The above paper by Rev. S. J. Henman was read as a presidential address in 1935 at the annual meeting of the Fellowship of Evangelical Churches. It appeared in various religious papers. It is a well balanced statement on the subject with which it deals.—Editor.
MY subject centres round two words which are closely akin. Controversy and Compromise. These words have fallen upon evil days in later years, and I think they need rescuing and reclaiming for the Service of God.
I. CONTROVERSY.
The literal meaning of the word is “a turning against.” It may be quite a simple dispute. A statement is advanced and you turn it back because you do not accept it. That is controversy. In advancing it reasons are given for so doing, and in turning it back other reasons are given, and so it goes on and becomes an argument or discussion. In the argument many things are often introduced which are not relevant to the point at issue and it is obscured, and a purely wordy warfare ensues. Or heat may be introduced, and the matter which should be quietly and seriously considered with a view to an agreement is often a cause of strife and division. Therefore, some people raise the cry, “No Controversy!” But we need to distinguish between the essential and the incidental: right methods and wrong, and not condemn a thing because some people use it wrongly.
The necessity for controversy arises from the fact that there is evil in the world as well as good: error as well as truth, and these two are not only contrary to one another, but contradictory of each other. Good and evil can never be reconciled, and no one can be on both sides at the same time. Everyone must, and does, inevitably choose his side either actively or passively.
The word controversy occurs thirteen times in the Old Testament. There is the controversy of Zion (Isaiah xxxiv. 8). Jehovah has a controversy with the Nations (Jeremiah xxv. 31), and with His people (Hosea iv. 1, and xii. 2, Micah vi. 2), and He will plead with them. These passages show us what true controversy is. It is the opposing of evil and refusing to acknowledge its right, and giving reasons for so doing. God is engaged in a holy controversy with evil in all its forms, and we who profess to be His servants are to let it be known that we are on His side. This was the challenge to Israel in Moses’ day in the matter of the golden calf, and in Elijah’s day regarding Baal. Christian controversy has to do with matters that are vital to the Kingdom of God. There are truths about which we differ, and which can well be left to each man’s individual judgment in the sight of God, because the difference is of the surface rather than of the foundations. They are important—all truth is—but not fundamental, and we are able to discuss them together while yet remaining on equal terms of fellowship. But there are some truths which cannot be so treated. As for instance, the full inspiration and complete authority of the Scriptures: the proper and essential Godhead of our Lord: His atoning and substitutionary work at Calvary: His triumphant resurrection and ascension: the new birth: salvation by grace through faith and not of works: the condemnation of the unbeliever and Christ rejector. These truths are vital, and there are others, and with all those who deny or distort them God has a controversy, and so have we, His servants, if we are faithful. Where truth is concerned we cannot be neutral or non-committal and loyal at the same time.
But controversy is to be conducted in harmony with the mind of Christ. He is our pattern in this as in all else. It is important to see that a great part of the New Testament is controversial; that is to say, it was written to expose some error and to put in its place the positive truth. Dr. Stalker in his “Imago Christi,” p. 285, says, “In the records of our Lord’s life we have pages upon pages of controversy. It may have been far from the work in which He delighted most to be engaged; but He had to undertake it all through His life, and especially towards its close. The most eminent of His servants in every age have had to do the same.” These words are true, and I may add that there are very few pages of the New Testament where no trace of controversy can be found. The question is a simple one. In addition to giving to the best of our ability our positive and constructive witness to the great truths for which we stand, are we never to raise our voices in protest against those who by word and act are so diligently undermining these truths by specious arguments? Dr. Stalker also says, p. 283, “At the present time controversy has an evil name,” and, p. 287, “Excessive aversion to controversy may be an indication that a Church has no keen sense of possessing truth which is of any great worth, and that it has lost appreciation for the infinite difference in value between truth and error.” This is also true, and to be remembered.
I am very far from wishing to turn this Fellowship into a controversial machine. That was not in the intention and purpose of its founders for a moment. But I am equally far from wishing to see it remain entirely silent on the great matters that agitate the Church from time to time. We want a fellowship in affirmation, that is our principal purpose; but there will be occasions when we shall need to have a fellowship in protest. Fellowship in the truth may mean, and must mean sometimes, fellowship against error.
