III.
(Continued from page 324.)
WE have seen as Dr. Bannerman puts it that “the Church has no authority in regulating the manner, appointing the form or dictating the observances of worship beside or beyond what the Scripture declares on these points” and that the Church has “no discretion to add or alter what is fixed.” This statement is in full accordance with the doctrine of the Confession of Faith. It may be asked however, does the Church’s office to administer and carry into effect the directory found in the Scriptures preclude it from applying this directory to new cases
or emergencies as they occur? To which an answer in the affirmative is given; for this is not the exercise of new authority on the part of the Church acting in its own name but the application of the old authority to a new case. The Scripture has given a sufficient directory for worship to furnish the Church with those principals which enables it to regulate every new case arising in connection with the worship of God. And it does so not by adding new rules or regulations but by ministerially declaring the old to the particular matter to be settled. “It is a new application,” says Dr. Bannerman, “of the Scripture directory for church worship, not a new directory, nor even a new addition to the old” and as an illustration he instances Paul’s decision in connection with the trouble that had arisen in the Corinthian Church about eating meat offered to idols. The question of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of eating such meat had been referred to the Apostle. He declares an idol is nothing in itself; that meat offered to idols was neither the better nor the worse on that account and that every man, in point of conscience, was to be free to eat, notwithstanding that it had been so offered. But because every man’s conscience might not see the matter in this light; because weak consciences might feel it to be a sin, and yet, because of the example others who freely partook of the meat, might be emboldened to do the same, while yet they felt it to be a sin, the Apostle lays down the express injunction to refrain from it (The Church of Christ, I. 346). This regulation we find embodied in the Apostolic decrees issued from the council at Jerusalem (Acts, xv. 29). It was authoritatively enacted that there should be abstinence from meats offered to idols. Was this a case of the Church exercising its power to make new laws to be added to the laws of Christ? Is it not the Church ministerially declaring the law of Christ previously revealed and previously binding to a new emergency. We are directed to the old law when the Apostle says: “When ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.” This was the law which the council of Jerusalem applied to the fresh emergency that occurred—”if
meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth.” This rule then was not the decreeing by authority of a new regulation but rather the application of an old one to a new case that had arisen. New phases of Sabbath desecration may become rampant and the Church may be called upon to apply to these the old law binding on the Church. But it would be wrong to say that this application is a new law because it deals with a new situation. The old law of the Fourth Commandment may require a new application to a new situation. Take another instance the law passed by our Synod prohibiting communicants being Free Masons, etc. For an office-bearer to say that this law is not binding on him as it was not in force when he was ordained and that it is no more than a man-made law arises from a failure to understand that it is an application of an old law to a new situation. The God of Free Masonry is not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ neither does Free Masonry give the place to Christ which every true believer is duty bound to give Him.*
Another important point now presents itself for consideration in connection with the Church’s authority. There are certain circumstances concerning worship and the government of the Church common to human actions and societies (Confession of Faith, chap. I. sec. vi) in connection with which the Church may be called upon to exercise its authority and the governing principle laid down by the Westminster Divines is that these “are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed” (Confession of Faith, chap. I. sec. 6). Dr. Bannerman states the matter as follows: (1) “What belongs to the public service of the Church as divine worship, distinctively so called, is of divine appointment and is regulated by the positive command of Christ. (2) What belongs to the public service of the Church, not as divine worship properly and strictly so called, but as the circumstances common to it with any service or solemn
*The oaths imposed by Secret Societies—at least the oath or oaths imposed on Freemasons—is in opposition to sec. 3, chap. xxii of the Confession of Faith.
transaction of human society, is not of the express appointment of God, but is the dictate of nature, and left to be regulated by the law of nature” (The Church of Christ, I. 349). Although the Church has no power in regard to the institutions of divine service except to administer them and apply them according to the rules laid down in the Scriptures yet it has a certain power in reference to those circumstances common to human actions and societies connected with divine worship, to order and regulate them. In the Corinthian Church certain disorders had arisen and the Apostle lays down the general rule applicable to civil as well as Church assemblies: “Let all things be done decently and in order.”
