Delivered in St Jude’s, Glasgow, by Rev. Neil Cameron.
“Let her be defiled, and let our eye look upon Zion”
(Micah iv. 11).
I. Let us consider a few things concerning Zion, in the first place;
II. Let us consider those who were gathered against her; and
III. Let us consider their intention.
- A few things concerning Zion, and (1) When God set up His visible Church (afterwards called Zion) in the wilderness of Sinai, every thing concerning her mode of worship, her office-bearers and their respective duties, and her government and discipline, were all declared to Moses by the mouth of the Lord. As regards the Tabernacle, with all its furniture, the Lord gave the plan and specification of it, to the minutest detail, to Moses in Mount Sinai. Moses caused all things within and without the tabernacle to be made exactly as God ordered him to do. After all things were finished by the workmen, Moses examined every thing so as to make sure that nothing was done except what God ordered, and that nothing had been left undone of the things which God commanded to be done. He found that everything had been made in strict accordance with the pattern showed him in the Mount: “And Moses did look upon all the work, and behold, they had done it as the Lord commanded, even so they had done; and Moses blessed them.” The commands and instructions the Lord gave
Moses concerning the setting up of his Church among the children of Israel are fully recorded in the Book of Exodus, beginning at Chapter 25 and ending at Chapter 39. The Lord gave Moses a very good character as a servant, for He said concerning Him—”My servant Moses . . . who is faithful in all mine house.”
When, even, a man purposes to build a house, the first thing he will do is to get a plan of the house, which will be in accordance with the idea he has in his mind, and then he will submit the plan with specifications of how it is to be finished to the person who engages to do the work. Should he find when the house is finished that the workman threw the plan away and that he did act in everything according to his own ideas, would he accept of the house so built? or would he give the workman the like character as God gave Moses? I don’t think any man would; far less will God accept of houses built in His name—like the temple built on Mount Gerizim and the idolatrous and evil worship set up therein.
(2) In the New Testament we have the intimation made which God promised repeatedly in the Old Testament. All the typical forms of worship set up under the ceremonial law at Sinai has been superseded by “the good things that were to come,” and have passed away never to return again. But this does not mean that Zion, or the Church of God, is left without a pattern now as to how it should be built, not among the Jews only, but in the world at large. The plan is so clearly and definitely recorded in the New Testament that should any intelligent man take it in his hand, he could point out every thing in the Churches which is not consistent with it.
The statement made by our Lord Christ to the woman of Samaria—”Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet in Jerusalem, worship the Father. . . . But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth”—lies at the foundation of the change which was then being effected by the removal of the things that could be shaken so that the things which could not be shaken might remain, and come clearly into view. These things were the form of the spiritual worship of the New Testament, divested of the scaffolding of the typical rites under the Ceremonial Law, and also the truth that lay hid, except to the eye of faith, under these types. All these were
being fulfilled by the Lord Christ, who was the substance of them all, and their true meaning was shortly to be unveiled by the one offering of Christ on Calvary’s cross.
First, the temple was removed in which the only altar was on which the priest was to offer sacrifices for the sins of the people. For it is written—”But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood. He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” By the once offering up of Christ of Himself through the Eternal Spirit, the typical temple, the sacrificing priesthood, and all sacrifices for sin were abolished, being then fulfilled and of no further use. Secondly, the Gospel was now to be preached, in which Christ and Him crucified was to be set forth clearly as God’s only remedy for perishing, guilty men among all nations. The doctrines of the Gospel are evidently revealed in the Word of God. The office-bearers of the New Testament Church are definitely stated. These are elders and deacons. Beside these two offices, there are none mentioned. Elders are designated bishops; but nothing can be clearer than that the two names—elder and bishop—are applied to the same person. The duties of this office are, on the part of the teaching elder (minister) to preach the Gospel, and to rule, along with ruling elders, over the Church in spiritual matters. The duties of the deacons are connected with the pecuniary affairs of the Church, such as the distribution of the people’s contributions to the poor, and the provision made for supporting the ministry, etc. These two officers were represented in the Old Testament Church by the priests and Levites, but with this difference, that whereas God chose the priests and Levites, elders and deacons are to be elected by the voice, or votes, of the members of the New Testament Church. The Papist and Episcopal Churches have no Scriptural warrant for their hierarchy.