In saying these things I do not forget that in matters of controversy we need very earnestly to seek the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the special guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many rush in where angels fear to tread, and that has brought the whole subject into a measure of disrepute. Some of us, it may be, have had to dissociate ourselves from those with whom fundamentally we are in the heartiest agreement, because we do not feel that their methods are of God. To rightly conduct controversy it is necessary first of all to have very clear convictions of truth, and then to examine the matter in dispute, as far as possible, from all sides. We need also to search our own hearts to see that there is no selfish interest, or desire for self-prominence or advantage of any kind. In addition there should be an earnest seeking of the grace of humility, as well as of the mind of Christ in meekness and gentleness. We must likewise give credit for any good that can be found in our opponent, and be careful not to impugn motives which only God can rightly determine. In short, controversy, like marriage, is not to be entered into lightly, but prayerfully, in the fear of God and under His guidance, submitting ourselves entirely to His will, remembering that the controversy is really His, in the first place. At the same time we must not shrink from pointing out in the plainest and most definite way how the statements and actions which we are controverting, contravene the truth as it is revealed in the Word of God. It is the honour of God that is at stake, and we must try so to act and speak as that He shall be glorified. The closing weeks of our Lord’s life were largely spent in controversy, and so were the closing years of the Apostle Paul. Reading these records, we see how steadfastly our Lord held to the Scriptures, and with what wisdom and grace He answered His critics and exposed their errors. At times His words were scathing: “O generation of vipers;” at another time He gently expostulated: “Ye do greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures.” And sometimes He carried the war into the enemy’s camp by asking questions which they dared not answer, and by making statements which they could not contradict. We cannot help being controversial at times if we are going to keep the Faith, for if we are silent when Truth is denied or distorted, and there is opportunity to protest, our silence may well be taken as consent. Moreover, to make our position clear is necessary for our own peace of mind’s sake and the spiritual health of our soul. I have kept the Faith, said the Apostle—that is, he had kept it by proclaiming it plainly and fearlessly and by defending it against those who would deny it.
The cry “No Controversy” in New Testament times would have meant that when the Rulers denied our Lord’s Messiahship, He would have said nothing; when Peter dissembled at Antioch, Paul would not have withstood him to the face; when some said that the resurrection was already passed, he would not have answered them, and when others were preaching Gnosticism or Judaism as an addition to the Gospel, he would have refrained from exposing their errors. But then a good deal of the New Testament would never have been written! As Dr. Stalker says, “Controversy is by no means a pleasant task,” and I can personally testify to the mental pain one suffers when feeling impelled to engage in it, and especially when those we have to oppose are fellow-believers whom we hold in real affection and esteem. But I can also say that out of such painful experiences have come some of the most precious manifestations of God’s grace and care.
II. COMPROMISE.
I now pass on to speak of the kindred topic of compromise, and first of all to see what we mean by the term. In its derivation it is an agreement, and the dictionary defines it as placing one’s life, honour or reputation in a position of jeopardy by agreement. We are here concerned with believers in Christ, because in matters of Biblical truth they are the ones chiefly involved, and it is to them I am addressing these words. In experience it is the fact, I believe, that the nearer one seeks to abide by the truth of God as revealed in His Word, the more careful we have to be to see that we are not betrayed into a position which, to some extent at least, nullifies our positive testimony. The Apostle John lays down an inspired rule which is most important, but is not always easy to apply. In his Second Epistle, verses 9 to 11, he says, “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed; for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds.” What is meant by the doctrine or teaching of Christ? We understand it to be the great fundamental facts as taught by the Saviour and recorded in the Scriptures. “If any man bring not this.” It is not chiefly what a man says, but what he does not say; and this is very significant, for it is just here that so many lead others astray. Yet in dealing with cases like this we have to be careful to inquire the reason for the omission. Is it deliberate and because the speaker does not believe these things, or is it that he is taking them for granted for the moment, and does not feel the need of specially affirming them on that particular occasion? The answer to these questions will determine our attitude and action. Our Lord’s example needs to be carefully studied and copied.
