BY THE REV. NEIL CAMERON.
Delivered on New-Year’s Day in the Hall of St Jude’s, Glasgow.
(Published at the request of St Jude’s Kirk-Session.)
—”Let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them.”—Jer. xv. 14.
WE read in the preceding chapter God’s terrible judgments threatened on account of the conduct of the people. Jeremiah prayed for the people to the effect that it was the fault of false prophets that the people were so rebellious. God told him to declare that He did not send these prophets, and that they and the people to whom they prophesied lies in His name should all fall together with sword, famine, and pestilence. In the beginning of this chapter God declares that should Moses and Samuel stand before Him His mind could not be towards the people. This shows how desperate their condition was. For the Lord did extraordinary things in answer to the prayers of Moses and Samuel in their days. The people, instead of turning from their sins, began to curse the prophet Jeremiah, because he opposed them and warned them of the consequences of their departure from God to idolatry and the abominable practices connected therewith. It seems that on account of the facts that God refused to listen to Jeremiah’s prayers for the people, and that the only effect his warnings from the mouth of God had upon them was to curse him, that he made up his mind that he would hold his peace and reprove them no more. This is how we understand the exclamation of the prophet—”Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast born me a man of strife, and a man of contention in the land! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me.” He meddled not in secular affairs. If we take these words in the light cast upon them by God’s remonstrance—”If thou return, then will I bring thee again, and thou shalt stand before me; and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth: let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them,” it seems to us that Jeremiah had made up his mind, as referred to already, that he would hold his peace. He was not the last who came perilously near the same conclusion. Some are not ignorant of the painful feelings expressed
above by Jeremiah when he exclaimed—”Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast born me a man of strife and contention to the whole land!” As the Lord gave courage and fortitude to the prophet that made him like a brazen wall, which is not easily cast down, so He can do still. He promised Jeremiah that He would cause the enemy, who was to destroy the people and their cities, to deal mercifully with him. God’s promises made the prophet indeed like a brazen wall; for neither threatenings, nor slanders, nor even the hole of the prison, in which he sank in its mire, could make him cease to deliver God’s message to the people whether to the king, or princes or common people.
I. Let us consider our text under the three following divisions:—I. The departures from God’s Word in doctrine and practice in Scotland. II. Let us consider the position taken in 1893 by the Free Presbyterian Church. III. Our present duty relative to other Churches.
Before we enter upon our subject, I wish to remind you that the Synod of our Church has repeatedly passed resolutions ordering all the ministers of our Church to explain our position as a Church annually to their own congregations and to other congregations under their charge. I certainly felt bound by this resolution, and I do feel so still. I thought which would be the best day upon the whole to deliver a lecture on the subject. I felt reluctant to do it on the Lord’s Day, so I concluded that New-Year’s Day might suit well, as the people would have the day free from their employments. So I have been in the habit of delivering a lecture on this day in this hall here as the Lord enabled me since 1894. You, my congregation, are the judges as to the manner in which I acquitted myself in performing this duty.
I. Let us consider the departures from God’s Word, and its doctrine and practice on the part of the Church with which we were connected till the year 1893. (1) The Church of Scotland Free began first in her Colleges to deny the inspiration of certain parts of the Bible about twenty years prior to our separation from her communion. Efforts were made to stem this tide of rationalism and infidelity. But the tide flowed into the Church with a force and velocity that caused intense anguish of heart to all lovers of God’s Word, and it became clearer every year that, should the Lord allow her to drift down with this flood which the dragon poured out of his mouth to carry her away, she would become a complete wreck. While she lay on the lee-shore, and very near dangerous rocks, the “doctrines”* of the Word were attacked. (2) This attack was launched against the Confession of Faith, and particularly against the doctrines of election; the fall of his posterity in Adam; the doctrine of the atonement as set forth in the Confession; and the doctrine of the necessity of regeneration by the Holy Ghost through the Word of God. When this new attack emerged, the contention as to the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible vanished almost out of sight, though it was not in the least abandoned by its promoters. After a good deal of contending and lecturing about the great dangers to which the denial of these fundamental doctrines exposed the Church, another phase of the flood of Satan emerged. (3) There were a few—twelve to begin with—of uninspired hymns allowed into her worship by a resolution of the General Assembly. Those who wanted these hymns used as an argument that their introduction would bar instrumental music from getting into the Church. The late eminent servant of God, Dr Kennedy, Dingwall, said on that occasion, by way of warning the Assembly, that in less than twelve years from that date the same men who that day asked the Church to allow these profane hymns to be used in the churches, would be there demanding the introduction of instrumental music. This prediction was actually fulfilled to the letter. (4) Along with all the above dangerous departures, there started in the Church social gatherings, at which vain songs of every description were sung, and ministers began to vie with one another as to which of them would excel in buffoonery, so as to make the carnal world to laugh: but the true people of God wept over such desecration of the name of Christ and the house of God. They also set up sales of work, by which they turned God’s house into a house of merchandise. The venerable name of Dr Kennedy was used recently as one who approved of such sales. The writer inquired as to the veracity of this, and found that women sold the things they made to the merchants of Dingwall, and that the Doctor approved of this. No one could find fault with that way of sales of work. When they had filled the Church with the flood of heresies, carnality in worship and practice, the infamous Declaratory Act was duly passed into “a binding law and constitution in the Church.” This meant that all the innovations contained in that Act were to be bound on all who would continue in future fellowship with that Church. We refused to put our necks under this Satanic yoke, so we separated in 1893 in order, not to set up another
Church, but to continue the existence of the Free Church of Scotland as that Church was settled in 1843. To this position we adhered then, and we have endeavoured in much weakness and imperfection to hold by it till this day. We hope that, by the Lord’s grace and strength, we will continue to do so unto the end of our life in this world.
II. Let us now consider the position we took up then. (1) When the Declaratory Act was passed in 1892 a protest was entered against it, and an appeal made to the next Assembly to take steps for its repeal. This caused us to remain till the General Assembly of 1893 refused by an overwhelming majority to take any steps to repeal it. None of the Free Presbyterians, so far as the writer knows, ever charged those who formed the present Free Church of having been under this Act during the year, from the Assembly of 1892 till that of 1893; but they have on several occasions charged our ministers, etc., of being under it during that period. This proves that they are put hard to for want of, not a will to use every form of accusation against us which they can devise, but for want of anything true or substantial which they can charge our Church with. No alternative was left then for any who loved purity, integrity of conscience, an infallible Bible, the whole doctrine of the Free Church of Scotland as set forth in her standards, and a complete deliverance from all the innovations then foisted on the Declaratory Act Church, but to separate at once from being any longer in her fellowship and under her jurisdiction. So, at that Assembly immediately after the result of the vote was declared, the Rev. Donald Macfarlane rose and read his protest, which he left on the table of the Assembly. Thus a separation was constitutionally made. (2) A Deed of Separation was drawn up by the help of our legal agent, which was entered in the Book of Sases in Edinburgh. In this Deed five reasons are given why we had to separate; our position declared to be the original status of the Free Church of 1843, and all the lawful rights and privileges of the Free Church claimed as being ours by right in civil and ecclesiastical laws. As this Deed has been recently published, I expect you have read it yourselves, so that I need not enter further into it in detail. As you know, it is the first document in that booklet called “Church Documents.” (3) The Synod of the F.P. Church drew up and endorsed a statement as to how our Church hold the Bible as the inspired Word of God. In that statement it is enacted that no one holding Higher Critical
views can be a member of our Church. That means that all Higher Critics are excommunicated from having any place in the Church. (4) It was a common thing in the Free Church, which we left, for men to take ordination vows who, after answering questions and signing the Formula, on their oath to God and man, to the effect that they would assert, maintain, and defend the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith, and that they would follow no divisive courses for the said doctrine, form of worship, form of government, and discipline of the Church, to say immediately thereafter that they believed as much of these doctrines as were agreeable to their own views. It seems that Solomon had met with such men, for he gives the advice—”When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for He has no pleasure in fools.” So our Synod enacted that if any office-bearer will change his mind about the doctrines of the Confession of Faith, or any part of the Church’s constitution, his duty is to make that known to the Court of the Church to which he belongs, and not to divulge his change of mind to our people to lead them astray. But if he should begin to divulge such views in public, it becomes the duty of any of the hearers to report the same to that court, to which such a person is accountable. The duty of that court is to deal with the man in strict accordance with the Constitution of the Church. (5) The present Free Church endeavoured on several occasions to form a union with the F.P. Church. As is always the case when movements for union are in the air, it is prophesied that extraordinary good results are bound to follow its consummation. We heard or read that, when in the Free Church Assembly the debates on the proposed union between the Free and U.P. Churches—1863 to 1873—were at their height, a minister said that it was evident that if that union would be consummated the truth would be fulfilled that the lion and the lamb would lie down together. The late Dr Begg got up after this speech was delivered, and said that he believed what was said about the lion and the lamb, but he was sure that when the lion would lie down the lamb would be in his inside.