The mode of worship in the New Testament is clearly set forth. The Word of God is to be read and preached in the language of the people—not in an unknown tongue. All its doctrines are to be asserted, maintained, and defended, viz., the doctrine of the infallibility and absolute inerrancy of the whole Bible—the doctrine of
man’s fall and of all his posterity with and in him—the doctrine of eternal punishment as the wages of sin—the doctrine of man’s total inability to earn the favour of God and eternal life by any efforts he may put forth to obey the law of God—the doctrine of the obedience and death of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, as the only Mediator and Saviour of guilty and lost men, and of His ability to save to the uttermost them that come to God by Him—the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit in the effectual calling of men by the Gospel to repentance, faith, love, etc.—the doctrine of the perseverance of God’s elect in faith and holiness unto the end. This is an imperfect summary of the doctrines to be held and publicly declared by the Church now under the New Testament. Public and private prayer is much enjoined. In the family, prayers are to be put up daily. In public worship prayer is to be made for all men, but especially for the Lord’s people and cause in the world. Praise, which is greatly commended, is to be the fruit of the lips, and not to be offered under the New Testament by musical instruments of any description whatsoever.
Strict discipline is commanded. Pertinacious heretics—that is, such as hold or teach views contrary to God’s Word on any point of the Church’s avowed creed, and who persist in the same—are to be separated from the Church. Again, such as live immorally and bring the cause of Christ under slander and contempt in the sight of His enemies, are likewise to be separated.
The godly and upright men who formulated the creed and practice of the Church of Scotland at the Reformation founded every statement of her constitution upon the pattern they saw in the New Testament. So careful were they as to this, that each member of the Westminster Assembly of Divines had to give his oath that he would not do or say anything contrary to God’s Word. The result was that, so far as it was possible for fallible men, the Church of the Reformation in Scotland was built entirely in strict accordance with the Church set up by the apostles. It was solidly laid upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being its chief corner-stone. Thus was Sion set up in Scotland as sure as it ever was either at Sinai or at Jerusalem. The result of this great care on the part of these upright men is set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the other subordinate standards relative thereto.
II. Let us consider those who were gathered against her. And (1) Those who opposed Zion, or the true Church of God, under the Old Testament dispensation.
When the children of Israel came to take possession of the land of Canaan, they were commanded to destroy the Amorites, etc., who inhabited it. They did not fulfil this command, as we have it written—”And the angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you, and ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars; but ye have not obeyed my voice: Why have ye done this? Wherefore, I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you. And it came to pass . . . that the people lifted up their voice and wept” (Judges ii. 1-4). They had good cause for weeping, as their after history reveals.
In the days of Isaiah the Church is described by him as a besieged city. This siege is set forth in the 83rd Psalm—”They said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: the tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; Moab and the Hagarenes; Gebal and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre; Assur also is joined with them; they have holpen the children of Lot.” Surely this is an extraordinary confederacy against the Church, which justifies fully the description of a besieged city. They were all idolaters, and they considered that Jehovah, the God of Israel, was not better than their own idols, and that His worship was not at all so good as the worship of their gods. But the animosity shown against the Church of God has a power behind it in every age—even the power of the god of this world (Satan), but He that is in the Church is stronger than he that is in the world.
