BY THE LATE REV. D. MACFARLANE, DINGWALL.
A DISAGREEMENT arose between two parties concerning important matters in the Christian religion. The name of the one was Declaratory Act, a mere young stripling, who was a self-conceited party, as the young in years are naturally prone to be. The name of the other was Confession of Faith, an old party of long experience, of mature judgment, and highly respected by experienced and well-grounded followers in the doctrines and practice of the faith as clearly set forth in the Word of God. They were both professing to adhere to the standards and practices of the Free Church of Scotland, but disagreed on important points concerning the Faith. The case of contention between them was repeatedly tried in the Courts of the Church, and at length decided in favour of the younger party—like the case of Rehoboam (II. Chron. x.), who followed the advice of the young instead of the old men, and brought judgments on the nation. The young party had many followers in a back-sliding age, but the old party protested and appealed to a higher court—the Court of Heaven—to finally decide the case; as there was no higher court to appeal to.
God was the Judge, speaking through His Word, and it was the standard by which the case was tried and finally settled. The court-house was filled with anxious listeners, among whom were many ministers and office-bearers, who were self-confident that the case would be settled in favour of Declaratory Act, as it had been in the lower courts. But the case was not to be settled or decided this time by majorities, but by the Judge who is just in all His ways and holy in all His works. He would decide the case impartially in favour of the one who had the truth on his side.
Each party employed an advocate. The name of the advocate employed by the old party was Mr Faithful, and the name of the advocate for the young party was Mr Novelty. There were no witnesses cited by either party, and the pleading was left in the hands of the advocates. The old party were the pursuers, and charged Declaratory Act with imputing to them what they considered to be a slander on their Confession of Faith. Each party wrote a document, in which their views of Scripture were expressed. The document which Confession of Faith published was called the Confession of Faith, and the document which the young party wrote and published was called the Declaratory Act. Both these documents were produced in court.
The Court having been duly constituted, the case went to proof. There were several items to be discussed, and Mr Faithful, representing the old party, asked that Declaratory Act be put in the witness-box. The first item discussed was the Preamble of the Declaratory Act. The Judge solemnly having administered the oath which demanded that the witness should speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then Mr Faithful, the advocate, commenced a most searching questioning of the witness, as follows:—
Mr Faithful—Why was the Declaratory Act made? Declaratory Act answered that it was to remove difficulties and scruples which have been felt by some in reference to the declaration of belief required from persons before being licensed and admitted into the ministry of the Church. Mr Faithful then asked what was the nature of the difficulties and scruples these men had—were they about the truth of the Bible as clearly set forth in the Confession of Faith—yea or nay—remember, you are on your oath? Declaratory Act answered, the Act is according to the Confession of Faith. Mr Faithful—That is one of the points which Confession of Faith complains of as amounting to a slander on his character. I have the Confession of Faith here, and I see nothing in it which should cause any difficulty or scruple in taking office in the Church. What have you to say to that? Declaratory Act—I have to say this: As we are men of progress we are not to be bound in this 20th Century by a creed that is hundreds of years old. As a principle of our Church, said Mr Faithful, the Bible is much older than that, and are you to throw it overboard because of its old age? Declaratory Act—There are many things in the Bible that we do not believe. Mr Faithful—Where did you learn to doubt the Bible? Declaratory Act—I learned it in Germany when I was studying for the ministry of the Church. I did not consider myself quite qualified without taking a course of studies in that country, and when I came back to Scotland and took office in the Church as a minister, I began to point out to my hearers the things in the Bible that were not true. Mr Faithful—What are these? Declaratory Act—The first is about the love of God. Mr Faithful—What is your view about that love? Declaratory Act—My view is that God loved every individual of the human race without any exception. Mr Faithful—The Bible does not say that; but it says that God loved some of the human race, who are in it called “the elect.” Declaratory Act—We do not believe in the doctrine of election. Mr Faithful—Whether you believe it or not, that doctrine is plainly taught in the Bible and in the Confession of Faith, which is founded on Scripture and agreeable thereto.
