1. THE BURNT-OFFERING

“It is a burnt-sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.” Lev. i. 17.

Reader, you are invited here to take your stand within the tabernacle’s court. A crowded and a busy scene appears. Many worshippers bring many offerings. All is activity. But all the active zeal has one great object — to honour God in God’s appointed way.

Each offering in this court is a full page of Gospel-truth. Christ in His grace and work is the golden key to open every part. Leviticus is Calvary foreshown. Calvary is Leviticus unfolded. The one casts forward the morning ray. The other pours down the mid-day blaze. But the early and the brighter beams stream from one Sun — Christ Jesus. The brazen altar is the herald of the cross. The cross re-echoes to the brazen altar’s voice.

In a long train of ceremonial teaching the Burnt-offering takes the lead. Let this, then, first be noticed.

An offerer comes. Mark what he brings. If his offering be from the herd, it must be an unblemished male. Lev. i. 3. It must be the choicest produce from his pastures — the primest flower from his fields. There must be strength in fullest vigour, and beauty without one alloy. Such are the properties required.

The purport is distinct. Jesus is here. The victim chosen before worlds were framed is thus portrayed. Strength and perfection are main colours in His portrait. He is strong, as God can be. The buckler of omnipotence is on His arm. The girdle of His loins is might of might. Hence He is able to achieve the grandest of all victories — even to tread down Satan and his empire. Hence He is able to bear away the weightiest of all burdens — even the vast mass of all His people’s sin.

Perfection finds embodiment in Him. His every aspect is beauty, without one flaw. All evil tried Him, but it left no stain. Sin could not touch Him, though He sojourned in its home. Earth saw in Him one sinless inmate. From the manger to the cross. He shone one ray of godlike purity.

O my soul, you need strong help. Repose on Jesus: His strength suffices, and it cannot fail. You need a perfect ransom and a perfect robe. Repose on Jesus; He gave to God a spotless life, a spotless soul, to be your price. He gives to you a spotless righteousness to be your raiment. Thus the unblemished male pictures the beauteous and the strong Redeemer.

We next approach the chambers of the offerer’s heart. We read, “He shall offer it of his own voluntary will.” Lev. i. 3. There is no compulsion. There is no reluctance. His step is willingness.

This is a picture of faith’s happy actings. Its chariot-wheels move swiftly. It feels sin’s miserable need. It knows the value of redeeming blood. So it flies, with rapid wing, to plead it at the mercy-seat. Formalists may frequent God’s courts. Habit’s cold chains may drag them. Self-righteousness may urge them to the heartless task. But faith is a willing grace.

The eager offerer puts his hand upon the victim’s head. Lev. i. 4. Do any ask the meaning of this rite? It graphically shows a transfer. Some load oppresses, which is thus cast off. Some burden passes to another’s person.

Here is again the happy work of faith. It brings all guilt, and heaps it on the Saviour’s head. One sin retained is misery now and hell at last. All must be pardoned by being brought to Christ. And He is waiting to receive. His office is to be this burden-bearer. His love constrains, and He cannot draw back.

Do any read this, who never have thus dealt with Christ? Sirs, where are your sins? They adhere tighter than your very skin. They have a millstone weight. They press to misery’s unfathomable depths. But flee to Jesus. He can remove them all, and He alone.

Believer, where are your sins? On Jesus they are placed, and you are free. I ask again, Where are your sins? You answer, “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us.” Ps. ciii. 12. You may rejoice and sing aloud, Christ is accepted for me: I shall not be condemned. Thus with one hand faith casts away all misery, and with the other grasps all joy.

The victim, to which sins thus typically pass, must die. “He shall kill the bullock before the Lord.” Lev. i. 5. Can Jesus, who in reality receives our guilt, not lay down life? It cannot be. The holy Word stands sure: “In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” Gen. ii. 17. The sinner’s surety, then, cannot be spared. He gives His life to pay the debt — to satisfy the wrath — to bear the curse — to expiate the guilt.

