Preached by the Rev. Malcolm Gillies,* Stornoway
Reprinted, with some editing, from Volume 36 of The Free Presbyterian Magazine
TEXT: “And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee, but camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the Lord did say unto thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcass shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers.” 1 Kings 13: 21 and 22.
IN considering this passage of Scripture as we may be enabled, let us notice three things: First: the faithfulness of the prophet sent to Bethel; secondly: the unfaithfulness of this prophet who had been faithful; and thirdly: the way taken by God to vindicate His own glory.
* The Rev. Malcolm Gillies, who was born in Glasgow in 1885, was licensed to preach the gospel in 1920 by the Southern Presbytery of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and ordained at the same time to the Canadian Mission. In the following year he accepted a call to be minister of the Halkirk congregation. He was translated to the pastorate of the Stornoway congregation in 1925, and remained as their beloved minister until his much lamented passing away, twenty years later, on 25th September, 1945. He was Assistant Clerk of Synod from 1931 until his death. A brother minister wrote at the time of his death, “The Rev. Malcolm Gillies was an ordinary preacher of the gospel. He was especially gifted as an original and versatile Bible expositor, and excelled in the uncommon gift of spiritualising [Old Testament themes] in an edifying, instructive and eloquent manner . . .”
First: we shall consider the prophet’s faithfulness.
As we see, Bethel was the scene of the incidents set before us in this chapter. This place is mentioned early in the Word of God’; it was called Luz at first, but came to bear the name, Bethel, signifying ‘the house of God’, where God made himself known. This was the place to which Jacob came as a lonely, fleeing fugitive, with the intense feeling that heaven and earth were against him. It was his spiritual birthplace. There the Lord appeared to him as the Covenant God of Abraham and Isaac and made a covenant with him. God found him in Bethel and turned his mourning into joy and peace.
Bethel was the place also where Jacob’s espousals were renewed, after he returned to Padanaram. Though he tarried long at Shechem and deferred the fulfilling of his vow to the God of Bethel who had directed him to return, we find him saying to his household: “Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean and change your garments, and let us arise and go up to Bethel.” In going back to that place, he had the Lord reveal Himself to him and this was to his soul as the latter rain upon the earth. Bethel was again made to him the House of God where he was revived and quickened, and his soul fed in communion with God.
Bethel was also the place where God’s instituted worship was set up. Jacob had formerly set up the stone for a pillar and had poured oil upon it. He now built an altar there and called upon the name of the Lord. Thus, in connection with this place, we have the substance of all that the Church is to God’s people in every generation of time.
But Scripture makes evident that purity of worship did not remain in Bethel. There are many indications given about the declension of true worship there, so that we find the name of the place changed by the Spirit of God speaking through the prophet, from Bethel (‘the house of God’) to Bethaven (‘the house of iniquity’ or ‘the house of vanity’). This was emphatically the case in the days of Jeroboam, who filled the cup of his iniquity by setting up open idolatry.
When the Lord gave ten of the tribes of Israel to Jeroboam and made him king over them, He promised to make him a sure house if he would keep God’s Commandments. Jeroboam, however, turned his back on God’s counsel and gave himself over to worldly policy, which was in direct opposition to the commands and will of God. The fear of losing the people, if they should continue to go up to worship at Jerusalem, took possession of him, and he took steps to prevent this. Though Bethel was only a few miles from the Temple where God had put his name, Jeroboam introduced there the calf worship which he had probably learned from the Egyptians, and passed this counterfeit worship as the true worship of Jehovah. Did he keep the people by this carnal and God-dishonouring device? No, and neither will men in this generation keep the people by imposing on them their own will-worship in place of the worship commanded in God’s Word.
The Lord who is zealous for His glory and warns the sinner to turn from his wickedness, sent this prophet from Judah to witness against this false worship. His work was to deal with this perversion and mockery which was being constituted in the name of religion. Arriving at Bethel as Jeroboam was just consecrating the altar and worship, the prophet ignored the person of the king and treated him as a mere nonentity. Instead of addressing him, he cried against the altar, solemnly pronouncing the curse of God upon it and declaring that a king of the House of David, Josiah by name, would be raised up, who would sacrifice the priests of that altar upon the altar itself and burn men’s bones upon it. This prophecy was fulfilled in the spirit and in the letter by King Josiah, about three hundred and fifty years after it was spoken. The prophet also gave a sign for the certainty of its fulfilment, even that the altar would be rent immediately and the ashes thereon poured out.
