I have a goodly heritage

The Psalmist could say: “The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup.” That was surely a good portion, yes, the best portion of all. If the Lord is our portion then what do we lack, for we have all things in Him. All His people have Christ as their portion. He is their Prophet, their Priest and their King. All they need for time and for eternity is to be found in the Lord Jesus Christ. Poor and helpless and needy though they be in themselves, yet they have their all in Him. He is a storehouse of all good to each one of His own. In themselves they have nothing but what would destroy them forever, but in Him they have what ensures that they will never be destroyed. “He of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.” Without Him where would they be and what would they be? They would be sinners ready to perish. All the riches of divine grace and mercy and love are to be found in Him. Those then who have been partakers of His grace and mercy and love have a portion that the world knows nothing of.

The Lord is the portion of his cup. He had to say elsewhere, “my cup runneth over.” Because of this he could go on to say: “Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.” How blessed they must be of whom this is true. It is not true of any of the children of men by nature. Such lie under the wrath and curse of God here and, if not delivered from it, they shall lie under that wrath and curse for ever. With the living believer it is different. While they are in the wilderness of this world — and it is a wilderness to them because it is marred by sin — the goodness and the mercy of the Lord will be following them every day of their life, and then they shall go to a place where sin will never mar their enjoyment of the God of their salvation. While here, through their sin and backsliding, they may lose their sense of the enjoyment of their God. They may be saying at times, ‘Am I His or am I not?’ They may go down into deep valleys, yet even there the hand of the Lord will lead them, for He says: “I will

never leave thee nor forsake thee.” The goodness and mercy of the Lord will be following them, whether they are conscious of it or not. At other times they will have such a realised sense of the goodness and mercy of the Lord that they will have to say: “My cup runneth over.”

The Psalmist could say: “Thou maintainest my lot.” they are not their own keepers. “They are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” The Lord is their keeper. He is the keeper of Israel that does not slumber or sleep. So, too, the Lord is to preserve to them and for them all that comprises their lot. Whatever enemies they may be faced with, and though their enemies compass them about ready to rob them of all they possess, yet the Lord will not suffer His people to be moved. “No weapon”, the Lord tells them, “that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.”

The Psalmist goes on to say: “The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage.” Elsewhere he was saying: “How aimiable are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts! My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the Lord: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God.” He had known what it was to go to the house of the Lord with joy. It was in the sanctuary of God that he had seen His power and His glory. How pleasant were such seasons to his soul!

But what do we know of such blessed times and gracious experiences? Have we not been left a goodly heritage? Have we not the Word of God in our midst? Is that not precious in itself? Yet those who are the Lord’s true people desire a greater manifestation of His power in their midst. They long for a rich outpouring of His Spirit upon the assemblies of His people. It is then that they can say indeed, “The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage.”

A Lecture

By the Rev. Neil Cameron, Glasgow.

Delivered on New Year’s Day, 1920, in St. Jude’s Hall, Glasgow

“Then Samuel took a stone, and set it up between Mizpeh and Shen, and called the name of it Eben-ezer, saying, Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.” — 1 SAMUEL 7: 12.

Two things should be carefully taken notice of in all the inspired history of the children of Israel: (1) How they prospered spiritually and nation-

ally while they adhered to the Lord and the order of worship set up amongst them by His authority, and (2) How they suffered from wars externally and revolutions internally when they set up idolatry and departed from the worship of the living and true God. In the fourth chapter of this book we read of two battles fought with the Philistines. The Israelites lost four thousand men in the first of these. Then they sent for the Ark of the Covenant to Shiloh. When it came into the camp the Israelites cheered so lustily that the noise was heard, and the cause of it understood, in the camp of the Philistines. In the second battle the Israelites lost thirty thousand men, “and the ark of the Lord was taken” by the Philistines. The two priests who came with the Ark, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain. The Lord, by the mouth of Samuel, when he was only eight years of age, told godly Eli that, on account of the evil conduct of his sons, and the fact that he did not restrain them, notwithstanding he knew it, these two young men would be punished by the Lord, and that the whole family of Eli would be destroyed. All this was accomplished on the house of Eli, and it should teach men, to the end of time, of their need of being faithful in the things of God committed to their charge. In our own affairs we should be as liberal as we can, but in the great affairs of God, and the eternal salvation of men, we must deal impartially.

There seems to have been twenty years between the battles recorded in the fourth chapter and this battle recorded in our context. It seems also that the people had by this time, under the faithful preaching of Samuel, come to repentance, for we read: “and all the house of Israel lamented after the Lord,” and that they “did put away Baalim and Ashtaroth, and served the Lord only.” Samuel called them together to Mizpeh, and the Philistines, hearing that they were gathered there, came to fight against them. Samuel offered a sacrifice and prayed to the Lord. The Lord “thundered with a great thunder on that day upon the Philistines, and discomfited them; and they were smitten before Israel.” After the battle was over, Samuel “took a stone and set it between Mizpeh and Shen,” to commemorate the event.

The words which I desire to draw your attention to at this time, as the Lord may help me, are, “Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.” We will consider (1) some of the proofs we have that the Lord has helped us hitherto; and (2) that we should not forget this in the future.

I. — Let us consider some of the proofs we have that the Lord has helped us hitherto.

1. A large number of you were not born into the world when the Free Church of Scotland began to depart from her own well-defined Creed and

Constitution. She changed her form of worship by introducing hymns and instrumental music. By doing so, she took a long step back towards the form of idolatrous worship which existed in Scotland prior to the Reformation, which backsliding caused grief and alarm in the minds of all who loved God’s truth and the purity of His worship. The innovators did not stop there, neither would they pay any attention to the remonstrances of the faithful men, such as Dr Begg and Dr Kennedy, who saw and declared the evil that would follow. But they went on to unite with the U.P. Church. If this union had taken place then (the movement for it began in 1863 and ended in 1873), it would have meant that the Free Church had ceased to hold the Scriptural doctrine of the headship of Christ over the nations for the benefit of His body, the Church, and that she had ceased to hold also that Christ died for the elect only, and not for all men. These two doctrines stand in the forefront of the Word of God, and were set forth in the plainest terms in the Confession of Faith. It was also true that every office-bearer in the Free Church had of his own freewill vowed to hold by them to the end of his days. This deplorable laxity of conscience on the part of a large majority of ministers and elders made the hearts of the righteous sad. These union negotiations came to an end in one form in 1873; but an Act was passed, called the “Eligibility Act,” which placed all the ministers of the U.P. Church, as regards their being amenable to be called by Free Church congregations, on a par with F.C. ministers. Dr. Kennedy wrote a very able Article, which appeared in the “Watchword” in 1872, exposing the hypocrisy of this Act, and the baneful effects of it on the Free Church. Instead of calling a halt, they began a crusade for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of Scotland. Large, and very numerously signed petitions were sent to the Assembly against these proposed changes, but without any real effect, for Dr Rainy and his party were bent on ruin. Thus, they endeavoured to get over the two main obstacles to union with the U.P.’s. Bad as these things were, the next step was worse. The Bible itself was attacked, and its infallibility and inerrancy scoffed at. Efforts were put forth, at the beginning of this sacrilege, to bring these infidels to an account, and to have them dealt with, but without avail. These infidels were placed in the Divinity Chairs of her colleges, so as to make sure that the future ministry within her pale would be all Higher Critics, if it would be possible to make them so. Of this I had a most painful experience in the New College, Edinburgh. But they did not stop there. Discussions were started in the Presbytery of Edinburgh about some of the fundamental doctrines of the Confession of Faith. These discussions led, as they were meant to do, to

