2. His *Magnum Opus

Rev H M Cartwright

The great work for which Fraser is known today was given the following lengthy and explanatory title typical of the eighteenth century: The Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification; being a critical explanation and paraphrase of the sixth and seventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans and the four first verses of the eighth chapter. Wherein the true scope and sense of that most important and much disputed context is cleared and asserted, against the false interpretations of Grotius, Hammond, Locke, Whitby, Taylor, Alexander, &c. With a Large Appendix wherein the Apostle’s Doctrine, Principles, and Reasoning, are applied to the Purposes of Holy Practice, and of Evangelical Preaching. In more recent editions it has become known as A Treatise on Sanctification.²

This work was first published five years after the author’s death. He had

¹The first section of this paper, printed last month, dealt with James Fraser, the Man.

²All unidentified references in the paper are to the 1992 Old Paths edition, of this volume.

completed its preparation for the press in July 1769. It was highly commended in a prefatory note by John Erskine of Old Greyfriars, Edinburgh, who was the leading Evangelical minister in the Church of Scotland in the latter part of the eighteenth century and whose strong opposition to John Wesley, especially on account of his doctrine of Christian perfection, is credited with restricting Wesley’s influence north of the border. Donald Sage, not inclined to exaggerate his praises, described the work as “one of the profoundest theological treatises ever written on ‘Sanctification'”.³

Alexander Fraser said of it: “His distinguished abilities as a sacred critic appear in the following treatise, from the strong and masterly manner in which he has examined and refuted some of the most eminent Socinian and Arminian commentators. The judicious reader will easily see that the author’s understanding was quick, clear and penetrating, his judgement solid, and his learning very extensive”. John Macleod describes it as “one of the classics of our Scottish Theology”, “a very thorough discussion”, by one “who shows himself a very solid and sensible interpreter and in his statement of doctrine a judicious and masterly divine”.⁴ Dr Kennedy thought that Fraser’s “work on sanctification gives the most satisfactory explanation of that difficult portion of Scripture expounded in it which has yet been produced. For exact analysis, polemical skill and wise practical application of the truth, there are very few works which excel it.”⁵

Robert Haldane, in his own Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, refers in his comments on Romans 7 to Mr Fraser’s “excellent exposition of this chapter, in his work On Sanctification“. In a footnote he writes: “A man of God so deeply acquainted with the human heart, and so advanced in the divine life as this writer evidently was, is a much better judge of the import of this chapter than a mere critic, however distinguished for talents and learning. To eminent godliness, Mr Fraser added profound penetration and remarkable discrimination – qualities in which many critics, who attempt to expound the Scripture, are greatly deficient.” John Murray, in his Commentary on Romans, asserts that “one of the ablest and most thorough treatments of the question and of the considerations in support of the view that Paul is describing his experience in a state of grace is that by James Fraser”. More recently Sinclair Ferguson, who does not follow Fraser fully, has commended it as “a valuable work by a remarkable man” and thinks that in this area he is “both clearer and more satisfactory even than Calvin”.

The volume is basically an exposition of Romans 6:1 – 8:4. The author con-

³Memorabilia Domestica.

⁴Scottish Theology.

⁵The Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire.

troverts interpretations of the passage which gave a foundation to the legalism of the Moderate pulpit and he also provides a positive exegesis and application. Some may be put off by references to philosophers and theologians previously unknown, but it would be a mistake to think with John Macleod that, in criticising John Locke’s exposition of the Epistle, for example, “he deals with what is now an extinct volcano”. Dr Ferguson is nearer the mark when he suggests that “on a second reading, these discussions may prove to be of considerable interest, and those familiar with the various exegetical positions adopted in later commentaries on Romans 6 and 7 will be fascinated to see them appear in an earlier guise!”