You will remember that in 1917 the F.P. Church submitted a statement to the Free Church in which five essential outstanding differences between the two Churches were set forth, and that no movement could be made on the part of the F.P. Church till these were removed by the Free Church. The reply sent by that Church was nothing more than an effort to throw dust
in our eyes—they removed nothing. So our Synod put a stop immediately to the proposals for union with that Church. This is our position as a Church as regards any movement engineered from within or from without for union with the present Free Church. On two occasions in the past that Church did as Dr Begg said—when she lay down she had in her inside a diet of so-called F.P. lambs. This is really her aim—not union but absorption.
III. Let us now consider our duty as regards other Churches in this country.
(1) Let us glance at the rapid downward career of the Established Church. The creed and constitution of the E.C. of Scotland was a most essential part of the constitution of the Scottish nation. Her Confession of Faith and other relative documents were on the Statute Books of Scotland and England. She could not change a word of her creed or constitution without the consent of Parliament. This will appear to you by the fact that when, in 1905, an Act was passed in Parliament to divide the property of the old Free Church between the present U.F. and F.C., a clause was inserted at the end of that Act to remove from the constitution of the Established Church the words—I promise to assert, maintain, and defend the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith, or words to that effect. The E.C. could not relieve her office-bearers from being bound by these words without going to Parliament. Since then her ministers are not bound by the Formula of that Church to assert, maintain, and defend the doctrines of the Confession. Now, the leading men in that Church have repeatedly declared that by the passing of two Acts—one in 1921, the other in 1925—they are as free to change their creed as the U.F. Church is. The leading men in the U.F. Church corroborated that statement repeatedly in public prints. We regret that we have not studied these two Acts of Parliament, and on account of that we give you their opinion, not our own, in this matter. At the same time we know no reason why their statement should not be accepted as truth. Is that not a destroying of the foundations of the constitution of the Church of the Reformation in Scotland? Our forefathers suffered the loss of all things, even of life itself, to build up that constitution and afterwards more still to maintain it. Now, so far as we can see, it has been undermined and destroyed, and no man seems to care. No man is more suitable to destroy beautiful, carved work of art than a strong, ignorant rustic, who can see no beauty in it, provided he gets an axe and permission to use it. The time is not so far distant in the past in which the creed and constitution of the Church of Scotland was admired not only in Scotland but throughout all the Protestant Churches on the Continent of Europe. But now her hedges are broken down, and the boar out of the forest has placed his snout underneath the bush that burned and was not consumed, and has removed it root and branch.
The Established Church has permitted images and crosses, which are the real symbols of idolatry, in many of their churches. When, in the past, she was faithfully admonished by a few of her ministers to take order to have these removed, she would not listen. She has some of the foremost Higher Critics in Scotland in her professorial chairs and in her pulpits. There is also a strong and influential society in her, doing all they can to bring into her worship the superstition and worship of the Papacy. This is very sad, and it will yet cause many sighs, groans, and tears in our beloved land.
(2) The United Free Church has really gone so far denying the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments that I will not detain you by entering into her condition farther than to give a few quotations. I have here a report read to her General Assembly of a “Social Problems Committee of the U.F. Church of Scotland,” which that Assembly refused by a large majority to suppress, and which is being sold by the authority of the Church. Its heading is—”How do we regard the Bible?” by A. Herbert Gray. These are a few of its statements:—”Do we hold that every word in the Bible is true? No, we do not. Do we accept the views of the Bible on scientific questions? No, we do not. Do we approve of all the moral sentiments expressed in the Bible? No, certainly not. Do we regard the Bible as infallible history? No. Do we agree with all the opinions of St Paul? No, we do not.” “Further, we know that large parts of the early books of the Old Testament are not history at all in the modern sense.” “What, then, is the Bible to us? It is simply the story of how through long centuries men gradually worked their way from primitive religious ideas, and very primitive moral ideas, up to the loftiest heights of spiritual perception which the race has yet attained.” “Israel began with what we should call Pagan ideas about God. They believed in many gods, and about their own spiritual god they believed some very strange
things.” “Why do we need the Old Testament at all? The answer to that is perhaps we don’t virtually need the Old Testament.” It concludes by saying that—”Possibly the amount of Scripture which is thus living, and which actually operates in the lives of some Christians might turn out to be little more than a tenth of the whole.” But enough of this blasphemy. Any body of men who could in the name of a Christian Church homologate the above statements about the Bible has ceased to have the least claim to be denominated Christians. Was it not fully time for us to have fled from such in 1893? Is not this blasphemy against God and His Word the strongest proof imaginable that we did what was right then?
For me, the Lord knows, how it would bring joy to my heart to have to speak of these Churches as holding God’s Word and the constitution of the Church of the Reformation in Scotland in sincerity and truth, and how it pains my very heart that my fellow-countrymen have abandoned their own mercies. But, having been made a watchman over your souls, it becomes my duty to God, to you, and to my own soul, to warn you of every approach of the enemy which I perceive as endangering your souls. I know that a sleeping man does not like to be awakened at midnight, but it must be done if the watchman is to be acquitted should the man perish with the sword.
(3) Let us consider a little the condition of the Free Church. It cannot be charged against the Free Church that she does not profess in words to hold the infallibility and absolute inerrancy of the Scriptures, for she looks on herself as being as white as snow on the top of the Alps, but in her practice she comes very far short of this profession. She is made up of three parties. There are a few of her ministers that manifested some time ago a desire to have her practice reformed, and would even yet desire to have this done, but they seem to have lost their courage, and are now as dumb as the rest. We thought at one time that they would persevere faithfully in their opposition to social gatherings, sales of work, etc., and we wished them God-speed, and commended their efforts as likely to work for the good of their Church; but now we have lost all hope in them. Behind them there are many of the people of that Church who would rejoice in seeing her casting away all these excrescences of the world and the flesh: but she lends a deaf ear to their entreaties when they petition her supreme Court. The last effort in this way came from the
congregation of Kilmuir, Skye. Their minister forsook them at the Assembly (as reported in the Free Church Record), and their petition was turned down. Since then the peace of sleep reigns among them as regards these unscriptural innovations. There are others who draw her away towards real latitudinarianism. This party in her ministry carries everything before them with a high hand. A large number of the people help and encourage these. If anyone dares to find fault with any of their corrupt practices, they are immediately up in arms. These are full of zeal for the name Free Church, and they cannot tolerate that one word should be said against their Church. This may be designated zeal without knowledge, and a real spirit of partisanship. The ministers on this left wing got a resolution passed three or four years ago to the effect that some of their ministers—if I remember well, three—should be associated with the Y.M.C.A. An amendment was moved and seconded against this extraordinary resolution, but it got very little support. One of the Professors said, as reported in her Record, that he could not support the amendment on account of the fact that the Assembly had not the light on the subject necessary to enable her to come to such a finding as it craved, and that there was not enough time at the Assembly’s disposal to give it full consideration. He then told them that the Y.M.C.A. had a somewhat scriptural constitution (?) when they were started, but that since then they went in for playing cards, for dances, and semi-theatrical plays, and that at that time their chief representative was co-opted with a Higher Critic in America to print a copy of the Bible on recent Higher Critical lines, probably “a tenth of the Bible.” Surely this should have been more than enough light for the Assembly to give the Y.M.C.A. up in despair. But they did not. The result has been that one of the ministers appointed has now joined the Y.M.C.A., and left the Free Church. The one I refer to is Dr Mackay, Lima. This is exactly what could be expected as a result of the ill-advised step taken by the Assembly of the Free Church as to this case.