the appointment of a Committee, to whom powers were delegated by the Assembly, for giving in a report to the next Assembly as to the relation of the Church to certain doctrines in the Confession of Faith. This report was brought before the Assembly of 1891. After it was read and discussed pro and con, it was moved and seconded that it be sent down as an overture under the Barrier Act to the Presbyteries of the Church. This motion was carried by an overwhelming majority. Almost all the Presbyteries approved of it by a majority. At the Assembly of 1892 it was passed as a Declaratory Act. We were present at that Assembly, and we can never forget the scene of exultation on the part of the victors. They had now carried their point. The Confession of Faith was no longer their confession of faith, and all the changes they had made were now to be bound on the neck of the Free Church. The Constitutional Party entered a protest against this Act. When we were leaving the Assembly Hall, one of the ministers of the Church, who is now in the present Free Church, told us that there was to be a meeting that evening, and that they proposed to separate at once from the Rainy majority. We asked him, “Where was the meeting to be held, and at what hour?” He told us, so we attended that meeting. It was moved that Dr W. Balfour should take the chair. This was agreed to. He rose and said:—”Fathers and brethren, — The time has now come when we must separate from the majority in this Church, and declare ourselves the ‘Free Church of Scotland;’ for, if we will not do this, and if we will continue to oppose this Act, we shall be kicked out of the Church, one by one.” One of the ministers present got up at once, and, in a weeping tone of voice, warned them of the danger of taking such a step, and reminded them of the trials endured by many congregations in the North before they got churches and manses erected after the Disruption in 1843. He told them also that the property was a part of the Constitution of the Church, and, should they separate, that the people would not follow them, and that Dr Rainy would send men who would fill their pulpits. One of the leaders of the Constitutional Party got up, and said: “I never thought or dreamt of a disruption.” The tone of the meeting was immediately changed, and they declared that they would fight within. There were three students present, who were, at the request of a minister and the chairman, asked to speak. One did speak, then another was asked to speak. He rose, and said to them “that he believed that the Lord’s people in the Free Church were that day on their knees in secret praying that the Lord would give them grace and strength to enable them to fulfil their vows to God and men, and that they were bound by their voluntary oath to do so; but, if they would not do their duty,

they were to understand that he, at least, would not follow them one step.” The one of them who said that he never thought or dreamt of a disruption got up, and said, “that a committee should be appointed to hold a meeting on the following Monday, and that they should put their decision off till then.” That meeting was held, but nothing was done. We often heard from the lips of this minister that the passing of the Declaratory Act meant — “Bible or no Bible; atonement or no atonement; Confession of Faith or no Confession of Faith.” We heartily concurred with him in that statement. But the time for making strong speeches had now come to an end, and that of showing by deeds the sincerity of the hearts of men had come.

Dr Rainy had spies, both in the north and south, who had learned in private that there would be no separation should this Act be passed, and he and his followers thought that they had gained a complete victory. This was the secret of their cheering and shouting when the Act was passed. But the Lord had men in the Free Church who meant to follow up their words by deeds. So, when the Assembly of 1893 refused, by an overwhelming majority, to repeal that Act, the Rev. Donald Macfarlane came forward, and read and tabled a protest against the drastic changes enacted, and declared that he, and such as would follow him, would adhere to the original Constitution of the Free Church of Scotland, and that he did now and then separate himself from the so-called Free Church, claiming all his own rights, and that of them who might follow him, to all that belonged to them as loyal Free Churchmen. Dr Rainy confessed afterwards that this was the greatest surprise he got in his lifetime. The Rev. Donald Macdonald, Shieldaig, joined Rev. D. Macfarlane about the middle of June. The two ministers and a few elders constituted a Presbytery at Protree on the 14th day of August, which they denominated, “THE PRESBYTERY OF THE FREE CHURCH OF 1843.” They, at that Presbytery, adopted a Deed of Separation, in which the main causes for separation were set forth. The Free Church of Scotland was now delivered out of the hands of infidels and carnal office-bearers, who knew not what they were doing, and set up again in her purity of doctrine and worship. Great was the joy of the godly men and women who mourned on account of the wounds given to Christ in the house of His friends. The Rainy Philistines were discomfited by the Lord, and, notwithstanding that, as regards numbers and worldly power, the revived Free Church could not now lay claim to either, yet she had God’s Word, the whole Creed of the Church of the Reformation in Scotland, and the seal of the Holy Spirit on the hearts of the Lord’s people. We could then say from the bottom of our hearts, “Hitherto hath

the Lord helped us.” I remember words which the late Mr Archibald Crawford, Tighnabruaich, uttered when we met him after the separation. He said, “You are now like the children of Israel after they were delivered from the Egyptians at the Red Sea; but wait you until the Lord will begin to pump up what is in your own bowels, and that will be more painful to you than all you have suffered in the past.” Alas! how true I have found the godly man’s prediction!

1. At the Assembly of 1894 a motion was passed to the effect that a civil action should be raised in the Court of Session to deprive us of all the property which we then possessed. To the great shame of the former Constitutional Party, this motion was moved by one of them. The action was raised, and they took from us every manse, church, and meeting-house in our possession, so that in many places our people had to worship God under the canopy of the heavens. We took with joy the spoiling of our goods, and we felt like Mephibosheth, when his servant by fraud took from him his inheritance; all he said was, “Yea, let him take all, forasmuch as my Lord the king is come again in peace unto his own house.” We found that suffering for and with Christ was true happiness. This reminds me of a saying of the late Joseph MacKay at the time of the Disruption in 1843: “There are,” he said, “two kinds of Christians in the world, and as I have no better illustration I will compare them to the dog and the cat. The cat is not so attached to the people with whom he lives as he is to the house, and should the people leave the house, the cat will be quite as content to live with the strangers who will come to dwell in it. But the dog cares for his master more than for the house, and if his master should have to sleep at night under a rock, the dog will be quite content with him there.” The application of the above similitude was self-evident at the Disruption of 1843. Those who then loved wages and property more than Christ and His cause and people remained in the slavery to which the Church of Scotland had been brought by the tyranny of the Patronage Act, and by the injustice of the Court of Session; but those who then loved Christ and His cause and people, left all for His honour and glory. The so-called Constitutional Party acted in the same way as the Moderates did in 1843 — they stuck to their wages, churches and manses, notwithstanding that the cause of the separation in 1843 was not to be compared to 1893. At the former, the Confession of Faith and the Church’s relation to the Word of God remained intact; at the latter, the relation of the Church to both had been changed, so much so, that I heard the statement already quoted, that the passing of the Declaratory Act meant “Bible or no Bible; Confession of Faith or no Confession of Faith; atonement or

no atonement,” applauded by these same men. But the testing time had now come, and the thoughts of many hearts were revealed.