Exasperated by the boldness of the prophet in his presence and the contempt cast upon his lewd religion, Jeroboam stretched out his hand to
order the arrest of the prophet. By the judicial power of God, the king’s hand became paralysed and powerless and the sign given by the prophet was immediately fulfilled upon his idolatrous altar. There is nothing that will bring down the pride and pomp of man like the correcting hand of God upon him. Men will puff up and swell, when it is only their fellow mortals who withstand them. It is otherwise when the Lord lays His hand upon man with rebukes; his beauty wastes away like a moth. It was thus with Jeroboam.
He now becomes a suppliant, asking that his hand be restored. There was nothing in his prayer in the way of confessing his wrongdoing and of turning back to the ways of God. He now tries to win the prophet by flattery and by a promise of reward. The servant of God, in obedience to God, refused both food and presents. He had the Lord’s express command for so doing: “Eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that thou camest.” Would he be entertained where his God was dishonoured and His word flouted? Would he eat their bread who were placing their abominations before the Lord? Would he turn back by the same way, when there were no signs of the people turning back by repentance and obedience to the truth? The prophet had a work from the Lord to do, and right nobly and faithfully did he act to the glory of God, both in the letter and in the spirit of his commission. He thus showed how separate he was from this wicked and shameful apostasy.
Secondly, let us consider the unfaithfulness of him that had been faithful.
We are told further how the fine gold became dim and defiled; how the prophet, who at first showed himself obedient and faithful, came to perform an act of disobedience which brought about his own ruin and the weakening of the cause of God. There was in Bethel an old prophet. The fact that he was known as a prophet made him a power for good or for evil. Unhappily his influence was for evil. He was like many in our day, a man of peace, of such peace as would allow king and people to trample God’s Word and worship underfoot without raising a public testimony against their sin. As a prophet, he was a trustee over the things of God, over his Word and worship. To him, as a professed servant of God, were committed the oracles of God. We do not know to what extent he was a trustee over the funds and property of the Church.
There are times when one is called to forsake houses and lands and other temporal things for the sake of God’s cause and glory. There never will be a time when ministers, office-bearers, and members will be held guiltless in neglecting their duty as trustees for the truth in order to retain their trusteeship over money and property. There were women in persecuting times who died a martyr’s death as trustees of truth committed to them, while they handed over the trustee-ship of the babes sucking their breasts to
the care of others and to the Lord whose witnesses they were.
The old prophet did not go to the idolatrous worship himself, but he allowed his sons to attend there. It was no grief to him that they should accustom themselves to the modern, God-dishonouring way of worshipping God which was fast becoming so very popular. Parents who are not concerned about their children frequenting places of worship where the whole truth is not honoured have become unfaithful themselves, and the fruits of such carelessness and indifference about their children’s best interests must result in grief and misery in this world and, if grace prevents not, in eternity.
The old prophet’s sons told him all that happened and how the truth of God had prevailed that day over the lying inventions of men. No sooner did he grasp the meaning of the details given him than it became his fixed purpose to do all he could to cause the faithful servant of God to become one like himself. Ascertaining the direction taken by the prophet from Judah, he goes after him and overtakes him as he sits weary and faint for lack of food. He invited him back to Bethel to rest with him in his house and refresh himself with food. He thus tempted him to a double act of disobedience: first, to going back to the place he had set his back upon; and secondly, to having his portion—to eating and drinking with those among whom he was forbidden to eat and drink.
The prophet from Judah refused the old prophet but not with the vehemence with which he refused the king. “I will not go,” was the form he then used; now it was: “I may not go.” However, he repeated once more his warrant from God for refusing to have friendly dealings with the truth-forsaking Bethelites. His destroyer now deals with him as Satan does when he transforms himself into an angel of light. He emphasizes his own prophetic character and maintains that there is no difference between them. Not only was he a prophet, he said, but he had God’s word to give him to prove that the prophet from Judah must now do the very thing which he said formerly he ought not to do, and would not do. The word from the Lord, said the old prophet, now was: “Bring him back with thee into thy house that he may eat bread and drink water,” but he lied. And it was not long until the prophet from Judah came to lie to himself about his duty. I note two things about this temptation. First, it was presented as the very mind and will of God. Secondly, it fitted in with the prophet’s present condition: for he was wearied out, and the change presented to him seemed to afford gratification, and also he hungered and thirsted after the very things held out to him. In complying with this invitation he saw that in it were the things he desired for himself. When he set out from Judah to go to Bethel, self was out of sight and the glory and truth of God were everything to him. But he is no longer single-eyed with regard to the glory of God. His desire for self-gratification
blinded him to the imposition practised upon him, and thus he came to impose upon himself.