(2) Those who oppose Sion in New Testament times, are legion. First, the nations that imbibed the pernicious idolatry of the Church of Rome. Religiously, they are to the true Christian Church what the surrounding idolatrous nations were to the Old Testament Church. Besides, these nations—such as France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, etc., there are hosts of others. Germany, with
*
her Rationalism; Russia with her nefarious Communism, thirsting for the blood of their neighbours, and the extirpation of all true religion; Ritualists in England and Scotland, bent upon bringing the Churches of the Reformation in Britain back to the slavery and idolatry of Rome. Along with all these are to be considered the carnal professors of religion within the Churches, who have a form of godliness while denying its power. The world with its lusts—the lusts of the flesh and of the eyes, and the pride of life. Surely the true Church of the living God is like a besieged city in the midst of them all. But seeing that time demands brevity, let us proceed to consider, in the last place—
III. Their intention, and (1) Their real aim and intention was, “Let her be defiled.” This was their intention in Old Testament times. Her creed, mode of worship, and her discipline were far too holy and narrow and strict for the surrounding nations, so they used all their influence and powers to make up a confederacy by which the worship of idols and the worship of Jehovah, Israel’s God, should be blended together. By the unfaithfulness and unsteadfastness of leading men in Church and State, encouraged by false prophets, they did defile her to their own ruin and misery. The culmination of this process was reached that day, on the plain of Dura in Babylon, on which the three young, noble, Christian men refused unflinchingly to bow their knees to Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image, and faced the fiery furnace in performance of their duty to God and His Church. Two things followed the persecution of Jehovah’s faithful witnesses that day—(1) The decree of Nebuchadnezzar—”That every people, nation and language which speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill; because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort.” So we find the Jews, after their return from the captivity, refusing to co-operate with the people of Canaan in the rebuilding of the temple, because of the idolatry they had mixed with their worship of Jehovah. This hatred to and fear of idolatry continued among the Jews till the time of our Lord’s appearance on earth; and has done so ever since. But other dangerous efforts were made by Satan. And (2) men arose within the Jewish Church who defiled her. The Sadducees taught that there were no spirits—neither angels, nor the souls of men—and that there would be no resurrection. The Old Testament was dis-
believed by them wherever anything in it was contrary to their rationalistic tenets. Annas, Caiaphas, and all the priests in the days of our Lord’s humiliation were of this heretical class. Our Lord charged them with being ignorant of the Scriptures and of the power of God; and therefore of erring greatly.
The Pharisees were another party in the Church then. Our Lord denounced them as hypocrites. He exposed their pride, self-seeking, their pernicious abrogating of the law of God by their traditions, their zeal in their efforts to bring the people to hold their damnable views and practices, and their turning the temple—the house of prayer to all people—into a house of merchandise, or into a den of thieves. Thus, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel was defiled, more by men holding the highest offices within her pale than by her enemies from without.
Their real intention was, “Let our eye look upon Zion,” or as these words may be translated—Let us see our desire upon Zion. Their desire was to change her mode of worship, and her faith to conformity with the creed of the natural man. Regeneration, or a being born again, was so far out of sight that when our Lord taught Nicodemus the absolute necessity of it in order to see or enter into the Kingdom of God, he was amazed. This man was one of the Pharisees, and a teacher of the people. By the doctrines of these men, who desired to make great progress in bringing into the Church the new light which they held, they landed her in darkness. Christ said of it—”If the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness!” These men saw their desire upon Zion to her utter ruin, and the everlasting ruin of millions of the poor Jews.
(2) In the second place, let us apply this part of our text to the New Testament Church, or Sion. How the Church was defiled in the sub-apostolic age, and how that defilement matured in the Antichrist or Papacy is a matter of common history. All her doctrines, form of worship, form of government, and her foundation—Christ—was transferred to the Pope. The name of Christ and Christianity was retained in order to deceive the nations, but the whole form of doctrine and worship became heathenish idolatry. Almost all this defilement was brought about from within the Church. Pride and self-seeking on the part of unconverted men wrought all the mischief. Whole heathen nations were received into the Church, and their idolatry along with them;
only the names of heathen idols were changed by giving them Christian names. Thus the Church was defiled, and Satan and wicked men saw their desire upon Sion. This awful apostacy became so prevalent and had got so entrenched in the whole of Christendom, that such as would not accept of this great harlot as the true Church of Christ were persecuted to the most cruel deaths that Satan and Antichrist could invent. This terrible state of affairs continued for about one thousand years, till the Reformation of the sixteenth century. These thousand years are known in history as “The Dark Ages,” and dark they were truly!
At the Reformation men began to look into the Word of God, and they saw that the Pope was Antichrist, and that his claims to be the Vicar of Christ were absolutely false. So the true Church became visible out of the mist of darkness which concealed her during the Dark Ages. But as time and space will not allow us to enter more fully into her future, with the exception of Scotland, we will confine our search into the way men endeavoured to defile her in our beloved land.