Not a word was now said in public against these extraordinary changes. The Rainy party, but especially the so-called Constitutional Party, did their level best to stigmatise us as schismatics, who were guilty of breaking up the Church of Christ. But none of these things moved us, for we had the warrant of God’s Word for the step we had taken, and also the approval of our own conscience. The warmth and spiritual joy felt by us in the means of salvation, and the unity and love which then existed between brothers and sisters in Christ, as also the seals set upon the Word preached in the conversion of sinners to God, made us absolutely sure that the Lord approved of the step we had taken. We were fully convinced that we had continued long enough in Church fellowship with men who, like wild beasts, tore God’s Word to pieces, superseded the Westminster Confession of Faith by the accumulation of old heresies contained in the Declaratory Act, and had become perjured men to the bargain. Men might call them “the Church of Christ,” and charge us with schism for separating from them; but we knew that men would not be the judges at last but God, and therefore we appealed to Him. Notwithstanding all they did, and the fact that we had troubles from within, we continued to prosper. This continued during seven years. We could say at the end of that period: “Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.”

1. In the year 1900 the union between the so-called Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church was consummated. Twenty-five ministers refused to follow the Rainy party to the united body. They declared themselves and all who would adhere to them, “The Free Church of Scotland.” A movement was set on foot in our Church at once to join this party. We pleaded for delay, till we could form a proper judgment of the position these men would adopt. It was quite manifest to anyone who wished to see that they had still all the innovations which were brought into that Church, and that it would be our duty to wait till we could see what they intended to do. Still there was a determined effort made by some in our Church to join them as soon as possible, but their efforts were thwarted. We had not to wait long in order to form an opinion of what the future of this new movement would be.

(a) They declared that they had always adhered to the Confession of Faith as adopted in 1846 by the Free Church. Had they declared that they adhered to the property and their salaries in 1893, and let the Confession of Faith go, their declaration would be nearer the truth. Further, if it were possible for them to have remained in the Declaratory Act Church during

these seven years, why had we left that body? It was a desperate effort on their part at self-justification. To confess that they acted wrongfully would expose them before the public, especially their own followers, as being guilty of unfaithfulness to their ordination vows, and of accusing us of being schismatics for having separated from them. They did their utmost to prove the above view of their conduct by leaflets sent to some of our congregations, and by word of mouth to others. (b) They appointed as their first Professor a man who had written and published, before they appointed him, a book in which the inspiration of the Bible was seriously impinged. When several of the lower Courts petitioned their General Assembly, craving that the book should be examined, and, if need be, that the author should be dealt with in accordance with the procedure of the Church, the members of Assembly praised the book and the man who wrote it as being learned and sound in the faith. This decision caused that doubts were raised in our minds as regards the soundness of the Free Church Assembly concerning the infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. Nothing has been done since by them to remove these doubts. (c) They continued to hold social gatherings, at which things were done which were a scandal to any Church. One of these was held at Oban, another in the vicinity of Glasgow, of which our worthy Editor took notice in the F.P. Magazine in 1907. These things caused us a great amount of mental pain. We cannot see what connection such meetings can have with the cause of Christ, or of what benefit poor, perishing sinners can obtain in them. The Free Church at her beginning would not have tolerated such works of darkness in her halls and churches. (d) They took no effective steps to rescind the Declaratory Act. It is understood that their legal advisers held that to rescind it might weaken their case which they raised in the Civil Courts in order to gain the property and funds of the Church. So property and funds were still holding the first place in the minds of the men who led the Free Church. (e) When they gained the case in the House of Lords, they opened the door of admission to the ministry of the Church to men out of all denominations. This they did in order to enable them to keep as much of the property and funds as they could when the Commission appointed by Parliament to divide the same was to give them only as much of it as they would be able to administer. These men seem to us to have lost their heads in acting so contrarily to the careful regard shown in better days by the Free Church as to who should be admitted into her ministry. Every step taken by them made the barriers between themselves and us more formidable. They were warned of this fact on several occasions, but they would not listen to remonstrances. Every

word spoken or written was construed as maliciousness on our part.

In face of all the above, and much more, a motion was brought forward at our Synod in November of 1905, to the effect that a Committee should be appointed to confer with the Free Church, so that a union would be consummated between us and them. The Synod decided that, while they would be prepared to consider a motion for union with any Church holding the whole doctrine of the Confession of Faith and the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures, both in our profession and practice, they could not consider a motion for union with the Free Church on account of the fact that, notwithstanding she made ample profession as regards her orthodoxy, she came very far short in her practice. Four ministers and two or three elders, and a very small number of our people, left our communion and joined her. We could repeat the words of our text again with emphasis: “Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.” The effect of this exodus was never felt in the least as detrimental to the F.P. Church, and that notwithstanding those who left us did their very utmost to disseminate, by word and pen, that they only had carried out the principles of the Confession of Faith and their ordination vows. But all this went to prove where these men felt the shoe pinching them.

1. In the year 1916 a motion was passed at the meeting of Commission of Assembly of the Free Church, appointing a Committee to confer with a prospective Committee of our Church about union. Much confidence as to the success of this movement on their part was expressed by the mover and seconder of that motion. For some time we were quite in the dark as regards the grounds of this confidence expressed at the Commission. After some correspondence we understood that these men had some ground for the statements they made. At the meeting of our Synod in 1917 a statement of obstacles which barred the way was passed and sent to the Free Church. There was unanimity in the Synod that it would be futile to appoint a Committee until these obstacles were removed. This statement was drawn up and passed after serious and prayerful consideration on our part. The reply sent by the Free Church was made up of evasions and offers of compromise. That action on their part left us no alternative but to end any further correspondence about the proposed union. For what was the usefulness of continuing correspondence with men who thought that we would be blindfolded by fair words instead of a practical effort to remove these obstacles? The whole fault lay with them. We would ask any intelligent Free Church man or woman: “What would he or she do if they were in our place? Would such join us until obstacles were removed which were clearly inconsistent with God’s Word and the principles

and practice of the Free Church at her beginning?” I believe firmly that they would refuse to do so, and they would be fully justified in their refusal.

But the four ministers who moved, at the Synod in 1918, that a Committee should be appointed to confer with the Committee of the Free Church for union, held a different opinion. They went so far in justifying the reply sent by the Free Church, that it became very evident that the change was not in that Church but in their own minds. We could see no change for the better in the Free Church, since these men used stronger language in denouncing her conduct than we ever did. This caused us to think that their own speeches and writings in the past would make a splendid refutation of their speeches and writings in the present. Three of these ministers went over to the Free Church in November of 1918. (The other left recently). Two of these ministers we highly regarded as men who truly preached the Gospel, and whom we loved in the close bond of brotherhood in Christ Jesus, and we hope — notwithstanding all that they have manifested towards us in connection with their change of mind, and otherwise — that we will continue to love the dead and the living.

We certainly thought that they would do much harm to our poor Church should they go over to the Free Church; but be it said to the glory of the Lord and the faithfulness of our people, we know not of a dozen that followed them. That was not because they did not do their very utmost to take our people away, but because our people knew and saw what it would mean to them should they leave the F.P. Church. Instead of causing any real loss to us, we have to say, that the F.P. Church has not been since 1900 so bound together in one spirit and one mind in defence of our position as a Church, as she has been since this last controversy began. Whom are we bound to thank for this? Surely the Lord’s goodness to us is made manifest in it. So that we may repeat again the words of our text: “Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.”