In reference to the peculiar scandals which had arisen in the Church the Apostle reminds them that God is not the author of confusion but of peace and because all things were to be done decently and in order it is left open, to the discretion of the Church to apply, as particular cases arose, to the circumstances of divine worship. This did not give the Church permission to exercise its authority within the province of the positive institutions and express appointments of Christ. Within that province the Church was bound by the directory for worship enacted by the Lord Jesus Christ and within this province the Church’s authority was only ministerial. In other words the office of the Church in regard to the circumstances of divine worship as distinguished from the institutions of divine worship is discretionary and is such as belongs to any civil society and is to be used at the dictates of reason and nature. This applies to the rules made by church courts for the regulation and orderly conduct of their business. Like other societies these courts, while constituted in accordance with a divine plan, are to be regulated by rules in which the great principle is recognised that all things are to be done decently and in order. To ask for definite divine sanctions (i.e. particular texts of Scripture) for certain regulations of procedure is the clearest indication that confusion in such matters exists in the mind of the interrogator. “The assumption of such a power by the Church,” says Dr. Bannerman, “amounts
to no more than this: that it has a right to exercise its own reason, like every other society, to guard itself against what is contrary to the dictates of reason in observing the positive institutions of divine worship. It implies no authority to interfere by addition or alteration, or in any other way with those institutions of worship” (The Church of Christ, I. 354).
At the same time great care must be exercised that the words of the Confession are not pressed into service for which the Westminster Divines never intended them. There is danger through failure to understand the province and limit of the “circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed” (Confession of Faith, chap. I. sec. 6) of making use of this rule for purposes for which it was never intended. For instance it has been argued that it is permissible for the Church to authorise instrumental music* in divine worship under cover of the Confessional statement. This brings us face to face with the question what is really meant by the circumstances common to human actions and societies? George Gillespie in his Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies gives three marks by which these “circumstances” are to be distinguished. First. “It must be only a circumstance of divine worship; no substantial part of it; no sacred significant and efficacious ceremony. For the order and decency left to the definition of the Church, as concerning the particulars of it, comprehendeth no more but mere circumstances.” Secondly. “That which the Church may lawfully prescribe by her laws and ordinances as a thing left to her determination, must be one of such things as were not determinable by Scripture.” Thirdly. “If the Church prescribe anything lawfully, so that she prescribe no more than she hath power given her to prescribe, her ordinance
*The best refutation of this argument known to us is Dr. Girardeau’s in his Music in the Church (p. 141). Dr. Girardeau shows in a most convincing way the “circumstances” cannot embrace instrumental music.
must be accompanied with some good reason and warrant given for the satisfaction of tender consciences.” “The things in connection with public worship which it is lawful for the Church to regulate,” says Dr. Bannerman “must be circumstances, not parts of divine service; they must be ‘concerning the worship of God,’ not elements in it; they must be ‘common to human actions and societies,’ not peculiar to a divine institution; they must be things with which reason or the ‘light of nature’ is competent to deal; they are ‘to be ordered by Christian prudence which will beware of laying needless restraints upon the liberty of brethren in the faith; and they are to be regulated in accordance with ‘the general rules of the Word’ such as the apostolic canons referred to in the proofs of the Confession: ‘Let all things be done unto edification’; and, ‘Let all things be done decently and in order.'” (The Church of Christ, I. 358).
The Leipsic Disputation: 1519.
By REV. D. A. MACFARLANE, M.A.
I.
Wittenberg Cathedral. Many illustrious persons were, of course, expected to congregate at Leipsie, as they duly did. Some of these were Duke George of Saxony, John of Saxony, John of Anhalt and others. Hoffman and some of his brethren of the Leipsie University were to be umpires. Little more perhaps need be said of Chancellor Hoffman and his confreres than that they refused to come to any decision, nor did they send up a reference to Pope or Council.
A’ Choinneamh-cheist ann an Geàrr-loch.
(Air a leantuin bho I.d. 353.)