When John Knox was greatly honoured by God in removing all the idolatry, superstition, and hierarchy of the Papacy out of the Protestant Church of Scotland, and set up that Church upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Italy, France, Spain, Ireland, and a strong party in Scotland and England did all in their power to defile her, with the intention of seeing their desire upon Sion; but all their efforts failed. No intrigue or diabolical conspiracy that could be invented in secret was left untried. But the Lord was building Sion, and consequently no weapon formed against her prospered. But the faithful servants of Christ had to pass through great sufferings before the Protestant Church of Scotland was established as the Church of Scotland.
At the time of the Second Reformation, when the Church of Scotland, at the General Assembly in Glasgow in 1638, did cast off the incubus of prelacy which had been surreptitiously introduced into her ministry and mode of worship, she appeared again in her glory. The Westminster Assembly of Divines followed four years after that. The results of their labours during five years were our Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Form of Church Government, and the Form of Worship which formed the Subordinate Standards of the Church of Scotland. All these were passed by the Parliament of Scotland as the recognised standards
of the Church, and declared to be in perfect agreement with the Word of God. Carnal and unconverted men in high positions felt that the discipline and doctrine of the Church were far too strict and pure for their licentious mode of life, and they put their heads together with the intention of defiling her by making her lax in doctrine and worship. Another bold effort was made to change her ministry and form of worship, but she for a short space of time held her integrity. Under that profligate man, King Charles II., her ministry acted traitorously, so that the few who said, “She shall not be defiled and your eyes shall not see your desire upon Sion should it cost us our all and even our lives,” took to the caves and dens in the mountains of Scotland, and were persecuted, hanged, slain with the sword; they were in cold, hunger, nakedness, and poverty during twenty-eight years. At last the Lord appeared for them, and He hurled off the British Throne the family of the Stuarts, and brought into infamy the sycophants who, for court favour, betrayed God’s Church and their countrymen. There is hardly any of their posterity in Scotland to-day. We are exceedingly indebted to these godly and faithful and true men and women who suffered the most horrible deaths to save the Church from being defiled; for had they not done so we would not have enjoyed our spiritual and temporal liberty; but, on the contrary, we would be under the temporal and spiritual degradation of the papacy. Let no slanderer of those noble men and women cause you to blush or to be ashamed of them.
Let us now consider the efforts put forth in the Free Church of Scotland to defile her, so that her enemies might see their desire on her. The Free Church in 1843 held exactly the position taken by the Church of Scotland at the Second Reformation. Men in office, within her pale, introduced uninspired hymns into her worship, thereby ousting the Psalms of David from the place given them by God’s Word and by the Confession of Faith. The argument made use of by these men was that by allowing these few hymns they would be a barrier against instrumental music. The late Dr Kennedy, of Dingwall, warned the Assembly against such subtle pretences, and told them that, within twelve years, the men who asked the Assembly to allow hymns to be used in the public worship of the Church that day would come there to plead for the introduction of instrumental music. This was actually fulfilled. The Assembly of the Free Church thus defiled the Church, and allowed men to see
their desire upon her pure and Scriptural mode of worship.