1. I desire to direct the attention of each one here to the fact stated above, that we took up in 1893 the position held by the Free Church in 1843, so that we are the only true representatives of the Free Church. We had to change our name, for identification’s sake, by adding “Presbyterian,” but that made no change on our position. The party now called the Free Church acted contrary to the “Evangelical Party” in 1843, who left the privileges of State connection, such as property and salaries, so as to have Christ ruling in his own house. We have already shown how the 1893 leaders of the Free Church stuck like a limpet to a rock to earthly things, and also how the leaders that now are showed the same spirit in 1900. So that these men have no claim to the name — “The Church

of Scotland, Free,” no more than the Moderates had to it after 1843. To leave the F.P. Church in order to be united to the Free Church, means, in my opinion, that men are leaving the only Free Church in Scotland to join a “heterogeneous conglomerate body” of ministers gathered out of every denomination by the present Free Church, not for truth or conscience sake, but to enable them to get worldly substance. They have the name — Free Church — and their followers are deceived by that name, and, consequently, they follow them. We are quite certain that they would not follow ministers taken from all denominations (Roman Catholics excepted) had these not been placed under the designation, “Free Church.” But, however strange this conduct on the part of their followers may appear, the fact cannot be denied. It is actually a new body gathered together and claiming to be the Free Church. We always felt pained at the heart for the people of the Free Church; but we abhor the tactics of her ministers.

The following instances give our reasons: (1) It can be proved that they were writing private letters to some of the ministers of our Church, offering them congregations in the Free Church if they would join them. (2) They kept a Professor’s chair vacant in their Divinity Hall, Edinburgh, since 1900, and they openly avowed that this was done on purpose to get one of our ministers over to fill it. In the last instance, they have been successful in capturing their man, but, in doing so, they are guilty before God and the people of this country of breaking the Tenth Commandment — “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, . . . nor his man-servant”. (3) They declare that there is no difference between our Church and theirs, but by the same breath they beg for the money of others to pay for a church building bought for the very purpose of dividing a congregation of our Church. If they believe in their own words, they must confess that this is schism in the scriptural sense of that sin. These low and unchristian actions demean these men in the eyes of even worldly men. We regret sincerely, that we are forced by the words and actions of these men, to lay bare the truth for our own self-preservation as a body.

I desire to observe before closing this subject, that in 1894 we were stripped of any Church property our followers possessed up till then. Since then, we have built churches, manses, and halls, in such numbers as cause us amazement, seeing that the remaining debt is below £2000 over the whole Church, and that our people cannot say that this has made them poorer than their neighbours. The goodness of the Lord towards us financially is to be admired. So that we may again, on this account, repeat the words of our text: “Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.”

II. — That we should not forget this in the future.

1. We have endeavoured to show that, while we have learned by very painful experiences, how little man can be trusted, we have proved that the Lord may be trusted in every circumstance that can arise. This is a lesson which took years to learn, and we should not forget it in future. We know some of the things that are past; what the future may have in store for us is unknown to us. Let us place all our hope and confidence in the Lord alone. “Trust in the Lord at all times; for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength.”

2. We have endeavoured to show that, as far as we can understand God’s word and providence, the Lord helped us hitherto because we, in much weakness and infirmities, have adhered to His Word, the Confession of Faith, and purity in worship and practice as a Church. Let us not forget that this has been the cause of our overcoming such as rose up against us again and again, as sure as it was in the case of the Old Testament Church, who prospered while they held, even outwardly, to God’s instituted means of grace and to His Word. We are, as a Church, founded solidly on the foundation laid in Scotland at the Reformation. That foundation was solidly laid upon God’s infallible and eternal truth, and while our Church will continue to hold it without surrendering or compromising in the least degree, any part thereof, no power in hell or upon earth shall prevail against her. But as soon as she will depart from that firm attitude, she is gone.

Life and Death

by Rev. James S. Sinclair

“For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” — Phil. 1: 21

The Apostle Paul wrote these memorable words during his first imprisonment at Rome. He was enduring bonds for the Gospel of Christ. The end of his earthly career appeared to be at hand, and so he contemplates the great concerns of life and death. The sum of his thoughts is expressed in the words before us: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” Should he live, life to him was Christ; should he die, death to him was gain. He knew, in either case, that Christ should be magnified in his body, “whether it be by life or by death.”

Life had no value for the apostle apart from Christ. He did not consider that it was worthy of the name except in so far as it served to show forth Christ. Not so was his opinion always. The time was when he despised Christ, persecuted His followers even unto death, and would have extinguished, if he could, the name of Christ from the world. But the Lord,

in the riches of His grace, stopped him in his downward career, and made him a powerful instrument for the advancement of that glorious name which up till then he destroyed. Christ now became to Paul fairer than the sons of men, the chiefest among ten thousand, and the altogether lovely one. The love of Christ was so richly shed abroad in his heart that he was enabled to consecrate himself with intense devotion to the service of his Lord and Master. The man who formerly might have said, “to me to live is to hate and persecute Christ.” now says in effect, “To me to live is to love and magnify Christ.” He now considered the chief end of his life to be the glory of Christ, and he was by grace enabled to realise that end in a remarkable degree. In this he was a public example to the Church of God, and was authorised, as an inspired ambassador of Christ, to say, “Brethren, be followers together of me,” “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.”

We notice by the way that there is here an indirect but powerful testimony to the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Man’s chief end is to glorify God; it is adolatry for any one to make a mere creature the chief end of life. And so when the apostle says, “To me to live is Christ,” he bears testimony to the great and precious truth that Jesus Christ is no mere man, but is God over all, blessed for ever. It may be asked, however, “Are there not three persons in the Godhead — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Why does he not say, ‘To me to live is the Father,’ or ‘To me to live is the Holy Ghost’?” The answer may be given: Certain it is that the Father and the Holy Ghost are as truly God as is the Son, but the glory of the three persons of the adorable Trinity has had its fullest, richest, and most exhaustive expression in the Son, Jesus Christ, as God manifest in the flesh. The Son, in the work of redemption which He accomplished, glorified God to the highest degree. He says to the Father, who is the representative of the whole Godhead in the covenant of grace. “I have glorified thee on the earth, I have finished the work thou gavest me to do.” All the attributes of a Triune Jehovah shine forth in their fullest perfection in the person and work of Christ. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.” The coming of the Holy Spirit, who applies redemption to the souls of men, is also contingent upon the work of Christ. Jesus said to His disciples, “If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin . . . of sin because they believe not on me . . . He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.” It is clear, therefore, than when the apostle says “To me to live is Christ,” he does not exclude the Father and the Holy Ghost,

but that he includes both. He devoted His life to the glory of Christ, and in doing so, he devoted it to the glory of a Triune God.