We have here a solemn lesson for every generation and for every individual, and it was never needed more than it is needed in our day. We see men who were like this prophet in zeal, in singleness of purpose, despising the honours, comforts and preferments that their gifts and abilities might bring them, and wholly devoted to the vindication of God’s cause in a backsliding day. We see also some of them turning back and having their portion contentedly in a place where they declared they would never be found, as long as men there continued in their froward way. What has happened? These men, like the prophet from Judah, have been imposed upon and they have imposed upon themselves.
There were two questions which, if the prophet had asked and weighed well, would have kept his feet from falling, as they kept the feet of many, in many a generation, from falling. First, have the people in Bethel, king and subjects, honestly and sincerely given up their idolatry; have they wholeheartedly turned back to the obedience of the truth? Secondly, can God change His Word when men have not changed their ways? The will of God as He reveals it to His servants is like Himself, unchangeable: and it is unchangeable when He calls upon them to take up a certain position in relation to others with whom He has a controversy. Nothing less than the ending of that controversy by repentance towards God and before men, will afford those, to whom God’s will has been revealed, a reason to alter their attitude towards those disobedient ones.
The prophet from Judah went back with his seducer, and thus made himself a spectacle to friends and enemies as a man who went back on God’s word to him. We are not told whether his feelings were sad or joyful. Feelings have little place in such matters as these — matters which are simply matters concerning what is right and what is wrong. Various opinions are held concerning the question: Was the old prophet a man who truly feared God? Some think that he was, on the ground that God spoke through him, but that reason is by no means conclusive. We do not believe that any true child of grace will father a lie on the God of truth. Such a sin comes very near, if it does not touch, the sin against the Holy Ghost. His lie was deliberate; it was a word given as the truth of God, knowing well that God never gave it. The child of God may be left to commit many a grievous sin through ignorance and also against light, but it is difficult to conclude that such wrongdoing as this could be committed by one whom the Lord had made witness to His authoritative Word.
Thirdly and last, consider the way taken by God to vindicate His own glory.
The prophet from Judah was not left long without being made to see that he had committed himself to a course which practically nullified his former
obedience. There was this mercy to himself: that he should not remain deceived; and his being undeceived was to the glory of Him who had sent him as His ambassador. We see that the lying prophet is made to tell the truth and to denounce him for his waywardness, even while the bread of disobedience is still in his mouth. “And it came to pass,” we read in verse 20, “as they sat at the table, the Word of the Lord came unto the prophet that brought him back. And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah saying, Thus saith the Lord, ‘Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee, but camest back and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place of the which the Lord did say unto thee, Eat no bread and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers’.”
If the disobedient prophet was thinking that he was still in the path of duty, he was now given a sudden and rude awakening out of his delusion. Still, it was good for him to be corrected in the act of disobedience; much better to be corrected, then than to have the horrors of an accusing conscience on a deathbed, as many before and since have had, or to be condemned with the world at last. In all probability, he had a miniature Day of Judgement in his conscience, as he sadly mounted the ass provided by the old prophet and resumed his interrupted journey homeward.
If a prophet on whom the Lord has bestowed intelligence and grace will not carry out instructions, God will find among the most ferocious and untameable of the brute creation, an agent which will render exact and perfect obedience. God’s messenger sent to meet the prophet was now a lion, a messenger that would not fail in his work nor exceed it. Coming upon him in the way, the lion dragged him off the ass and slew him, but in such a way as to offer little indignity to the body by mutilation. We are told that the flesh of an ass is deemed a choice portion by a lion and in ordinary circumstances, the ass would become the lion’s victim. But in this case, an unseen Hand restrained the brute from going beyond its commission. Men passed by, but the lion’s business was not with them, and they were allowed to go unscathed. He had to stand guard over the body of one of God’s servants, disobedient as he had been, and over the ass that was to carry him to his burial. The beast remained at his post till the old prophet arrived, permitted him to handle the body in order to carry it back to the city, and, relieved by Him whose obedient servant he had been, went his way and was seen no more.