Last year a “New Organisation in Scotland” denominated “Church Council” has been set on foot. Its functions and scope are (1) “Preparation of the statistics of Home Mission work being done, and of the distribution of non-Christian and non-Protestant population; (2) Provision of uniform dates for national
celebrations, etc.” The combination formed is called “Spirit of Fellowship.” Be it noticed that “Home Mission Work” is one of the subjects of this fellowship. The Churches combined in this fellowship are represented by “10 from the Church of Scotland, 10 from the U.F. Church, 4 from the Free Church, 4 from the Episcopal Church, 4 from the Congregational Union, 4 from the Baptist Union, 2 Wesleyan Methodist, 2 Primitive Methodist, 2 Reformed Presbyterian Church.” This is called “a notable example of the value of co-operation in the Church on a national scale.” Let it be seriously noted that this organisation is formed for co-operation and fellowship between all the above Churches, and that the Free Church has joined them in this fellowship and co-operation. This has been reported in the “Glasgow Herald,” from which report the above has been taken.
We have noticed that a Pan-Presbyterian Council was held last year at Cardiff. It was composed of representatives from the Episcopal Church, the Union Church of Canada (which has now no claim to Presbyterianism), the Nonconformists in England, and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and some from the continent of Europe. The Free Church sent one of her Professors there. In his report after returning, he expressed satisfaction with much that he heard and met with at the Council, but deprecated that some of the papers read were of the Higher Critical style. Notwithstanding, he advised the Free Church to continue to send a representative to this “conglomerate heterogeneous body.”
At the last Communion in Buccleuch Greyfriars’ congregation in Edinburgh the minister was assisted during that season by a U.F. minister, while there were several ministers of the Free Church near at hand.
Unless we are to act like Lord Nelson at the battle of Copenhagen by placing the telescope to his blind eye, and by doing so declared that he was not seeing the admiral’s command to cease firing, we are bound to take into our most serious consideration our future relation to the Free Church. If that Church choses to follow her downward courses by forming alliances with Churches holding unsound views of the infallibility of the Bible, and that are drifting towards idolatry and superstition, we cannot help it, however painful we may feel it. But we should not allow ourselves to be dragged along with her. We have been in weakness and imperfection, but in real sincerity,
endeavouring to maintain our own position hitherto, and we hope, the Lord giving us grace and strength, to continue doing so to the end.
In consideration of what is stated above and much more that might be said, a Kirk-Session in the North required of one of their members, who was in the habit of going to the Free Church in preference to the F.P. Church just at her door, to cease doing so. She refused to comply, demanded her disjunction certificate, and charged the F.P. Church with “making flesh of one and fish of another.” She had told us before that a certain member of St Jude’s congregation had been going there unmolested. We understood that this was the meaning she attached to the words, making flesh of one and fish of another. When the above case was brought before our Session, two elders were appointed to call on that member to inquire whether it was true that she was in the habit of going to the Free Church, and if so, whether she would cease doing so. She politely refused to comply with the Session’s request. When this was reported to the Session by the two elders, and considered seriously by them, it was moved, seconded, and agreed to that she be suspended till she acquiesced in the Session’s request. It has been reported that the Session excommunicated her. This must have arisen from ignorance of Church law, or it must have arisen from malice. I prefer to place the former construction upon it. The Session has now, for many reasons expressed in writing before now, but especially for the reason stated above, made up its mind to hold by this finding of the Session as regards the members of St Jude’s congregation, and to deal impartially with each case as it may arise, so long as the Free Church will continue on her downward course. We have heard that some have declared our conduct harsh, but we are not much moved by man’s opinion while we have God’s Word as a lamp to our feet and a light to our path.
I ask you all now—Do you not think that it was high time for us to safeguard our position as a Church? or do you think it is our duty to allow ourselves to be dragged down to the very things from which we have separated in 1893 by the Free Church? “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua xxiv. 15).
Before I stop, I wish to say that on account of the facts that the Free Church has put forth her utmost efforts since 1900 not to reform herself, but to compel
us to unite with her as she was or is, and also because of parties from within ourselves who did their utmost to help her to accomplish her aim, who have again and again entered into her communion, not for her benefit, I am sorry to say, I have had to continue right through exposing the conduct of both the Free Church and such as would help her in her efforts to carry our people from their moorings. The Lord helping me, I will continue doing so, irrespective of the slanderous tongues of men. The Lord knows that I have no pleasure in doing so, but I am put in a position where truth and faithfulness toward God and men demand this of me. We have to consider not only ourselves in this serious matter, but also our children, so that they will be put in possession of God’s infallible Word, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the two Catechisms, the form, worship, government, and discipline of the Church of God in the world. This is the best legacy parents can leave to their children. Let this be done, not in words only, but in practice; for even children can discern the difference between consistency and inconsistency. May the Lord bestow grace on our little children, young people and old to enable them to esteem the reproach of Christ better than all that this world can give.
Some Famous Answers in the Shorter Catechism.
A CAREFUL study of the Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Divines has revealed an orderly logical method in the treatment of the various subjects dealt with. Prof. Mitchell, in his introduction to his “Catechisms of the Second Reformation,” says:—”The Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, and especially their Shorter Catechism, may be regarded as, in several respects, the most remarkable of their symbolical books, the matured fruit of all their consultations and debates, the quintessence of that system of truth in which they desired to train English-speaking youth, and faithful training in which, I believe, has done more on both sides of the Atlantic to keep alive reverence for the old theology than all other human instrumentalities whatever.” The Shorter Catechism was approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1648 as a “Directory for catechising such as are of weaker
capacity.” As there were giants in the land in those days we need not smile when we read the description of those for whom it was intended. There is one thing about the Shorter Catechism of note; one requires a long and accurate training to appreciate its admirable treatment of some of the great matters of the Christian faith. It opens nobly with the answer to the question—“What is man’s chief end?” “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever.” Carlyle, who wrote many a foolish sentence, has spoken wisely in regard to this noble answer. “It is a sad and terrible thing,” he said, “to see men and women professing to be cultivated, looking round in a purblind fashion, and finding no God in this universe. And this is what we have got; all things from frog-sparon—the gospel of dirt the order of the day.’ The older I grow—and I now stand on the brink of eternity—the more comes back to me the sentence in the Catechism which I learned when a child, and the fuller and deeper its meaning becomes—‘What is the chief end of man?—To glorify God and enjoy Him for ever.’ No gospel of dirt teaching that men have descended from frogs through monkeys can ever set that aside.”
Another answer of outstanding merit is that given to the question, “What is God?” “God is a Spirit,” is the answer, “infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.” Dr Charles Hodge has said of this answer—“It is probably the best definition ever penned by man on the great subject with which it deals. There is a majestic sweep in the definition in keeping with the august theme dealt with.” Dr Mitchell, of St Andrews, who was an authority on the subject, points out in his “Catechisms of the Second Reformation,” “that the answer is an abridgement of section one in Chapter II. of the Confession of Faith and the ultimate answer of the Larger Catechism to the question, What is God? To which the answer is given—“God is a Spirit, in and of Himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.” Dr Mitchell adds—“The answer to the same question in the Shorter Catechism is composed of the Scriptural definition, ‘God is a Spirit,’ with the incommunicable attributes arranged in the same order as they were by Rogers [in his “Chief Grounds of Christian Religion set down
by way of Catechising”], but in adjectival form, and the communicable in substantive form almost as they had been given by Egerton [in his “Brief Method.” The well-known story so often repeated of George Gillespie’s connection with this notable answer it appears is apocryphal. We again quote Dr Mitchell—”Though in Scotland, as elsewhere, this Catechism has been, and deservedly so, the most popular of all the productions of the Assembly, it was the one with the elaboration of which the Scotch Commissioners had least to do. Henderson had left and had died before the Confession was completed. Baillie left immediately after it was finished, and took down with him to Scotland a copy, the first edition of it, without proofs. Gillespie, after repeated petitions to be allowed to return home, received permission to leave in May 1647, when the proofs for the Confession had been completed, but while the debates on the Larger Catechism were still going on, and the answer to the question, ‘What is God?’ with which his name has been traditionally associated, had not as yet been adjusted for that Catechism, much less for the Shorter One. Even Rutherford had been seized with a fit of home-sickness, and wrote that he did not think the elaboration of this Catechism of sufficient importance to detain him from his college and his flock at St Andrews. At any rate, though persuaded to remain till it had passed, so to speak, the first reading, he does not seem to have left his distinctive mark on it. Not the faintest trace of that wealth of homely imagery, which enriches the MS. Catechism attributed to him, is to be found in the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism” (Catechisms of the Second Reformation, pp. xxvi., xxvii). In a footnote Dr Mitchell further refers to Gillespie as follows:—”Even three months after he left London all that he was able to report to the Scottish Assembly respecting the Catechisms was that the divines ‘have had no time yet to do anything in the latter (i.e., shorter), but here is the copy of the greater, which is almost complete'”. Tradition, no doubt, has associated the name of George Gillespie with the answer to the question, ‘What is God?’ and the recent editor of Henderson’s Sermons has made a similar claim for him [Alexander Henderson]. But so far as the ‘Minutes’ enable us to judge, the answer to that question, even in the Larger Catechism, was not moulded into the shape in which we now have it till after Henderson and Gillespie had returned to Scotland. It still remained in somewhat the same form which it bears in the earliest
Catechism drafted by the Assembly, and in the catechetical manuals of Cartwright and Ussher.” From all this it would appear that we must give up the pleasing tradition of George Gillespie’s connection with this noble answer, but this does not in any degree rob the answer of its commanding majesty.