Compromises may be entered into in three ways. (1) By silence when truth demands that we should speak. Not that silence always involves compromise, for there is a dignified silence that is more eloquent than words, and a look may convey as much as a word. (2) By a hasty consent or co-operation without giving time for prayerful thought and for seeking the mind of the Lord. (3) By association, which is the most frequent form that compromise takes. Men holding the fundamental facts of our Faith will associate on terms of equality with others who, while professing to be believers, deny or belittle these facts. This is compromise of the most insidious and dangerous type. It may be regarded as very narrow and bigoted to refuse to associate with such, but the honour of God and the clarity and truth of our own witness must stand first, and we dare not. “He that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” Was it not for just such a compromise that Jehoshaphat was rebuked by the prophet Jehu, in 2 Chronicles xix. 2? There is not only individual responsibility, but collective responsibility, and association on equal terms with those from whom I am compelled to differ fundamentally compromises my position and weakens my moral character. Otherwise truth becomes a matter of opinion rather than of conviction. We are stewards of the mysteries of God, and we shall have to give an account.
In maintaining a position of no compromise it is important that we should not only have definite and clear convictions concerning the truth, but also firmness and steadfastness of purpose, together with a spirit of meekness and fairness and, above all, self-control. These things are not naturally found in us, but the indwelling Spirit will give them as we surrender ourselves to His ruling and guidance.
Further consideration of the subject will remind us that there are a good many matters of Scripture interpretation about which those who are of one mind as to fundamentals have always differed, largely because of the different angle at which they approach them, and it is here that another principle comes in to check and guide the former. It may be called Christian accommodation, and it was in relation to this that the great Apostle said that he sought to be all things to all men, and that we were to receive one another as Christ also received us. Difference of view on these things should not divide believers to the point of separation from one another. We can agree to differ on many things without compromise or any breach of fellowship being made. The bonds of love and peace which unite the people of God are sufficiently strong and elastic to stand the strain of such differences without any danger of breaking. The essential thing is to maintain an attitude of frankness on the one hand and considerateness on the other. It is hardly necessary perhaps to add that in the application of these principles to individual cases, we should earnestly seek the special guidance of God.
Here I leave the subject. I have tried to speak of things which have been in my own mind for many years and of principles which have guided my own conduct in many difficult and sometimes very painful experiences, “and herein do I exercise myself to have a conscience void of offence towards God and toward men.”
Irioslachd.
Ni iriosleachd duine coltach ri aingil, agus a dh’uireasbhaidh so rinneadh aingil ‘nan deamhnaibh; Chan ‘eil peacaich uaibhreach ‘nan companaich iomchaidh do neach ‘s am bith ach do dheamhnaibh uaibhreach: is e am fear-aidmheil is ro ghràdhaichte, am fear aidmheil is ro-iriosaile. Tha creideach coltach ri soitheach air a’ chuan, mar is mò a lìonas i, is ann as mò a théid i fodha: chan ‘eil neach a’ caitheadh a bheatha cho iriosal air thalamh ris an dream sin is àirde a tha caitheadh am beatha air nèamh: dèanaibh ach sealltainn cia mar tha h-aon de na naoimh is as fheàrr ag amharc air féin mar an t-aon as lugha de na naoimh “Dhomh-sa, as lugha na ‘n ti as lugha de na naoimh uile,” arsa Pòl (Eph. iii. 8). Is iad na daoine is ro-naomha de ghne na daoine is ro iriosaile; far an e irioslachd a’ chlach-oisinn, an sin is e diadhachd a chlach-mhullaich. Tha e math smaointean firinneach a bhi againn umainn féin. Bu chòir do dh’ éideadh na h-irioslachd a bhi daonnan air a chaitheadh air druim aidmheil a’ chreideimh Chriosdail.