The next point taken up was the extent of Christ’s Atonement, which is stated in the Declaratory Act, as follows:—“That this Church most earnestly proclaims as standing in the forefront of the revelation of grace—the love of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit to sinners of mankind manifested specially in the gift of His Son to offer Himself as a propitiation for sin.” Mr Faithful—Do you mean by sin—the sin or sins of every individual of the human race, or the sin or sins of all that be saved? Declaratory Act—I mean the sins of every individual of the human race. Mr Faithful—Do you admit that many of the human race are lost and punished in eternity? Declaratory Act—Yes. Mr Faithful—Then you impute injustice to God. Sin is called in Scripture, a debt, and if Christ rendered full satisfaction to justice by His atonement for every individual, you impute to God that He exacts payment twice for the same debt? even an honest man will not demand payment twice, and if it is offered to him a second time, he will take it as an affront, and will say—‘No, you think that I am a dishonest man?’ and if an honest man acts that way, the just God will not demand payment twice for the same debt. He is fully and for ever satisfied with the payment that Christ made. Further, the work you ascribe to the Holy Spirit in applying the work of redemption is a mere striving with man, whereas the Bible standard by which you are tried teaches that there is more than a mere striving of the Spirit—that He works effectually in all that are saved. There is a common operation of the Spirit with many under the Gospel that are lost, but as already stated, there is an effectual work in the case of those that are saved.
You also state in your document that my client does not regard the Confession as teaching the fore-ordination of men to death irrespective of their own sin. Do you mean by their own sin—their own actual transgression or the guilt of Adam’s first transgression, which is imputed to every individual of the human race for which he stood as covenant head?
Declaratory Act—As I am on my oath, I must say that it is their own actual transgression I mean. Mr Faithful—Then you must be a Pelagian, for Pelagians deny that Adam’s posterity are involved in his first transgression, and so you teach contrary to the Confession of Faith, and, therefore, I do not wonder that my client considers your charge against him as a slander on his character.
You further state in your document that you do not consider the Confession of Faith to hold that any dying in infancy are lost. The Confession of Faith speaks guardedly on that point. It says that elect infants are saved, and if all infants have been elected to salvation, then none of them are lost. But, if only some infants have been elected, the rest must be lost. I suspect that from your view of election and the universal extent of Christ’s atonement, together with your Pelagian view of the non-imputation of the guilt of Adam’s first sin to his posterity, you are trifling with serious truths and ascribing to my client’s document statements which are not in it, but what suits your own fancy and that of your deluded followers. The Bible teaches that every individual of the human race for whom Adam stood in covenant comes into this world guilty in his state and wholly depraved in his nature. It is, therefore, evident that you have adopted your view without carefully studying either the Bible or the Confession of Faith, and thus made a “Bible” in your own heart, which is naturally full of error; hence I charge you with slandering my client.
Mr Faithful—You also state that the Confession of Faith is not to be held as teaching that God may not extend His mercy for Christ’s sake and by His Holy Spirit to those who are beyond the reach of the means—that is, the Gospel described already as the ordinary means of salvation. Do you mean by those beyond the ordinary means of grace the heathen who never heard or read the Gospel? Declaratory Act—Yes. Mr Faithful—The Confession of Faith teaches that the light of nature is not sufficient to lead men to salvation—that the Word of the Gospel is necessary for that purpose, and that those who have sinned without the law shall perish without law (Roms. ii. 12). The Apostle Paul, in the same Epistle (x. 14) says:—”How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed, and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher, and how shall they preach except they be sent?” and he concludes on this point by saying that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. He thus clearly shows that none can be saved without the Word of the Gospel. Not a single instance can be shown from history of the heathen being saved without the Word of the Gospel. Missionaries going for the first time among the heathen with the Gospel never found one individual of them knowing the way of salvation by Christ. They were still worshipping their idols, but when the Gospel came and was blessed to them, they turned from their idols to serve the living God (Thess. i. 9). By your view you are misrepresenting both the truths of the Bible and the statements of my client, and slandering him by saying that he is of the same view as yourself regarding the salvation of the heathen.