Seumas Maciobhar, Luirg. ‘S e ‘n Spiorad Naomh a thug dhaibh ‘bli creidsinn is mar an ceudna, ‘bhi fulang. ‘S iad naimhdean duine muinntir a thigh féin. Tha iad a’ fulang bho chòmhradh an t-saoghail is bho chuid de luchd-àideachaidh. Tha focal Dhé againn an diugh, mar shliochd an fheadhainn a dh’fhuing. Sìcas Mgr. MacPharlain agus Mgr. Domhnullach o choir is dà fheichead bliadhna airson na firinn, ‘s uur b’e sin, cha bhiodh againne na soenairean ‘tha sinn a nis a sealbh-achaidh. Thigeadh dhùinne bli ‘gleidheadh so, agus gar a bith gu de dh’fhuingeas sinn air a shon, gu’n cumamaid dlùth ri chéile. Mar ‘chuala mi aon ag ràdh, “Tra bhios caoraich ann am fang, ged bhiodh iad a ‘peltigeadh’ a cheile, tra thig eù a stigh, leanaidh iad dlùth ri chéile. Fhàinheadh e dhùinn bli ceart cho seasmhach ‘s eò dileas rùi-san a sìcas ‘nan là fòin. “Cum m’imeachd suas, a Dhé nam feart, a’d shligibh ceart gu treun.”
Iain Munro, Leathad. “Sibhse bheòthaich e, a bha marbh ann ‘ur u-eucartan agus ann ‘ur peacaidhean.” Tha e ‘n a iòngantas gu’n do sheall e orra-san. Chan fhaigh iad as bho
sin. Chuimhnich e orra tra bha iad ro ional truagh. Tre na geallaidhean ann an làimh an Spioraid tha iad a faghail beòtbaichidh. ‘S ann uath fhéin a tha e. Ach gidheadh tha eagal orra nach e ‘n nì ceart a th’aca. Tha togail gun leigeil aig euid, ach tha iad so a’ dol o neart gu neart gus an taisbeanar iad fadheòidh an Sion an lathair Dhé nam feart.
Ruaraidh MacCoinnich, (o’n Phlòe). Chuala sinn eomharraidhean math. Saoilidh sinn gu’m bu mhaith leinn ‘bhi ‘gan chuinntinn. Bithidh iad so fo eagal nach do thòisich an obair mhaith annta. Bitluidh iad a’ cur luach air meadhanan nan gràis, is orra-san tha ‘g innseadh gu’m bi e maith leis an fhirean. Tha iad colach ris an lobhair bha ‘n sid: “Ma’s àill leat, tha thu comasach air mise ‘ghlanadh.” Shin Criosd a làmh, ‘s thubhaint e: “Sàill leam, bi-sa glan.” Bithidh aca, “Na euimhnich peacadh m’ òige dhomh, ‘s na lochdan a rinn mi.”
Euchan Mac’illeathain, Inbhirfheoarain. ‘S e muinntir gle anshoerach a th’annta. Tha cogadh a stigh . . . . Chan fhaic thu iad am measg an t-saoghail.
Iain Macaoidh, á Dhùnbeagan. Bha iad mar chuid eile de ‘n t-saoghail gus an labhair Dia riù ‘n a ‘fhocal. Bha Satan ag ràdh riù gu robh uine gu leòir ann, gu’m foghnadh e gràs iarradh tra dh’ fhùsadh iad sean. Chur Dia ‘m focal: “Iarraibhair tìs rioghachd Dhé agus ‘fhireantachd-san, agus cuirear na nithean so uile ribh.” Bu mhiann leò na n-uile faghail eomh-pairt de’n t-slàinte so. Tha sùil aca ris an Tì so air an Là Mhór.
D. Maccòinnich, Diabaig. ‘S e bha so muinntir a thàinig gu ‘bhi call an dòchas annta fhéin. Rinn iad mòran airson iad fhéin a shaoradh. . . . . . Fhuair iad a mach, “Tre oibrbh an lagha, cha bhi feòil ‘s am bith air fhireanacladh am fianuis Dhé.”
A. Caimbeul, Diabaig. Tha iad so a tuigsinn gu’n do pheacaich iad an aghaidh Dhé. “Se tuarasdal a’ pheacaich am bàs.” Thug e dhaibh eòlas air Criosd, ach ceist aca co-dhiu ‘bheil ereidmh ceart aca no nach ‘eil. “Esan a thòisich air deadh-obair annaibh, bheir e gu buil i ann an là Iosa Criosd.”