The next step on the down grade in the Free Church was that in the name of superior learning, doubts were cast upon the infallibility and absolute inerrancy of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. During the controversy over this most vital doctrine, it became manifest that there were an alarming number of the ministers and elders in the Assembly quite prepared to grant the conclusion against the Bible brought forward by one of her professors, Professor Robertson Smith. The Professor was allowed to resign his place after several years of debate; but his views, which he got in that asylum of our woes, Germany, had taken deep root in the Church. This was the first nail struck into the coffin of the Free Church. It has caused that the Bible is a discredited Book in the minds of both the ministry and people of our poor country. Surely this was a case of “Let her be defiled and let our eye see our desire upon Zion.” The Lord’s true people mourned and wept in secret before the Lord on account of this infidelity and daring blasphemy, and their determination was that they would have to separate from such ungodly men. These men began to move for union with a Church which did not hold either the doctrines or principles of the Free Church. This movement was stopped at that time, but the purpose to have it consummated was not given up. Immediately a crusade was set on foot to have the Church of Scotland disestablished. This also was given up for the time being. [But the Established Church of Scotland has now disestablished herself, for she has now the reins thrown on her own neck, so that she has freedom, if it can be called freedom, to change her relation to the Westminster Confession of Faith, without Parliament having any right to interfere.] The Free Church began then to question several statements in the Confession of Faith. This was done on the pretence that there were young men, for whom the Church should make allowances, who could not subscribe the Confession if things were left as they were. The writer remembers well the debates in the Edinburgh Presbytery of the Free Church over this matter, and the exceedingly painful experience through which he was passing on account of these indications of the rapid downfall of that Church. These debates ended in the formulating and passing of the Declaratory Act of 1892. By this Act, so cunningly
phrased, room was made in that Church for holding all the innovations that were up till then contended for. When this Act appeared it became immediately manifest that if the purity of the original Free Church was to be upheld, it would have to be done outside the jurisdiction of that backsliding Church.
Along with the above changes in her creed and constitution, the Free Church introduced social gatherings into her congregations, at which her ministers became the buffoons of the vain and carnal members and adherents of their congregations and neighbours. Speeches were made to cause as much laughter as possible; vain songs and even masques were indulged in, to the scandal of serious piety and the heart-grief of the truly godly. Sales of work and bazaars were also held, at which raffling for some time was the order in vogue for such. Even playing cards and dancing were made use of. So that the world had now if ever seen its desire in the defilement of Sion.
But when the General Assembly of 1893 refused by an overwhelming majority to listen to the protest and appeal of some of her ministers and elders to take steps to repeal the Declaratory Act of 1892, the Rev. Donald Macfarlane, their minister at Raasay, tabled a protest and a declaration, by which he made known that he and such as might follow him would set up the Free Church of 1843 on her original position, and separate from the jurisdiction of the Declaratory Act Church, and from all innovations she had introduced contrary to the Word of God and the Subordinate Standards of the Church of the Reformation in Scotland. This was in truth as much as to say, “She shall not be defiled, and your eyes shall not see your desire upon Zion.”
Thus the Free Church was resuscitated without adding anything to her constitution; but all the defilements these men brought into her were left with themselves in the new Church which they had formed. Rev. D. Macfarlane and those who helped him to reform the Free Church were denounced then as schismatics, and the people were warned not to follow nor to go near them, because they were breaking up what they called the Free Church but what was in fact another Church having a new creed and constitution set forth in her Declaratory Act. None was so vehement in denouncing them as the party who were hitherto of the same mind with them, viz., that nothing but separation could save the Free Church. These men remained till 1900 in that
Church without showing much concern about her defilement, but quite concerned about restraining the people from joining the party who could not allow the Church to be any longer a den of thieves.
In the year 1900, a union was constituted between the Declaratory Act Church and the United Presbyterian Church. A remainder of the Constitutional ministers refused to enter into that union, and raised an action in the civil courts, claiming the whole property and funds of the Free Church. They lost the case in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, but gained it in the House of Lords. It was quite manifest to every unbiased person that the Declaratory Act Church, with her entirely new creed and constitution, had no right to property built or money subscribed for the original Free Church. It was hoped then that they who refused to enter into this union would see to it that all innovations in doctrines and practices would be immediately purged out, and that they would take up exactly the original position of the Free Church as she was constituted in 1843. Had they done this there would be no difference betwixt them and those who separated in 1893; but they did nothing of the kind. A movement for union with this party was begun in the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church within a fortnight after the above union took place. It may be desirable to explain that the designation, Free Presbyterian Church, was taken by the party that separated in 1893 for distinction’s sake. The Synod came to the conclusion that they were pleased that these men did not enter into the recent union; but that it was premature to take any steps in uniting with them till it would be seen how they would deal with the innovations under which they had remained during seven years since 1893. It very soon became evident that they had no intention of removing the anti-Christian practices which had destroyed the purity and peace of the once noble Free Church of Scotland.