“On a second reading” makes the valid point that initially one can skip the controversial passages, which are quite distinguishable, and concentrate on the positive exposition. The controversial sections demonstrate the extensive and careful work and learning which went into Fraser’s study of the Scriptures behind the scenes, and the positive exposition demonstrates the character of the teaching given by him in the pulpit.

Hugh Ross, a native of Alness, was brought to a knowledge of the truth when 15 under Fraser’s preaching and lived in his old age in Resolis during Donald Sage’s early ministry there. Sage read to him some part of this book without telling him what book it was. Ross became quite excited and, when asked, explained: “I do not know what book it is; but this I know that 70 years ago I heard these sentiments on that passage delivered by Mr James Fraser, when lecturing on Romans, and they are as fresh in my memory as when I heard them from his lips”.⁶

John Locke, the English philosopher (1632-1704) regarded as the founder of empiricism, the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from experience, also wrote expositions of Bible books. The principle which he professed was that verses should not be taken in isolation as proofs for doctrines but should be read in their contexts. That principle was strongly affirmed and practised by Fraser, but his complaint was that Locke himself did not adhere to it.

In the Introduction to his Treatise Fraser writes: “It is of great consequence in interpretation to discover and observe carefully the general scope and purpose of a writer, and of his argument. When this is justly conceived and understood, it serves in a great measure as a key in interpreting particular passages that might otherwise be ambiguous or dark. But when the general scope is mistaken, through the influence of prejudice against the truth, or of an hypothesis and preconceived opinion possessing the mind, this often occasions a forced and unnatural interpretation of particular passages, and giving meanings to particular expressions that are not agreeable to Scripture

⁶Treatise on Sanctification.

use, or to the use of speech otherwise, or to the real scope of the writer, and of his argument. I cannot help thinking that this hath, in some degree, happened to the celebrated Mr Locke.”

Locke’s idea was that chapters 5 and 6 described the heathen state from which the Gentile Christians were delivered and chapter 7 the state of bondage to the ceremonial law from which the Jewish Christians were delivered. “This notion of his”, Fraser goes on, “appears to have brought him under great disadvantage in interpretation; and an ill superstructure has been raised upon it. It is therefore needful that I give the reasons why I cannot fall in with it, and show it not to be well founded.” Locke was not interpreting Paul by Paul but subjecting his teaching to reason uninformed by Scripture as a whole.

Fraser sets out to show from the context of the Epistle and from the meaning of the terms used that these chapters apply to Jews and Gentiles. He makes the general assertion “that the Apostle’s subject is sanctification, and the freedom from the reign and dominion of sin that is necessary in sanctification, and in order to the true practice of holiness. As he had asserted and explained a doctrine of justification common to Christians of the Jews and of the Gentiles, we have cause to think, from a general view, that his doctrines and explications concerning sanctification have an equal respect to Christians of both sorts – to all Christians.”

Although some of Locke’s ideas stimulated the thought of orthodox divines, his claim to discard accepted interpretations of Scripture from regard to Scripture as a whole, while actually substituting carnal reason for submission to the mind of the Spirit in Scripture, was used by liberal theologians to found their own attacks on doctrines basic to biblical theology. This was Fraser’s concern, and one of his chief targets in this respect was John Taylor of Norwich (1694-1761), a dissenting divine noted for his attacks on the Reformed doctrines of original sin and the atonement particularly. Taylor denied that the principle of sin, with all its various lusts, possessed and influenced every man’s faculties and powers (p 55). He also “held that Christ did not undergo the punishment of our sins in order to redeem us from punishment for our sins, and so to satisfy the sanction of the law, which denounced punishment and death for transgression” (p 55).

A recent writer⁷ has described Taylor’s teaching as “frank Pelagianism” in which “we are saved by our own efforts with a little help from the Holy Spirit”. It was largely in response to Taylor that Jonathan Edwards wrote his work, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, which was published shortly after his death in 1758. Edwards said of Taylor’s volume that “no one book has done so much towards rooting out of these western

⁷G T Eddy, Dr Taylor of Norwich: Wesley’s Arch-heretic.

parts of New England the principles and scheme of religion maintained by our pious and excellent forefathers”. The same concerns motivated Fraser in his Highland parish. Fraser refers to an extensive range of authors, but there seems no evidence that he was acquainted with Edwards’ book.