Tha dà thaigh aig Dia Uile-chumhachdach anns am beil e’ gabhail comhnaidh, a thaigh baile, agus a thaigh-dùthcha, is e thaigh-baile nèamh nan nèamh, agus is e thaigh-dùthcha an cridhe umhail agus iriosal (Isa. lvii. 15). “Anns an ionad àrd agus naomha gabham-sa còmhnaidh;” is e sin an nèamh taigh-baile Dhé; “maile ris-san fòs a ta leòinte agus brùite ’na spioraid,” is e sin a thaigh dùthcha; is e irioslachd Betel is còmhnaidh do Dhia—is e uabhar Babel togail an diabhoil. Mur ruig sibh uabhar a mach as bhur n-anam, agus bhur n-anam a mach á uabhar, cumaidh uabhar bhur n-anma a mach á nèamh. Chan abair mi nach ’eil duine gu bochd uair air bith uaibhreach, ach their mi nach ’eil duine uaibhreach uair ’s am bith math.
“Tha Dia a’ cur an aghaidh nan uaibhreach, ach a’ toirt gràis dhaibh-san a ta iriosal.” (Seum. iv. 6). Tha gnuis an t-soirbh-eachaidh a’ dealradh na’s lainniriche troimh ghnùis-bhrat na h-irioslachd: do na h-uile thrusgan is e irioslachd as fhearr a thig do Chriosdaidhean, agus as fhearr a ni maiseach an aidmheil tha’n fhuiligeas Dia gu’n smuainticheadh duine ’s am bith gu math uime féin. Bu chòir do Chriosdaidh amharc leis an dara sùil air gràs, g’a chumail taingeil, agus leis an t-sùil eile air féin g’a chumail brònach. An uair a thòiseacheas sibh ri fàs uaibhreach as bhur n-iteagan lainnirach amhaircibh sios air bhur casan dubha. Is e ’n aon dòigh air ar crùn a ghleidheadh air ar cinn, an tilgeil sios aig a chasan-san (Tais. iv. 10).—Uilleam Dyer.
Litir Mhic Cheyne gu Gille a Bha fo Churam Anama.
A Ghille ghràdhaich, Bha mi ro thoilichte do litir fhaotainn, agus tha mi nis a’ suidhe sios gus fios-freagairt a chur thugad, ged nach ’eil mòran ùine agam. Tha mór gaol agam dhuit, oir tha t’ anam prìseil; agus ma thig thu gu Iosa gus a bhi air do ghlanaidh agus air t’ fhireanaichadh leis, bidh t’ òran-molaichd na’s binne na òran nan ainglean. Bha mi an diugh a mach air an t-sneachd, far nach robh ceum coisiche ri fhaicinn; bha an sneachd cho glan geal ’s gun tug e gu mo chuimbne an ùrnuigh so, “ionnail mi agus bithidh mi na’s gile na’n sneachd.” O, is milis an ùrnuigh i; cuir thusa suas i air do shon féin. Rach gu tric gu Iosa a bhàsaich a chum sinne a ghlanadh o ar peacaidhean, agus abair ris, “ionnail mi.”. Tha gairdeachas orm, a ghiullain chaoimh, gu bheil thu a’ creidsinn gu bheil Dia ‘g ad smachdachadh a chum do thoirt ‘ga ionnsuidh féin. Cha’n eil teagamh agam nach ann mar so a tha. Tha gaol sgrìobhta air a chridhe, air a làimh, agus air an t-slaît-smachdachadh. Ach feuch gu’n tig thu ‘g a ionnsuidh: na dèan moille. Tha loch teine ‘na laidhe fo gach anam a tha beò anns a’ pheacadh. Chan ‘eil sìth, tha Dia ag ràdh, do’n aingidh. Na ‘n nochdadh Iosa a ghnuis duit, agus a thaobhan a bha air a lotadh gus am peacach as ciontaiche a thearnadh, bhitheadh tu air ball air do tharruing ‘g a ionnsuidh le còrdaibh gaoil. O, bi thusa ag ùrnuigh gu’n duisgeadh an Spiorad Naomh thu. Tha cuimbne agad, Iain, gu’n do ghuil thu uair-eigin roimh so air son t’ anama, agus gu’n d’ iarr thu Iosa. An d’ fhuair thu e? No an ro sheall thu air t’ ais, coltach ri bean Lot, a’ cinntinn ‘n ad charraig chruaidh, fhuar, mar bha thu roimhe? O, dùisg, agus gairm air ainm do Dhé. Faodaidh gu bheil t’ ùine goirid; aig Dia a mhàin tha fhios. Tha a bheatha as fhaide goirid gu leòir. Agus cha bhi cothrom eile agad a bhi air t’ iompachadh. Sgrìobh a ris ‘g am ionnsuidh. Feumaidh mi sguir an dràsd. Iarr air do mhàthair sgrìobhadh thugam. O, is e mo dhurachd agus mo ghuidhe gu’n coinnicheamaid fadheòidh aig a’ bhòrd a tha shuas maille ri Iosa, agus gu’m bithinn-sa agus thusa an sin le chéile, mar pheacaich air an saoradh tre ghràs. Is mi do charaid dileas.—R. M. MacCheyne.