Let us observe some particulars in which the apostle by his life magnified Christ and glorified God. He lived by the faith of Christ. Once upon a time he depended for eternity on his Hebrew descent, his morality, his religious zeal, his own righteousness, but he discovered by the teaching of God’s Spirit that all this was a vain foundation to build upon, and so he was led to count it but loss and dung that he might win Christ and be found in Him. He now began to depend upon the righteousness of Christ as his only ground of justification before God. He now saw that all his former performances were but the dead works of a dead man, and so he looks to Christ as the light and life of his soul. In fact he finds every blessing his soul needs in view of time and eternity in Christ — wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and eternal redemption. He therefore says, “The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.” He preached Christ. “We preach,” he says, “Christ Jesus the Lord.” “We preach Christ crucified.” The preaching of the Gospel was the great work to which he was specially called by God, and the central theme of his preaching was Jesus Christ. He delighted to unfold before the eyes of perishing sinners, the person, work, and offices of the Redeemer. He set Him forth in regard to His person as the eternal Son of God, the brightness of the Father’s glory, the express image of His essence, the Creator of heaven and earth, the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, and as God manifest in the flesh, the Son of Man as well as the Son of God. He set Him forth, in regard to His work, as the Peacemaker between a righteous God and guilty man, the Redeemer of the Church of God by His own blood, and “the end of law for righteousness to everyone that believeth.” He set Him forth, in regard to His offices, as the great prophet, priest, and king of His people. The apostle declared “the whole counsel of God,” law and gospel, sin and salvation, and extended to his hearers warnings and invitations, promises and precepts. He did not omit, as many do in our time, the sterner aspects of divine truth. Christ is the deliverer from sin, and wrath, and hell, and it is not a true but a false Christ that is preached if these solemn realities are ignored. The law is handmaid to the gospel, and it is the Christ who has magnified the law, satisfied justice, made reconciliation for iniquity, and obtained eternal redemption that poor sinners need. “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord we persuade men;” and further, “The love of Christ constraineth us.” He exemplified Christ. The apostle did not only live upon and preach Christ, but he also exemplified Him in his

life and conversation. He was a living epistle of Christ, known and read of all men. “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord.” The image of Christ was stamped upon his soul, as it is upon that of all the children of God in regeneration, but he grew in no ordinary measure into conformity with the image of the Redeemer. He was a bright example of meekness and lowliness of mind, love to God and His commandments, personal holiness of heart and life, intense desire for the salvation of sinners, and burning zeal for the glory of God. He was not perfect until death more than others; he often cried, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” He did not count himself one that had apprehended, but he pressed towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Nevertheless, his work of faith, labour of love, and patience of hope constituted a living testimony of the glory of Christ before the eyes of men. Such are in brief some of the particulars in which the apostle Paul realised his own words: “For to me to live is Christ.”

Now, a remark or two with regard to the second part of the text: “And to die is gain.”

Death is not a gain to all; it is a loss to many, the greatest of all losses, the loss of the immortal soul for eternity. Death would not have been gain to Paul if he had died in his unconverted state. There is no doubt but at that period of his life he thought all was well with him, that he was on the sure way to heaven, that a man of his moral and religious character was certain of everlasting happiness. But when the Lord met with him in a day of power He showed him that he was a child of wrath even as others, and that he was in danger of hell-fire for ever. The apostle then learned that it is only those who are born from above and united to Christ to whom the dissolution of soul and body is a real gain. Once, however, he passed from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, he then became an heir of eternal life. Death was no longer the gate of hell; it was now the gate of heaven.

Death would be a gain to Paul in many respects. He would then be freed from all misery; sorrow and sighing of every kind would flee away for ever. He would then be delivered from all sin. The body of sin would be for ever destroyed. He would be perfectly conformed to the image of Christ. No spot or wrinkle or any such thing would attach any longer to the spiritual beauty of his character. He would be admitted into the heavenly fellowship of the glorified spirits and holy angels before the throne of God. His fellowship with the saints in this world was partial and broken;

the angels were invisible, though ministering spirits here. He would enter into the immediate and perfect fellowship of the God of glory. Who can tell what this meaneth? It is certain that it is the same in nature as the communion which is enjoyed on earth, but the degree of access is so unspeakably greater in heaven that it cannot be comprehended now. Even the apostle who was favoured with such wonderful intercourse with the Lord has to say, “For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part, but then shall I know even as I am known.” In the heavenly Jerusalem he would have the close, perfect, uninterrupted enjoyment of God; there is no night there. “And they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light, and they shall reign for ever and ever.” Such then are some of the respects in which death would have been an infinite gain to the apostle, as it is indeed to every person, small and great, who dies in the Lord.

We have attempted to open up the words of the apostle with a special reference to himself. But they are sometimes forcibly suggested to us when any eminent Christian completes his earthly course and enters the eternal world. There is one who is specially present to our mind on this occasion to whom reference is made in another part of this magazine, and whose loss we deeply mourn. Mr Macdonald was one who loved Christ and was devoted to His service. His thoughts revolved with peculiar strength and vivacity around the person and work of the Redeemer, and he preached Christ and Him crucified with rare unction and power. No one who ever heard him under the dew from above — and that was seldom wanting — can forget the impression. He has now gone to be “with Christ which is far better.” But he though dead, yet speaketh. His life, his preaching, his testimony for the truth of God, still make their voices to be heard. Let us seek to hear with profit.

The final question confronts each of us, “Where am I as to this living for Christ? Am I still dead in sin and living solely for this present world, and is Christ nothing but a mere name to me?” Should conscience require to answer, “Yes! that is so;” what a fearful case we are in! How can we calmly contemplate it? Death may come at any moment, and if it find us in this condition it will immediately carry away our souls to an undone eternity. On the other hand, happy are the persons who have a well-grounded hope that Christ is indeed precious to their souls, and that it is their genuine desire and effort to live for the glory of Christ in the world. Of such, however poor and imperfect they feel themselves to be, it may be truly said at last; “With gladness and rejoicing they shall be brought; they shall enter into the king’s palace.” (Psalm 45: 15).

Letter of Rev. Archibald Cook

Daviot Free Manse, 6th August, 1852.

My Dear Sir — I received your letter last week. I am happy to understand you got safely home, and I trust you do not repent visiting this part of the country. We are a poor despised people, but I trust we have a few of the excellent ones of the earth among us, who will at last shine as stars in the kingdom of their own Father, and, if that be the case, the despisings and reproaches of this world are rather to be considered an honour, because He, who is the King of kings, while under a veil, was used in the same way; but who would be ashamed of being mocked by a fool on the street? You will be glad to hear that our dear young friends are enjoying their health, and I trust they desire to keep their eye fixed on Zion as their home, instead of Glasgow. The hill is steep, and difficult to climb, and their strength is at times not very great, but at the last I trust they will surmount all difficulties, and arrive at the top, so gain the day. The prize is great, the reward is glorious, and the victory is sweet. “There remaineth a rest of the people of God,” and that rest is eternal, enjoying the fruit of their labour, or rather the Saviour’s labour in them. They speak of returning home next week. I now feel it more difficult to part with them the longer they are with me. I use them as if they were my own children. At times I give them a little sugar, and sometimes a little milk; at other times I make them weep, then I pray with them and make them cheerful again; so you may see what company we are, who would bear with us except Himself? When an angel was offered to Moses, he refused him; the ground on which he did so was that they were a rebellious people. So we need the sympathy, not only of our fellow creatures, but also of Him who is the fountain of sympathy, who was once tempted in all things as we are, yet free from all sin. He well knows how to deal with poor sinners, bruised with crosses without and difficulties within. He has the tongue of the learned, and knows how to speak a word in season to them that are weary. This is a cause of thankfulness to the poor people of God, who have many things which they cannot reveal to flesh and blood, and even at times to the Lord Himself, but He knows the meaning of their groanings, sighs, and tears, and comes over mountains of provocations speaking peace, “Fear not worm Jacob, I am your God,” &c., “Because I live, ye shall live also.” Joseph liveth, it is enough; they thus see that He has not forgotten them. To be on the mind of the Lord Jesus is infinitely honourable, but to feel that one is so is unspeakably precious to a person truly alive about his eternal state. This is a part of the sweet tree