(To be continued.)
Robert Moffat: Pioneer South African Missionary.
(Continued from p. 378.)
IN 1819, Robert Moffat was married to Mary Smith, in Cape Town, and on the 20th January 1820, they began their northward journey. In writing home to her parents, Mrs Moffat describes the desolateness of the Karroo. “Since leaving the Hex River,” she says, “we have been in a perfect desert, called the Karroo, and in the last ten days never saw but one house till last night, about two hours’ ride from here. . . . We have scarcely seen any grass for a fortnight. . . . After 48 days they reached the Orange River. They came to their destination, Lattakoo, on 25th March, thus being over sixty days on the journey. The earlier missionaries at this station had their own difficulties, but at the time Moffat reached the place a commodious place of worship, capable of containing about four hundred persons, had been built, and also missionary houses.
On 12th April 1821, their first child was born, Mary, who afterwards became the heroic wife of Dr Livingstone. In 1821 Moffat had gone to Griqua Town to endeavour to restore some order there among the mixed races of Griquas (half-breeds), Hottentots, Bushmen, and Bechuana, but in May 1821 he returned to Lattakoo, on the banks of the Kuruman River, near which his home was to be for the next forty-nine years.
Mrs Moffat, writing in August 1822, after they had been fifteen months at work, says:—”We have no prosperity in the work, not the least sign of good being done. The Bootuanas (Bechuanas) seem more careless than ever, and seldom enter the church. Their indifference seems to increase, and instead of rejoicing, we have continually to mourn over them. Our consolation is derived from the promises of the immutable Jehovah. We walk by faith and not by sight. How mysterious are His works, and His ways past finding out. In almost every other part of the world to which
the Gospel is sent, some of the people receive it gladly, but here the blessing is withheld. Five years have rolled on since the missionaries came, and not one soul converted, nor does anyone seem to lend an ear. All treat with ridicule and contempt the truths which are delivered.” Moffat was almost heart-broken with the thieving propensities of the people—tools from the workshop, oxen and sheep from the kraal were all regarded as fair game by the natives.
Moffat set out in 1823 to visit the Bangwaketse, a tribe which lived two hundred miles to the north-east of Lattakoo. These people were constantly quarrelling with the Batlhani, among whom Moffat had settled. Mothibi, the chief of the Batlhani, warned Moffat not to go, and on Moffat expressing his purpose to proceed, Mothibi forbade any of his men to accompany him. Moffat set out on the journey with some of his own men, and had not gone far when rumours reached him of the dreaded Mantati, so named after their chieftainess. At length, on receiving indubitable evidence of the advance of the dreaded, maddened Mantati, Moffat retraced his steps, and reported the danger to Mothibi. Moffat and the chief men met to discuss what should be done. Mothibi thanked Moffat for being so hard-headed and obstinate in pursuing his journey, otherwise they would not have had this timely warning. Fear fell upon the people and suggestions were made of flight into the Kalahari desert. Moffat dissuaded them from this course; he set off to Griqua Town, and the chief of the Griquas readily promised help. A Pitso, or Public Assembly, was now called, and about a thousand men, representative of five Bechuanana tribes mustered. Every warrior was armed with a shield, a number of spears, a battle axe, a bow and a quiverful of poisoned arrows. The chief spoke first, and was followed by speeches from some of the warriors. At the close, Mothibi addressed them again—”Prepare for battle, O warriors! Let your shields be strong, your quivers full of arrows, and your battle-axes as sharp as hunger.” The air was rent with acclamations, and one would have thought that nothing would daunt these warriors. The Griquas were long in coming, and the scouts had brought word that the Mantati were moving swiftly towards Lattakoo. The Mantati were reckoned to be fifteen thousand strong, while the opposing force only numbered about 100 Griqua horsemen and 500 Bechuanas. When the warriors met the Mantati fought bravely, but bravery cannot defy the deadly rifle bullet, and
at last they were broken, leaving between four and five hundred dead on the field. Of the Griqua not one was killed, and only one wounded; of the Bechuanas, one man lost his life while too eagerly seeking for plunder. Moffat did his utmost to restrain the Bechuanas from killing the Mantati women and children, and was to a great extent successful, though his own life was endangered by attacks from some of the wounded enemy. The plan of conquest that had thus fired the Mantati was shattered on the stricken field at Lattakoo. After this they turned their faces northward. For Moffat and his mission, as well as for Cape Colony, this victory was of great importance. All the people from the chief downwards recognised that Moffat had been their deliverer. Henceforth the people, if they did not accept his teaching, looked up to him as their father.
In 1824 Moffat set out again on a visit to the Bangwaketse, leaving his young wife with her two infant children at the mission station. News, fortunately false, was brought her of her husband’s death. She writes to him saying—”You know I dreaded your departure exceedingly. . . . I expected also to suffer a good deal myself from low spirits in my great solitude, but in this I was mistaken, having been remarkably composed and very seldom in a melancholy mood. When I feel it coming on I make great efforts to dispel it, and have been successful. I feel very thankful for the support I have had, and derive encouragement from it that all is well with you, and that your journey is under the smiles of our Heavenly Father. I have also great liberty at the throne of grace, for you and the cause of Christ.”
Moffat soon realised the unsuitability of Lattakoo, so at last he determined to move to a site eight miles up the Kuruman River. An agreement was made with the Batlhapí chiefs that five hundred acres would become the property of the London Missionary Society. The mission station lies about one hundred miles west of Vryberg, which is situated on the line running north from Kimberley to Bulawayo. In 1829 two messengers were sent from Umsiligazi, the formidable chief of the Matebele. At that time he was living in what is now known as the Transvaal. Moffat accompanied the messengers on their return journey, and was greeted tempestuously by the assembled warriors, dressed in their war kit. Then the chief came forward, followed by a number of men with bowls of food, and Umsiligazi, grasping Moffat’s hand and pointing to the food,
said—”The land is before you, you are come to your son.” Moffat exercised an extraordinary influence over this great warrior—the Napoleon of the desert, as he rightly calls him, and to whom he applied the words—”He dipped his sword in blood, and wrote his name on land and cities desolate.” The following incident will throw some light on Moffat’s influence over this remarkable man. Among those who accompanied Moffat was a man whose two sons had been carried captive a year before, and he had come in the hope of redeeming them. The father laid at the feet of Umsiligazi’s brother all that he had in the world to redeem his sons, but the poor father had to turn sadly away. Moffat, who saw the distress of the father, took the first opportunity of interceding for him with Umsiligazi, who instantly ordered his brother to accede to Moffat’s wishes. On his return journey to Kuruman, Moffat saw a woman rushing towards him over the veldt, frantic with joy. To keep her from coming into contact with the wagon wheels, Moffat sprang to the ground, when she grasped his hands, kissed them, and bathed them with her tears. She spoke not a word, but wept aloud for joy. Her freed son soon came up, and she instantly ran forward and clasped him in her arms. The news of the liberation of her son—the other had died—had reached her before the wagons appeared in sight, and she had spent the day on a neighbouring hill waiting for her lost son. This was Moffat’s first visit to the noted Matebele chief, but though he spoke seriously to him, no impression for the better could be seen.
Moffat had now so mastered the language that he set about translating the New Testament into Bechuana, and in 1838 he set off to Cape Town to have it printed, but it was found no printing office there was large enough to undertake such a big task. Moffat accordingly took the translation to England. It was while home on this occasion he met David Livingstone, whose name was destined to be written so largely on the face of Africa. He had his mind set on China, but the Opium War turned his thoughts to other spheres. He asked Moffat if he thought he would do for Africa, and Moffat encouraged him, with the result that Livingstone made up his mind to go to Africa instead of China.