O my soul, “Christ died” is all your hope — your plea — your remedy — your life. “Christ died” opens your path to God. “Christ died” turns every frown into approving smiles. When the law thunders, and conscience quakes, and Satan accuses, interpose “Christ died,” and fear no more. When the grave opens, whisper, “Christ died,” and sleep in peace. When the white throne is set, shout “Christ died,” and take the crown of righteousness.

The victim’s blood is sprinkled “round about upon the altar.” Lev. i.5. The blood is evidence that life is paid. This token then is profusely scattered. The priestly hands bedewed the altar with it. Thus Jesus enters with His own blood into the holy place. Heb. ix. 12. He strews it round, and claims the purchased flock, the covenanted blessings, the full reward, the fruit of His completed work.

O my soul, you are bought and cleansed, and comforted by blood. Your every blessing is a blood-bought gift. Let every prayer, and praise, and work, and service, be a blood-sprinkled offering.

The victim is next flayed. Lev. i. 6. The skin is torn away. The sacrificing priest received this, as his portion. It gave supplies of raiment. Is there no Gospel here? — say ye, who joy in Jesus as “the Lord your righteousness.” Yes, here is a picture of that heaven-pure robe, in which Christ decks each child of faith. His blood, indeed, removes all curse. But it is obedience, which merits all glory. Because He died, we live. Because He lived, we reign.

The piercing knife divides the limbs. Members are torn from members, and all the parts, without, within, to which defilement usually adheres, are diligently washed. Lev. i. 9. The type of Jesus must be clean. No shadow of impurity may darken it. Again and again the truth resounds, that God’s eye can only rest on perfect purity. How then, shall the sinner stand, who ventures near apart from Christ? Reader, betimes consider this: Oh! never rest until you know, that you are cleansed without by cleansing blood, and cleansed within by sanctifying grace.

The parts thus severed, and thus washed, are placed upon the altar.
Consuming fire is brought. It preys on every limb. The raging flame devours, until this fuel is reduced to ashes. Lev. i. 9.

Let us now seek the truth, which echoes from this blazing pile. The garden and the cross unfold it. There Jesus presents Himself, laden with all the sins of all His chosen race. O my soul, have you an interest in Him? If it be so, He there appears, bearing the guilt of all your guilty life. The sinless is accounted sinful, that the sinful may be spared as sinless.

What then occurs? Sin merits wrath. This wrath must fall. Justice must claim its due. Truth must be true. Holiness must show how evil is abhorred. The majesty and honour of God’s empire cannot descend from their high throne. Sinner, be sure that sin cannot be spared. You must take woe, except this Surety take it for you.

What then occurs? See Jesus crushed to the earth beneath the load of anguish. Each bleeding pore proclaims, that more cannot be borne.

But whence is the God-man’s mighty agony? The fire of heaven’s wrath has fallen on Him. Vengeance has seized its prey. He undergoes the every pang, which would have tortured His redeemed if they had tossed in hottest flames for ever. The fire burns — the anger rages — until each sin has infinitely suffered what it infinitely earned. No fuel then remains. All is consumed. The fire dies. The wrath expires. Hark! Jesus utters the wondrous word, “It is finished!”

O my soul, in calm and holy reverence, survey this awful scene. It is your ransom. It is your escape. It is your rescue from eternal ruin. It is another draining hell’s cup for you. This one Burnt-offering receives all vengeance. The fire, that died in Christ, cannot revive to injure you.

The Spirit seals the record with this approving seal — “It is a Burnt-offering, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.” Lev. i. 9. Here is witness worth ten thousand worlds. Here is the sweetest cordial, which the lips of faith can drink. The dying Jesus is heaven’s “sweet savour.” When the God-man victim burns upon the altar of the cross, each attribute is satisfied; nay more, exults with ever-exulting joy; nay more, is magnified to the highest heights; nay more, is glorified till glory overflows.