Further, in section two you state that in holding and teaching according to the Confession of Faith the corruption of man’s whole nature as fallen, you maintain that there remain tokens of man’s greatness as created in the image of God. That he possesses a knowledge of God and of duty—that he is responsible for compliance with the Moral Law and with the Gospel, and that although unable without the aid of the Holy Spirit to return to God, he is yet capable of affections and actions which in themselves are virtuous and praiseworthy. Your statement regarding the corruption of man’s whole nature is according to the Confession of Faith, but you withdraw that statement when you say that man in a state of nature has knowledge of God and of his duty, for his whole nature is corrupt, then ignorance of God is part of that corruption, and yet you say that man in a state of nature has knowledge of God and his duty. Do you mean by the knowledge of God, the innate knowledge of Him which every individual of the human race must have on account of his having a moral nature and a conscience, or do you mean a saving knowledge of Him given by the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures? Declaratory Act—I mean the former knowledge, as I believe the heathen may be saved without the Word of God, for they believe in the existence of a God to whom they are responsible. Mr Faithful—The Bible and the Confession of Faith teach that man in a state of nature is not only dark as to his knowledge, but that he is darkness itself (Eph. v. 8), and as to his knowledge of his duty, he calls evil good and good evil. With regard to his greatness, he is in his fallen condition morally lower than the irrational creatures, for “the ox knoweth his owner and the ass his master’s crib, but my people do not know, saith the Lord” (Isa. i. 3). The Germans, in the War, manifested how low man has fallen by their cruelty and other evil deeds. They reckon might to be right, and that because they have forsaken the truths of the Bible. Therefore, instead of your views being in accordance with the Confession of Faith, they are quite the contrary.
Further, in the 3rd clause of your document you state that this Church disclaims intolerant or persecuting principles, and does not consider her office-bearers in subscribing the Confession of Faith committed to any principles inconsistent with liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment. What do you mean by liberty of conscience? Declaratory Act—I mean that every one should act according to his conscience. Mr Faithful—Conscience is not the rule of action, but the Word of God. The young men mentioned in the preamble of the Act who refused to take office in the Church under the Confession of Faith, thought or think, I suppose, that they are acting conscientiously when they have scruples of conscience in taking office under that Scriptural standard. Some office-bearers of your view have signed the Confession of Faith. If so, they are traitors and enemies to the cause of truth, for the truth says—”Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? Who shall stand in His holy place? He that hath clean hands and a pure heart, who hath not lifted up his soul to vanity nor sworn deceitfully” (Ps. xxiv. 3, 4). Evidently they did so in view of the Declaratory Act being passed, an Act that is quite contrary to the truth and the Confession of Faith founded on the Scriptures. Then you speak of private judgment. What do you mean by private judgment? Declaratory Act—I mean that everyone should interpret Scripture according to his own judgment, and not to be tied to a creed centuries old. Mr Faithful—Then instead of a common creed in a Church, there would be innumerable creeds, as everyone would be left to his own judgment. The Confession of Faith was framed to be a common standard of faith and practice for the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, and no person had any scruples in taking office under it till upstarts like yourself, who forsook the truth of God, arose in the Church to suit their own selfish vanity.
(To be continued.)
CAIBIDEAL XXII. Mu mhionnaibh agus Bòidibh laghail.
I. Tha mionn laghail ‘n a chuid do ‘n aoradh chràbhach, anns am bheil an neach a mhionnaicheas air aobhar ceart gu follaiseach a’ gairm Dhé bhi mar fhianuis air an ni a tha e ag ràdh, no a’ gealltuinn; agus gu breth a thabhairt air, do réir firinn no breug a mhionnan.