It was not until December 1843 that the Moffats returned to Kuruman. They were deeply touched at the warmth of the welcome given them by the natives. The people kept coming in from the out-stations for weeks after their
arrival. Moffat circulated his translation of the New Testament, for, as he said himself—”I never see a Testament pass from my hands into those of a native without feeling that I am sowing seed which will be wafted by the Divine Spirit into no one knows how many hearts, there to bring forth fruit unto eternal life.”
Livingstone had the famous encounter with the lion in 1843 at Mabotsa, and he went to Kuruman to recuperate under Mrs Moffat’s motherly care. At Kuruman he met Mary Moffat, and soon afterwards they were married.
On 20th March 1870, Robert Moffat addressed his Kuruman congregation for the last time. It is said that nobody in the mission forgot that day’s service. Some of the older people remembered the coming of the missionaries, the younger generation had grown up under Moffat’s care. Scores of them acknowledged him as their spiritual father. With trembling voice he uttered his last appeal to them, and commended them to the care of the Good Shepherd. The last word spoken, the old man descended from the pulpit which he was never to enter again. A few days later Robert Moffat and his devoted wife left Kuruman. He could scarcely tear himself away from the scene of his joys and sorrows for well-nigh fifty years. The wagons were packed, but he could not give the command to go, but at last he summoned courage and the oxen were inspanned for their long southward trek. Then Moffat, now an old man, and his wife came out and slowly made their way through the crowd that thronged them to catch one word more from their beloved missionary, or a final touch of the hands of those they loved. As the long team started on its journey, the assembled crowds broke into weeping. It was a noble way of spending their lives, and who can tell how many will rise up in the day of judgment and bless them as the instruments in God’s hands in turning their thoughts to the Saviour of sinners. Mrs Moffat did not long survive the home-coming, but passed away quietly in her sleep at the end of 1870. “Thus,” says her sorrowing husband, “she left me, after labouring lovingly together for fifty years, without saying goodbye.” Robert Moffat died in 1883, and during all the time between his home-coming and his death he was in great demand as a speaker at missionary meetings. He reached the great age of eighty-eight years.
“In suffering, Christ obeyed; and in obeying he suffered.”—Owen.
Seumas Renuic,
Rugadh Seumas Renuic ann an Sgireachd Ghlinnceirn, ann an Dailnibh air a 15 la de ceud mhios an Earraich, 1662. Bha a pharatan, ged nach robh iad saoibhir, comh-arrachte anns an diadhaidheachd. Bha Andera Renuic, athair, na fhigheadair: bha aig a mhathair, Ealasaid Cor-san, caochladh cloinne, a bhasaich ‘nan oige. Rainig so cridhe na mathair gu goirt, san uair a bhiodh i toirt cainnt da faireachdain bronach, bhiodh a fear-posda toirt solas di, le bhi ‘g radh, gu’n robh e ro thoilichte cloinn a bhi aige, co aca bhasaicheadh iad og na sean, na’m biodh iad nan oighreachan air gloir. Cha robh so a toirt toileachadh dhise: oir ann na h-uirnuighean ri Dia, ghuidh i airson leanabh, cha’n e amhain a bhiodh na oighre air gloir, ach a dheanadh seirbheis do’n Tighearn, na ghinealach; uime sin nuair a rugadh Seumas, ghabh i a chuis mar fhreagairt urnuigh, agus mheas si i fein fo’ iomadh ceangal chum a choisreagadh do’n Tighearna.
An deigh do Sheumas ionnsachadh am Biobull a leughadh, nuair a bha e tiomchioll do shea bliadhna a dh’aois, thug an Tighearn dha beagan chomharraidhean mu’n ghras a bha gu tighinn air, ga theagasg ann na shlighe, ‘s ga chleachdadh le teagamhan agus argumaidean oscionn breithneachaidh leanabachd, mu Chruithfhear nan uile nithibh, cia mar bha bheachdan iongantach mu cho lion do shaoghail neo-fhaicsinneach, fodh agus os a-chinn, leis an robh e air a chuir ann an leithid do staid smaoineachaidh, agus bhuanaiach e anns a chor so re uine da bhliadhna, gus an d’thainig e le urnuigh agus beachd smuaineachadh air eachdaraidh obair a chruthachaidh, gu lan chreideas gu’n d’rinn Dia na h-uile nithe, agus gu’n robh na h-uile ni a rinn e ro mhaith, agus gidheadh an deigh dha theachd gu tuille ionnhaichd, thuit e ris ann an troimh-cheile ni bu doimhne do dhorchas, mu na firinnibh steidheil so, agus bha leithid do ionnsuidhean air a thoirt air le buairidhean Dia-aicheadh, air dha bhi anns a mhachair air la’ araidh, gu’n thuirt e, is e sealltuinn ris na beanntaibh, “Ged a bhiodh iad sin uile nan amhuinean do phronnusg loisgeach, gu’m biodh e deonach a dhol trompa air fad, na’n deanadh sin dearbhte gu’n robh Dia ann.” Ach tre ghras fhuair e cuiteas na’m buairidhean sin, gu seimheachd mhilis air dearbhaichd gu’n robh leithid do bhith agus Dia ann, agus mu choir thearnaidh anns an Dia sin.
O laithean oige bha e comharrachte airson umhlachd do a pharantaibh, oir nan labhaireadh iad mu chuir ri ceaird air bith, dh’ aontaicheadh e gu suilibheir leo; ged a be gun teagamh, a roghainn fhein a dhol gu ard fhoghllum;
chunnaic an Tighearna na fhreasdal iomchuidh a dheon-achadh dha, oir thog e cairdean a bha air an togail cho mor ri a shuidheachadh dochasach, gealltanaich, ‘s gu ‘n d’ thug iad do Dhuneidin e; agus thug iad fhoghlum air aghart gu ro dhurachdach. Nuair a bha e ullamh airson an oilthigh, mhisnich iad e gu gabhail os laimh a bhi teagaig mic dhaoine uaisle, chum a bhi toirt a cheile air aghaidh na ‘m fhoghlum, gidheadh rinn a leithid sin do chuideachd, mar tha e tric a tachairt a mhealladh maillle ri dream eile gu bhi caitheamh tuille sa choir de uine ann aighear san cluich. Nuair a bha ‘n t-am a tarruing fagus ‘san robh e gu bhi ullamh san oil-thigh, thaisbean e leithid do fhuath ‘s do ghraim do ni sam bith a chuireadh diom air Dia, ‘s gu ‘n do dhiult e mionnan dilseachd a bhiodh an riaghladh a cuir air muinntir anns an am sin, do bhrigh ‘s gu’n do mheas e neo-fhreagarrach e, le bhi toirt ainn Dhia ann an diomh-anas le so chaill e choir de na duaisean a bha iad a toirt seachd san oilthigh, ach fhuair e a choir dhiu gu h-uaigneach ann an Duneidin. An deigh sin lean e fhoghlum, a frithealadh air na coinneamhan uaigneach a bha ‘n uair sin air an geur leanmhuin airson ordughean an t-soisgeul.
Bha e air a chradh gu mor le bhi faicinn mi-dhillseachd cuid de na ministearan aig an am sin, agus le bhi tuigsinn mar dh’ aidich an Tighearna saothair nan teachdairean dilis, agus mar chaidh iad chum a bhais le mor dhillseachd, creideamh, agus foighidinn, agus gu h-araidh an deigh bais an teachdair agus am mairtearach dilis sin, Mr Donull Carigill an 12 de mios deireannach an t-shamhraidh 1681, chuir e roimhe gu ‘n tilgeadh e chrannchur maillle ris na fianuisean sin anns an aobhar airson an d’ fhuiling iad, agus bha e ‘n deigh sin air a neartachadh agus air a dhain-gneachadh anns an am sin, agus a faotainn a leithid do theagasg ann, agus o ‘n fhocal, air a sheuladh air anam, ‘s nach robh e ‘n comas do na h-uile buaireadh, deuchain, agus trioblaid, o na h-uile laimh, a chreideamh atharrachadh gu la a bhais.