The old prophet carried the body back to Bethel and buried it in his own grave. They mourned over his violent death but there is no indication that they laid to heart the part they had in bringing this misery on him and on themselves. Whether the old prophet had the true fear of God or not we cannot say, but there was much of the spirit of Baalam about him. He would
like to die the death of the righteous and to have his latter end to be like his. He believed that nothing which the prophet from Judah had spoken would fall to the ground and this was the reason for the directions he gave to his sons. His conscience made him fear, and not without just cause, that Josiah, in fulfilling God’s word would count him among the idolaters, and he cunningly made provision so that his old bones should not be burned. “Bury me,” he said, “in the sepulchre where the man of God is buried; lay my bones beside his bones: for the saying which he cried by the word of the Lord against the altar in Bethel, and against all the houses of the high places which are in the cities of Samaria shall surely come to pass,” verse 31. We find the prophet Hosea using words to the same purpose: “The inhabitants of Samaria shall fear because of the calves of Bethaven; for the people thereof shall mourn over it and the priests that rejoiced on it . . . The high places also of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed: The thorn and the thistle shall come up on their altars; and they shall say to the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us,” Hosea 10:5 and 8.
These prophecies were amply fulfilled in the days of godly King Josiah when he was raised up to make a thorough reformation throughout all the land of Judah. We are told that “there was no king before him that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him,” 2 Kings 23:25. While engaged in destroying all the high places along with the altar at Bethel, he gave orders that the bones in the sepulchres should be burned upon the altar to pollute it. Noticing a title on one of these sepulchres he asked whose grave was that. Learning that it was the sepulchre of the prophet from Judah who had uttered the prophecy that was being then fulfilled, he spared his sepulchre, thus making the ruse of the old prophet, who is said to have come out of Samaria, completely successful.
One would think that such clear indications of the displeasure of God, as were given that day when the prophet from Judah cried against the altar, would have brought Jeroboam and his people to a better mind. We are told that it did not bring about the least reformation. When men are set upon their idols, neither the Word of God nor Providence will turn them from their evil ways. God gave the king and his people over to hardness of heart and they continued in their false worship and wicked ways till they were cut off, and the house of Jeroboam destroyed from off the face of the earth.
We would do well to ponder over this passage of God’s truth and cognate passages, and try to lay to heart the ways by which men forsake God and the awful consequences which follow a departure from Him. The call of God’s Word is a call to repent and return to God.
Referendum — ‘Yes’ or ‘No’?
Rev. John MacLeod, Stornoway
THE Government White Paper on devolution, outlining the arrangements for the setting up of a Scottish Parliament, has been published, and those of us living north of the Tweed are now expected to ponder carefully the issues involved and either accept or reject the proposals in the coming Referendum. It is accepted on every hand that this is a major constitutional change and that — if it is implemented — the consequences will be far-reaching, not only as affecting the future of Scotland, but also that of the United Kingdom as a whole.
In seeking to make up our minds on whether or not the establishment of a Scottish Parliament (which many regard as the first step towards the breaking up of the United Kingdom) would be advantageous, it might be helpful to draw attention to the principal events which led up to the dissolution of the last Scottish Parliament in 1707. It is clear that the Church of Scotland, at the time, was generally opposed to the Union of Parliaments, and no doubt for good and valid reasons. Almost seventy years had elapsed from the signing of the National Covenant and less than twenty since the times of persecution had ended. Those who suffered had long memories.
With the flight of James II all the plans and schemes of the House of Stuart, cunningly devised with the help of Jesuit counsellors, were brought to nothing. Popery was not to be restored. The Scots, unlike the English, lost no time in declaring that “by his unconstitutional and evil deeds,” the fugitive king had forfeited all right to the crown of Scotland, and they immediately made a tender of it to William and Mary. This offer was accompanied with a declaration of the rights and liberties of the subject, which, it is claimed, for precision and clarity, was not matched by the English Parliament. “These were the very principles for which they had been contending and suffering during twenty-eight years of fierce persecution, and which, therefore, they understood too well and valued too highly to neglect in the present emergency.” The new king was a Presbyterian himself and it was not too much for the Scottish Church to expect that all its rights would be restored but they were destined to discover that William was not only a king; he was also a politician.