Reader, the type blazes to win you to the saving cross. Whatever be your state or grade, be wise, and seek your richest pleasures here. The rite distinctly shows, that rich and poor alike need pardon, and alike must come. Sin has soiled all. All, then, must wash in expiating blood. The wealthy brought their victim from the herd. He, who had less of worldly wealth, offered his lamb or kid. The poorest inmate of the poorest hut gave the young pigeon or the turtle-dove. All placed upon the altar a burnt-sacrifice. A Saviour is the one need of rich and poor. The richest is most poor, till Christ be found. The poorest is most rich, when once this pearl be clasped.

Such is the Gospel of the Burnt-offering. Reader, leave it not without three solemn thoughts deep written in your heart.

1. Fire there burns.
   It burns to tell us what is sin’s due. It frightfully portrays what all must bear, on whom that plague abides. Look at the consuming blaze and meditate on the tossings on a fiery lake — the flames, which cannot die — the gnawings of the ever-gnawing worm — the raging of relentless wrath — the agony, which tortures mind, and soul, and body. See in this sight God’s utmost power put forth to inflict utmost pains through endless ages. See sin’s sure doom. May the sight drive you rapidly to Christ!

2. Mark here God’s wondrous grace.
   To save lost souls He gives the Son of His love to the fury of His wrath. He heaps all woe on Him, that no woe may remain for the redeemed. His frown is pitiless towards Him, that He may smile unceasingly on them. How dear must they be to His heart! He, who is the preciousness of heaven, descends to bear the worst of their vile doom. The Burnt-offering sweetly cries, Abundant grace exceeds abundant sin.

3. What shall the ransomed render to salvation’s Lord?
   The Burnt-offering demands from them self-offering. Let all heaven hear — let all earth take knowledge, that they give themselves, their souls, their bodies, their every faculty and gift, all influence, all means, their morning, midday, evening hours, to be a free-will sacrifice to free grace. Let the high altar of self-consecrating gratitude be raised. Let the whole life be one clear blaze of flaming love and ever-brightening service.

Letter

by the late Mr A. Docter, Holland
Delft, November 1950

My Dear Friend,

Nature and flesh cannot understand how trials and afflictions, pain and sorrows can be converted into a bed with roses. Oh, how sweet for a soul to be submissive to the will of God, and it cannot be expressed what fragrance it contains if the Lord condescends to speak to the soul, and “the Eternal God is its refuge and underneath are the Everlasting arms.”

Oh, my dear friend, to have a tongue to praise Him who rideth upon the heaven, who fulfills His word and keeps His promise.

A dear old woman who died last year (very poor as far as earthly things were concerned) was lying on her bed in a dark room, when I called on her one Saturday evening. I entered her room and stumbled to a corner where she lay. The first thing she said to me was “Oh Doctor, I am allowed to lie down here adorned with the attributes of God.”

My father’s deathbed was a pulpit, my mother’s life was and now it comes to me. It is often within me “I shall one day perish by the hand of Saul” and my prayer is “Deliver me from the snare of the fowler.” I firmly believe that it will be for His people: Surely, surely He shall deliver them from the snare of the fowler. I used to think there was much poison in the leaves and branches of my tree, but I now know that the poison is in the roots. Oh to be taught by Him the great Prophet through the discovering grace of His Spirit. To feel a drop of His love to soften our hard hearts it would be sweeter than honey.

My wife wishes to be remembered to you.

Kindest regards,

A. Docter.

The Establishment Principle

by Rev. M. MacSween, M.A.
(Continued from page 119)

The statement in Chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession, however, is even more guarded than Calvin’s, for it begins by shutting out the possibility of Erastianism:— “The Civil Magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and Sacraments, or the power of the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” Section 3. Civil magistracy is not ecclesiastical authority, nor is the Civil Magistrate, as such, an office-bearer in the Church of Christ. But in the same section the Confession goes on to say with respect to this same Civil Magistrate:— “Yet he hath authority, and it is his duty to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed.” This implies that the Civil Magistrate has authority, and that it is his duty to know, recognise and own the truth of God. Again we quote:— “That all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline be prevented or reformed.” This implies that he has authority, and that it is his duty to know and recognise the true principles and practice of true and acceptable worship and true and scriptural discipline in the Church of Christ. But “he hath authority, and it is his duty to take order that all the ordinances of God be . . . administered.” If this is not the Establishment Principle, then we ask “What is it?” The Civil Magistrate is not himself to administer the ordinances of God. That is Erastianism. But the Civil Magistrate is to take order that the ordinances of God be administered! By whom? By that Church which the Civil Magistrate is bound to know, recognise and own, and, if need be, to support from his resources, that so the Church may be in circumstances to administer these ordinances which it is her function to administer. This is the Establishment Principle.