put in the bitter waters. Often they think their state in the world and in their souls is inconsistent with the state of grace. It is easy for the enemy in such a state to get the advantage of them, and always in such cases he aims at driving them to despair; but a word from the Lord with something of a new creation revives their soul, turns their bitter tears into a song; or, as the Psalmist says, their sackcloth into dances, makes the lame man to leap as an hart, and the dumb to sing, and so encourages them to persevere in the ways of God and godliness. It is natural for one alive about his future state to look within, especially when they have some darkness, such as desertion, as Mary looked into the grave. When nothing appears there but uncleanness, they murmur, but it is not natural for one to look to the Lord. When He took the case of sinners in hand, He looked on His own resources, knew His ability to meet all difficulties. A word from Him, with some power, turns the eyes from one’s own miserable state to Himself in whom the fatherless findeth mercy, so as to cleave to Him like Job, “Though he should slay me, I will trust in him;” or like the woman who had a devil in her daughter, when beaten off, was cleaving to Him, till at last she obtained her request, “O woman, great is thy faith, be it unto thee even as thou wilt.”

I hope you will not forget that you gave yourself to the Lord at His table, that you would be the Lord’s and not your own, that you look for salvation through His blood and intercession. “He that putteth his hand to the plough and looketh back is not worthy of the kingdom of God.”

Please give my love to Mr. ———, and tell him when Dr. Love’s sermons are ready to send me word, as there will be many for copies of his works in this county. The Lord be with you. Pray often, trust much, hate sin, love the people of God, and God Himself.

— Yours sincerely,

Archd. Cook.

Popery Another Gospel

by Rev. John Willison, Dundee

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you, than that which, we have preached unto you, let him be accursed,” Gal. 1: 3

That Popery then is another gospel, appears by the following arguments.

First Arg. That religion which teacheth many doctrines as matters of faith, and duties as matters of practice, for which there is no foundation or warrant in the word of God, nay, many of them expressly contrary to it, is evidently another gospel than that of the Lord Jesus Christ, which draws on the dreadful anathema in the text: but Popery is such a religion;

therefore it is another gospel, &c.

The whole counsel of God relating to things necessary for God’s glory and man’s salvation, is contained in the Bible; as is evident both from the text, and from Isa. 8: 19, 20; 2 Tim. 3: 15, 16; 2 Pet. 1: 19.

But the church of Rome teach many doctrines and practices which have no scripture foundation, as many learned Popish divines are forced to acknowledge, such as, “The sacrifice of the mass, half-communion, seven sacraments, worshipping of saints and images, purgatory, prayers for the dead, indulgences and dispensations from the Pope, penance, auricular confession, public service and prayers in an unknown tongue; that it is necessary to salvation that all be subject to the bishop of Rome, and that they believe that church to be the mother and mistress of all churches.” For all these and other doctrines, they have no authority from scripture, Christ never taught them.

Nay, many of their doctrines are expressly contrary to what Christ hath taught. They teach the making, worshipping, and bowing down to graven images, contrary to Exod. 20: 4, 5. Worshipping angels, saints, relics, the cross, bread, &c. contrary to Exod. 20: 3; Mat. 4: 19; Col. 2: 18. Human merits, and works of supererogation, contrary to Luke 17: 10; Rom. 6: 23; Tit. 3: 5. Other mediators and intercessors between God and man, besides Christ the one mediator; contrary to 1 Tim. 2: 5; Rom. 8: 34. The doctrine of transubstantiation, contrary to 1 Cor. 11: 26-28; Acts 3: 21; Mat. 26: 29; John 17: 11. The sacrifice of the mass, contrary to Christ’s one sacrifice, and his once offering it; asserted, Heb. 7: 27; 9: 28; 10: 12, 14. Their taking the cup from the people, contrary to Mat. 26: 27; 1 Cor. 11: 28. Their purgatory, and men’s satisfying for their own sins, contrary to 1 John 1: 17; Rev. 14: 13. Their public service and prayers in an unknown tongue, contrary to 1 Cor. 14: 16, 26. Their prohibiting meats and priests’ marriage, contrary to 1 Tim. 4: 1, 2, &c.; Heb. 13: 4. Their exempting the clergy from the jurisdiction of the magistrate, contrary to Rom. 13: 1. Their adding to the scriptures, contrary to Prov. 30: 6; Rev. 22: 18. Their forbidding people to read them, contrary to John 5: 39; Col. 3: 16; Rev. 1: 3. Their teaching that men may be perfect without sin, contrary to 1 John 1: 8; Eccl. 7: 20. From all which we see that Popery is both unscriptural and antiscriptural, and consequently another gospel than Christ’s, and under the anathema of the text.

Second Arg. That religion which prescribes other terms and conditions of salvation than Christ hath appointed, or a great many devices of men as necessary means of grace, for obtaining pardon and acceptance with God, without warrant from Jesus Christ, is another gospel than his, and

under the anathema in the text: but Popery is such a religion; therefore Popery is another gospel, &c.

The Spirit of God teacheth us that Jesus Christ only is the way to the Father, that he is the king and head of his church, that he hath the keys and all power in his hand, that he opens and shuts heaven at his pleasure, prescribes the terms which none may add unto, out of blind zeal, or pretence of good intention, see John 14: 6; Mat. 28: 18; Rev. 3: 7; Deut. 12: 32; Mat. 15: 9; Isa. 29: 13; 1 Pet. 1: 18; Heb. 13: 21; 1 Sam. 15: 22, 23.

But the church of Rome requires terms of remission of sin never prescribed by Christ; such as particular confession, that is, those who would obtain pardon of their sins, must confess them all in the priest’s ear, even every evil thought or design, a political contrivance of Rome. So that though a man truly repent, confess his sins to God, and forsake them; yet he cannot be forgiven, unless he confess them to the priest. This Christ never required. Again, they allow salvation to none but those who are subject to the Pope and the church of Rome. All this is another gospel than that of Jesus Christ; for he teacheth that all those who truly repent and believe in him shall be saved, without any regard to Rome or her Pope. Likewise, they make many superstitious devices of their own needful to pardon of sin, and acceptance with God; such as holy water, holy oil, crosses, beads, bells, roses, agnus dei’s images, crucifixes, processions, pilgrimages, visiting the shrines and sepulchres of saints, kissing and adoring their relics, burning incense to them, wax candles, hallowed swords, bells, spells of the gospel, &c. Also, they place much religion in vestments, tonsures, gestures, crossings, bowings, kneelings, and governing the motions of the body. Now, the soul being intent upon these outward visible things of men’s devising, cannot but be much diverted from the spiritual worship of an invisible God, which Christ in his gospel closely presses, John 4: 24. Likewise, the bringing a yoke of uninstituted ceremonies and human inventions upon the necks of Christians, is inconsistent with the gospel liberty which Christ hath purchased for them, and the apostle exhort them to maintain, Gal. 5: 1. All which evince Popery to be another gospel than Christ’s.