With a view to effecting the restoration of all the liberties which the Church had previously enjoyed, the Scottish Parliament, in 1690, passed several important resolutions. Presbyterianism was legally established, the Confession of Faith was ratified, Prelacy was condemned as that “great and unsupportable grievance” in Scotland which had been “reformed from
1 Memoirs of the Life of the Rev. Thomas Halyburton, p. 304
popery by presbyters”, and patronage was condemned and abrogated. Needless to say, these measures were opposed and resisted by those whose interests were adversely affected and the king, unwisely seeking to please all the parties, acted in so arbitrary a fashion that he came into conflict with the Presbyterians, the very people to whom he was most indebted for his place on the throne. With the demise of William and the accession of Anne, efforts to make the Church of Scotland Erastian, in line with the prelatic Church of England, were intensified. In 1703, the royal letter addressed to the General Assembly spoke of the Presbyterian government of the Scottish Church as merely that which was “acceptable to the inclinations of the people, and established by the laws of the kingdom.” In reply, the Assembly emphatically declared it to be that which was “settled as agreeable to the Word of God, and most conducive to the advancement of true piety and godliness, and the establishment of peace and tranquillity; and therefore to be the only government of Christ’s church within this kingdom.”
On the political front, the union of the two Protestant nations was regarded as expedient in order to bring intestine strife to an end and also prevent foreign powers from exploiting any differences which might arise between them while separate. Many, however, regarded the Union as bringing Scotland — a nation which had nobly fought for its independence — into a state of vassalage by the stroke of a pen and without the stroke of a sword. Some of the godly feared the worst. “Episcopacy,” they said, “will become predominant, either by force of law, where the bulk of the Parliament are members, and the bishops sit as legislators, or by the natural ascendancy of bishoped England, in which the wealth and the political influence of the whole island will be naturally concentrated.”2 Feelings ran so high at the time that it appeared as if it would be necessary to postpone the Union indefinitely. But the Church was propitiated by the inclusion of the Act of Security by which the “the true Protestant religion as presently professed”, the Confession of Faith, and the Presbyterian form of Church government, were declared to be confirmed and established to all future generations “without any alteration thereof, or derogation thereto, in any sort, forever.” “This, and this alone,” we are told, “was declared to be the basis of the Treaty, without which no union between the kingdoms was compatible.”
The people, however, still felt that the clergy had not done their duty in resisting and averting what was widely regarded as a “national calamity.” To them, the Union, “glozed over by whatever terms, was nothing more than a base compromise and hateful vassalage to the overbearing predominance of England.” Such fears were not groundless; within five years the Westminster Parliament had reimposed patronage and shortly afterwards the
2 Ibid. p.314
Act of Toleration was passed permitting the Jacobites — who still held on to their popish superstitions, continued to believe in the divine right of kings, and did their utmost to have Stuart kings restored — “to set up their chapels under the express sanction of law.” At the same time, adding insult to injury, it was enacted as part of the oath of abjuration that the successor to the British crown must belong to the Church of England.
But all that was two hundred and eighty five years ago! Much has happened in the interval, and the circumstances in which we find ourselves today, and in the midst of which we have to make up our minds as to whether or not this constitutional change should take place, bear no comparison to those prevailing in 1707.
While the proposed devolved Parliament is to be limited as far as its sovereignty is concerned, it will still have sufficient legislative powers to enact laws which will affect our daily lives. That being so, it is obvious that, if it is ever constituted, much will depend upon its composition. If a strong Scottish Nationalist element is present, then clearly the movement towards total separation and the break up of the United Kingdom will gain momentum. The Government in its White Paper goes out of its way to reassure voters that its proposals do not pose any threat to the integrity of the Union but we remain unconvinced. It is clear to us now, with the benefit of hindsight, that the Union of Parliaments in 1707 was not after all the “national calamity” that some feared it would be. We believe that they are correct who maintain that the material benefits which flowed to Scotland as a result of the Union have been great, and that these benefits have, over the years, more than compensated for the loss of sovereignty which was sustained at the time. In the spiritual sphere it is, we believe, significant that the great revivals of religion north and south of the border took place in the 18th and 19th centuries after the Union and when the two nations were at peace with one another.