If we admit this, then we are in agreement with the doctrine of Scripture and of the Confession of Faith. If we deny it then for all practical purposes we will have blotted out of the Confession the only form in which the Westminster Divines have confessed the doctrine of Christ’s Headship over the Nations which is the Principle sanctioned by the Word of God. That civil government is an ordinance of God; that the Nations and their rulers are accountable directly to God, and are not put into subjection to the Church or to its office-bearers; and that the members and office-bearers of the Church are, in common with other men, subject in all civil things to the powers that be, — are doctrines which can easily be shown to be sanctioned by the Word of God. Also, that the Visible Church of Christ is independent and distinct from the Kingdoms of this world, having a constitution, laws, office-bearers, and functions of its own: and that civil rulers as such have no right to exercise any jurisdiction or authoritative control in the regulation of its affairs, can be established with equal clearness from the Holy Scriptures.

The truth of the Presbyterian doctrine is established upon the authority of God’s Word — that is, that the relation of Church and State even when they are united should be regulated throughout by the principle of their distinctness from, and independence of, each other.

When the children of the Fathers of the Scottish Secession (1733), contrary to the views and principles held by their Fathers, began to oppose the Establishment Principle by imbibing the poisonous Voluntary doctrine of the French Revolution (1789-95), they certainly saw that the Establishment Principle was in the Confession of Faith, as we have indicated. They, however, opposed this principle, maintaining, — as they still maintain — that it means “persecution”: that it is not within the Magistrate’s province: that it is not “consistent with the spirit and enactments of Christianity”: that because it is the duty of the Church to administer these ordinances, therefore it is not the magistrate’s duty to take order that they be administered.

When Calvin says, “Hence, in Scripture, holy Kings are especially praised for restoring the worship of God when corrupted or overthrown, or for taking care that religion flourished under them in purity and safety,” Christian Voluntaries reply that this is Old Testament example, and is not binding. Yet, it is Old Testament example “written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the world are come.” When such Voluntaries tell us to avoid the example they do not show us how to avoid the admonition!

The departure from the doctrines of the Word of God in the Scottish Free Church began about the year 1863 in moves for union with the rabidly Voluntary United Presbyterian Church. The Disestablishment of the Church was a great step in that downward course. Finally, in 1891 a Declaratory Act anent the (Westminster) Confession of Faith was hatched to expedite union with the United Presbyterian Voluntaries. In spite of strong protests, this nefarious Act was passed by the Free Church General Assembly in 1892. In a Protest in the Records of Kilmallie Free Church Kirk Session, with the Rev. D. MacFarlane as Moderator, against the Declaratory Act, it is pointed out among other matters, that in the Declaratory Act the general doctrine of the Confession of Faith respecting the exercise of civil authority about religion is invalidated, or set aside, contrary to the design and intention of the Free Church in the Act of 1846 anent the Questions and Formula. Also, in the Declaratory Act, instead of the Westminster Confession of Faith as the recognised standard of orthodoxy in the Church, in all its heads and articles, there is substituted what is called “the substance of the reformed faith as therein set forth” — the Church being the sole judge of the particular points that are to be included under this category of doctrines — a provision which overthrows the fixed doctrinal constitution of the Church and lays its creed at the feet of an irresponsible majority to determine the same at will.

Declaring that, “the said Act shall not be binding on us or on those who may now or hereafter adhere to us” this Protest was dated 26th January, 1893, and in the following May, the Rev. D. MacFarlane separated from the sadly backslidden and union-infatuated Free Church, by Protest, and later to set up the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the true representative of the Scottish Reformed Church.

