We make no apology for returning again to the Sabbath question in this article. Our last month’s article was written just prior to the debate in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, on their Church and Nation Committee’s recommendations regarding more license to be approved in the conduct of the people on the Lord’s Day. The debate eventually took place in the aforesaid Assembly on Monday, 30th May, 1960, and a full report was published. To us, it made astounding, deplorable and sad reading, although one or two speakers did express in sensible terms their opposition to the modern observance of the Lord’s Day as condoned by the said Committee’s Report.
Ministers and elders of the Assembly were so completely disinterested in this most vital matter affecting the religion and morals of the people at large, that out of an Assembly of about 1,400 members less than a third of that number voted when the time came to declare their views on behalf of their Kirk Sessions and Presbyteries as representatives of these Courts all over Scotland. These defaulting members were at the Lord High Commissioner’s Garden Party, or on the streets of Edinburgh,
or away home, or sat in the Assembly and did not vote. But by all appearances there were about 500 members present at the debate. So among the Ministers and Elders of the Church of Scotland, there was widespread apathy and indifference to their Committee’s attack on the Sabbath and the right and Scriptural observance of the same. One can perceive in this conduct the evidence of a hypocritical Christianity and the reign of spiritual death in the hearts of apparently unconverted clergymen and office-bearers. We really should not be surprised at unconverted men being calmly indifferent to the undermining and pulling down of Christian bulwarks such as Sabbath observance according to the Word of God. Yet it is most grievous and lamentable to excercised believers upon the Lord Jesus Christ that this mocking of the Christian faith obtains so largely throughout the length and breadth of Scotland’s National Church.
The Convener of the Committee, the Rev Dr Nevile Davidson, Glasgow Cathedral, in submitting this notorious Report, came right out into the open with his modern views upon the nature and character of the Lord’s Day. He declared that “Sunday” should no longer be hinged round with rigid restrictions and prohibitions. And at the same time he asserted that the Church must not be inconsistent in its Witness, nor even appear to be hypocritical in its pronouncements. As we hold that the claims and honour of God are bound up with the due requirements of the Fourth Commandment, how can Dr Davidson and those who agree with him be consistent before God, if they propose practices which dishonour and defy God? What confusion has entered into the thinking and loud profession of these religious leaders for the honour of the Most High and His Son Jesus Christ!
One of the principle roots of this unscriptural outlook upon the Sabbath Day is given us by Dr Davidson himself as follows:—”We believe the time has come for the General Assembly to declare in plain and simple terms that the Christian Sunday is an institution essentially different in character from the Jewish Sabbath; that it is the joyful celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the assurance of His Lordship over life and death; that it should no longer be hinged round with rigid restrictions and prohibitions as it has sometimes been in our own history, and still is in certain quarters.” There we have the unsound and heretical basis for the modern, worldly and fleshly view as to what is allowable in the conduct and practices of professing Christians and others on the Lord’s Day. The Fourth
Commandment, an integral part of God’s law and binding upon us all, as fully as the other nine Commandments, is taken out of the Ten Commandments as they stand, and relegated in its authority and requirements to the Jews of the Old Testament Church. “The Jewish Sabbath!” In the view of this Church Committee, we today have really nothing to do with the Fourth Commandment. In other words, we are being told now in Scotland that we need only concern ourselves with nine Commandments. To pursue this line of heretical teaching will lead us into many strange avenues. Just one that comes to mind is the deletion of the Fourth Commandment from the Christian Creeds, Confessions, writings, and even from the walls of some Church buildings where the Ten Commandments appear. Another point is that the children in Sabbath Schools and ordinary schools would now be taught nine Commandments, not ten Commandments. We think this to be the logical conclusion of Dr Davidson’s teaching, and what unholy boldness actuates men who promulgate the view that the Christian of today should mutilate the law of God? God seeth all sons of men full well; and God is not mocked. The divine Lawgiver has not abrogated any part of His law since the inauguration of the Gospel and Christian era and never will.
What is called the “Christian Sunday” is said now to have taken the place of the “Jewish Sabbath.” The Church and Nation Committee’s Convener may not have remembered while speaking in the debate concerned that there is no such day as the “Christian Sunday.” We do not find the term “Sunday” in the New Testament. We do admit that the names of the other days of the week have a pagan origin as well. But in Scotland at any rate those who feared the Lord and had a respect for divine institutions did mostly in the past, and do now, refer to the “Sabbath” or the “Lord’s Day.” In fact when one hears a stranger using the term “Sabbath” or the “Lords Day” in a serious manner in these irreligious times, it is quite an unusual yet pleasing experience as one travels about the country. But people who should know better in Scotland, use the term “Sunday,” which has such a lack of Scriptural dignity about it. This practice savours of conformity to the world.
Later in his speech, Rev Dr Nevile Davidson does use the words “the Lord’s Day,” and as previously stated he refers to the fact that this day celebrates the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ but he of course does not touch at all upon the orthodox teaching from the New Testament and of the Church of Christ
in its best days in Scotland, that the first day of the week ever since is now to be observed as the Christian Sabbath, carrying with it the requirement of the Fourth Commandment, “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.” But what he did in proceeding in his speech to the Assembly was to enter upon a detailed review of the “confusion in the minds of many people with regard to the Lord’s Day.” These people we take to be principally Church of Scotland members in full communion. This review made pitiable reading. He stated that many of these “professing Christians” only went to Church when they felt in the right mood, or when the weather was suitable, or when the lawn of the garden did not need mowing. Many office-bearers attended public worship in the morning and afterwards played golf or tennis, he said; but this they did with an uneasy conscience which developed into a sense of guilt if the minister happened to pass. What a miserable description the Rev. Dr. gave (as above), of many of the members and office-bearers of his Church! But, this was a vital part of his argumentation and was working up to a point. And truly an evil conclusion! Before coming to that conclusion he expressed what we may describe as sympathy with others, young men and women who found many pastimes, cinemas, coffee stalls, etc., barred and banned to them on the Lord’s Day.
Then one of the main conclusions this Church and Nation Committee came to was viz., “It was in that kind of confused and unsatisfactory situation that the Church was called to do some new and creative thinking.” The confusion as we see it has been in the thinking of the members of this Committee. Guilty members and office-bearers and a young generation of pleasure seekers on the Lord’s Day do not require “new thinking” on the part of the professed Christian Church as to how their guilty consciences are to be relieved and their unholy thirst for worldly pleasure on the Lord’s Day satisfied. We indeed live in dark times spiritually. Instead of calling upon hypocritical members and office-bearers to cast off their false and empty profession and repent of their transgressions toward God and enjoining upon careless, thoughtless young Sabbath-breakers to betake themselves to reading the Bible and to attend the public worship of God; the suggested remedy (cursed remedy!), is that the Church express approval of all kinds of vain and carnal activities on the Lord’s Day, to appease guilty consciences and to preserve young people from moral danger. What confused thinking!
The specific statements by Dr Davidson in line with the “new
thinking” include the following: “However reluctant they might feel on certain grounds to encourage or sanction the opening of a certain number of cinemas on Sunday, might it not conceivably be better, that some place of recreation and amusement should be opened than that thousands of young men and girls should be compelled to roam the streets on winter evenings with nowhere to go.” Indeed the Committee in its actual report, as we noted last month, suggested making Church Halls available for dances on the evening of the Lord’s Day. On the other hand, the efforts of others to preserve the sanctity of the Lord’s Day were referred to in terms which reveal the real intentions of such as Dr Davidson, to do away with the Sabbath as such, when he said: “Church protests in the past against Sunday opening of bowling greens or tennis courts were made in good faith, but were based on a view of Sunday which the Committee suggested was both unscriptural and unrealistic in an age of vast social change.” Unscriptural to warn men of sin! Unscriptural to have regard to the moral law! Yes, this is the new outlook and this is the new theology for the Church of Scotland and those who come under its influence. But “Transgression of the law is sin,” and “The wages of sin is death”
Dr. Davidson concluded his presentation of the Committee’s Report by asking the Assembly for approval of the general lines of approach indicated. He said, some might appear new or radical but he pleaded with the Assembly not to condemn them for that reason.