As already noted, the Church of Scotland, with William Carstares a prominent leader, played a very important role in the drawing up of the Articles of Union in 1707. The present Church of that name is not likely to take anything other than a ‘political’ interest in the present proposals. It is most unlikely to give voice to any warning that they pose a threat to our Protestant constitution. But we believe they do, and as the true representatives of the Revolution Church we regard it as our duty to sound the alarm. We do not expect to reach the ears of many of our fellow-countrymen but we sound it nevertheless.
Patronage has long since ceased to be an issue; the fact of bishops sitting in the House of Lords is now largely an irrelevance; under the present regime we have full liberty to worship God and our civil and religious liberties are guaranteed. Why should we then support any change which might well tend
towards altering this state of affairs?
If, as some experienced political observers believe, devolution is the beginning of “a relentless slide to separation”, we have every reason to be concerned. The written part of the British Constitution was mostly drawn up at the time of the Glorious Revolution and every Protestant worthy of the name will view with alarm any constitutional move which might result in the removal of the safeguards enshrined, for instance, in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. The framers of these proposals will tell us that this is not an issue and we shall, as usual, be branded as bigoted and sectarian for suggesting that it is. Since 1707 the wheel has almost turned full circle as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned. Subscribers of the National Covenant declared: “We abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine; but chiefly all kind of Papistry in general and in particular heads, even as they are now damned and confuted by the Word of God and the Kirk of Scotland.” Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, and one who would no doubt be a leading light in a new Scottish Parliament, was suggesting not so long ago that the Roman Catholic grotto at Carfin should be made a national shrine! Rome’s power and influence in Scotland is now such that any new constitution drawn up would not contain anything prejudicial to her interests and aspirations. Since 1707, what is now the Republic of Ireland has been detached from the union by Jesuit craft and, as we all know, the Church of Rome is using every artifice in pursuing the present campaign which has as its aim the removing of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. Scottish devolution, leading to separation, would, we believe, suit her well. The influx of Irish immigrants in the nineteenth century has led to a concentration of Roman Catholics in the central belt and that accounts for the disproportionate number of Roman Catholic MPs returned from Scotland to Westminster, election after election. It is no secret that the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland with its wily and politically astute leadership curries the favour of political leaders and exerts an influence in the political world that is out of all proportion to its numerical strength. The population distribution is such that the majority of members in a Scottish Parliament would be drawn from the central belt, and the fact that they would be largely responsible for determining the economic policies to be followed makes us apprehensive. The deplorable situation which arose in Monklands as a result of religious bias and nepotism, to which Donald Finlay, QC, referred at the launch of the “Think Twice” campaign, confirms the view that Scotland would be far better off with her affairs in the hands of the Westminster Parliament rather than have them handled in Edinburgh in a Parliament dominated by central-belt Romanist members. The only high-profile figure in the Scottish Labour Party vehemently opposing the setting up of a Scottish Parliament is Tam Dalyell, MP. His raising of the so-called ‘West Lothian question’ may yet prove to
be the very rock on which this devolution barque will founder.
Our Scottish Reformers cherished the hope that there would come a time when there would be uniformity of worship and Church government throughout the United Kingdom which, in their day, included the whole of Ireland, north and south. The Solemn League and Covenant was drawn up as a means to this end. The Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology tells us: “It was first of all a religious covenant. After noting that they had one king and one Reformed religion and expressing their concern about the estate of both Church and kingdom in England and Scotland, the signatories swear to preserve ‘the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland’ and the Reformation of religion in England and to bring the churches to the ‘nearest Conjunction and Uniformity in Religion’, confession, government and worship. . . . The English Parliament made some alterations to the draft before approving it, particularly in a desire to avoid a commitment to use the Scottish Presbyterian model in reforming the Church of England. They also included Ireland in a document which had previously referred to Scotland and England. . . .” Wales was, of course, embraced with England. The Reformers’ ideal has not yet been realised, but we believe that it will be, in due time. The question is: will the setting up of a Scottish Parliament tend to the hastening or hindering of its realisation? In our view, the closer the union between the constituent parts of the British Isles, the better prepared we shall be for the coming of better days and the promised outpouring of the Spirit of God which shall usher in the Millennium. For that reason alone we should vote for the status quo. “My son, fear thou the Lord and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change.”