In order to show how we have carried with us the Establishment Principle — one of the pillar-doctrines stoutly maintained by the Reformers — I may quote this passage from our Deed of Separation, August 14, 1893, as one of the main reasons of our Separation:—

“And further, the consideration that the Establishment Principle — that is, the national recognition and encouragement of religion and the Church of Christ by the State as such — is part of the constitution of the Free Church of Scotland as settled in 1843, and since repeatedly affirmed in Acts and Proceedings of her General Assemblies, and that the maintenance of the said Principle is binding and obligatory on all ministers and office-bearers of the said Church; and now seeing — 1st — That the present subsisting Church now calling herself the Free Church of Scotland, through majorities of her Commissioners in General Assembly met, has, in violation of one of the fundamental principles embodied in the Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland, of late years repeatedly passed resolutions having for their object the separation of Church and State, and the abandonment of the distinctive testimony of the Free Church of Scotland in favour of a national recognition of religion, and that without any declaration in favour of any scheme for the Reconstruction of a National Church on the basis claimed by the Church of Scotland in 1842 . . . therefore we have separated from the present subsisting Church calling herself the Free Church of Scotland.”

As far as that went, the House of Lord’s decision in the Free Church property case in 1904 showed that the Establishment Principle was regarded as an Article of Faith, doctrine and belief in the Reformed Church of Scotland, and had been carried into the Free Church from the undivided Church of Scotland at the Disruption as a fundamental element in her Constitution.

The Church of Scotland, though Established, had more independence, more spirituality, and far more authority for the exercise of discipline during the time of the Second Reformation (1638-1649) than any Scottish Church ever had. At no period from the days of the Apostles to the present time was the Establishment Principle better understood or more consistently and faithfully acted upon than it was by our Scottish General Assemblies and Parliaments during the Second Reformation Period. In all spiritual matters the Church took the lead, giving her decisions from the Word of God, and the State then followed, giving its civil sanction to what the Church had enacted. It were an easy matter to illustrate this by quoting the principal Acts, with dates, of both General Assemblies and Parliaments during this period, with respect to spiritual matters. During this period the magistrate’s power was exercised simply circa sacra, that is, about things sacred, without any intrusion into those spiritual functions which belong exclusively to the Church. We find many references to this period in Dr Begg’s able addresses in defence of the Establishment Principle.

When, after the accession of William and Mary, the Revolution Settlement (1690) was drawn up establishing Presbyterianism in Scotland and guaranteeing the spiritual independence of the Church and the rights of the people, the Church’s battle appeared to be fought and won after the Covenating struggle of 28 years. The position was safeguarded by legislation when the Union of the Parliaments took place in 1707; but the re-imposition of Patronage by the iniquitous Patronage Act of 1712 which was passed by the Government, marked the start of another period of conflict between Church and State which resulted in the Erskine Secession of 1733, the Relief Secession in 1752 and the Disruption of 1843. The Church was increasingly made the vassal of the State. A completely Erastian view was taken of her powers of discipline. Sentences imposed by the Church in the exercise of her guaranteed rights were nullified by the Court of Session. Unacceptable presentees were forced upon unwilling and protesting congregations. Ministers acting upon the directions of Church Courts were threatened with dire penalties unless they took their directions instead from the Civil Court. When eventually the Church’s Claim, Declaration and Protest against the encroachments of the Court of Session was rejected by Parliament in 1842, the only action left to the Church if her charter of liberty was to be preserved was a separation from the Establishment, strangely enough on the very grounds of the Establishment Principle, which gave clear expression to the doctrine of the two realms of Church and State, each with its own Government and area of jurisdiction under the one King and Head, the Lord Jesus Christ.