Mr Andrew Shaw, a Glasgow elder, spoke wisely when he said: “The whole spiritual world had gone back, and the question was whether they were going to change their standards in the Church. The thing that got more people away from the Church was that the non-church-going person could not see any real difference between the Church people and themselves.” Mr Shaw thus put his finger upon one of the main evidences for the charge that the bulk of office-bearers and members in his Church have for many years now, manifested that they were never separated by the grace of God from the unbelieving and irreligious world.
The Rev. E. S. P. Heavenor, North Berwick, referred to social changes taking place and the implication that they must move with the times. “That,” he said, “was only true in a certain sense, because it was equally true that they could not move with the times if the times were moving away from God and from the Lord’s Day.” This statement was indeed a serious argument to
stand firm against laxity, but we are afraid one which was to the liking of few members of Assembly. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and for ever, and His Word, Commandments and Claims do not alter either by reason of time or the vain and evil practices of backsliding generations. The Reverend Heavenor further declared that enemies of the Lord’s Day were formidable commercial interests intent on securing relaxation of the Lord’s Day. He also said, “Man still needs a holy day, not a holy half-day or one hour in the day.” We wonder how a minister expressing such sentiments feels in his heart and conscience among those who seek to sell the Lord’s Day.
Rev. Dr. George MacLeod, of the Iona Community in a characteristic speech which included a number of obscure and strange sayings, declared that his Church must go forward to a completely new pattern and that the “Sunday” they had known in the past had gone for ever. This is the kind of outlook we expect from Dr MacLeod. But when he took into his speech the question of the Church’s sacrament and “the infrequency” of its administration, we understand him to refer to the Lord’s Supper. He spoke of workers such as busmen unable to go to the sacrament. Although he is not reported as referring to their working on the Lord’s Day, that is what he had in mind. And because these men work on the Lord’s Day we would deduct from Dr MacLeod’s trend of thought that such workers in his view should have the Sacrament available to them on a week day. In this context he uttered the following extraordinary words: viz., “now they had no system of remitting sins, and all over Scotland people were sick because they had no way of confessing. They had neither new disciplines nor dared to return to the old disciplines.” This was bold and unashamed pleading for a return to the Romish Confession and priestly absolution, in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, if words mean anything. And ministers and elders with an open Bible in their hands did not appear to utter one word of protest against such language. “No system of remitting sins!” yet the glorious Redeemer and the merit of His precious blood is set forth throughout the whole of Scripture. But Dr MacLeod is not satisfied with this. He wishes the Lord’s Supper to be administered every day of the week and the Confessional box set up—and that with this provision available men can do as they please on the Lord’s Day as to work and pleasure.
Rev. Professor T. F. Torrance, Edinburgh, in his contribution to the debate referred to the fact that the Report under discussion
had drawn too sharp a distinction between the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day, and that the Committee had not got down to proper theological grounds. He argued that they as a Church must ground their whole attitude to the Lord’s Day in accordance with the principles of the Reformation. It was, he said, essential that they should not adopt Roman Catholic procedure. Reports show that Professor Torrance like other speakers did not refer to the Fourth Commandment specifically as surely the most vital consideration in the debate.
Rev. Professor Torrance gave the debate an unusual and unexpected turn when he branched out on the theme that the Report on the Sabbath which they were considering, if endorsed by the Assembly would be a major obstacle to union with other churches. He said, “Some of them had been engaged for years in seeking a reconciliation with other churches.” Further, he stated that it was going to be very difficult and he pleaded with the Assembly not to put any further obstacle in the way of reconciliation. And he was reported as having declared: “Some of us have been seeking reconciliation with the Free Church of Scotland and other Presbyterian Churches.” We may say here and at once that the Free Presbyterian Church is not included among the “other Presbyterian Churches.”
In the light of Professor Torrance’s reference to the Free Church we cannot refrain from quoting the words of Rev Professor A. M. Renwick, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, in his closing address to his Assembly just the week previously. He is reported as saying, “The Free Church of Scotland could not think of union with the Church of Scotland if it accepted the recommendation on Sunday observance contained in the Church and Nation Committee’s Report.” Even co-operation would be difficult, he said, with such men as were responsible for the recommendations. Now in considering the words of Professor Torrance and Professor Renwick together, we may be justified in going as far as to infer, and to ask our readers to infer, that activities of some kind or another have been carried on behind the scenes by the Church of Scotland and the Free Church regarding “reconciliation” and “union.” The question may be asked: has this been the case? If what we infer is entirely mistaken, then both Professor Torrance and Professor Renwick as responsible leaders in their respective churches, have spoken inadvisedly with their lips. As to Professor Renwick’s statement that the Free Church could not think of union with the Church of Scotland if it accepted the recom-
mendations on Sabbath observance from the Church and Nation Committee—does Professor Renwick imply that the Free Church could think of union with the Church of Scotland if it did reject these evil proposals? What about the unsound doctrine, unscriptural forms of worship and worldly practices which have been widespread in the Church of Scotland long ere now? Professor Renwick further expressed the view that if the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland rejected the recommendations regarding the Sabbath that that Church would be saved from setting out on the path of ecclesiastical suicide. This is not our considered opinion at all. We believe the Church of Scotland has set out on “the path of ecclesiastical suicide” long ago. And in expressing this view we are neither uncharitable nor hypercritical but simply stating an obvious and sad fact in the light of Holy Scripture. Any tendency to compromise or to exercise a charity which is not four square with the Word of God will never cover up the deplorable departures from the faith within the Church of Scotland.
As interested readers know, the modernistic proposals of the Church and Nation Committee anent the Lord’s Day, were sent back to the Committee who were instructed to carry through further study in consultation with the Panel on Doctrine. But their decision was taken on a vote, 220 voting for this and 208 against, and thus by a mere majority of 12, the Assembly did no more than ask the Committee to think again. Let it be noted that the 220 voters did not ask for a complete rejection of the Committee’s proposals. That would have been the Christian and God-honouring attitude. The psalmist exclaimed: “It is time for thee, Lord, to work: for they have made void thy law.” (Ps. 119, V. 126).
Ingrafting a Soul into the True Vine.
by Rev. Thomas Boston.
(From “Human Nature in its Fourfold State”)
(Continued from Page 73)
Objection.—Some people will say, “Who liveth and sinneth not? Who is there that faileth not of the duties he has engaged to? If you reject this way as unsound, who then can be saved?”