Third Arg. That religion which puts corrupt glosses and meanings upon these qualifications and duties which Christ requires in order to salvation, such as faith, repentance, regeneration, prayer, attending ordinances, partaking of sacraments, holiness of heart and life, whereby the way to heaven is made broader than Christ makes it, is another gospel which draws on the anathema in the text; but Popery is such a religion; therefore. &c.

Jesus Christ in his gospel teaches us the necessity of the new birth, wor-

shipping God in spirit, keeping of the heart, mortifying sin, denying self, universal holiness, &c., upon which account he saith, “Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be, that find it,” see John 3: 3; 4: 24; Prov. 4: 23; Mat. 23: 26; 5: 29; 7: 14; 16: 24; 2 Cor. 7: 1.

But the church of Rome speaks otherwise: the faith which they require is no better than the faith of devils, a bare assent to revealed truths; for so they define justifying faith. The repentance they require doth not necessarily include contrition or godly sorrow for sin; it is enough if there be attrition, that is, such a sorrow for sin as only proceeds from the fear of hell, though it be not mixed with love to God, or a sense of ingratitude to him, and of despising his mercy in Christ. Attrition with confession to the priest, joined with the sacrament of penance, and sacerdotal absolution, they reckon sufficient for obtaining pardon of sin and eternal life. Which is a great encouragement to men to spend their days in sin, and expect salvation after all: for, according to Popish doctrine, if a man after the most wicked life, when death approacheth, be but sorry for his sins, only because he is afraid of being damned for them, confess them to the priest, and get his absolution, all is safe. This is not Christ’s gospel: for he makes repentance to include a change of the heart and mind, as well as the outward life; and he looks to the sincerity of the heart in all our professions and performances. Christ saith in his gospel, There be few that find life; but the Pope saith in his, There be few that miss it, except those who die suddenly; for the most profligate wretch on earth, if he can have but a few minutes with a priest before his death, his business is done, he dies the death of the righteous, though he has lived the life of a profane atheist. The papists may refuse, as they will, that their Pope is antichrist; but the bible tells us this doctrine is antichristianity.

The church of Rome, instead of pressing a change of heart and inward holiness upon men, they make them easy, by telling them that the Opus operatum, or outward work wrought, is enough; that is, the mere outside of religion, the external performance of duties, and partaking of sacraments, is sufficient to save them. If they get the outward part of baptism, confirmation, the wafer-bread, and sacrament of penance, all is well, though sincerity and inward devotion be wanting. This is another gospel subversive of the whole scheme of Christianity; for Christ teacheth us, that God must be worshipped in spirit, he must have the heart in duty, and bodily exercise profiteth little; that outward actions, without inward affections, are so far from being acceptable to God, that they are hateful to him. The Spirit of God tells us, he is highly offended with those who

draw nigh to him with their mouths, when their hearts are far from him. But say the church of Rome, Fear not, if you move your lips, speak the words, say so many prayers, so many ave marias, pater noster, drop so many beads, &c. Though you want close attention or inward devotion, that is but a venial sin: whatever defects be about the Opus operatum, the ministration and absolution of the priest will supply them all. This is evidently another gospel, and most destructive to the souls of men. But I shall insist more largely upon this Popish corruption in the next argument.

Fourth Arg. That religion which corrupts men’s morals, and encourages them in the way of sin and vice, or tends to overturn the practical part of Christianity, as well as its doctrine, is another gospel than that of our holy Jesus, which draws on the anathema of the text: but Popery is such a religion; therefore it is another gospel, &c.

Christ’s religion is a holy religion: for in his word or gospel he teaches us to mortify sin, and crucify the flesh with the affections and lusts thereof; and to study the practice of true holiness without which no man can see the Lord; and to have our fruit unto holiness, that we may attain the end, everlasting life; see Rom. 8: 13; 6: 22; Gal. 5: 25; Cor. 7: 1; Heb. 12: 14. The gospel or doctrine of grace teaches us to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; to have a respect to all God’s commandments; to keep them all, without turning aside to the right or left hand: it forbids to be conformed to the bad practices of this world, or to touch the unclean thing; see Tit. 2: 11, 12; Psal. 119: 6; Deut. 5: 32; 1 John 2: 3, 4; Rom. 12: 2; 2 Cor. 6: 17. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet Christ having adopted the law into the covenant of grace as a rule of life to them, they are bound to walk according to it in all respects, and to hate every sin, and abstain from it. Christ will not allow nor dispense with any one known sin in his people, Psal. 119: 4-6, 101, 104, 128; Jam. 2: 10, 11; Rom. 12: 9; 1 Pet. 3: 11.

But the church of Rome many ways indulge sin; encourage men to neglect piety, to break God’s law, and thereby corrupt the lives and morals of men. I shall give some few instances, for evincing the truth of this charge.

1. Their teaching the sufficiency of attrition to penitents, and of the Opus operatum in religious performances, as I observed in the preceding argument, hath a manifest tendency to ruin practical godliness, and banish inward devotion and vital piety from amongst men.

2. They make the exercise of many of the Christian graces and duties unnecessary, by turning God’s commands into counsels; such as these,

to mortify sin, crucify the world, deny ourselves, take up the cross, &c. These and such like they say, are only matters of counsel, not of command; and consequently the neglect of them is no sin: which doctrine must be a great stop to the practice of godliness, where it is believed.

1. Though the scriptures plainly teach that every sin in its own nature is mortal, Rom. 6: 23; Gal. 31: 10; yet Papists teach that there are some sins, which they call venial, that do not deserve hell, and need no pardon nor Saviour. And among these venial sins, they reckon many scandalous enormities; such as lying, fornication, cursing, swearing, and even blaspheming the name of God, providing it be not done deliberately, or be not perfectly voluntary. Of such sins Bellarmin saith, “Though all the venial sins in the world were gathered into one, they can never make up one mortal,” and so cannot possibly damn a man; wherefore they judge men’s consciences need not to be troubled about such sins. Which doctrine greatly encourages vice.

2. If a man judge Bible-rules or prohibitions too strict for him, they hold that the Pope can dispense with them, as he hath often done for money, so as to allow fornication, incest, incestuous marriages, and even sodomy, of which there are many instances. The Pope hath dispensed with oaths and vows to God, with leagues and pactions among men; with the duties between husbands and wives, parents and children, &c. He gives dispensations to Papists to promise any thing to Protestants for deceiving them, if in their hearts they stand well affected to Popery: and he dispenses with their breaking all such promises and pactions, if it serve his interest.

3. They encourage sin greatly by their doctrine of indulgences. The Council of Trent affirm, that the Pope can remit the punishment of sin both here and in purgatory. This power of indulgence or pardon they found upon works of supererogation, that is, the overplus of the satisfactions and merits of Christ and the saints: of this treasure the Pope keeps the key; and such portions as he pleases to dispense to particular persons, are called indulgences; and these are obtained by pilgrimages, reciting certain prayers, assisting the Pope, or by money. And these indulgences are committed to certain monks and priests to sell and dispose of for money. It was this execrable practice that first awakened Luther to oppose Popery: he judged it a device of Satan, to make sin cheap, and to encourage men in wickedness. And surely, when men can have a plenary indulgence or pardon for so trivial a satisfaction, as standing before the doors of St. Peter’s church at Rome, when the Pope blesses the people at Easter, it makes sin as easy to be committed as pardoned. And what they speak

of saints’ merits, and works of supererogation, is without any scripture-foundation. Also, it is most blasphemous to join the merits of men with the merits of satisfaction of Christ; and to say, that a man on earth can dispose of any part of Christ’s merits as he pleases, and that for money; or that he can extend the power of the keys, which Christ gave to his church on earth, to souls in another world, and there to remit punishments inflicted by divine justice! Horrible blasphemy!