It is impossible to summarise this rich volume, but perhaps the main thrust of Fraser’s careful exegetical study of these chapters can be highlighted. He goes through every verse with an “explication” which contains the exegetical and doctrinal work, on which he builds a “paraphrase” which expands on the verse in a way which brings out its meaning simply. He is concerned to point out that the Apostle does not defend his doctrine of justification by faith alone by claiming that this faith includes “evangelical obedience and good works”. Yet Paul “answers and suggests an argument against the practice of sin, that is of the utmost force” (pp 37,38).

Fraser is controverting the view, common then and now, that the doctrines of grace will discourage holiness and that it is by works, or a faith which includes works, that a person is justified, and holiness, or morality, is safeguarded. He asserts that “preaching Christ and free grace is so far from being opposite to the end of preaching holiness and good works that indeed men cannot preach holiness and good works to good purpose and with good effect without bringing with them all the way the doctrine of Christ and of free grace. It is at the same time true that men’s preaching is essentially defective if they preach not Christ in a manner subservient to holiness”.

In recapitulating the Apostle’s doctrine in these chapters he says that “in the course of his reasoning, he labours carefully to show the different condition of persons under the law and of those under grace with regard to sin and the practice of holiness” (p 397). Sinners naturally were married to the law, which meant that they were subject to it, dependent upon it for support and protection and for their welfare (p 141). But being sinners they were incapable of being either justified or sanctified by the law. “It is by being dead with Christ (Rom 6:8), by their fellowship with Christ in His death, and by their interest in his death, and in the fruits thereof, that they are thus delivered from the law, and that an end is put to their relation to the law as their husband; as they are also said to have been raised together with Christ” (p 147). This is what secures their justification, but it also secures their sanctification. There is a very profitable section “showing the advantage, with regard to holiness, that ariseth from persons being under grace” (p 401ff):

1. Guilty sinners, under the curse of God’s law, are denied “these blessings and favourable influences of heaven, by which their souls, being made good soil, might become fruitful in holiness and good works” But “being justified by faith and under grace” opens up “the treasures of heavenly blessings”

2. Because they depend upon grace and the indwelling Spirit for their comfort they have “a constant and most cogent reason . . . to be watchful against sin and earnestly studious of holiness”.

3. “Divine worship, inward and outward, public and private, makes of itself a considerable branch of holy practice; and when it is followed out with good conscience, sincerity and success, hath much good effect in all the course of holy practice and good works.” The one who “is justified, brought under grace, and hath his conscience purged from guilt and condemnation . . . may approach and worship God with confidence and comfort”.

4. Grace gives efficacy to “every part of the Word of God, and to all divine institutions, as the chief ordinary means of promoting holiness”.

5. Grace uses “all providential dispensations” for “their sanctification and furtherance in holiness”.

6. “The habitual view and impression of the great day of the Lord must give great excitement to watchfulness against sin and temptation, to holiness and fruitfulness in good works.

7. “As the people of God are the purchase of Christ’s blood, so when His blood is actually applied to them, and they are justified and brought under grace, they are from thenceforth His most special charge, committed to Himself to rule and preserve them, and complete their salvation. He is sufficient for the charge, and faithful in the execution of it.”

8. “But, further, this is secured by a sure covenant. The grace they are under is the grace of the new covenant” (Jer 32:40).

He concludes that “faith, in the comprehensive view of it, doth in various ways influence holy practice”.