Answer.—True believers will be saved, namely, all who do by faith take hold of God’s covenant. But this kind of covenant is men’s own covenant, devised of their own heart; not God’s covenant, revealed in the gospel of his grace: and the making of it is nothing else but the making of a
covenant of works with Christ, confounding the law and the gospel; a covenant he will never subscribe to, though we should sign it with our heart’s blood. Romans iv. 14, 16, “For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed.” Chap. XI. 6, “And if by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.—But if it be of works, then it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work.” God’s covenant is everlasting; once in, never out of it again; and the mercies of it are sure mercies, Isaiah lv. 2. But that covenant of yours is a tottering covenant, never sure, but broken every day. It is a mere servile covenant, giving Christ service for salvation; but God’s covenant is a filial covenant in which the sinner takes Christ, and his salvation freely offered, and so becomes a son, John i. 12, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God:” and being become a son, he serves his Father, not that the inheritance may become his, but because it is his, through Jesus Christ. See Galatians iv. 24, and onward. To enter into that false covenant, is to buy from Christ with money; but to take hold of God’s covenant, is to buy of him without money and without price, Isaiah lv, that is to say, to beg of him. In that covenant men work for life; in God’s covenant they come to Christ for life, and work from life. When a person under that covenant fails in his duty, all is gone; the covenant must be made over again. But under God’s covenant, although the man fail in his duty, and for his failure falls under the discipline of the covenant, and lies under the weight of it, till such time as he has recourse anew to the blood of Christ for pardon, and renew his repentance; yet all that he trusted to, for life and salvation, namely, the righteousness of Christ, still stands entire, and the covenant remains firm. See Romans vii. 24, 25; and Chapter viii. 1.
Now, though such men spend their lives in making and breaking such covenants of their own, the terror on the breaking of them becoming weaker and weaker by degrees, till at last it creates them little or no uneasiness; yet the man, in whom the good work is carried on, till it be accomplished in cutting him off from the old stock, finds these covenants to be as rotten cords, broken at every touch and the terror of God being thereupon redoubled on his spirit, and the waters at every turn getting in unto his very soul, he is obliged to cease from catching hold of such covenants, and to seek help some other way.
- Therefore the man comes at length to beg at Christ’s door for mercy; but yet he is a proud beggar, standing on his personal worth. For, as the papists have mediators to plead for them with the one only Mediator, so the branches of the old stock have always something to produce, which they think may commend them to Christ, and engage him to take their cause in hand. They cannot think of coming to the spiritual market, without money in their hand. They are like persons who have once had an estate of their own, but are reduced to extreme poverty, and forced to beg. When they come to beg, they still remember their former character; and though they have lost their substance, yet they retain much of their former spirit: therefore they cannot think that they ought to be treated as ordinary beggars, but deserve a particular regard: and, if that be not given them, their spirits rise against him to whom they address themselves for a supply. Thus God gives the unhumbled sinner many common mercies—and shuts him not up in a pit according to his deserving: but all this is nothing to his eyes. He must be set down at the children’s table, otherwise he reckons himself hardly dealt with, and wronged: for he is not yet brought so low, as to think God may be justified when he speaks against him, and clear from all iniquity when he judgeth him according to his real demerit, Psalm li. 4. He thinks, perhaps, that even before he was enlightened, he was better than many others; he considers his reformation of life, his repentance, the grief and tears which his sin has cost him, his earnest desires after Christ, his prayers and wrestlings for mercy; and uses all these now as bribes for mercy, laying no small weight upon them in his addresses to the throne of grace. But here the Spirit of the Lord shoots his arrows quickly into the man’s heart, whereby his confidence in these things is sunk and destroyed; and instead of thinking himself better than many, he is made to see himself worse than any. The faults in his reformation of life are discovered; his repentance appears to him no better than the repentance of Judas; his tears like Esau’s, and his desires after Christ to be selfish and loathsome, like those who sought Christ because of the loaves, John vi. 26. His answer from God seems now to be, Away, proud beggar, “how shall I put thee among the children?” He seems to look sternly on him, for his slighting of Jesus Christ by unbelief, which is a sin he scarcely discerned before. But now at length he beholds it in its crimson colours, and is pierced to the heart, as with a thousand darts, while he sees how he has been going on blindly, sinning against the remedy of sin, and, in the whole
course of his life, trampling on the blood of the Son of God. And now he is, in his own eyes, the miserable object of law vengeance, yea, and gospel vengeance too.
- The man being thus far humbled, will no more plead, “he is worthy for whom Christ should do this thing,” but, on the contrary, looks on himself as unworthy of Christ, and unworthy of the favour of God. We may compare him, in this case, to the young man who followed Christ, “having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; who, when the young men laid hold of him, left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked,” Mark xiv. 51, 52. Even so the man had been following Christ in the thin and cold garment of his own personal worthiness; but by it, even by it, which he so much trusted, the law catches hold of him to make him prisoner; and then he is fair to leave it, and flees away naked—yet not to Christ, but from him. If you now tell him he is welcome to Christ, if he will come to him, he is apt to say: Can such a vile and unworthy wretch as I, be welcome to the Holy Jesus? If a plaster be applied to his wounded soul, it will not stick. He says, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord,” Luke v. 8. No man needs speak to him of his repentance, for his comfort; he can quickly espy such faults in it as make it naught: nor of his tears; for he is assured they have never come into the Lord’s bottle. He disputes himself away from Christ; and concludes, now that he has been such a slighter of Christ, and is such an unholy and vile creature, that he cannot, he will not, he ought not to come to Christ; and that he must be in better case or else he will never believe. Hence he now makes his strongest efforts to amend what was amiss in his way before: he prays more earnestly than ever, mourns more bitterly, strives against sin in heart and life more vigorously and watches more diligently, if by any means he may at length be fit to come to Christ. One would think the man is well humbled now: but, ah! deep pride lurks under the veil of his seeming humility; like a kindly branch of the old stock he adheres still, and will not submit to the righteousness of God, Romans x. 3. He will not come to the market of free grace, without money. He is bidden to the marriage of the King’s Son, where the Bridegroom himself furnishes all the guests with wedding garments, stripping them of their own: but he will not come, because he wants a wedding-garment; although he is very busy in making one ready. This is sad work; and therefore he must have a deeper stroke yet else he is ruined. This stroke is given him with the axe of the law, in its irritating
power. Thus the law, girding the soul with cords of death, and holding it in with the vigorous commands of obedience, under the pain of the curse; and God, in his holy and wise conduct, withdrawing his restraining grace, corruption is irritated, lusts become violent; and the more they are striven against the more they rage, like a furious horse checked with the bit. Then corruptions set up their heads, which he never saw in himself before. Here oft-times, atheism, blasphemy, and in one word, horrible things concerning God, terrible thoughts concerning the faith, arise in his breast; so that his heart is a very hell within him. Thus, while he is sweeping the house of his heart, not yet watered with gospel grace, those corruptions which lay quiet before, in neglected corners, fly up and down in it like dust. He is as one who is mending the bank of a river, and while he is repairing breaches in it, and strengthening every part of it, a mighty flood comes down, overturns his works, and drives all away before it, both that which was newly laid, and what was laid before. Read Romans vii. 8-13. This is a stroke which goes to the heart: and by it, his hope of making himself more fit to come to Christ, is cut off.
- Now the time is come, when the man, between hope and despair, resolves to go to Christ as he is and therefore, like a dying man, stretching himself just before his breath goes out, he rallies the broken forces of his soul, tries to believe, and in some sort lays hold on Jesus Christ. And now the branch hangs on the old stock by one single tack of a natural faith, produced by the natural vigour of one’s own spirit, under a most pressing necessity, Psalm lxxviii. 34, 35, “When he slew them then they sought him, and they returned and inquired early after God. And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their Redeemer.” Hosea viii. 2, “Israel shall cry unto me, my God, we know thee.” But the Lord, never failing to perfect his work, fetches yet another stroke, whereby the branch falls quite off. The Spirit of God convincingly discovers to the sinner his utter inability to do anything that is good and so he dieth, Romans vii. 9. That voice powerfully strikes through his soul, “How can ye believe?” John v. 44. Thou canst no more believe than thou canst reach up thine hand to heaven, and bring Christ down from thence. Thus at last he sees, that he can neither help himself by working, nor by believing; and having no more to hang by on the old stock, he therefore falls off. While he is distressed thus, seeing himself likely to be swept away with the flood of God’s wrath, and yet
unable so much as to stretch forth a hand to lay hold of a twig of the tree of life, growing on the bank of the river, he is taken up, and ingrafted in the true vine, the Lord Jesus Christ giving him the Spirit of faith.