II. Is e ainm Dhé a mhàin an ni air an còir do dhaoibh mionnachadh, agus ann an sin a dhèanamh is còir a ghnàthachadh leis gach uill’ eagal agus urram naomh. Uime sin is ni peacach agus gràineil, mionn a thoirt gu dìomhanach, no gu h-obann, air an ainm ghhlòrmhor uamhasach sin; no mionn a thoirt idir air ni air bith eile. Gidheadh, mar a ta mionna, an cuisibh mòra, troma, air am barrantachadh le focal Dé ‘s an Tiomnadh Nuadh, amhuil is fuidh ‘n t-Seann Tiomnadh; is amhluidh is còir mionn laghail a thabhairt, a chuirear fa ‘r comhair, ‘n an leithidibh sin do chuisibh, le ùghdarras laghail.
III. Bu chòir do neach a bheir mionnan, cudthrom gniomh co àrd a thoirt gu h-iomchuidh fainear; agus ‘n a mhionnaibh gun ni air bith a chur roimhe, ach ni mu ‘m bheil e làn-chinnteach, gur firinn e. Agus cha chòir do dhuine air bith, ach ni a ta maith agus ceart; agus ni mu ‘m bheil e féin a’ creidsinn gur maith agus ceart e; agus ni, a tha comas agus rùn aige choimhlionadh. Gidheadh is peacadh mionn a dhiùltadh mu thimchioll aon ni a tha maith agus ceart, air dha sin bhi air a chur fa ‘r comhair le ùghdarras laghail.
IV. Is còir mionnan a thabhairt ann an seadh soilleir agus ghnàthach nam briathar, as eugmhais atharrachaidh seadh no taisg-inntinn. Cha ‘n fheud mionn ar ceangal gu peacadh a dhèanamh; ach an uair a bheirear e, ann an ni nach ‘eil peacach, tha e ceangal duine ‘r a choimhlionadh, ged biodh sin le call da féin: agus cha chòir am briseadh, ged b’ ann do Eiricich, no do ana-creidmhich a bhiodh iad air an tabhairt.
V. Tha nàdur na bòide, agus nàdur mionn-gheallaidd cosmhuil r’ a chéile, agus ‘s ann leis a’ chùram chràbhach cheudna is còir a tabhairt, agus leis an dìlseachd cheudna is còir a h-iocadh.
VI. ‘S ann do Dhia a mhàin, agus cha ‘n ann do chreutair ‘s am bith, is còir bòid a thabhairt: Agus a chum gu ‘m biodh i taitneach dha, ‘s còir a tabhairt gu toileach, o chreidimh, agus o choguis mu dheasdanas, air mhodh buidheachais air son trócair a fhuaradh, no chum gu faigh sinn an ni a ta dh ‘uireasbhuidh oirnn; le so tha sinn ‘g ar ceangal féin ni ‘s teinne ri dheasdanasaibh feumail; no ri nithibh eile, a mheud, ‘s a dh’fheudas iad cómhnadh a dhéanamh leis, no gu h-iomchuidh a chum a chur air aghaidh.
VII. Cha chóir do dhuine boid a thabhairt a chum ni sam bith a dhèanamh tha air a thoirmseag ann am focal Dé, no a bhacas dheasdanas air bith tha air ‘aithneadh ann; no aon ni mu nach ‘eil gealladh air bith aige, air comas fhagail o Dhia gu a choimhlionadh. Agus a thaobh so tha bòide manachail nam pápanach mu bheatha neophòsda, mu aidmheil air bochduinn, agus ùmhlachd riaghailteach co fhada o bhi ‘n an ceumaibh do thuilleadh foirdheachd, ‘s gu bheil iad ‘n an ribeachaibh gu saobh-chreidimh agus peacadh, anns nach còir do chriosduidh air bith e féin a chur an sas.
CAIBIDEAL XXIII. Mu ‘n Uachdaran Shaoghalta.