The plan of Church and State relations which, in one form or another, was introduced into every country in which Protestantism and Calvinism in particular won popular recognition, is nowadays generally regarded as having little, if any, relevance to this modern age with its changed, and constantly changing pattern. Even in Churches professedly Calvinistic in theology, in many cases the Calvinistic and Scriptural State view has been abandoned, and a form of Voluntaryism substituted for it. In the United States of America it is only recently (1965), after the Supreme Court has declared as illegal the teaching of religion and even the repetition of the Lord’s Prayer in the State Schools that American Protestantism is awakening to the dangers of the new situation. Because of the extreme Voluntaryism of the Constitution of the U.S.A., every element of Christian civilisation — such as Bible teaching in Schools, laws for Sabbath observance, laws against polygamy, etc.,—has been assailed and is being assailed on the ground of their inconsistency with the Constitution of the United States. In our own country also, agitators representative of various secularist groups are beginning to demand of the State the abolition of religious instruction in the schools — “this Christian monopoly” as it is described by one of those agitators. Jesuitry and Infidelity have long been at work in order to eliminate real Christianity and Christian morality from the national institutions of Britain and America. But the Reformed Church and State policy is as relevant to the present age as it was to the period in which it was defined, not because of its Calvinistic formulation, but because it is of divine authority. It is God’s plan for human society in the double Kingdoms of Church and State. The Church still owes the State her duty of instructing it in righteousness. The State likewise owes a duty to the Church — that of protecting and sustaining it.

Since the Reformation Settlement, Rome has not ceased to conspire to regain her lost power in Protestant Britain. Owing very largely to Protestant lethargy and indifference, and under the guise of false charity and tolerance, many of the barriers against Roman aggression which our forefathers had found so necessary have been removed. The National Church (Church of England) established to be a bulwark of Protestantism in England, in consequence of the alarmingly overwhelming introduction of Romish practices of the most flagrant character, has now been so rent asunder that it may be regarded very largely as a proselytising agency for the Papacy, although the Protestant Succession to our Throne is still protected by the Establishment Principle.

The Church of Scotland, which was formed in 1929 from the union of the United Free Church, with all its Voluntaryism, with the old State Church — itself by that time largely Disestablished — continues to display the unhealthy and dangerous effects of loosening the relation of the Church to the fixed Scriptural Standard of the Confession of Faith. Thus we find Church of Scotland ministers and Professors in friendly conclave with the emissaries of the Papacy and the majority of her ministers and people unaware of their danger.

This is no time for any Church of Christ to testify for the truth and against error any less clearly than before. It is time to testify afresh that Christ is King of Nations and also the Prince of Peace. O how the Nations of today need Christ and His Spirit! How great is their need of His blood and power. How great is our own need of Him of whom the Church testifies: “My Beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand,” Song of Solomon 5:8. Let us as a Church in possession of precious privileges testify that the Lord reigneth until “all Nations shall call Him blessed.” Psalm 72:17.

The Johannine Comma

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7.

This verse, often referred to as the Johannine Comma is regarded by the critics as a forged entry. “As to its being wanting” wrote the learned Dr Gill in his Commentary, “in some Greek manuscripts as the Alexandrine and others, it need only be said that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient Fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scripture enough without it to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet after all, certain it is that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius in the beginning of the sixth century against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as had been observed before has it in his translation made in the latter part of the fourth century. In his epistle to Eustochium prefixed to his translation of the canonical epistles, he complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian, in the middle of the third century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian about the year 200; and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides there was never any dispute over it till Erasmus left it out of the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation.”
(The Providential Preservation of the Greek Text of the New Testament, page 25).

W.M.

Gathan Gloir na Diadhachd

Leis an Urr. Eideard Pearce
(Air a leantuinn bho t.d. 121)

Na h-uibhir a dh’aobharan air an cur sios gu bhi bacadh cur an aghaidh na’n nithean sin, agus a freagairt neo-chaochlaidheachd Dhè bho gach cur na aghaidh.

‘S e’n ath obair a tha againn ri dheanamh a bhi dearbhadh neo-chaochlaidheachd Dhè bho gach cur an aghaidh agus bacadh, agus a bhi dha dhearbhadh an aghaidh na nithean a shaoleadh neach a bhi seasamh na aghaidh, agus nì mi so leis na ceithir nithean a leanas.