By what has been said upon this head, I design not to rack or distress tender conscience; for though there are but few such at this day, yet God forbid I should offend any of Christ’s little ones. But alas! a dead sleep is fallen upon this generation, they will not be awakened, let us go ever so near to the quick: therefore I fear that there is another sort of awakening abiding this sermon, which shall make the ears of them that hear it tingle. However, I would not have this to be looked upon as the sovereign God’s stunted method of breaking off sinners from the old stock. But this I maintain as a certain truth, that all who are in Christ have been broken off from all these several confidences; and that they who were never broken off from them, are yet in their natural stock. Nevertheless, if the house be pulled down, and the old foundation razed, it is much the same whether it was taken down stone by stone, or whether it was undermined and all fell down together.
Now it is that the branch is ingrafted in Jesus Christ. And as the law, in the hand of the Spirit of God, was the instrument to cut off the branch from the natural stock; so the Gospel, in the hand of the same Spirit, is the instrument used for ingrafting it into the supernatural stock, I John i. 3. “That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” See Isaiah lxi. 1-3. The Gospel is the silver cord let down from heaven to draw perishing sinners to land. And through the preaching of the law prepares the way of the Lord; yet it is in the word of the Gospel that Christ and a sinner meet. Now, as in the natural grafting, the branch being taken up is put into the stock, and being put into it, becomes one with it, so that they are united; even so in the spiritual ingrafting, Christ apprehends the sinner, and the sinner being apprehended of Christ, apprehends him, and so they become one, Philippians iii. 12.
Messages from the Mountains.
by Rev. D. M. MacDonald, Edinburgh.
Mount Sinai.
This mountain is triple headed and has borne for centuries the name of Sinai. It is situated in the granite district, called in
the Bible Horeb, which means desolate. It was the scene of God’s proclamation of His Law to the children of Israel. The mountain mass stands at the highest point of the peninsula, and forms the crown of one of the most glorious ranges in the world. It has been said that nothing more sublimely beautiful can be seen in this world than a sunset from a certain place on it. The rosy glow on the mountain-tops, gradually giving way before the rising darkness, reminds one irresistibly of “the glory of the Lord.”
When the Israelites camped near the Mount, Moses went up and God said to him that he was making a covenant with the people that if they obeyed Him they would be unto Him an holy nation and they promised they would obey. They were then warned to sanctify themselves and be ready on the third day to listen to the voice of God but not to touch the Mount. Then amidst thunderings and lightnings and the noise of the trumpet and the smoke and the earthquake throbs, which shook the ground, a voice like that of a man, distinctly articulate, pronounced the words of the Moral Law which has been from that day to this the guide of life to innumerable souls. It has been well said that the delivery of the Decalogue on Sinai formed a decisive epoch in the history of the human race, and was even perhaps the greatest and most important event in human history up to the time of its occurrence. It is a system which stands on a moral eminence far above all other moral systems and unequalled for simplicity, comprehensiveness and solemnity. Its precepts constitute a summary of human duty manifestly divine which is suited for every form of human society and which cannot become antiquated as long as the world lasts.
The Ten Commandments were not only spoken by God himself but also written by his finger on the two tables of testimony. This shows their immense importance for they are the only portion of scripture written by his finger. Other parts were written by inspired men. The first table states our duties to God and the second table our duties to our fellow sinners. To be a real Christian a man must be righteous towards God and towards his fellow sinners, thereby showing that he is obeying the precepts of the Moral Law and honours it as a rule of life. It is true that the Law pronounces its curse on all who disobey it and that means that the human race is condemned by it because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. In order to save sinners from the Law’s curse the Saviour bore that curse Himself and by the infinite glory of His Person magnified the Law
and made it honourable through His perfect obedience and sufferings unto death. Although the Law demands obedience it does not offer salvation to any one. The Jews erred grievously in thinking that it did as the Apostle Paul shows for he himself thought that he could be saved by it until he was converted. It was then he saw clearly that only by faith in Christ he could be saved and afterwards he wrote that, “Christ was the end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe in Him.”
Arminianism.
By the late Rev. Donald Beaton, Oban.
Careful observers of the theological literature which is pouring from the press in our time must be saddened by the extraordinary extent to which it is permeated by the leaven of Arminianism. What Arminianism failed to do in the arena of debate, it has accomplished by peaceful penetration. It has saturated the theological thinking of Scotland to an extraordinary degree. The revival literature of to-day is full of it, as is also the religious press generally. Warnings from the pulpit and denunciation of the errors of Arminianism are not now heard, as they once were, in our country. Even in pulpits where the truth is preached it is to be feared that, in some cases, a faithful witness is not raised against Arminianism. The cause of this may be due in a measure to the fact that in defending the cause of truth new forms of error have to be exposed and assailed, with the result that the old enemy is left so far unmolested as if it were dead. Unfortunately this is not so—Arminianism is very much alive in the pulpit and in the theological and religious press and in the modern evangelistic meeting. It is true, no doubt, there has been a revival of interest in Calvinistic teaching on the Continent and an effort is being made to revive interest in it in this country, but there can be little doubt notwithstanding all this, that Arminianism is in the popular swim of things in our day. When it is borne in mind the horror with which our forefathers regarded Arminianism, the modern attitude to it indicates how far the professing Church has drifted from the position of the theologians of those days. The symbolic books of the Church of England—the Thirty-Nine Articles—and the symbolic books of the Church of Scotland—the Confession of Faith—are undoubtedly Calvinistic but can it be said that all who sign these symbols are Calvinists at heart?
Of course, it may be said that as a Church we have been preserved from the leaven of Arminianism and that Arminianism is not taught or countenanced among us and that there is, therefore, no necessity to stress the point of the danger of Arminian teaching finding its way among us. Granted that this is true, yet it must be borne in mind that living in an atmosphere permeated with Arminianism we are ready to be influenced by it and breathe in its poison atmosphere unawares; let us therefore suffer the word of exhortation.
The theological system that goes under the name of Arminianism received its name from a Dutch theologian—Jakob Hermanss—the latinized form of whose name was Arminius. He was born at Oudewater (about 18 miles from Rotterdam) in 1560 and died at Leyden in 1609. In 1588 he was appointed preacher of the Reformed congregation at Amsterdam. While here, his views underwent a change and his expositions of Romans VII and IX, and his utterances on election and reprobation gave offence. His colleague, Plancius, opposed his views and disputes arose in the consistory which for a time were put a stop to by the burgomasters. Arminius was called to fill a professor’s chair at Leyden and in his lectures on predestination he stirred up considerable opposition. His chief opponent being Gomarus. The dispute spread among the students and the ministers. The followers of Arminius refused to be called Arminians, preferring to be called Remonstrants from their Remonstrantiae which was drawn up in 1610 after Arminius’s death (1609) and was an exposition and justification of their views. The Remonstrants held that they should not be hampered by subscription to the symbolic books but that free investigation of the Bible should be allowed. Their Remonstrance was met by a Counter-Remonstrance. The controversy went on for years causing considerable disturbance. When Prince Maurice countenanced the cause of the Counter-Remonstrants a change took place as to the State attitude to the controversy and a national synod was called by the States-general at Dort (30th May, 1618).