Nadur an Duine ‘na Staid Cheithir Fillte.
AN T-AONADH DIOMHAIR EADAR CRIOSD AGUS CREIDMHICH.
(Air a leantuininn bho t.d., 33.)
Is mise an fhionain, sibhse na geugan.—EOIN xv. 5.
‘S an dara àite, Tha ‘n creidmheach air a ghabhail mar fhìrein ann am fianuis Dhé, II Cor. v. 21. Oir tha e air “fhaot-ainn annsan gun fhìreantachd féin aige, a ta o ‘n lagh, ach an fhíreantachd a ta tre chreididh,” Phil. iii. 9. Cha b’ urrainn dhà gu bràth a bhi air a ghabhail ris le Dia mar fhírein, air son fhíreantachd féin; do bhrìgh, nach ’eil i air a chuid as fheàrr ach neo-iomlan; agus tha na h-uile fireantachd ris an abrar fireantachd a sheasas an deuchainn aig righ-chaithir Dhé, iomlan. Tha ceart nàdur na fireantachd so a’ ciallachadh iomlaineachd; oir mur bi obair gu h-iomlan freagarrach do ’n lagh, cha’n ’eil i ceart, ach mearachdach; agus mar sin cha’n urrainn dhi duine fhíreanachadh am fianuis Dhé, aig am bheil a bhreitheanas a reir fírinn. Gidheadh ma dh’ agras ceartas fireantachd o neach a ta ann an Criosd, leis an gabhar ris mar fhírean am fianuis an Tighearna; gu cinnteach a deir a leithid sin de neach anns an Tighearn ta agam fireantachd, Isa. xlv. 24. Tha ’n lagh air a choimhlionadh, thugadh ùmhlachd d’a àitheantaibh, thugadh làn-riarachadh d’a ughdarras. Dh’ ioc Fear-urras a’ chreidmhich na fiachan: Dh’ iarraidh e, agus fheadair esan air a shon.
Mar so tha ’n neach a ta air aonadh ri Criosd, air fhíreanachadh. Feudaidh sibh beachd a ghabhail air an iomlan deth air an dòigh so; tha fear-diolaidh na fola a’ ruagadh a’ chiùntaich, tha Criosd, mar Shlànughear pheacach chaillte, le a Spiorad, a’ glacadh greim deth, agus ga tharruing d’a ionnsuidh féin; agus tha esan le creididh, a dèanamh greim air Criosd; Mar sin tha ’n Tighearn ar fireantachd, agus an creutair neo-fhireanach ag aonadh ri cheile. O ’n aonadh so ri Criosd, tha sruthadh co-chomainn air, ’na shaibhreas do-rannsuichte; agus a réir sin, ’na fhíreantachd an trusgan geal sin, a th’ aige chum an lomnochduidh a chòmhdachadh, Taisb. iii. 18. Mar so is leis fireantachd Chriosd; agus a chionn gur leis le còir dhligheach i, tha i air a meas dhà; tha i air a meas mar a chuid-san ann am breitheanas Dhé, a tha do ghnàth a reir fírinn. Agus mar so air do ’n pheacach chreidmheach fireantachd a bhi aige a làn fhreagras uil’ iarrtuis an lagha, tha pheacaidh air am maitheadh, agus “gabhadh ris mar fhírean.” Faic Isa. xlv. 22, 24, 25. Rom. iii. 24. agus Caib. v. 1. A nis is duine saor e; có chuireas coire ’s am bith á leth na muinntir sin a tha Dia a’ fireanachadh? An urrainn, ceartas nì ‘s am bith a chur as an leth? Cha’n urrainn, oir tha e riarachte. An urrainn an lagh; Cha’n urrainn, oir fhuair e gach ni bha e ag iarraidh uathasan ann