I. Dh’òrduich Dia Ard-Tighearn agus Righ an t-saoghail uile gu biodh Uachdaran shaoghalta fuidh a làimh-sa os ceann a’ phobuill, chum à ghloire féin. Agus chum a’ mhaith choitchinn: agus, a chum na criche so, dh’armaich e iad le comas a’ chlaidheimh, a chum dion agus misneach dhoibh-san a ta maith, agus a chum dioghatas a dhèanamh aire luchd-uile.
II. Tha e laghail do chriosduidhibh dreuchd Uachdaran a ghabhail, agus a chur an gniomh, an uair a ghairmear chuige sin iad; agus ‘n an riaghladh, bu chóir dhoibh gu h-áraid a bhi cumail suas na diadhachd, cothrom, agus sith, do réir lagha fhallain gach dùthcha; mar sin, a chum na criche so feudaidh iad gu laghail, a nis fuidh ‘n Tiomnadh Nuadh, cogadh a dhèanamh, air aobhar ceart agus iomchuidh.
III. Cha chóir do ‘n Uachdaran shaoghalta gabhail air féin frithealadh an fhocail no nan sàcramainte, no comas iuchraichean rioghachd nèimh: gidheadh tha ùghdarras aige, agus ‘s e a dheasdanas, cùram a ghabhail gu ‘m bi aonachd agus sith air an coinmhead ‘s an eaglais, gu ‘m bi firinn Dé air a coinneamh fior-ghlan agus iomlan; gu ‘m bi gach uile thoibheum agus saobh-chreidimh air an casg, gu ‘m bi gach uile thruailleadh agus mi-ghnàthachadh ann an aoradh agus ann an riaghladh na h-eaglais air am bacadh, no air an leasachadh, agus gu ‘m bi uil’ òrduighean Dhé gu h-iomchuidh air an suidheachadh, air am frithealadh, agus air an tabhairt fainear. Agus a chum na criche so, tha comas aige Seanaidh a ghairm, a bhi làthair annta, agus cùram a ghabhail gu ‘m bi gach ni a chrìochnaichear annta do réir inntinn Dhé.
IV. ‘S e dleasdanas a phobuill ùrnuigh a dhèanamh air son nan Uachdaran, urram a thabhairt d’am pearsaibh, cis agus dlighean eile a dhìoladh dhoibh a bhi freagarach d ‘an àitheantaibh laghail, agus a bhi ùmhal d ‘an ùghdarras air son coguis. Cha ‘n ‘eil neo-chreidimh, no eadar-dhealachadh creidimh a’ dèanamh ùghdarrais cheirt agus laghail an Uachdarain neo-tharbhach, no a’ saoradh a’ phobuill o ‘n ùmhlachd dha. Nithe o nach ‘eil luchdreuchd na h-Eaglais air am fuasgladh; agus is lugha na sin a tha comas aig a’ Phàpa os ceann nan dùthchaibh, no os ceann aon neach d ‘am pobull, agus is lugha na sin uile, a tha comas aige, an dùthchanna, no an ainm a thoirt uatha, ma mheasas esan gur saobh-chreidmhich iad, na fuidh lethsgel air bith eile.
CAIBIDEAL XXIV Mu Phòsadh, agus dealachadh.
I. Tha ‘m pòsadh gu bhi eadar aon fhear agus aon bhean; ‘s cha ‘n ‘eil e laghail gu ‘m bi ‘s an aon àm ach aon bhean aig an fhear, no ach aon fhear aig a’ mhnaoi.
II. Bha ‘m pòsadh air ‘òrduchadh a chum co-chuideachaidh an fhir agus na mnà-posda araon, a chum cinneas na h-eaglais le siol naomh, agus a chum neo-ghloine a bhacadh.