The presentation of the case of the Arminians in Five Articles determined to a large extent the form in which the whole subject was afterwards discussed at the Synod of Dort under the Five Heads. (1) Predestination or election. (2) On the death of Christ, the nature and extent of His redemption. (3) On the cause of faith, that is, the power or agency by which it is produced. (4) The mode of conversion, or the agency by which it is effected, and the mode of its operation. (5) On perseverance. On these great
doctrines the Synod of Dort gave decisions condemning the Arminian positions. It would take up too much of our space to summarise the canons of the Synod of Dort and there is less need to do so, inasmuch as the Calvinistic doctrines opposed to the Arminian are set forth with such clearness in our Confession of Faith. It is mainly the doctrines of conditional predestination, man’s ability to spiritual good and a universal atonement which has made its way into the theological thinking of our time. No doubt some of its doctrines make a pleasing appeal to the natural man but they are up against the clear statements of Scripture and the plain facts of experience. Take, for instance, the universal doctrine of the atonement—Christ dying equally for Judas as for Paul—what does it lead to? Either Christ failed in His work if He died for all and some are lost, or the Holy Spirit has failed in His work in applying Christ’s redemption; both positions are monstrous and dishonouring to the Son and Spirit.
Dr. Cunningham seems to us to have happily hit off the real inwardness of the Arminian error when he says: “It is not very difficult to point out what may fairly enough be described as the fundamental characteristic principle of Arminianism—that which Arminianism either is, or has a strong and constant tendency to become; and this is, that it is a scheme for dividing or partitioning the salvation of sinners between God and sinners themselves, instead of ascribing it wholly, as the Bible does, to the sovereign grace of God, the perfect and all-sufficient work of Christ, and the efficacious and omnipotent operation of the Spirit . . . The encroachment they make upon the grace of God in the salvation of sinners varies, of course, according to the extent to which they carry out their views, especially in regard to men’s natural depravity, and the nature and necessity of the work of the Spirit in regeneration and conversion; but Arminianism, in any form, can be shown to involve the ascription to men themselves, more directly or more remotely, of a place and influence in effecting their own salvation, which the Bible denies to them and ascribes to God.” (Historical Theology, ii, 377, 378). This is a serious indictment against Arminianism for it virtually means that it robs God of His glory in the salvation of the sinner and denies that this salvation is all of grace from beginning to end.
Professor Watts, Belfast, used to say to his students that Arminianism fought none of the battles of the Reformation and when it appeared on the stage it was as the sower of discord and disunion that it made its presence felt. In its early days Arminianism was on the defensive, powerfully attacked by the forces of
Calvinism. Now the positions have for a long time been reversed. It is Calvinism that is now to a great extent on the defensive while Arminianism is only too surely conquering in churches where at one time it was banned as a dangerous enemy to scriptural truth.
Arminianism, in a word, is a direct challenge to the sovereignty of God. This is the rock against which it is spending its strength and on which it will ultimately be broken to pieces. In this attack it has as its supports all those elements in our fallen nature which are at war with the divine sovereignty. It has never got a glimpse of the majesty of the divine truth that, as sovereign Lord, God has a right to do what seemeth good with His creatures and it has failed to grasp the utter ruin of man and the awful depths to which he has fallen. It denies to God the high place that is due to Him and exalts man to a position which is not his due. If it has ever candidly faced the Saviour’s word: “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight,” it has never been awed and subdued by them. (F.P. Magazine, Vol. XVII, p. 41-44).
Searmonan.
Leis an Urr. Tearlach C.Mac an Tòisich, D.D.
(Air a leantuinn bho t.d.)
Tha agad ri bhi cuimhneachadh, a chreidmhich, gu’m bheil thu ri bhi air do bheothachadh gu dòchas nì’s mothà ann a bhi cuimhneachadh, gu’n do dh’imich àireamh nach urrain neach air bith àireamh an aon cheum a tha thusa ag imeachd, gu’m bheil thu air do chuartachadh le neul mòr de dh’fhianuisean; ach tha thu ri bhi’g amharc ri Iosa. Cha’n eil ann an cuideachd na muinntir shaorta uile ach an urad sin de sgàthanann anns am bheil cuibhrionn bheag air chor-eigin Dheth mhaise ri bhi air a faicinn; agus eadhon na’n staid ghloàichte, ciod is urrain iad a dheanamh air son peacach bochd—air son spiorad luchdaichte? Is urrain iad co-fhaireachadh a bhi aca ris, ach ‘s e sin uile. Cha’n eil ach aon Chuspair is urrain coinneachadh ri fheuman uile, is urrain a shùilean a lionadh ‘n uair a tha e air a dheanamh comasach a bhi faicinn agus ag òl a stigh a mhaise mhoralta agus spioradail, is urrain a chridhe a lionadh gu bràth; agus ‘s e’n Cuspair sin an Tighearna Iosa Criost. Cha’n eil an t-Athair siorruidh sgìth dhe bhi’ gabhail beachd air oirdheirceasan; cha’n eil na h-ainglean naomh sgìth dhe bhi seinn a chliùthabh; cha ghearaìn a mhuinntir shaorta gu bràth gu’m bheil an gnàth
bheachdachadh air a mhaise ag aobhrachadh sgios. Is iomadh osna th’aig an anam luchdaichte fodh mhothachadh air Criosd a bhi fad as, a thaobh cho dorcha, dorcha, ‘s a tha shealladh Air; ach cha’n fhàs e gu bràth sgìth dhe bhi faicinn aghaidh ‘n uair a thig e do’n t-Sion neamhaidh.
Ach feumaidh sinn beachdachadh air a chuspair so ann an solus eile. Tha creutair bochd, dorcha, lag air a ghairm gu bhi ruith na réis bho pheacadh gu naomhachd, gu bhi’g iarruidh as deigh ni nach eil ni’s lugha na bhi gu h-iomlan coltach ri Dia; gu bhi’g iarruidh ni nach eil ni’s lugha na bhi glòrachadh Dhé. Tha e ro fhior gu’n deachaidh e troimh atharrachadh glòrmhor; tha e air a dhol thairis bho dhìteadh gu staid anns am bheil e air gabhail ris ann an sealladh Dhé; tha e air ath-nuadhachadh ann an spiorad inntinn; chaidh na seann nithean seachad; chaidh an saoghal a dheanamh ‘n a dhiamhanas dha air son Chriosd. Agus gidheadh tha e, ann fein, cho tur gun neart ‘s a bha e roimhe. Cha’n eil stoc de ghràs aige air an urrain e marsantachd a dheanamh; cha’n eil cumhachd aig ann fein gu cur an aghaidh a naimhdean spioradail; cha’n urrain e anam fein a ghleidheadh, cha’n urrain e aon de ghràsan an Spioraid a chleachdadh gu ceart, agus, ge b’e ‘n t-adhartas a dh’fhaodas e dheanamh ann am beatha na diadhachd, tha shuidheachadh anns an rathad so a fantuinn gu’n atharrachadh. Tha e fathasd, am feadh ‘s a tha e anns an t-saoghal so, ‘n a pheacach a tha cur feum air tròcair, cho cinnteach ‘s a bha e ‘n uair a dh’iarr agus a thuair e tròcair an toiseach; a cur feum air neart sioruidh an Tighearn Iosa ga chumail suas, cho cinnteach ‘s a bha e ‘n uair a thoisich an cath an toiseach; agus mar is moth a dhartas ann am beatha na diadhachd is ann is moth a tha e faicinn so, agus ‘s ann is moth a tha teicheadh aige roimh oibríbh an droch phrionnsabal a cheanglaidh ri obair chriochnaichte Chriosd mar bhonn dòchais, ni air bith dhe chuid fein, eadhon ni air bith dhe na dh’oibrich Spiorad Dhé ann, na a chumadh air ais e bho bhi’g amharc ri Iosa leis an aon mhothachadh air cion neart ann fein ‘s a bha aig ‘n uair a dh’amhairc e’n toiseach ‘s a bha e air a thearnadh. Agus gidheadh tha e air a ghairm gu bhi ruith na réis so. Cia mar, uime sin is urrain e bhi ruith? Tha e ri bhi ga ruith mar a chaidh e stigh innte an toiseach, “ag amharc ri Iosa.” Mar a tha Aon ann a rinn na h-uile ni air a shon a thaobh a bhi saoradh anam bho dhìteadh, agus a thaobh tòiseachadh na h-obair mhaith, mar sin tha E ri bhi leantuinn air adhart ann a bhi deanamh na h-uile nì air a shon, agus a bhi toirt gu coiliontachd gach ni a bhuineas dha. Air-san, uime sin, tha e ri bhi taiceachadh; Ris-san
tha e ri bhi’g amharc, agus air son gach nì dh’fheumas beatha a Chriosduidh tha ullachadh anns an Tighearn Iosa. Gabh beachd, uime sin, mar a tha leisg spioradail air an aon laimh, agus mi-mhisneachd air an laimhe eile, air an dùnadh a mach le ullachadh an t-soisgeil. Cha’n eil an Tighearn Iosa ag iarruidh aon maillle Ris Fein ann a bhi tòiseachadh na a leantuinn air adhart obair a ghràis. ‘S e tha E ‘g iarruidh a bhi taiceachadh, a bhi taiceachadh gu sìmplidh agus gu iomlan air Fein air son toiseachadh agus toirt gu coillontachd na h-obair; agus anns an taiceachadh so tha E air a ghlòrachadh.