1. ‘S e cheud nì so, Nach eil aithreachas Dhè, mu thiomcholl am bi sinn aig amaibh a leughadh anns na Sgriobtur, ann an rathad air bith an aghaidh firinn agus glòir a neo-chaochlaidheachd.
   Bitheanta, anns na Sgriobtur, tha Dia air a ràdh a bhi gabhail aithreachais, an dà chuid a thaobh na nithean a tha E deanamh, agus mar an ceudna a thaobh na nithean a tha E’g ràdh a nì E. An toiseach, tha e air a ràdh a bhi gabhail aithreachais a thaobh na nithean a rinn E. Mar sin thà e air a ràdh gu’m bheil E gabhail aithreachais gu’n d’rinn E ri amh an duine. Gen. vi. 6. Tha Dia a gabhail aithreachais gu’n do chruthaich E’n duine air an talamh; agus ghoirtich e aig a chridhe E. Mar sin tha e air a ràdh gu’n d’rinn E Saul na righ. I Sam. xv. 11. Is aithreach leam (tha Dia ag ràdh) gu’n do chuir mì Saul suas na righ. Anns an dara àite, tha e air a ràdh gu’m bheil Dia a gabhail aithreachas a thaobh na nithean a thubhairt E a dheanadh E. Mar sin ann an Salm cxxxv. 14. Gabhaidh an Tighearna Aithreachas a thaobh a sheirbhisich. Mar sin ann an Ier. xxix. 19. “Agus ghabh an Tighearn aithreachas de’n olc a labhair E na’n aghaidh,” maille ri iomadh àite eile a dh’fhaodadh a bhi air ainmeachadh. Mar sin tho’n Tighearn air a ràdh a bhi gabhail aithreachais anns an rathad sin. Nis, tha aithreachas a ciallachadh atharrachadh, agus cia mar, uime sin, a tha Dia neo-chaochlaidh-each? Tha mi freagairt; Gidheadh, tha E neo-chaochlaidheach do bhrigh gu’m bheil E gabhail aithreachais; oir guidheam oirbh, thugaibh fa’n ear, ‘n uair a tha Dia air a ràdh a bhi gabhail aithreachais anns na Sgriobtur, thà e r’a thuigsinn cha’n ann an seadh ceart, ach ann an seadh mì-cheart, cha’n ann a reir a thoil shiorruidh, ach a reir oibríbh bho’n leth a muigh: tha Dia air a ràdh a bhi gabhail aithreachais, do bhrigh gu’m bheil E deanamh mar a ni daoine, ‘n uair a ghabhas iad aithreachas, ‘s e sin, thà E’g atharrachadh a ghniomharan, gu’n a bhi’g atharrachadh a thoile; seadh, ‘s e’n t-atharrachadh na gniomharan a bhi giullain a thoile neo-caochlaidheach. ‘n uair a ghabhas daoine aithreachas tha iad a sgur a bhi deanamh a’ nì a thoisich iad, agus tha iad ullamh a bhi milleadh a’ nì a rinn iad; agus mar sin, ‘n uair a tha Dia air a ràdh a bhi gabhail aithreachais, cha’n ann a chionn gu’m bheil ìntinn air atharrachadh, ach do bhrigh gu’n do sguir E bhi deanamh a nì rinn E, na millidh E a nì a rinn E: mar sin tha e air a ràdh gu’m bheil aithreachas air gu’n d’rinn E Saul na righ, do bhrigh gu’n robh E ciallachadh atharrachadh bho bhi na righ; agus gu’n robh aithreachas Air gu’n d’rinn E’n duine, do bhrigh gu’n robh E ciallachadh an duine a sgrios air son a pheacaidh. Nis, cha’n eil a leithid sin de dh’aithreachas a ciallachadh an t-atharrachadh is lugha ann an Dia, agus, uime sin, anns an dearbh àite far am bheil e air a ràdh gu’m bheil E gabhail aithreachas, tha e mar an cuedna air a ràdh nach eil E gabhail aithreachas, mar ann an I Sam. xv. 11, etc. xxix 11. thà e air a ràdh gu’m bheil aithreachas Air Saul a dheanamh na righ, agus ann an rann 29, tha e air a ràdh, “Agus mar an ceudna cha dean Neart Israel breug, agus cha ghabh E aithreachas: oir cha duine E gu’n gabhadh E aithreachas.” Cha’n urrainn E aithreachas a ghabhail anns an t-seadh is àirde, mar a tha aithreachas a ciallachadh atharrachadh, ni’s mothá na’s urrainn E breug a dheanamh, agus n’ uair mar a tha sin air a ràdh mu thiomcholl, nach duine E gu’n gabhadh E aithreachas, tha’n uibhir so air a gabhail a stigh, gu’m feumadh E sgur a bhi na Dhia agus tighean gu bi na dhuine, mu nì E aithreachas gu bhi gabhail a stigh atharrachadh. ‘S e beachd maith agus gu dearbh beachd mòr a tha aig neach air an àite sin; cha’n urrainn aithreachas (tha e’g ràdh) a bhi maille ri Dia, do bhrigh gu’m bheil E neo-caochlaidheach, ro-ghlic, ro-bheannaichte, ach tha e air a ràdh gu’m bheil E gabhail aithreachas ‘n uair a thairneagas E air ais agus a dhubhas E mach a bheannachdan bho neach na bho shluagh. Ann am focal tha e air a ràdh a bhi gabhail aithreachais a thaobh atharrachadh toraidhean, ach cha’n eil dha thaobh féin, an dà chuid a thaobh a nàduir na thabh a thoile. Ach nochdair so ni’s soilleir anns an ath nì. Uime sin.