Air tus nuair a thainig e na ‘m measg, bha e mi-chomasach gu ‘n an aire a thoirt da; oir an uair a bha cuid a labhairt mu cuirp na ‘m mairtearach a chaidh chuir gu bas aig a Ghaololeidh a thoirt air falbh, bha Renuic air thoiseach anns a chuis. Ach cha b’ fhada an deigh sin nuair a b-eigin teicheadh do ‘n Olaind, agus an sin choin-nich e cairdean a bha air theicheadh mar bha e fein; le ‘n comhnadh-san bha e air orduchadh le aon de oilthighean na h-Olaidn gu bhi searmonachadh an t-soisgeul, agus air dha sin tachairt, chuir e roimhe pilltinn do Alba chum an t-shluaigh bhochd a bha a air an geur leanmhuinn; air dha
teisteasan laidir, lionmhor fhaotainn mu orduchadh agus fhoghllum, gu h-araidh anns na canainean Eabhra agus Ghreigis, o na oiltthighean. Fhuair e long ullamh gu cur ma sgaol do Albainn, chaidh e air bord; ach air dha feith-eamh beagan laithean airson gaoth, bha e fo lethid do mhi-mhisnich le luchd turuis aindiadhaidh a bhi sparradh doech slaine an righ, ‘s gu ‘m b-fheudar dha an soitheach sin fhagail, agus dol air bord soitheach eile a bha dol gu Eirinn. Thainig doinionn orra cho mor, ‘s gu ‘m b-eigin doibh dol a stigh gu Sasunn, a bha troimh cheile an uair sin le feall a bhatar a deanamh gu beatha an righ a ghabhail, ‘s gu ‘m robh e an cunnart; ach an deigh iomadh deuchainn air fairge, rainig e sabhailt Bail-o-clar far an robh aige iomadh connsachadh ris na ministearan ann an sin, air son an cul-sleamhnachadh, agus an neo-dhilseachd, agus gidheadh chleachd se e fein ann an leithid do dhoigh buanachaidh soisgeulach, ‘s gu ‘n d’ fhag e leithid do mhothachadh air an inntinn e bhi na oganach diadhaidh, eudmhor, ‘s gu ‘n d’ rinn iad cuideachachadh ris gu bhi faotainn aisig aithghearr gu Alba.
Ann a bhliaidhna 1683, thoisich e obair a mhinistreal-achd ann an Alba, le bhi togail fianuis air taobh bratach Chriosd far an robh i air suidheachadh, agus a bha nis air tuiteam le bas na ‘m mairtearach Mr Camshroin agus Car-gill; so a rinn e ann an neart a Mhaighstir, gu bhi cumail suas aobhar Chriosd a dh’ aindeoin foirneart a thigeadh o gach laimh.
Ann am meadhon nan deuchainibh so, ghabhadh ris le sluagh bochd a bha air an geur leanmhuinn, agus a chaill am maoin shaoghalta gu h-iomlan air sgath’ an t-soisgeul. Chum e a cheud choinneamh fhollaiseach air blar-moint-ich, ann an aird-an-iar na h-Alba, far an do mheas e iomehuidh chur fa chomhar a phobuill, mar ghairmeadh e chum dreuchd na ministrealachd; agus an taobh a bha e cur roimh’ a gabhail; mar an ceudna dh’ fhosgail e inntinn dhoibh mu na ceistean a bha cuir leithid do amaladh feadh na tier, agus a’ feuchainn co iad-san ris nach b-urrainn da e fein aonadh, aobharan airson sin; gu h-araidh cul-sleamhnachadh mhinistearan, o aobhar an Tighearna.
An deigh so thugadh iomadh ionnsuidh air a chliu a bhriseadh; cha b’ ann amhain le sluagh ain-diadhaidh, ach mar an ceudna le luchd aideachaidh, a thuirt nach b-ann do fhiar eaglais na h-Alba a bha e idir; gu ‘n d’ rinn e ministearan Alba iomasgarradh: nach robh ann ach fear saobhchrabhaidh, ‘s gu ‘r e a bha air aire a bhi deanamh buidheann dha fein. Bha e air a neartachadh seasamh fo na deuchainibh so; oir cha do sheas riamh Cleireanach ni
bù ghlaíne ‘s ni bu dillse da aobhar Chriosd an Alba, na Seumas Reunie.
Cha b-urrainn a dhillseachd, a bha nis air cinntinn ainmeil, gun theachd gu cluasan na h-ard-chomhairle; chuir e fo ‘n ghlán chuthach iad, e bhi searmonachadh anns na glinn agus anns na coilltibh; ni thug orra geur leanmhuinn a thogail as a dheigh ni bu deine ‘s ni b-ain-iodh-mhor na rinn iad air duine eile a bha roimhe anns an rioghachd. Chuir iad gu follaiseach an ceill e mar cheannaireach, ‘s mar fhear dobheart; ruaig iad a luchd leanmhuinn leis an deineachd sin a bha ‘n comas corruich agus naimhd-eas ifrinneach a dheilbh; ach gidheadh, mar bu mho, chaidh an saruchadh, ‘s ann a b’ fhearr a dh’ fhas agus a lionmhor-aich iad.
Sa bhliadhna 1684, thoisich a dheuchainibh a naimhdibh, agus a mhi-mhisneachadh le cairdean, air cinntinn ni bu mho ‘s ni bu mho; ach air a shon sin, cha leigeadh e dheth la, gun cothrom a ghabhail air an t-soisgeul a shearmonachadh; daondan saoithreach neo-sgathach. ‘na obair. Thug so air na ministearan meagh-bhlathach, a bhi cuir chasaid air, gu ‘n robb e streap a stigh air saothair dhaoine eile, oir nuair a bhiodh teachdair eile gu teachd gu searmonachadh, gu ‘n tigeadh esan don’ sgire cheudna; be so bu leith-sgeul an casaid; oir thuit air aig am araidh searmonachadh fagus do Phaislig; do bhrigh ‘s gun do chuireadh fios air le caochladh muintir anns an aite sin, ach cha robb fios sam bith aige-san gu robb minsteir eile gu bhi ‘n sin.
B’ ann air a bhliadhna so, chionn brath an-iodhdmhor a chaidh dheanamh air, chinn na saighdearean ni bu deine nan’ saothair gu ghlacadh; b’iomadh dol as comharrachta a bha aige uatha. Air la deireadh samhraidh is e dol gu coinneamh, thug duine caoimhneil de ‘n duthaich each dha airson beagan mhltean gu ghiulan; thaing ofigeach le buidhean each orra gu ‘n fhios, gu ‘n fhaireachadh. Chaidh an dithis dhaoine a bha leis a ghlacadh ‘sa leon gu trom. Chaidh esan as uatha, is dhirich e ri beinn chas a bha ‘san aite, an toir na dheigh, sa losgadh air co tric ‘sa bha ‘nan comas, air chor ‘s gu ‘m b-eigin dha an t-each fhagail, le sin chaill e chleochd, agus moran sgríobhaidh, a fhuair na naimhdhean. A’ faicinn nach robb aite didean sam bith fagus, chaidh e stigh, is e nan sealladh, ann am measg chlachan mora a bha sam aite, far an d’ fhuair e slochd chum do shnagail e stigh; far an d’ rinn se e fein a thiomnadadh an ann urnuigh aithghearr ri Dhia, a lan strioichdadh do bheath na bas; mar an ceudna a creidsinn, gu ‘m biodh e air a chaomhnadh chum a bhi deanamh obair ni bu mho, leis a phairt sin do na Sgriobtuir a tighinn gu inntinn,
“Imichibh uam sibhs’ uile luchd deanamh na h-eucorach”—Salm vi. 8. Agus na briathraibh so a ris, “Bheir e aithne da ainglibh mu d’ thiomchioll”—xei. 11. Shir is shir iad sios is suas am bruthach, ach cha d’ thug iad suil idir an taobh a bha esan. B’ iomadh oidche a bha e fein is iadsan a bhiodh maille ris, anns na creagan a b’ fhiadhaich a bha san tir.
Thainig litrichean amach na aghaidh, mios mheadhon-ach an fhoghair, sa bhliadhna cheudna, o n’ ard chomhairle le sparradh teann d’a gach neach, gu’n fhasgaidh, gu’n cheathranan, gun bhiadh, gun deoch, na sochair sam bith a bhuileachadh air, agus bha ordugh air a chuir chum na h-uile siorram ’san duthaich a phearsa ghlacadh, sa chuir am priosan, ciod air bith aite sam faigheadh iad greim air. Le so bha de’n t-shluagh dhilis, air am murt’s air am fogairt, ann am fuachd, ann an ocras, is anns na h-uile saruchadh a bha’n comas nan naimhdean fuitheach a dheanamh orra. Air dhoibh bhi mar so air am foireign-eadh, chuir iad fianuis amach an aghaidh, anns do chuir iad an ceill gu follaiseach gu’n seasadh iad dileas, duineil le teagasg ceudfaithean, agus riaghailt eaglais, mar bha e air thoir a nuas dhoibh le gaisgich an Athleasachaidh. Nuair a thainig an fhianuis so a mach air tus, bha Mr Renuic ear na h-aghaidh, ach nuair a thug e gu glan mar bha a chuis, thug e dhoibh aonta. Le sin chaidh an fhian-uis a chuir an airde, aig caochlaidh croisean margaidh, agus ri dorsan eaglaisean sgireachd.