Air an aon laimh, uime sin, is e’n creidmheach a tha taiceachadh gu muinghinneach a bhitheas ‘n a chreidmheach dìchiollach agus gniomhach; ‘s e so a’ neach a ghiùlaineas uireasbhuidhean agus uallaichean a dh’ionnsuidh an Tighearn Iosa a chùm agus gu’m bi fheuman air coinneachadh riutha a mach as a’ lànachd-san a bhitheas le uile chridhe a ruith na réis; agus, air an làimh eile, cha’n eil an gairm gu bhi ruith na réis so mar ghairm Pharaoh ri cloinn Israel, “Deanabh clachaibh creadha gun chonnlach;” cha’n eil an creidmheach bochd falamh air a ghairm gu bhi naomh ann an cleachdadh oidheirpean fein. Ni-headh: tha Criosd air a dheanamh Dha shluagh, bho Dhia, cha’n e mhàinn ‘n a fhìreantachd, ach mar an ceudna ‘n a naomhachd. Tha’n teagasg a tha toirt àite air bith do dh’oibrìbh ann am fìreanachadh a pheacaich, na a bheir do’n Chriosduidh cumhachd ann fein gu bhi giùlain air adhart obair a’ naomhachaidh, dealaicht’ ri e bhi ‘n a theagasg a tha sgrios an anama, is e teagasg truagh agus gun solas a th’ann.
‘S e creidimh, uime sin, prionnsabal mòr ‘n a h-ùmhlachd. Tha ùmhlachd an fhior chreidmhich eadar-dhealaichte bho ùmhlachd an fhoirmealaich ann a’ mòran de sheadhan:—is i ùmhlachd a ghràidh a th’innte, gràdh do Chriosd, agus speis do dh’aitheantan Dhé uile:—ach tha e gu sònraichte soilleir ann an so, gur i ùmhlachd a chreidmhich a th’innte. ‘N uair a tha sinn ag ràdh gur i ùmhlachd a chreidimh a th’innte, tha sinn a ciallachadh, an toiseach, gu’m bheil i ‘n aghaidh na h-ùmhlachd a tha air a cur air chois le fein-fhìreantachd na eagal tràilleil, oir tha i air a beothachadh le dòchas; agus anns an dara àite, gu’m bheil i’n aghaidh na h-ùmhlachd a tha tarruig air a chreutair fein air son a chumail suas, oir tha tarruig a chumail suas bho Shlànughear nach eil ri fhaicinn.
Cha lean mi ni’s fhaide aig an am so air nàdur creidimh mar a tha e air a chumail a mach ‘s an t-samhla na anns a choslas mhaiseach so “ag amharc ri Iosa.” Cha’n aithne dhomh gu’m
bheil ann am Focal Dhé foillseachadh eile air creidimh is freagaraich do’n a chreidmheach lag, is freagaraiche gu bhi “cuideachadh eas-creidimh” na’n aon so. Tha’n t-simplidheachd ghlòrmhor a bhuineas do chreidimh ann an Criosd air fhoillseachadh leis,—an t-simplidheachd a tha ga dheanamh cho cruaidh do’n a chridhe fhein fhìreanta a bhi tuigsinn ciod e creidimh—gur e th’ann ach peacach a tha mothachail air a bhi caillte agus gun chomas aig amharc ann an simplidheachd ris an Tighearn Iosa Criosd anns an t-soisgeul air son na slàinte a bhàsaich E gu bhi ceannach, agus a tha E beo gu bhi toirt seachad. Tha dhà na trì de nithean, gidheadh, a dh’fheumas sinn a chumail am fradharc mar nithean a dh’fheumas a bhi air an gabhail a stigh ann. Mar eiseimpleir, feumaidh a bhi ann eolas air Criosd, tomhas de fhiar eolas spioradail air a Phearsa agus Air obair. Cha’n urrain creidimh a bhi air a chleachdadh air Criosd air nach eil eolas againn; Cha’n urrain e bhi faotainn cleachdadh ach cho fad ‘s a tha’n tuigse, air a soillseachadh le Spiorad Dhé, a gabhail aithne air glòir Iosa an Criosd. Uime sin, is ann an uair a tha’n t-Abstol Peadar ag earalachadh a bhràithrean a “bhi fàs ann an gràs,” a tha e cur ris a’ sin, mar aon ni, air mhodh sònraicht’, anns am bheil fàs ann an gràs a co-sheasamh, “agus ann an eolas ar Tighearna agus ar Slànuig-hear Iosa Criosd.” A ris, feumaidh earbsa ann an Criosd a bhi ann. Nis, tha gairm choitchionn an t-soisgeil a toirt barantas aig gach am do’n chreidmheach a bhi as ùr a toirt cleachdadh do chreidimh anns an Tighearn Iosa Criosd; mar eiseimpleir, a leithid de earann ghlòrmhor de fhoical Dhé ris; “Is ann mar so a ghràdhaich Dia an saoghal gu’n d’thus e aon-ghin Mhic Fein, chùm ‘us ge b’e neach a chreideas ann nach sgriosar e ach gu’m bi a bheatha mhaireannach aig;” agus gu’m bu beannaichte Dia gu’m bheil barantas againn am feum so a dheanamh de’n t-soisgeul bheannaicht’ bho am gu am. Ach a thuilleadh air a so, tha foillseachaidhean sònraicht’ air an Fhear-shaoraidh freagarach air son gach cor agus suidheachadh anns am bheil a shluagh air am faotainn anns an t-saoghal so. Nis, ‘s e th’ann a bhi’g “amharc ri Iosa” ach a bhi’g amharc Ris ann an cleachdadh sùil a bhi againn agus earbsa bhi againn gu’m bi E dhuinn a reir Fhocail Fein, agus a reir ar feum-ne; gu’m bi E dhuinn mar ar Beatha ann ar bàs, ar Fear-tagraidh gu gabhail os laimh air ar son, ar Fear-coimhead a chùm ar dion, ar Buachaile gu bhi ga’r beathachadh; agus mar sin air son ar feuman uile.