III. Tha e laghail do gach seòrsa dhaoine pòsadh, d’ an aithne le tuigse aontachadh ri pòsadh: gidheadh is dleasdanach do chriosduidhibh pòsadh a mhàin anns an Tighearn: Agus uime sin, cha chòir dhoibhsan a tha ‘g aidmheil a’ chreidimh ath-leasaichte, pòsadh a dhèanamh ri mi-chreidimhich, ri pàpanaich, no ri luchd-iodhoil-aoraidh eile: Ni mò is còir dhoibhsan a tha diadhaidh bhi air an cuing-cheangal gu neo-chothromach, le pòsadh a dhèanamh riu-san a tha gu soilleir mi-dhiadhaidh ‘n an caithe-beatha, no a tha ann an saobh-chreidimh millteach.
IV. Cha chòir do ‘n phòsadh bhi an taobh stigh do cheumaibh dàimhe co-fhola, no cleamhnais, a tha air an toirmeasg ‘s an fhocal: cha mhò dh’ fheudas na pòsaidhean collaidh sin bhi air an dèanamh laghail gu bràth le lagh air bith dhaoine, no le aontachadh nan càraid fèin, air chor gu feud iad sin am beatha chaitheamh le chéile mar fhear agus mar mhnaoi phòsda. Cha ‘n fheud am fear aon a phòsadh do dhilsibh a mhnà, ni ‘s dlùithe dha, thaobh fola, no dh’ fheudas e d’ dhilsibh féin; no a’ bhean aon neach a phòsadh do dhilsibh a fir, ni ‘s dlùithe dhi do thaobh fola, no dh’ fheudas i d’ a dilsibh féin.
V. Tha adhaltrannas no striopachas a nithear an déigh co-cheangail réitich, air dha bhi air ‘fhoillseachadh roimh ‘n phòsadh, a’ tabhairt aobhair ceart do ‘n phàirtidh neo-chiontach an co-cheangal réitich a sgaòileadh. Ma chuirear adhaltrannas an gnìomh an déigh pòsaidh, is laghail do ‘n phàirtidh neo-chiontach, dealachadh a thagradh agus ‘fhaghail: agus an déigh dealachaidh, neach eile a’ phòsadh, mar gu biodh a’ phàirtidh chiontach marbh.
VI. Ged tha truaillidheachd an duine co mòr, is gur h-ullamh leis bhi ‘g iarruidh aobhair chum an aitim sin a chur o chéile gu neo-dhligheach, a chuir Dia r’ a chéile ‘s a’ phòsadh, gidheadh chà ‘n ‘eil ni air bith ach adhaltranas, no an tréigsinn d’ an toil féin, nach feudar a leasachadh air mhodh air bith leis an Eaglais, no leis an uachdaran shaoghailta, ‘n a aobhar gu leòr a chum ceangal-pòsaidh fhuasgladh, agus ann an so a dhèanamh, ‘s ann air mhodh fholluiseich agus riaghailteich is còir do ‘n chuis dol air a h-aghaidh, agus gun a’ mhuinntir d’ ‘am buin i, bhi air am fàgail gu an toil, agus am mèinn féin.
CAIBIDEAL XXV. Mu ‘n Eaglais.
I. Tha an Eaglais choitchionn uile, a tha mar an ceudna neo-fhaicsinneach, air a déanamh suas ann an aireamh iomlan nan daoine taghta, a bha, a tha, no bhith-eas air an tional ‘n an aon fuidh Chriosd, a ceann; agus is i céile Chriosd i, a chorp, a lànachd iomlan-san a ta lionadh nan uile nithe anns na h-uile.
II. Tha ‘n Eaglais fhaicsinneach, a ta mar an ceudna uile-choitchionn fuidh ‘n t-soisgeul (neo-cheangailte ri aon fhine, mar bha i roimhe fuidh ‘n lagh) air a déanamh suas dhiubh-san uile air feadh an domhain, a tha ‘g aideachadh an fhior-chreidimh, maillle r’ an cloinn; agus is i sin rioghachd an Tighearn Iosa Criosd: Tigh agus teaghlach Dhé, agus cha ‘n fheudar idir an taobh muigh dhi, ruigsinn gu gnàthaichte air slàinte.