An deigh na nithe so a bhi air an deanamh follaiseach ghabh an ard chomhairle an glan chuthach, agus cha b’ fhearr luchd maslaidh na’n sgainnealan an aghaidh an dream a chuir amach an fhianuis ud; chuir an ard chomhairlie mach cuir-an-ceill feadh na rioghachd, chum an dream a cuir a mach an fhianuis, a ghlacadh, agus duais ochd puimnd fhihead Shasunnach airson na h-uile neach a ghlachta dhiu. O so dh’ eirich gu’n deachaidh moran diu a thilg-eadh mar choin anns na machraichean; cuid eile nach toir-eadh mionnan araidh a bha air an cuir orra, rachadh am binn ditidh a thoird a mach, agus an crochadh gun dail mionaid; dh’ fheumadh luchd amhaire a bhiodh ag na bais so a’ radh, co aca a chaidh na daoine ud a chuir gu bas ciontach na neochiontach, nan abaradh neach, neochiont-ach, bha sin gu leor gus an neach sin a chrochadh. Thug an obair ifrinneil so leithid do chradh’s do bhriseadh eridhe da Mr Renuic’s gu’m b’ fhearr leis nach deachaidh an fhianuis ud riamh a dheanamh follaiseach.
Cha robh a bhliadhna 1685 dad na b’ fhearr. Oir’s ann a bha na naimhdean a strith anis co a neach bu mho a marbhadh dheth na daoine bochd seachranach so. Se theireadh an namhad, “mharbh mi fear de daoine nam
beann an diugh,” oir b’e sin an t-ainm a theireadh iad riu; ach a dh’aindeoin air Satan sa sheirbhiseich; san deigh dhoibh na bha aca do pheileirean a chaitheamh orra, cha d’fhuair iad riamh an ruin; oir mar bu mho a bha iad air an ruagadh is air an sealg mar fheidh air na beanntaibh ‘s ann bu lionmhor a chinnich iad. “Bha ‘m preas a’ losgadh, ach cha robh am preas air a chaitheamh, oir bha an Tighearn anns a phreas.”
Air do’n dara Righ Tearlach dol eug, thainig a bhrathair Diuc Uorc chum a chruin, glan phapanach, chaidh eubhachd na righ toiseach an earraich 1685. Cha do leig Mr Renuic seachad an cothrom, fianuis a thogail follaiseach an aghaidh crun Bhreatuinn a chur air ceann papanach, air an robh ruin shuidhechte obair an Athleaschaidh a thilg-eadh bun os cionn, agus an eaglais Phapanach a steidheachadh na h-aite; air an aobhar sin thainig Mr Renuic, agus mu dha cheud fear maile ris, gu baile Seanchar air an 23 de mios thoisich an t-shamhraidh 1685, far an d’rinn iad follaiseach fianuis sholeimte an aghaidh an ni sin, bha i ‘n sin air a gairm Fianuis Seanchar.
The Late Captain Turner, Dumbarton.
CAPTAIN TURNER was born on the 8th day of January 1846, in the parish of Glassary, in Argyllshire. His parents were godly persons, and consequently they trained him from his infancy—as Lois and Eunice did in the case of Timothy—in the knowledge of the Scriptures. History, both sacred and profane, records a large number of cases in which the pious efforts of parents to train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord had been followed with the most blessed results in after life. David, for instance, was cast by his godly mother on the Lord’s care even before he was born—”I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly.” We see how he looked back in after days to the prayers of his godly mother, the training she gave him, and the good effect of it on him—”I am thy servant, and the son of thine hand-maid; thou hast loosed my bonds.” Malcolm Turner could understand well David’s sense of indebtedness to his godly mother. The mother of Augustine did all in her power by praying for and by instructing him in the truths of the Gospel. Even when he became a young man—and a
very reckless and careless young man—she prayed, wept, and urged their minister to pray for him, till he said to her one day, “There never was any son lost over whom so many tears were shed.” Neither were they shed in vain in the case of Augustine. These examples should arouse parents to do all in their power for the souls of their poor, lost children.
The Holy Spirit did not allow Malcolm Turner to have his own way in his youth without awakening his natural conscience again and again to give him serious challenges for his sins. This continued more or less till he was thirty-one years. In the year 1877 he attended a communion service in Glasgow. The text was:—”My sheep hear my voice, and they follow me.” He was deeply impressed, and convinced of his sins during the delivery of the sermon. When the communicants went forward to the Lord’s table, and he was left behind, his heart was pierced with the thought: “Am I to be on the left hand of the Judge on the day of final judgment?” Deep distress of soul was the effect which continued for some time. Not long after the Holy Spirit relieved his distress by bringing these words with life power, and light into his mind: “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself: that where I am there ye may be also” (John xiv. 2-3). From that day Malcolm Turner was Christ’s free man. He was never ashamed to own his Lord, as the Lord of his conscience, in all matters pertaining to his duty to Him, both in temporal and spiritual matters. Neither for high or low would Malcolm Turner work on the Lord’s Day or do or follow anything of which God’s word and his conscience disapproved.
He came to Dumbarton in the year 1878. His occupation was master mariner of the yacht of Mr Denny, the ship builder. He set his face against every encroachment of the Lord’s Day from the first day to the last. It should be said in commendation of his masters that, instead of showing him disfavour on account of his strict observance of the Lord’s day, they manifested great respect towards him. The scripture was verified in his case: “Them that honour me, I will honour.” So Captain Turner was for 47 years in Messrs Denny’s service without losing the approbation and good will of his masters. Captain Turner was faithful to the souls of all he came in contact with. He warned his fellow-sinners concerning their need of
peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the awful consequences of sin. He spoke to them with such sincerity and authority that men, who would not listen to others, received his rebukes and warnings without showing any ill feeling. They were convinced that he warned them for their everlasting good, and not in the way of fault finding without a cause. A Roman Catholic was with him for some time to whom he often spoke about his soul’s everlasting concerns. After many years, this man became seriously ill and realised that the messenger of death had come. He sent for the Captain, who went at once to see him. The man asked him to read a portion of God’s Word to him and to pray for him. He read a chapter of the Word, and went to his knees beside the bed. While he was on his knees, who walked into the house but the priest! The priest shouted, “What is the meaning of this? What business have you to be here?” Captain Turner rose off his knees and said to the priest—”Be out of here, you servant of the devil and allow us to worship our God.” So the priest fled out of the house, and he then went again on his knees to pray to the Lord to have mercy on the soul of the dying man. The great day will reveal what the visit of the Captain meant to the poor man, who was ushered shortly after this incident into the presence of the august Judge of eternity.
A few years ago, as he was on his way to The hall on Sabbath, a young minister jumped off a tramcar, and asked him could he tell him where he could find a certain church in Dumbarton. “Where have you come from?” the Captain asked him. “I came from Glasgow,” he answered. The Captain said to him, “You have done the devil service by travelling by car on the Lord’s Day, and you may as well turn back, for you cannot expect God’s blessing on your services this day.” He told him where the church was, and left him to consider the reproof so faithfully administered. What effect it had then is not known to us, but the words spoken will not return void either in time or in eternity. He set his face unflinchingly against Sabbath desecration wherever he met with it, whether among the rich or poor.
The Bible was his chart going through the world on his way to eternity. It was a lamp to his feet and a light to his path. In every thing he sought by prayer the mind of the Lord, and when he understood from the Word what that was he acted accordingly. He would take no opinion from men for his motto, but “What saith the Lord?” He often quoted Matt.
xxviii. chap., 20th verse—”Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” He laid great emphasis on the fact that only what Christ commanded was to be observed, and that His presence would not be given to those who introduced any thing in doctrine or worship which He did not command.