An sin a ris, feumaidh an “amharc ri Criosd” so a bhi na leithid de amharc agus a tha gabhail a stigh innne tlachd cridhe
ann an Cuspair glòrmhor a chreidimh. Cha’n eil teagamh nach feum sinn eadar-dhealachadh a chur eadar creidimh agus gràdh; cha’n fhaod sinn an dà ghràs so a mheasgachadh. Ach feumaidh sinn a chuimhneachadh gu’m bheil iad a ghnàth do-sgaraichte. Tha creidimh a beothachadh gràidh, agus tha gràdh a gluasad suas creidimh gu bhi sior-mheudachadh ann an cleachdadh. Is ann a dh’ionnsuidh sealladh a ghràidh, cho maith ri sealladh na h-earbsa a tha’n creidmheach air a chuireadh.
(R’a leantuin)
Notes and Comments.
Spain and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
It was announced in the press that the Spanish Foreign Minister, Senor Castiella, was to visit London during July, at the invitation of the British Government. This was said to be part of N.A.T.O.’s reconsidered policy toward Spain which has been ruled by Dictator General Franco for many years now. And as we know, his policy has been rigidly in line with Vatican requirements involving a great deal of oppression of the Protestant minority in his country. Although there has been little or nothing done about this in Great Britain; there has been, and there is, quite a considerable anti-Spanish feeling in Britain and among our politicians. In view of the possibility of Spain being invited to join N.A.T.O., which the United States desires, we were relieved to read that our Foreign Minister, Mr Selwyn Lloyd, was to speak to the Spanish Foreign Mission on the situation of the Protestants in Spain, which the press stated had recently caused distress in Britain. It is so much to know that this evil state of affairs has not been entirely forgotten by members of the British Government.
Vice in London.
During a debate in the House of Lords at the beginning of June, Lord Stonham demanded emergency Government action to clean up dens of immorality in London. It was stated that the police were emphatic that there had been no change in the situation with the passing of the Street Offences Act, which was intended to clear the London streets of the open activities of immoral persons. From what this debate revealed, we learn that small clubs for evil purposes have become numerous. For example, Lord Stonham told the House of Lords that the London district of Stepney with its working-class traditions had
become a place of shame as it was now a centre of vice. These facts which are now and again made public, testify to a terrible plague of immorality which has spread throughout Britain. We deplore the heinous sin of disregard for the Lord’s Day in our midst but the alarming fact is that transgression of all the Commandments is rife. And fire came down from the Lord out of heaven upon Sodom; and we should tremble.
Bishop Defends the Duke of Edinburgh.
Polo playing on the Lord’s Day by the Duke of Edinburgh was defended by the Bishop of Lichfield, Dr. A. S. Reive, at a Conference at Stafford, on the 1st of June last. The Bishop said that the Royal Family set an example to the nation in regular Church attendance. And that Prince Philip played polo only after discharging this obligation. This is not the only Church of England clergyman who has spoken thus. These blind leaders of the blind have much to answer for unto the Lord. No wonder men run on in sin when their religious advisers encourage them. Yet the Bishops will complain like others of non-church going which they themselves help to bring about, or is it the case that such religious leaders do not care as long as they obtain their salaries and a place for themselves in the Church?
Adolf Eichmann, Persecutor of Jews.
The startling case of the capture of Eichmann who is said to have been largely responsible for the death of literally millions of Jews in Germany, has been given great prominence recently. Jewish agents apprehended him in Argentina and brought him to Israel for trial. It is true as far even as this world is concerned, that some men’s sins find them out. Their particular sins confront and condemn them ere ever they go to eternity and the Judgment seat of Christ. One item in this case which has been made known is that Eichmann fled from Europe to Argentina under a false name and with a displaced person’s identity card which was issued by the refugee section of the Vatican. He managed to get his wife and children with him also. Cases of this kind are not necessary to prove the total depravity of the sons of Adam, but they emphasise the fact and show the Word of God to be absolutely true as to what it declares of the desperate wickedness of man’s heart.
Resumption of Talks on Church Union.
Professor W. S. Tindall opened a debate in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on Inter-Church Relations and made known that a Committee of 50 of the Church of
Scotland was to resume talks with the Church of England to resolve the issues involved in mutual recognition, although it was revealed that the Church of England never sent a detailed reply to a Deliverance of last year on these questions. We believe the Church of England’s attitude is somewhat similar to the Roman Catholic attitude viz., “submit unreservedly to us.” During this debate which took place the day after the debate on the Sabbath question, a member of Assembly asked Professor Tindall if he could state which churches would be affected if the report on the Christian use of “Sunday” had been adopted on the previous day. Professor Tindall’s reply should be noted in the light of observations in the article in this issue on “The Debate in the General Assembly on the Sabbath Question.” Professor Tindall replied by naming the Free Church of Scotland, which he said, attached very great importance to the observance of “Sunday.” “We are hoping,” he added, “that one day the way will become clear, whereby the Free Church and the Church of Scotland will become one Church.” If these references by Professor Tindall to the Free Church of Scotland are not an expression of merely wishful thinking and superficial talk, then he must have had some ground and authority for speaking of the Free Church as he did. Those who read the article in this issue on the debate upon the Sabbath question will see there that Professor Torrance, of the Church of Scotland also referred to the Free Church. And Professor Tindall’s questioner had Professor Torrance’s observations apparently in mind. Therefore we think that the Free Church of Scotland, by the public utterances of Professor Renwick, Free Church Assembly Moderator, and those of Professors Torrance and Tindall of the Church of Scotland, has been presented to the general public as a denomination which has had some contacts, one way or another, with the Church of Scotland anent union between the two churches. And if these impressions are completely devoid of any reality, then the ecclesiastical air should be cleared.
Church Notes.
Communions.
January—Fifth Sabbath, Inverness. February—First Sabbath, Dingwall; third, Stornoway; fourth, North Uist. March—First Sabbath, Ullapool; second, Ness and Portree; third, Finsbay; fourth, Kinlochbervie, North Tolsta. April—First Sabbath, Stoer, Achmore, Portnalong and Fort William; third, Greenock and London, fourth, Glasgow and Wick. May—First Sabbath, Kames and Oban; second, Scourie; third, Edinburgh and Broadford. June—First Sabbath, Tarbert, Applecross, Coigach; second,
Shieldaig; third, Lochcarron, Glendale, Helmsdale, Dornoch and Uig; fourth, Gairloch and Inverness. July—First Sabbath, Lairg, Raasay and Beauly; second, Staffin, Tornatin and Tain; third, Halkirk, Rogart, Flashadder and Daviot; fourth, Achmore, Bracadale, North Uist and Plockton. August—First Sabbath, Dingwall and Vancouver (Canada); second, Portree and Stratherrick; third, Bonar, Finsbay and Laide; fourth, Vatten, Thurso and Stornoway. September—First Sabbath, Ullapool and Breasclete; second, Strathy; third, Tarbert and Stoer; fourth, Applecross. October—First Sabbath, Tolsta and Lochcarron; second, Gairloch and Ness; fourth, Greenock, Lochinver; fifth, Wick. November—First Sabbath, Oban and Raasay; second, Glasgow and Halkirk; third, Edinburgh, Dornoch and Uig. December—First Sabbath, London.
Resignation of the General Treasurer.
At its meeting in May, the Synod regretfully gave authority to accept the resignation of Mr John Grant as General Treasurer of the Church. This resignation is to take effect from 30th September, 1960.