III. Do ‘n Eaglais choitchionn fhaicsinneich so, thug Criosd ministreileachd, focal, agus òrduighean Dhé, a chum nan naomh a thional agus an déanamh iomlan, ‘s a’ bheatha so, gu deireadh an t-saoghail; agus tha e le a làthaireachd, agus le a Spiorad, do réir a gheallaidh, ‘g an déanamh éifeachdach chum na criche sin.
IV. Bha an Eaglais choitchionn so, air uairibh ni b’ fhaicsinneiche, agus air uairibh ni bu neo-fhaicsinneiche. Agus tha Eaglaisean air leth, a tha ‘n am buill di, glan, ni ‘s mò no ni ‘s lugha, do réir mar tha teagasg an t-soisgeil air a theagasg, agus air a ghabhail, na h-òrdughean air am frithealadh, agus aoradh folluiseach air a dhèanamh le ni ‘s mò no le ni ‘s lugha do ghloine annta.
V. Tha na h-Eaglaisean a ‘s gloine fuidh nèamh, buailteach araon do mheasgadh agus do mhearchd: agus chlaon cuid diubh air an ais co mòr, ‘s nach ‘eil iad ‘n an Eaglaisibh do Chriosd, ach ‘n an Sionagogaibh do Shatan. Gidheadh bithidh do ghnàth Eaglais air thalamh a ni aoradh do Dhia do réir a thoile.
VI. Cha ‘n ‘eil ceann air bith eile aig an Eaglais ach an Tighearn Iosa Criosd. Ni mo dh ‘fheudas Pàpa na Ròimh bhi ‘n a cheann di ann an seadh ‘s am bith, ach is esan an t-ana-Criosd sin, duine sin a’ pheacaidh, agus mac an sgrios, a tha ‘g a árdachadh féin anns an Eaglais an aghaidh Chriosd, agus an aghaidh nan uile d’ an goirear Dia.
CAIBIDEAL XXVI. Mu cho-chomunn nan Naomh.
I. Tha aig na naomhaibh uile, a tha air an aonadh ri Iosa Criosd an Ceann, le a Spiorad agus le creidimh, co-chomunn ris, ‘n a ghràsaibh, ‘n a fhulangasaibh, ‘n a bhàs, ‘n a aiseirigh, agus ‘n a ghloir: agus air dhoibh bhi air an aonadh r’ a chéile ann an gràdh, tha co-chomunn aca ann an tiodhlacaibh agus ann an gràsaibh a chéile, agus tha e mar fhiachaibh orra na dleasdanais fholluiseach agus dhlomhair a choimhlionadh, a bhios a chum maith a chéile, araon ‘s an duine an leth stigh, agus anns an duine ‘s an leth muigh.
II. Tha e mar fhiachaibh air na naomhaibh do thaobh an aidmheil, co-chuideachd agus co-chomunn naomh a chumail suas ann an aoradh Dhé, agus ann an coimhlionadh gach seirbhis spioradail eile leis am feud iad maith spioradail a chéile chur air ‘aghaidh: agus mar an ceudna le bhi déanamh fuasglaidh d’ a chéile ann an nithibh o ‘n leth muigh, a réir an comais agus an uireasbhuidhibh fa leth. Agus mar bheir Dia cothrom iomchuidh, tha ‘n co-chomunn so gu bhi air a chumail riu-san uile a tha ann an àit air bith a’ gairm air ainm an Tighearn Iosa.
III. Cha ‘n ‘eil an co-chomunn so tha aig na naomhaibh ri Criosd, ‘g an déanamh air chor air bith ‘n an luchd co-pàirt do bhrigh a dhiadhachd, no air dhòigh ‘s am bith ‘g an eur ann an coimeas ri Criosd; agus is mi-dhiadhuidh agus toibheumach, aon chuid diubh sin a ràdh. Cha mhò tha an co-chomunn r’ a chéile mar naomhaibh a’ fuasgladh no a’ lughdachadh no còrach a tha aig gach duine air a mhaoin féin, agus air na nithibh a ta aige ‘n a sheilbh.