He was eminently a man of prayer. At a time when the whole burden of the Mission fell upon his shoulders, so far as human local assistance was concerned, he went to the hall on a Sabbath morning very much depressed in his mind. As was his habit, he arrived there a long while before any of the people turned up at the hour of worship. He went to his knees, and the words came forcibly into his mind—”His truth endureth to all generations.” The relief these words gave him was instant, and in the faith of their certainty he never felt again any doubt or the same despondency about the cause there. He often expressed in his prayers, “The world is dross and dung in comparison to the unsearchable riches of Christ.” Another petition of his was, “Put the wall of Thy intercession around us.” He was heard to quote, in Gaelic, even when asleep—”Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.” One morning a friend said to him—”Well, what have you this morning?” He answered at once, “A risen Christ.” One had to hear his prayers at family worship in his own house in order to form a right estimate of his power with God in pleading for the Lord’s cause in the world at large, and for families and individuals. The writer felt often while he prayed that he was an Israelite indeed in whom was no guile.
The first time the writer saw him was at a meeting held to settle, if possible, a disagreement which sprung up in the Dumbarton Mission immediately after they joined the F.P. Church. There was a good deal of sharp language used by some of the Committee that night. At last he got up and asked them—”Where is the love of Christ? Let us remember that we are here met together in His glorious name and about His cause, so I appeal to you that nothing should be done through strife or vain glory.” After he sat down, the writer got up and appealed to them to consider seriously the words of the last speaker, and to do all they could for peace and for the cause of truth amongst them. They all at once agreed that this should be done, so peace was restored for a few weeks. But it soon became
apparent that Captain Turner’s query, “Where is the love of Christ?” became a very searching question; for the most of these men went away and were seen no more by the writer. But he was not only a man of profound intelligence, who understood thoroughly the position taken in 1893 by the F.P. Church, but he was also a man possessed of a conscience which bound him before God and men to act up to the light he had. This he did steadfastly up to the very last. So the F.P. Church lost not only a God-fearing, upright man the day he was taken away to his everlasting rest, but also an intelligent, conscientious, and steadfast Free Presbyterian.
On the second Sabbath of May last year he had a very serious attack of heart failure. He gradually recovered considerably his strength, but it was quite apparent that complete restoration to his former vigour was not to be expected. He immediately retired from his duties as Captain, but was able to attend the services in the hall every Sabbath. On Saturday, 28th November 1925, he was in his usual at tea-time and for an hour or two thereafter. But suddenly he had another dangerous attack. Not long after he lost consciousness, and passed away to the “house of many mansions” on the early morning of Monday, the 30th. His remains were laid to rest in the Dumbarton Cemetery on the 2nd day of December. His funeral was attended by many friends from a distance, and by many of the Dumbarton people. The seriousness manifested by all present made it clear that they all felt that they had lost a true friend and a man that feared God, and that was a power for good among them and in the world. “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours, and their works do follow them.”
The writer desires to express his deepest sympathy with the widow, who was a very true and faithful partner in all Captain Turner’s spiritual and temporal trials and joys, and with each member of the family.
N. C.
More than Christ I can neither wish, nor pray, nor desire for you. I am sure that the saints are at best but strangers to the weight and worth of the incomparable excellence of Christ. We know not the half of what we love when we love Him.—Rutherford.
The Late Alexander Mackenzie, Elder, Stornoway.
ON the 23rd of July last, there was laid to rest in Sandwick Cemetery, the mortal remains of the above mentioned elder and friend of our Church in Stornoway. On the same evening, the remaining office-bearers of the Congregation met in Session and expressed their loss and the loss of the Church in the following terms:—”The Kirk-Session, with the full concurrence of the Deacons’ Court of this Congregation, would express their deepest sorrow at the removal of their brother office-bearer, the late Mr Alexander Mackenzie, which took place on the 20th day of July 1925. Mr Mackenzie served the cause of Christ as a member, deacon and elder for about thirty-five years, and there were few, if any, who gave themselves over to the Lord’s service in private visitation and in the public congregation and courts of the Church as he did.”
Mr Mackenzie was well known to most of our congregations. He was born in Ullapool in the year 1861, and came to Stornoway, where he spent most of his life, while yet a young man. He was not long in Stornoway until he began to show by his daily life and conversation that he was seriously considering the vital question:—”What shall it profit a man though he should gain the world and lose his own soul?” We have not been able to trace any of the ways and means which the Lord used to make him in his own estimation, a lost and undone sinner, and Christ and Him crucified, his one desire, as a Saviour, but that it was between these great truths, he walked to the end of his journey, no one who knew him with any intimacy has the least doubt.
Mr Mackenzie, from the time he came forth publicly as a witness for Christ, gave himself over to do as much as he could to help the cause in every way possible. When the stand was made in Stornoway in 1893 against the Declaratory Act and those who submitted to it, it was Mr Mackenzie who arranged the meeting in the Drill Hall, which was addressed by the Rev. Neil Cameron and which resolved that, as a congregation, they would take up the position adopted by Rev. D. Macfarlane. Mr Mackenzie served first for many years as a deacon, and in August 1916 he was ordained as an elder. He was remarkable for his zeal
in every thing pertaining to his office, and would thrust aside his business concerns as unimportant, when any matter affecting the cause needed attention. He was always willing to spare himself no labour in order to keep services not only in Stornoway but in the outlying districts. The Achmore people could look forward to the Sabbath with the expectation that Alex. Mackenzie would do his best to reach them to conduct the worship.
He acted as Session Clerk and for the most part as Presbytery and Synod elder which added to his many labours a share in the deliberations of these courts. In all he did, he did it heartily as unto God and not to men, and he was untiring in his efforts to do good privately, excelling most of all in the visitation of the sick. His spare time was practically taken up with these duties, and he will be greatly missed by those who were cheered by his visits and sympathy. Mr Mackenzie would be considered a strong man physically, but it was apparent to some for months before the end that he was failing in health, though he seldom complained of indisposition. His last illness began with a violent pain in his body, but as it eased he did not anticipate death. However, he gradually grew worse, and he then seemed to conclude that the end was near. He said to a friend:—”What could I do now in this pain, if I had left off the consideration of eternal realities till now?” He passed away after ten days of great suffering, we believe to his everlasting rest, on the 20th day of July, as stated above. We would express our deepest sympathy with his family of two sons and two daughters, and would pray that they may seek grace to follow the example which was set before them from infancy.—M. G.
Mrs Dannie Maciver, Laxdale, Lewis.
THERE is not a year that passes but in which nearly all our congregations have to mourn over the removal by death of some who were eminent for their piety and for their steadfastness to the cause of truth which we seek to maintain as a Church. The Stornoway congregation have from time to time been the scene of the King’s mowings, and in the year now passed have lost two of their most prominent members—Mr Alexander Mackenzie and Mrs Maciver, the widow of our late missionary, Dannie Maciver. Mrs Maciver,
who was the first removed, was from all accounts a mother in Israel; one who followed the Lord from her early girlhood till she finished her course with honour at a good old age. She was one of those who made manifest to all that she had really met with Him who is and has the fountain of life. In whatever place and circumstances she might happen to be, she bore His name on her forehead, and her conversation at all times was a living commentary of that word:—”The water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”
Mrs Maciver was given a nearness to that Fountain which made her eminent for real piety in the estimation of all who knew her. She waited for His Word, and rejoiced in it as one that findeth great spoil. She was not given to open her mind to many, but she told of one communion at Knock in her early days at which the Lord was so rich to her soul that her physical frame was quite overcome and she had to be carried from the place of worship. An outstanding feature of her life on earth was how unspotted she was kept, so that the world could find no fault in her life, unless it was concerning the law of her God. Friends testify that she never was heard to ask a blessing or pray without her asking to be kept from being a reproach to the Lord’s Cause, and we believe her prayer was answered in this respect. She was calm and submissive when death and affliction visited her home, as they many times did. That word, “Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God,” seemed to be the rule by which she was stayed in all troublous times.
Till within a few weeks before the end, and when the infirmities of age made themselves manifest, she was an example to all by her regular attendance on the public means on Sabbath and week-day, and would give that as a reason when spoken to about her unfitness. She was only two days confined to bed, but for the last three weeks she seemed to live in the Word and in the element of that passage which she continually repeated—”Who are these that fly as a cloud and as the doves to their windows?” To those around her her advice was what she had to say all her life—”Prepare for eternity. Do not put it off till a death-bed.” She passed away on the 24th March, at the age of 72 years. “It shall be well with the righteous.” With her sister and daughter and many friends we would express sympathy. May the Lord heal the breaches of Zion.
M. G.