2. ‘S e’n ath nì so, Nach eil a bhi fantuinn air ais, na gu’n a bhi cur an gniomh cuid de mhuidhidhean agus geallaidhean Dhé, a gheibh sinn anns an fhocal, a ciallachadh gu’m bheil E caochlaidheach.
   Is fior e, tha iomadh nì an dà chuid air a bhagradh agus air a gealltuinn le Dia ‘n a fhocal nach gabh àite gu bràth; tha Dia air uairibh a bagradh a nì nach toir E mun cuairt, mar a thaobh Hesekiah II Righ xx. 1-5, air a choimeas, agus mu Ninebheh, Iona III, 4, air a choimeas ri rann 10. Air an laimh eile tha Dia a gealltuinn aig amaibh a nì nach toir E gu buil gu bràth, agus dh’fhaodadh iomadh nì eile a bhi air a thoirt air adhart. Nis, nach eil so a cur an aghaidh a neo-chaochlaedheachd. Freagram, cha’n eil; cha’n eil an dara h-aon na’n aon eile dhiubh eile an aghaidh a neo-chaochlaidheachd, oir, guidheam oirbh cha’n eil na bagraidhean agus na geallaidhean sin nach eil air an coimhlionadh do-sheachainte, ach na’m bagraidhean a tha air chumha. Bagraidhean agus geallaidhean aig nach eil aon chuid cumha air ainmeachadh na air a gabhail a stigh, tha iad gu mòr a dearbhadh neo-chaochlaidheachd Dhé, agus tha gu’n a bhi coimhlionadh na’m bagraidhean agus na geallaidhean sin, cho fad bho bhi neo-sheasmhach ri neo-chaochlaidheachd Dhé, agus gu’m bheil e dearbhadh a neo-chaochlaidheachd. Soilleirichidh mì so le beagan de nithean, “Cuin air bith a labhras mise mu thimchioll cinneach, agus mu timchioll rioghachd, gu spionadh a nios, gu leagail sios, agus gu sgrios; ma philleas an cinneach sin an aghaidh an do labhair mì, o’n olc; gabhaidh mì aithreachas de’n olc a bha ann am aire thoirt orra. etc., Ier. xviii. 7,8,9,10. Gabh beachd ann an so tha olc air a bhagradh agus maith air a ghealltuinn, ach mar aon fodh chumha; nis ma tha’n cumha fodh’m bheil an aon air a bhagradh agus an aon eil air a ghealltuinn, a dhìth, no bithidh e air a chur as leth atharrachadh ann an Dia, mar a bith an dara h-aon na’n aon eile air an coimhlionadh.

(R’a leantuinn)