In the course of his discussion, which throws light on many other passages of Scripture, James Fraser says of “the old man” that it “certainly signifies the corruption of nature . . . the principle of sin, with all its various lusts, which possess and influence a man’s faculties and powers; and that, so far as it remains in the true Christian, who is renewed by grace, and in whom is the new man, by virtue of, and in comparison with which in him, and in him only, the former [that is, the corruption of nature, the principle of sin] is the old man. In persons unregenerate, the evil principle is not the old man, but continues young, in full strength and vigour. It is the old man only in persons regenerate – in true Christians” (pp 55,56). The new man is “the soul so far as renewed by divine grace” (p 295).

He provides a very thorough argument for regarding the person described in Romans 7:14-25 as a regenerate person under grace, showing how consistent with regeneration and inconsistent with the unregenerate state the experiences and sentiments described are. He specifies such things as regard

to the spirituality of the law; consenting to the law that it is good, delighting in the law of God after the inward man, and serving the law of God with the mind; feeling more bitterness over sin the more one’s heart is truly sanctified; regret for what has not been attained rather than looking at what has; and the consistency of the beginning of Romans 8 with the view that the apostle has been describing a gracious soul up to that point.

Here, he says, “we have the case of a man under grace, who had, with great sense and experience of the love of God, his heart commonly full of consolation by the assured prospect of eternal happiness and glory; whose heart was greatly raised above things earthly and temporary, in full desire and pursuit of the things that are above; whose soul was animated with the warmest zeal for God, and for holiness; and who had made great advances in holiness, inferior to no mere man we know of. Yet what heavy and sore complaints doth he make of sin dwelling in him? He did by its force what he allowed not; and what he seriously would, he could not perform. Though he delighted in the law of God according to the inward man, yet he found a law in his members warring against the law of his mind, and working hard to bring him into captivity to the law of sin; so that he cries out, O wretched man that I am!“

He says again: “There is indeed great complaint of the flesh; yet nothing appears in the preceding context that amounts to walking after the flesh. But on the contrary, we have cause to conclude that a heart habitually delighting in the holiness of the law of God, and in ordinary conflict with the inward motions of sin, as is there represented, is as great an evidence of a man’s not walking after the flesh as can possibly be imagined to be in the case of any man in whom sin remaineth at all.” He believes that this is recorded (1) to teach us “how careful a Christian should be about the inward purity of his heart, and what constant earnest opposition he should make to the very first motions of every unholy passion and inordinate affection or lusting in his heart”; (2) “to support and encourage those who go heavily under the evil of their hearts”; (3) “to observe the sad corruption which human nature hath undergone; how deep the root of sin hath gone in the hearts of men, and how great its force and activity is in the best of men” (pp 345-348).

We have not so much of Christ in our lives as Peter and Paul and John had, but we have as much of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us for our justification as any of all the apostles had; and if our faith be right it is like precious with theirs.

A gracious soul knows his sin is pardoned, yet he grieves for it; and he knows that if he shall fall into a sin, the Lord will overrule things so as he shall be the better for it; and yet he strives against his sin as the greatest evil in the world. Here is a mystery!

William Bridge

The Early Scottish Reformation¹

6. More Who Suffered for the Faith

J H Merle d’Aubigné

The bishops of Scotland appeared to triumph. Hamilton was dead, Alesius in exile, and not one evangelical voice was heard in the realm any longer. They now turned their thoughts to the destruction of that proud aristocracy which assumed that the functions of the state belonged to the nobles and not to the priests. The nobles now thought only of delivering Scotland from the yoke of the clergy and decided to invite the aid of Henry VIII – at the very time he was separating from Rome. But it was not so easy to place Scotland under the rule of England as they imagined. The priests supposed that they had surmounted the dangers posed by reform, but they were mistaken in believing that the fire kindled by the Word of God was extinguished. Flames shot up suddenly where they were least of all expected.