1. They encourage wickedness, by teaching that a good end sanctifies the means, however foul these be. And so all sorts of villainy are consecrated by a zeal for their church. Nay, perjury, lying, treason, poisoning, stabbing, rebellion, and all kinds of bloodshed and murder, in that case, are with them not only lawful, but even heroic virtues, and meritorious of salvation. They reckon it a good work, and meritorious, to prosecute, kill, and murder those who differ in religion from them, whom they call heretics; as they think that they serve God and his church by so doing. And they teach, that those who are most active in this bloody work, merit a high degree of glory in heaven. And, with such doctrine as this, the priests have spirited up the Papists in sundry nations to massacre and destroy Protestants in great numbers: so that the Babylonish whore had been long drunken with the blood of the saints, and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus; according to what John foresaw, Rev. 17: 6.

2. They teach the lawfulness of equivocation and mental reservation in swearing oaths, making promises and contracts, in order to deceive those they deal with; and they make use of words with double meanings for that end. They make it lawful to break the most solemn oaths and contracts, when it is anywise for the interest of their church. And, whatever security a Popish prince gives to his Protestant subjects for enjoying their religion or liberties, they teach that they are nowise bound thereby. Nay, their religion requires them to break all oaths and engagements to Protestants; according to the decree of the fourth Lateran council under Pope Innocent III., the decree of Pope Martin V., and that in the nineteenth session of the Council of Constance, and the acts of a late Pope Clement XI., tome 2, page 179. All of them agreeing in this, that no faith is to be kept with heretics, when any thing is stipulated prejudicial to the church of Rome.

These few instances are only a swatch of the corrupt practical divinity of the Papists, and may serve to fill us with detestation of such an antichristian, perfidious, and bloody religion as Popery, as being quite another gospel than that of our holy, spotless, and undefiled Redeemer.

Object. “If Popery hath corrupted Christianity so much both in doc-

trine and morals, how is it that there are so many moral and devout people among Papists? And how is it that sundry of their divines have written such pious books, recommending and pressing morality and godliness?”

Ans. 1. If some men of the Romish religion be piously disposed, they are not led to it by their principles, which are of a most dangerous nature and tendency, destructive to true Christianity, as I have represented them.

1. Many in the communion of the Church of Rome have abhorred the corruptions of that church, and have exposed them too, though they had not courage enough to withdraw from it, as they ought to have done.

2. If some of that corrupt church have written or lived like Christians, notwithstanding of their antichristian doctrine, there is ground to fear that far greater multitudes have been eternally ruined by it. When men come once to believe, that they may gratify their lusts all their days, and be saved at last by auricular confession, penance and priests’ absolution; very few will refuse to gratify them. If the observing of the Opus operatum, or the outward part of sacraments and religious performances, will procure pardon to the most flagitious livers; many will make mere charms and spells of sacraments, and go to them with hearts full of adultery, and hands reeking with blood. May all of us then seek grace from God to “cleave to that which is good, and to abhor that which is evil!” And may we still abhor that religion which would dishonour God, discredit his word, and encourage impiety and wickedness among men! May we also keep up our zeal against every thing that tends to introduce such an antichristian religion into these lands, and pray fervently to be preserved from it!

Book Reviews

CONSOLATION Addresses to the Suffering People of God by J. W. Alexander. Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 448 pages, 1992.

If the Saviour warned His disciples, “In the world ye shall have tribulation,” He also made it clear that He has provided richly for their consolation. For this well-written and well-produced hardback the author has mined the deep resources of Scripture and he brings out solid comfort for those who are experiencing tribulation.

In his preface Alexander argues that true comfort is little promoted by mere exhortation. And he adds, “If the exhortation contains no solid matter of doctrinal truth, it will avail little for the end proposed. We do not reach the case of the disheartened by commanding or imploring him to be of good cheer, but by setting before his mind those great everlasting truths, the acceptance of which lays the basis for joy and peace. Such

are the glorious attributes of God, His wonderful providence, His covenant of grace, His magazine of precious promises and His rewards of heavenly bliss.” The bereaved and the aged receive their special portion of consolation, as do, among others, those who are disturbed by the censure of their fellow creatures. And, while he comforts, he makes clear at the same time the danger of those who do not have a sure foundation. “Let the truth be told,” he says, “there is no real consolation under fears of death but in God.”

J. W. Alexander was the son of Archibald Alexander, the first professor in Princeton Seminary, and a man in the same mould. He too taught, briefly, at Princeton, but spent the most influential part of his life as a minister in New York. Those who have read his God is Love will expect this also to be an excellent volume; they will not be disappointed. Those whose eyesight is poorer than once it was will welcome the larger than usual print. Altogether the volume is highly recommended.

(Also available on the same theme is James Buchanan’s excellent Comfort in Affliction published by Free Presbyterian Publications at £5.95).

K.D.M.

The Psalms in Worship, edited by John McNaughter, Still Waters Revival Books.

This interesting informative and suitably arranged volume is issued with the hope that its perusal may lead to the restoration of the Psalms to their true place in the worship of God. The addresses cover a wide range of topics related to Divine worship. In the nature of the subject there is some degree of over-lapping and repetition. That feature however only serves to accentuate the basic regulative principle, lying at the root of the Biblical convictions asserted, viz ‘nothing in worship except what God has commanded and authorised. This principle acted upon serves to shut out error, Arminianism, carnal sentimentality and other ideas and innovations of man. On the other hand, to affirm that that which is not strictly forbidden is allowed’ opens the door of all kinds of popular but offensive novelties in the worship of God.

The particular area dealt with in these pages is Praise. The contention is that Psalms alone are divinely inspired, and to be used exclusively in worship. The main thrust of the arguments lies in the simple fact that the Psalms are Divinely Inspired, whereas the hymns are not. It appears that the earliest hymns were compositions of heretics, but that apart, any merely human production, however evangelical ought never to erode, rival or usurp the place of the Psalms. Popular and plausible objections to the

writers’ views are examined and found wanting. In addition the unifying as well as the purifying aspects of singing only inspired words are underlined. As might be expected there is an excellent exegesis of Colossians 3: 16 and Ephesians 5: 19 by two distinguished professors respectively. Many other facets and merits of the superiority of the God given manual of praise are discussed in their various contexts. This book constitutes a timely and welcome word in a time, when the church of God in general is marked by Arminianism and liberal theology, which seeks to please man rather than God.

The church ought to be concerned to give evidence of her love and loyalty to her Lord in returning to the kind of worship which He has authorised. We think that to take liberty here indicates a lack of obedience of the revealed will of God. There is here a wealth of useful information and a plethora of sound biblical and historical arguments for the use of Psalms only in Divine worship.

We would expect a good sale for this book among ourselves, as we have always consistently insisted on the unique superiority of the Psalms in praising God in worship. F.M.