But the party who moved in the Free Presbyterian Synod in 1900 that steps should be taken for uniting with the present Free Church, continued to agitate for it till 1905. It became evident that this was a repetition of the desire, “Let her be defiled, and let our eye see its desire upon Zion.” When the Synod of our Church refused to acquiesce in this desire, these men went over to the Free Church. Social gatherings, bazaars, sales of work, and even Higher Criticism were all swallowed by them; for not a word has been heard
since from any of them against these defiling views and practices.
We then thought that all the renegades had gone away, and that we should have no more trouble with men of this stamp; but our thoughts were mere dreams. For in the year 1916, a Committee was appointed by the Commission of the Assembly of the Free Church “to confer with any committee which may be appointed by the Free Presbyterian Church on all matters that may at present be regarded as obstacles to co-operation or union between these Churches.” The Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church sent a statement of outstanding obstacles that would have to be removed by the Free Church before the Synod could take any steps in the desired direction—(1) “The Free Church has never explicitly condemned the views advocated by Dr W. M. Alexander, one of her professors, in a book named ‘Demonic Possession,’ views destructive of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, nor has she called upon Dr Alexander to state publicly in distinct and unequivocal terms that he repudiates the book and sincerely regrets the anti-Scriptural opinions expressed therein, and by her unfaithfulness in this respect has called in question her own loyalty to the doctrine of the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God.” (2) “The Free Church, in an Act of 1905, rescinding the Declaratory Act of 1892, inserted a clause in the preamble of the said rescinding Act, namely, ‘as she has always adhered,’ which bears the construction that the Free Church in her corporate capacity had always adhered to the Confession of Faith and other subordinate standards as adopted by the Free Church in 1846, and which clause may be reasonably construed as a censure of the position of the Free Presbyterian Church relative to the Declaratory Act of 1892, the said Act being the overt ground of its taking up a separate position in 1893. . . . The present Free Church, by the clause referred to, has raised a standing barrier between her and the Free Presbyterian Church.” (3) “The Free Church, since 1900, has thrown open the door of admission to her ministry very indiscriminately to men out of a great variety of Churches, and this latitudinarianism has also raised a barrier between her and the Free Presbyterian Church.” (4) “The Free Church has been lax in her general discipline and practice, and differs from the Free Presbyterian Church in such matters as church bazaars and sales of work, church soirees and social meetings, prayers
at the grave, and to mention a particular case of discipline, the failure on the part of her Assembly to remove a Popish symbol from one of her church buildings.
“The Synod, in adopting this statement, declares that it does so with a sincere desire for the glory of Christ, the Head of the Church, the integrity of His Word, both in profession and practice, a clear testimony for the truth as embodied in the Confession of Faith and other subordinate standards, and the general welfare of Christ’s cause in Scotland and throughout the world.”
To this statement of facts, the Free Church returned a very evasive reply. No steps were taken to effectually remove any of the matters referred to then, and nothing has been done since to show the least intention on the part of the Free Church to rectify these defections.
Notwithstanding three of our ministers did all that they could to bring the Free Presbyterian Church over to the Free Church, and when they saw that they could not succeed in this purpose, they went over to her without getting any of the things complained of removed. But the Synod and all the people of the Free Presbyterian Church said again:—”She shall not be defiled, and your eye shall not see your desire upon Zion.” Let it be noted to the praise of the people of our Church (not to flatter them) that, with the exception of a few, very few, they adhered firmly to the position taken up in 1893.
There are and have been a few who make great pretensions as to piety, but who make manifest by their conduct that the Free Presbyterian Church is too strict in her discipline, and also some who show that they think it no defilement for the Free Church to have had and to tenaciously retain these infidel and carnal men and practices. But we pray that the Lord will, of His superabounding grace and strength, hold up the goings of the Free Presbyterian Church to the end, and that godly and faithful ministers, and other office-bearers, will, in the future as in the past, contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints in her pulpits and Church courts.
Our sufferings are wathen in Christ’s blood, as well as our souls; for Christ’s merits brought a blessing to the crosses of the sons of God.—Rutherford.
Cheer up your heart; when you tire, Christ will bear both you and your burden!—Rutherford.