Alexander Seaton, a monk of the Dominican order and confessor to the King – a tall man, ready-witted and bold – was held in great esteem at the court. The state of the Church profoundly grieved him and therefore, having been appointed to preach during Lent in 1532 in St Andrews cathedral, he resolved courageously to avow the heavenly doctrine which was making exiles and martyrs. He told a large congregation: “Jesus Christ is the end of the law, and no one is able by his works to satisfy divine justice. A living faith, which lays hold of the mercy of God in Christ, can alone obtain for the sinner the remission of sins. But for how many years has God’s law, instead of being faithfully taught, been darkened by the tradition of men!”

People were astonished at this discourse; some wondered why he did not speak about pilgrimages and other meritorious works. Yet the priests were afraid to lay a complaint against him. “He is confessor to the King,” they said, “and enjoys the favour both of prince and people.” But in the absence of Seaton after Lent, Archbishop Beaton and the clergy took courage, condemned the doctrine he had preached, and appointed another Dominican to refute him. Seaton immediately returned from Dundee, had the cathedral bells rung and went to the pulpit to repeat with more energy and clarity what he had previously said. Then, recalling what a bishop ought to be, according to Paul, he asked where such bishops were to be found in Scotland? The Primate summoned Seaton before him and rebuked him for having asserted that the bishops were only dumb dogs. Seaton called it an unfounded accusation.

“Your answer pleases me well,” exclaimed Beaton. But the witnesses

¹Abridged from The History of the Reformation in the Time of Calvin, vol 6. Last month’s chapter gave an account of Alexander Alesius before he was forced into exile.

confirmed their evidence. “These are liars,” the King’s confessor again told the Archbishop; “consider what ears these asses have, who cannot discern Paul, Isaiah, Zechariah and Malachi and friar Alexander Seaton. In very deed, my lord, I said that Paul says it behoves a bishop to be a teacher. Isaiah said that they that fed not the flock are dumb dogs. And Zechariah says they are idle pastors. I of my own head affirmed nothing but declared what the Spirit of God before had pronounced.”

Beaton did not hesitate: this bold preacher was evidently putting to his mouth the trumpet of Hamilton and Alesius. He undertook to obtain authority from the King to proceed against his confessor, and it was an easier task than he imagined. Seaton, like John the Baptist, had no dread of the King’s displeasure and had rebuked him for his licentiousness. James had said nothing at the time, thinking the confessor was only doing his duty. But when he saw the Archbishop denouncing Seaton, King James, who was given up to a loose life, said, “I know more than you do of his audacity”.

When Seaton perceived what fate awaited him, he quitted the kingdom and took refuge at Berwick. It was about two years after the Lent sermon of 1532. He did not remain idle. He had a last duty to discharge to his master the King. “The bishops of your kingdom”, he wrote to him, “oppose our teaching the gospel of Christ. I offer to present myself before your majesty and to convince the priests of error.” As the King did not reply, Seaton went to London, where he became chaplain to the Duke of Suffolk, Henry VIII’s brother-in-law, and preached eloquently to large audiences.

The King of England liked well enough to receive the friends of the gospel who were banished from Scotland. One priest, more enlightened than the rest, Andrew Charteris, had called his colleagues children of the devil. And he said aloud: “If anyone observes their cunning and their falsehood and accuses them of impurity, they immediately accuse him of heresy. If Christ Himself were in Scotland, our priestly fathers would heap on Him more ignominy than the Jews themselves in old time did.” Henry desired to see Charteris, talked with him at great length, and was much pleased with him.

The clergy had now got rid of Hamilton, Seaton and Alesius; but they were uneasy because they knew the Holy Scriptures were in Scotland. Notice was therefore given in every parish that “it is forbidden to sell or to read the New Testament”. All copies found in the shops were to be burnt. Alesius, who was in Germany at that time, was greatly afflicted and resolved to speak.