A. Macleòid, Ullapul. Tha dà thiodhlae fa’r comhar, creidsinn is fulang. Airson ‘bhi creidsinn ann tha iad a’ fulang. ‘S e ‘m peacadh mathair-aobhar gach fulangais. Tha mòran de ‘n trioblaidean is na h-amhgharan aca o pheacadh annta féin . . . . . . Bithidh iad air an smachdachadh airson am buannachd féin. “Tha fhios againn gu bheil na h-uile nì a co-oibreachadh ehum maith na dream aig a’ bheil gràdh do Dhia.”
Seumas Friseil, Geàrrloch. Tha e soilleir as eugmhais creidimh nach ‘eil e comasach Dia ‘thoileachadh. ‘S e tioclac naith fhéin tha ‘n so. Chan e geur-leanmhuinn a th’ ann na bheir duine air fhéin airson ‘amaideas. Bha Tindal, bha beò os eionn ceithir cheud bliadhna, a’ samhlachadh credimh ri craobh. Ma
bhios am freumh fallain bithidh an toradh fallain. Chan ‘eil fhios gus am bi dearbhadh air a chur có sheasas. Cha robh deifir eadar Mgr. MacPharlain is Mgr. Domhnulach ‘s a’ chuid éile de ‘n “Constitutionalists” gus an d’ thàinig an dearbhadh. Sheas Mgr. MacPharlain is Mgr. Domhnulach, ‘s cha do sheas iadsan. Cha sheas duine dheth fhéin mur bi e air a chumail suas. Chan ‘eil neach againne cho seasmhach ri Peadar, ach cha robh e móran làithean ‘n déidh sin tra rinn caileag shearbhanta a thoirt air Criosd ‘aicheadh. Bha aig Peadair còir, d’ ar a chaidh an “test” a chur air, “An toigh leat mise?”—bha aige, “Is aithne dhuit na h-uile nithe; tha fhios agad gur toigh leam thu.” Ged a thachair ‘na thachair, ged a rinn mi ‘na rinn mi, ‘s aithne dhuit,—(bha fios aige gu robh an Slanuidhear a’ faicinn troimhe is a tuigsinn gach nì,)—gur toigh leam thu. Cha bu choir dhuinne ar dòchas a chall air cho iosal ‘s a dh’fhaodas sinn a bhi.
D. Friseil, Geàrrloch. . . . . Bi e na’s furasda do shluagh Dhé dòchas bhi aca d’an taobh fhéin tra bhios iad am meag an t-saoighail na ‘n uair a bhios iad am meag sluagh Dhé. Chuala mi mu thé bha falbh dh’ ionnsuidh an fhogharaidh is chronuich i aon a bha còmhlà rithe. Thubhairt an té bha còmhlà rithe, “Bheil thusa na’s fhèarr na sinne?” Thubhairt ise, “N uair tha mi meag sluagh Dhé, tha mi ‘gam fhaotainn fhéin mar phlòc, ach ‘n uair tha mi ‘n ‘ur meag-sa, tha mi ‘faotainn gu bheil nì agam nach ‘eil agaibhse.” Iarraidh iad iad fhéin a dhòl a fianuis is gu’m biodh Criosd mór ‘nan sealladh.
Tòmas Macleòid, Geàrrloch. “An t-iomlan diubh chaidh air an ais.” Sgrios iad iad fhéin. Tha feadhainn a’ gearan cho di-chuimhneach ‘s a tha iad, ach tra thàinig an Spiorad Naomh, thòisich iad air bhi caoidh airson am peacaidhean. Fhuair iad focal bhios mar bharant dòchais dhaibh . . . .
Cho-dhùn an t-Urr. A. Beaton. Chuala sinn móran mar tha air na dòighean ‘s an robh na fulangasan so ‘tighinn air daoibh. Tha iad de leithide ‘ghnè gur a th’ann a mhàin aig a’ mhuinntir
so tha iad, ‘s e sin, iadsan tha ‘creidsinn. Chuala sinn cuid a’ ràdh gu robh iad a’ fulang airson na truaighean bh’annta fhéin, is o’n t-saoghal, ‘s o luchd-aideachaidh. Leugh sinn ann an searmoin Mgr. MacPharlain, ‘n uair bhiodh duine ‘g imeachd suas sràid ann am baile, gu’m iad an fheadhainn a bha ‘dol an aon rathad leis fhéin a bu mhò ‘chumadh air ais e na iadsan a’ dol ‘na aghaidh. A thaobh ‘bhi fulang airson an amaideachd fhéin, bha ‘n t-Urr. N. Camshron nach maireann a’ labhairt air turus a bha e an Ra’arsa. B’e so a ‘cheist, is dh’innis e dhomh gu’n d’thubhairt Alistair Macascill, nach maireann, “Tha cuid a smuaineachadh gu’m b’ann a fulang airson Chriosd a bha iad, tra bha iad a’ fulang airson am peacaidhean fhéin.”