an Iosa Criosd, Gal. ii. 20. “Tha mi air mo cheusadh maille ri Criosd.” Ciod is urrainn an lagh iarraidh tuilleadh, an déidh dhà an ceann a lot; fearg a dhortadh a steach, ann an lán-thomhas, d’ an anam; agus am beatha ghearradh as, agus a thabhairt gu h-uir a’ bhàis; anns gu ‘n d’ rinn e so uile do Iosa Criosd, neach as e an Ceann, Eph. i. 22; an t-anam, Gniomh. ii. 25, 27, agus am beatha. Col. iii. 4? Ciod a thainig ri làmh-sgriobhaidh a’ pheacaich féin, ni a dhearbhaidh na fiachan ‘na aghaidh-san? Dhubh Criosd a mach i, Col. ii. 14. Ach, theagamh, gu’m faigh ceartas a shùil air a ris: cha’n fhaigh, thug e as an t-slighe i. Ach, O nach robh i air a reubadh ‘na bloighdibh! feudaidh am peacach a ràdh: seadh, tha i mar sin: tha na tairngnean a lot làmhan agus eosan Chriosd, air am bualadh troimhe, tha iad air an sparradh. Ach ciod ma ‘s e ‘s gu’m cuirear na mioran briste r’a cheile ris? Cha’n fheud sin a bhi, oir sparr e ri a chrann-ceusaidh-san i; agus bha chrann-ceusaidh air adhlaeadh maille ris féin, ach cha’n éirich e ris gu bràth, a chionn nach bàsaich Criosd ni’s mò. C’ àit’ am bheil an còmhdaich-chlaoidh, a bha air an duine dhìte? Sgrios Criosd e, Isa. xxv. 7. C’ àit’ am bheil bàs, a sheas fa chomhair a’ pheacaich le aghaidh uamhasach, agus le beul fosgailte, ullamh gu a sgrios? Shluig Chriosd suas e le buaidh! rann 8. Glòir, glòir, glòir dhà-san a ghràdhaich mar so sinn, agus a dh’ ionnlaid sinn o ar peacaibh ‘n fhuil féin! Is i an dara sochair a ta sruthadh o’n tobar cheudna, eadhon, o aonadh ri Criosd, agus a ta teachd tre fhìreanachaidh, Sith; sith ri Dia, agus sith coguis, a reir tomhais a’ mhothachaidh a th’ aig an dream a ta air am fireanachadh, air an sith ri Dia, Rom. v. 1. “Uime sin air dhuinne bhi air ar fireanachadh tre chreidimh, tha sith againn ri Dia.” Caib. xiv. 17. “Oir cha bhiadh agus deoch rioghachd Dhé, ach fireantachd agus sith, agus aoibhneas ‘s an Spiorad naomh.” A mheud ‘s gu ‘n robh Dia ‘na nàmhaid dhoibh roimh, tha e nis ann an réite riu tre Chriosd; tha iad ann an coimheangal sìth ris; agus mar a bha Abraham, mar sin tha iadsan ‘nan càirdean do Dhia. Tha mór-thlachd aig Dia ann annta, ‘na Mhac gràdhach. Tha fhocal-san a bha roimhe a’ labhaint uamhais riu, a nis a’ labhaint sìth, ma tha iad gu ceart a’ tuigsinn eiod a tha e ciallachadh. Agus tha gràdh ann an uile fhrithealadh a thabhairt d’ an taobh: a ta tabhairt air gach nì oibreachadh le cheile chum am maith. Tha ‘n coguisean air an glanadh o’n chionta agus o’n t-salachar sin a bha aon uair a’ luidhe orra: tha fhuil-san a ghlanas a’ choguis a’ sruthadh tre ‘n anamaibh, do bhrigh an aonaidh ris, Eabh. ix. 14. “Cia mór is mò ni fuil Chriosd, bhur coguis-se ghlanadh o oibrbh marbh a chum