiefest among ten thousand,” and “altogether lovely.” He is the “brightness of the Father’s Glory,” the “express image of His person,” and therefore, also, He is “Love.” It is in vain to say that this earth never saw His like, for the heaven of heavens, every stone of whose pavement is precious and beautiful, with all its glory and joy, is not even mentioned in the songs of the blessed that dwell there; but it is the Lamb of God, the chosen Lamb that was slain, the glorious Lamb now

upon the Throne, that fills the heart and souls of ten thousand times ten thousand spirits at this very moment in His immediate presence, who were once as guilty and hell-deserving as you or I. Come! up! let us join them, hear that voice which says, “Come up hither.” Why should we not? They, too, were asked if they would go with Jesus; and, through His grace given to them, and now offered to you, they said, “We will go!” Oh my dear fellow-mortal, say you too, “I will go,” in sincerity, and in dependence on that grace, and ye shall yet be happy with that Lamb and with those blessed ones.

Do you ask me, what is it “to go with Jesus?” I answer, It is to “believe in Him with the heart,” to trust in Him, to give yourself wholly up to Him. Will you, then, go with Him? What is it that troubles you, that makes you hesitate? Is it this, “I know not the way?” Do you sincerely wish to know it? If so, then let me tell you that Jesus is a Prophet, and that He who sends for you will teach you. “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” He teaches by His word, which you have in your hands; search it diligently; with much prayer to Him who is the author of it, for the effectual teaching of that Spirit who is the great Instructor of all who would come to Jesus, and who alone can make the word to become “spirit and life.” Take this promise into your mouth: “I will send the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, and He shall guide you into all truth” (John xv.).

Or, is this your reply, “I am so vile a creature, and have so often rejected Christ, that I am afraid to dare to come to Him? Then let me remind you that Christ is a Priest, a great High Priest; and that by the enduring of those sorrows, and the suffering of that death which we have already been considering, He has so taken away sin that whosoever comes to Him in sincerity, shall find his own individual sins already pardoned. Behold the Man of Sorrows on the cross enduring all those awful agonies for sinners, and can you doubt but He will now receive you?

The thief on the cross said to Him in the midst of that agony, “Lord, remember me;” and what was the reply, “To-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise!” He intercedes for His murderers; and is there less hope for you? “His blood cleanseth from all sin” (John i. 1.) Oh, come then to this open fountain, with all your sins and wickedness! “He ever liveth to make intercession” (Heb. vii.); therefore, “He will save to the utter-

most all that come to Him.” Take hold of this invitation and promise of His own, and plead it earnestly with God in Christ’s name, “Come unto Me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. xi).

Or, lastly, do you reply, “Willingly would I go with Jesus; but I feel that I cannot rouse myself from this hardened indifference, nor break myself off from sin to turn to Him.” I say, then, Jesus is a King, and to Him is committed all power in heaven and in earth, and this power He employs in saving. Tell me, is not He that made your heart able to renew it? Is not He who has already turned to Himself myriads of sinful hearts, able to turn yours? How cheering to hear the Father say to Him, “Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power” (Psal. cx). Strive, therefore, to come to Jesus, looking up to Him, and confidently trusting in Him to make you willing by His power, by the power of His love: for thus saith the holy apostle, once a blasphemer, “The love of Christ constraineth me” (II. Cor. v.). Remember that “Jesus is exalted as a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance,” as well as “forgiveness” (Acts v.) and is not repentance, to be grieved for sin, to hate it, to turn from it to God? Is not this what you wish for? and is it not freely given to them who will receive it?

Oh, come then to Jesus with that ignorance, that He may instruct you with that guilt, that He may remove it, with those bonds and chains, with that weakness and helplessness, that once more He may “bind up the broken-hearted, proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound!” (Isaiah lxi).