Cha bhuiu na fulangasan so ach do ‘mhunntir àraidh. Mur biodh creidimh, cha bhiodh na fulangasan so aca—tha iad ag éiridh o’n dealachadh nàdurra tha aca o’n t-saoghail. Tha ‘n saoghal a nochdadh naimhdeas,—chan e ‘mhàin na Pàpanaich o’m bheil geur-leanmhuiinn a tighinn, ach faodaidh daoine ‘bhi fulang ‘nan teaghlaichean fhéin. Tha’n fheòil a stigh a ‘miannachadh an aghaidh an Spiorad ann an sluagh Dhé. Iadsan tha ‘tighinn ann an luib a chreidimh, tha iad mar na fianuisean ann an Heb. xi.—na fulangasan is na deuchainnean aca a dearbhadh a’ chreidimh aca. Mur biodh creidimh ann, lùbadh an duine. Tha eagal air an fheòil roimh fhulangasan. Tha so mar bheinn mhór an diugh roimh gillean òga is nigheanan òga. “N gabhadh iad ri Criosd,” their iad, “dh-fheumadh iad a choinneachadh ri deuchainnean a dh’fhanoidean.” Do bhrìgh gu’m faod an saoghal ‘bhi fanoid orra, chan ‘eil sùil aca gu’n lean iad Criosd air dhòigh ‘s am bith. Tha nithean a bhoinneas do dhiadhachd ‘na nàire dhaibh, is tha eagal orra gu’m faigheadh iad oilbheum ann an Criosd. Tha beatha na diadhachd cruaidh leò, ach tha Criosd a toirt gràs do na h-uile a ‘mheasas e ‘na shòlas ‘bhi ‘fulang an àite doilghios. ‘S e so ni a ‘bhuineadh do bheatha na diadhachd,—Bhiodh ar n-amhghar eutrom, nach ‘eil ach ré sealain, ag oibreachadh dhuiinne trom—chudthrom glòire a tha ni’s ro anabarraich’ agus sior-mhaireannach (ii Cor. iv. 17).
Gu’m biodh Dia ‘beannachadh dhuiinn na chuala sinn agus g’ar eur gu féin-rannsachadh.
Nadur an Duine ‘na Staid Cheithir Fillte.
AN T-AONADH DIOMHAIR EADAR CRIOSD AGUS
CREIDMHICH.
(Air a leantuinn bho t.d., 394.)
A thuilleadh air so, feudaiddh iad eudthrom de ana-miannaibh làidir a bhi ‘g an cumail sios; tha corp bàis aca: is eallaich am bàs a tha fàsgadh an anama mach as a’ chorp: Bhitheadh cas no làmh bàis, ma dh’fheudas mi labhairt mar sin, ‘na h-eallaich uamhasach dhoibh! Luidhidh air uairibh aon ana-miann beòthail cho trom air leanabh Dhé, is nach mò as urrainn dha gluasad, na b-urrain do leanaban, famhair a chur uath féin: cionnus uime sin a ta iad air an cumail a suas fuidh chorp iomlan bàis? Is ann, a chionn gu bheil an còmhnadh o an fhreumh a ta ‘g an giùlan, o na gairdeinibh siorruidh a ta fodhpa: tha ‘ghràs foghainteach air an son, 2 Cor. xii. 9. Chan e gràs Dhé ‘s an taobh a stigh eul-taic a’ chreidmhich; is tobair sin, a dh’ fheudas air uairibh ruith tioram; ach is e gràs Dhé an taobh a mach dheth, an gràs a ta ann an Iosa Criosd; a ta ‘na thobair a ta do ghnàth a’ sruthadh, gus nach urrainn do ‘n chreidmheach teachd uair ‘s am bith an diomhain. Oir tha ‘n t-abstol ag innseadh dhuinn ‘s an rann sin féin, gur ‘e cumhachd Chriosd e. “Is ro thoiliche, uime sin, deir e, a ni mi uaill á m’ amhhuinneachdaibh, chum gu ‘n gabh cumhachd Chriosd còmhnuidh orm,” no, gu ‘n gabh e còmhnuidh os mo cheann; mar a rinn nèul na glòire air na h-Israelich, a sgaoil Dia mar chòmhdaich, no mar fhasgadh dhoibh anns an fhàsach, Salm ev. 39. Coimeas Isa. iv. 5, 6. Air chor as gu bheil an creidmheach, anns a’ chòmhrag so, cosmhuil ri iolair, a’ dh’itealaicheas air tìs suas, le creidimh, agus an sin a thig a nuas air a’ chreidh, Salm xxxiv. 