seirbhis a dhèanamh do ‘n Dia bheò?” Tha na cuibhrichean a bh’ air an cur air coguisean, le Spiorad Dhé, a bha ‘g oibreachadh mar Spiorad daorsa, air an toirt dhiubh, gun a bhi gu bràth tuilleadh ri bhi air an cur orra leis an làimh sin, Rom. viii. 15. “Oir cha d’ fhuair sibh Spiorad na daorsa a ris chum eagail.” Leis a so tha choguis air a cùineachadh, cho luath ‘s a tha ‘n t-anam a’ mothachadh na fola sin air a crathadh air; nì a ta tachairt luath no mall, a reir tomhas a chreidimh, agus mar a tha ‘n Dia uile-ghlic a’ faicinn iomchuidh a thabhairt. Feudaidh neo-chreidmhich coguisean troiblaideach a bhi aca, a dh’ fheudas iad a chur gu tosd a ris; ach mo thruaighe tha ‘n coguisean-san a’ fàs siochail mu ‘m bheil iad a’ fàs glan, mar sin cha’n ‘eil an t-sith aca-san ach ‘na siol de uamhasan agus de amhluadh as mò. Feudaidh neo-churam fois a thabhairt car tamuill do choguis thinn: air do dhaoine bhi di-chuimhneachadh a lotan, tha iad a’ druideadh suas a ris trompa féin, mu ‘m bheil an salachar air a ghlanadh a mach; tha mòran ag adhlacadh an cionta ann an uaigh na droch chuimhne: tha ‘choguis a’ fulang car tamuill; tha ‘n duine fa dheòidh a’ di-chuimhneachadh a pheacaidh, agus cha’n ‘eil tuilleadh uime. Ach cha’n ‘eil an sin ach fois roimh ‘n bhàs. Bheir obair no gnothuiche, na beatha gu tric fois anns a’ chor so: ‘N uair a tha Cain air fògradh o làthair an Tighearna, tha e tòiseachadh air togail, bhailtean. ‘N uair a thàinig an droch spiorad air Saul, cha do ghairm e air son a’ Bhìobuill, no air son nan sagart a labhairt ris mu thimehioll a chor; ach ghairm e air ceol, gu a chluiche air falbh: mar sin tha mórán, ‘nuair tha ‘n coguisean a’ tòiseachadh air bhi an-shocraich, a’ lionadh an cinn agus an làmhan le gnothuichean, gu iad féin a thionndadh air falbh, agus gu fois aiseag dhoibh féin air aon chor no cor eile. Seadh, peacaichidh cuid thar broinn mothachadh an coguisean, agus mar sin gheibh iad fois d’ an coguisean, mar a thug Hasael d’ a mhaighstir, le thachdadh. A ris, feudaidh coimhlionadh dhleasnais cuid fhois a thabhairt do choguis mhi-shuaimehneach: agus is e so uile na tha aig luchd-aidmheil laghail, air son an coguisean a chur nan tosd. ‘N uair a tha choguis air a lot, ni iad urnuigh, aidmheil bròn, agus cuiridh iad rompa nach dèan iad mar sin tuilleadh; agus mar sin tha iad a’ fàs slàn a ris, gun teachd idir a dh’ ionnsuidh fuil Chriosd le creididh. Ach iad-san aig am bheil an coguisean gu ceart air an eitneachadh, thig iad air son sìth agus glanaidh gu fuil a chrathaidh. Tha peacadh ‘na ghreim milis, a tha dèanamh muintir thaghta Dhé ‘nan anamaibh tinn mu’m faigh iad a sgeith a mach. Tha e fàgail gath ‘na dhéidh, a bheir uair-eiginn pian mhór dhoibh.
Ri leantuin.