The Synod also appointed a new General Treasurer in the person of Mr W. D. Fraser, 34 Duneearn Street, Glasgow. Mr Fraser’s appointment will commence from 1st October, 1960.
This brief notice is inserted for the information of our friends overseas principally. A fuller notice will appear in the September issue of this Magazine. (DV)
Donald MacLean, Convener, Finance Committee
Induction of the Rev. Donald MacLean at Glasgow.
In connection with this Induction, the Rev. D. Campbell, Interim-Moderator, constituted the Southern Presbytery in the Vestry of St. Jude’s Church, Glasgow, on Tuesday, the 14th day of June, 1960, at 6.30 p.m., and at 7 p.m., the Induction Service began in the Church, in which a congregation estimated at fully 700 people was assembled
The Rev. James MacLeod, Greenock, Senior minister of the Presbytery, then conducted public worship, preaching an appropriate sermon, his text being Luke, Chapter 10, verses 1-3. “After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before His face into every city and place, whither He Himself would come. Therefore said he unto them, The Harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He would send forth labourers into His harvest. Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.”
Public worship being ended, the Clerk then read a narrative of the steps taken relative to the Call with a view to filling up the vacancy. He then read out the Questions usually put to ministers on such an occasion, and, the Rev Donald MacLean having
satisfactorily answered the Questions, the Clerk then read out the Formula which was then signed by Mr MacLean in the presence of the Congregation.
The Rev James MacLeod did then after solemn prayer, suitably induct and admit Mr MacLean to the pastoral charge of St. Jude’s Congregation, giving him the right hand of fellowship, in which he was followed by other members of the Court, including the Rev William MacLean, Ness, who was associated with the Presbytery.
The newly-inducted minister was then suitably and solemnly addressed by the Rev James MacLeod, who stressed the need of application to the Bible and Prayer.
The Congregation was then addressed in suitable terms by the Rev J. P. MacQueen and the Rev William MacLean, on the invitation of the Interim-Moderator, expressed his pleasure in connection with the settlement now effected.
Mr MacLean was ordained and inducted to the pastoral charge of Portree, Skye, on 22nd December, 1948, and now comes back in the Providence of God to be minister of that Congregation in which he was brought up from infancy and for many years following under the ministry of the late Rev Neil Cameron, and to the Presbytery by which he was received as a student studying for the ministry, and by which he was licensed to preach the Gospel on 29th June, 1948.
His brethren in the Southern Presbytery and his many friends in the South welcome Mr MacLean among them. May his ministry be greatly owned of the Lord in the conversion of sinners and in the building up of the Lord’s people in their most holy faith
Malcolm Macsween, Clerk of the Southern Presbytery
Acknowledgement of Donations.
Mr J. Grant, 4 Millburn Road, Inverness, General Treasurer, acknowledges with grateful thanks the following:—
Sustentation Fund.—Mrs Smith and family, Golspie, £8.
Aged and Infirm Ministers and Widows and Orphans’ Fund.—Mrs Smith and family, Golspie, £4.
Foreign Mission.—Miss C. MacArthur, Bath Street, Glasgow, £1; Rev E. F. Vergunst, Ede, Holland (ten guldens), 18/7; Well-wisher, for defending the Faith, Glasgow postmark, £20.
Organisation Fund.—Well-wisher for defending the Faith, Glasgow postmark, £20.
Publication Fund.—A. P., Portree, £2; Well-wisher, for defending the Faith, Glasgow postmark, £20.
Trinitarian Bible Society.—A. P., Portree, £2.
Home of Rest Fund.—Anon, Vancouver, per Rev D. M. Macdonald, Edinburgh (\$20), £7.3.4d.; Mrs Ross, Badcall, Scourie, £1.
Legacy Fund.—Received from the Estate of the late James MacIver, Drumindarroch House, Strath, Gairloch, the sum of £500, bequeathed to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, per George Ross and Noble, Solicitors, Inverness.
The following list sent in for publication.
Bayhead (N. Uist) Manse Repair Fund.—Mr A. Macdonald, Treasurer acknowledges with sincere thanks £5 from Mrs Johnson, Edinburgh, and £3 from M. MacAskill, Inverness, both per Rev A. Morrison.
Broadford Congregational Funds.—Mr John MacLean, Treasurer, acknowledges with sincere thanks £4, for Sustentation Fund.
Dingwall Church Building Fund.—Mr D. Matheson, Treasurer, acknowledges with sincere thanks, Friend, Rogart, per Rev Mr MacFarlane, £5; C.M., £10; Small envelope Prayer Meeting, £5; Mrs Newington, Laxdale, further 10/- per Rev Mr MacFarlane; A Wayfarer, per H. C. F., £5.
Fort William Manse Building Fund.—Mr J. Matheson, Treasurer acknowledges with sincere thanks, Friend, Glendale, £2; Friend, Glendale, £1, per Mr A. Colquhoun.
Glasgow, St. Judes Manse Fund.—The Treasurer acknowledges with thanks the following: M. Nicolson, Portree, 10/-; “Surplus,” Glasgow, £3; John Gillies, Kuwait, £5; Alex. Forgie, Redding, Falkirk, £5.
Glendale Church Repairs Fund.—Mr A. Maclean, Treasurer, acknowledges with sincere thanks, Friend, Glendale, £1; Friend, Dunvegan, £1, for new vestry, both per Rev J. C.; £2 in envelope in plate for Sustentation Fund.
Greenock Congregational Funds.—Mr A. Y. Cameron, Treasurer, acknowledges with grateful thanks, £1, from a Gairloch Free Presbyterian for Sustentation Fund, also £1, from an Edinburgh friend, per Rev J. MacL.
Halkirk Congregation.—Rev W. Grant, gratefully acknowledges £5, for Church Funds from Mrs D. Sinclair, Harrowgate. “Children’s Pennies,” for T.B.S. (Calder School), £1.11.8d.
Laig Congregation.—Rev D. M. MacLeod, acknowledges with grateful thanks Laig Sustentation Fund £2.10/- from a Friend.
Bonar-Bridge.—Home Mission Fund, £2.10/- from a Friend. Rev. D. M. Macleod also acknowledges £5, from M. Gillies, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow, towards Prizes for Reformation Essay.
London Church Building Fund.—Rev J. P. MacQueen, acknowledges with sincere thanks, £3 from Mr and Mrs John MacPhail, Glasgow; £1, from a Gairloch F.P.; £1, from D. MacKenzie, North Tolsta; Ten dollars from F.P. Friend in U.S.A. (£3.10/-)
Oban Congregational Funds.—Mr John Martin, Treasurer, acknowledges with grateful thanks, £5, from Mr J. Fraser, per Rev M. MacSween.
Portree Congregation Church Hall Fund.—The Treasurer acknowledges with grateful thanks, the sum of £2 10/-, from A. Raasay Friend, per Rev D. MacLean.
Tain Congregation.—The Treasurer acknowledges with sincere thanks £5, from Mr R. Godber, Chesterfield, Derbyshire.
Uig, Lewis Congregation.—The Treasurer acknowledges with grateful thanks £1, for Congregational Funds, £1 from Mrs MacKenzie, Sussex, per D. M.
St. Judes’ South African Clothing Fund.—The Committee acknowledges with thanks, contributions amounting to £22.11.8d., also £1 from Miss C. Meighan and 15/- from Interested, Edinburgh.
St. Judes, Glasgow.—The Treasurer acknowledges with grateful thanks, Aged and Infirm Ministers’ etc. Fund, “Tenth,” Glasgow, £25; Congregational Funds, “Friend,” Stornoway, per Rev W. Maclean, £5.