5. “Dh’amhaire iad air, agus shoillsieheadh iad.” Agus, fadheòidh, tha eudthrom amhhuinneachd agus uireasbhuidh orra, ach tilgidh iad an eallaich sin air an Tighearn, an neart, agus cumaidh esan suas iad, salm lv. 22. Le ‘n uile uireasbhuidhean agus amhhuinneachdan, tha iad air an tilgeadh air-san; mar tha ‘n leanabh bochd, lag agus lomnochduidh, a’ teachd a mach
as a’ bhroinn, air a thilgeadh ann an uehd neach a chuireadh air leth gu curam a ghabhail deth, Salm xxii. 10. Ged bhios iad gun dion mar phreas anns an fhàsach, air am feud cas na h-uile beathaich saltairt sios, bheir an Tighearna aire orra, Salm cii. 17. Chan iongantach, ged bhitheas an lus as maoithe tearuinte ann an lios; ach tha ar Tighearn Iosa Criosd ‘na ghàradh didein d’ a mhuinntir lag agus uireasbheach, eadhon ann am fàsach.
Ceisd. Ach, ma tha na naoimh air an cumail suas, cionnus a ta iad a’ tuiteam cho tric ann am buaireadh agus fo dhìobhail misnich? Freag. (1.) Ciod air bith cho fada ‘s a tha iad a’ tuiteam aig aon àm, cha tuit iad gu bràth gu tur air falbh; agus is nì mór sin: tha iad air an gleidheadh le cumhachd Dhé, tre chreidimh, chum slàinte, 1 Pead. i. 5. Feudaidh cealgairean tuiteam, air chor as gu ‘n tuit iad air falbh, agus tuiteam ann an slochd, mar a thuiteas soitheach-uigse ann an tobair, ‘n uair a bhriseas an t-slabhraidh: ach ged dh’fheudas leanabh Dhé tuiteam, agus sin cho-iosal is gu’n téid an t-uigse thar a cheann; gidheadh tha fathast bann-cheangail eadar Criosd agus esan, chan ‘eil an t-slabhraidh air a briseadh, cha téid e dh’ionnsuidh na talmhainn, bithidh e air a tharruing suas a ris, Luc. xxii. 31, 32. “Agus a dubhairt an Tighearn, a Shimoin, a Shimoin, feuch, dh’iarr Satan sibhse, ehum bhrù eriaradh mar chruinneachd; ach ghuidh mise air do shonsa, nach diobradh do chreidimh thu.” (2.) Tha leagaidhean nan naomh, a’ sruthadh o ‘n mhi-fhèum a ta iad a’ dèanamh d’ an aonadh ri Criosd, gu’n a bhi dèanamh fèum dheth le creidimh, gu ‘n neartachadh no gu ‘n cumail suas, Salm xxvii. 13. “Rachadh mo mhisneach air eùl, mur creidinn.” Fhad’ ‘sa chumas a’ bhanaltrum an leanabh ‘na gairdeinibh, cha tuit e dh’ionnsuidh na talmhainn: gidheadh, mur cum an leanabh neo-fhaicilleach a ghreim dith-se, feudaidh e tuiteam air ais ‘na gairdeinibh gu ‘dhochair mhór. Mar so bhris leagadh Dhaibhidh a chnàmhan, Salm li. 8. ach cha do bhris e bann a’ cheangail eadar Criosd agus esan; cha robh an Spiorad naomh, bann a cheangail sin, air a thabhairt uath, rann 11.
Air a leantwinn.