“I hear, sir,” he wrote to the king, “that the bishops are driving souls away from the oracles of Christ. Could the Turks do anything worse? Would morality exist in independence of the Holy Scriptures? . . . God ordains that we should hear the Son, not as a scholar who philosophises on the theory of

morals, but as a prophet who reveals holy things unknown to the world. If the bishops promote the infliction of the severest penalties on those who hear His Word, the knowledge of Jesus Christ will become extinct and the people will take up pagan opinions. Most serene king, resist these impious counsels! . . . We are punished, we are put to death . . . . We shall speak, for the gospel alone can strengthen souls amidst the infinite perils of the present time.”

Neither King nor priests replied to Alesius’ letter, but a famous German, Cochlaeus, an opponent of Luther, undertook to induce James V to pay no attention to it. “Sir,” he wrote to him, “the calamities which the New Testaments disseminated by Luther have brought down upon Germany are so great that the bishops, in turning their sheep away from that deadly pasture, have shown themselves to be faithful shepherds. Incalculable sums have been thrown away on the printing of 100 000 copies of that book. Now what advantage have its readers drawn from it, unless it be an advantage to be cast into prison, to be banished and made to suffer other tribulations? A decree is not enough, sir; it is necessary to act. The Bishop of Treves has had the New Testaments thrown into the Rhine, and with them the booksellers who sold them. This example has frightened others, and happily so, for that book is the gospel of Satan and not of Jesus Christ.”

At the same time the Romish party was endeavouring to embroil Scotland with England, and James was already engaging in several skirmishes. The Scots burnt some English towns; the English invaded Scotland and ravaged its towns and country districts. The King of Scotland, intimidated, applied to the Pope and the King of France for help. Then, to please the priests, the Pope and Francis I, James took the advice of Cochlaeus – except that, in Scotland, fire was substituted for the waters of the Rhine.

A young monk named Henry Forrest, in the Benedictine monastery at Linlithgow, had been touched by Hamilton’s words and called him a martyr. This monk was soon convicted of a more serious crime: he was a reader of the New Testament. The Archbishop had him imprisoned at St Andrews. One day a friar came to him to administer, he said, consolation. Offering to hear his confession, he succeeded by crafty questions in leading the young Benedictine to tell him what he thought about Hamilton’s doctrines. Forrest was immediately condemned to be delivered over to the secular authorities to be put to death, and a clerical assembly was called together to degrade him from the priesthood.

The young friend of the gospel had hardly passed through the door where the assembly was sitting when he saw the Archbishop and the priests drawn up in a circle and became aware of what awaited him. He cried out in a voice full of contempt: “Fie on falsehood! Fie on false friars, revealers of confess-

ion!” When one of the priests came up to him to degrade him, the Benedictine, weary of so much perfidy, exclaimed, “Take from me not only your own orders but also your own baptism”. He meant by that, says a historian, the superstitious practices which Rome has added to the institution of the Lord. These words provoked the assembly still more. “We must burn him,” said the Primate, “in order to terrify the others.” A simple-minded and candid man beside Beaton told him in a tone of irony: “My lord, if you burn him, take care that it be done in a cave, for the smoke of Hamilton’s pile infected with heresy all who caught the scent of it”.

This advice was not taken. North of St Andrews, in the county of Angus, there were many who loved the New Testament. Forrest’s persecutors decided to burn him where the people of Angus might see the flames and thus learn the danger which threatened them if they became Protestants. The pile was therefore placed to the north of the abbey church of St Andrews, and the fire was visible in those districts of the north. Henry Forrest was Scotland’s second martyr.

Soon afterwards there appeared, in the same neighbourhood, the third to lay down his life for the Reformation in Scotland. On the sea coast near the mouth of the North Esk, lived one of the Straitons of Lauriston. Most members of this family were distinguished for their height, their bodily strength and their energy of character. David, a younger son, was a rough and obstinate man. He displayed great contempt for books, especially for religious books, and found his chief pleasure in launching his boat on the sea, giving the sails to the wind, casting his nets, and struggling with the winds and the waves. He had soon to engage in struggles of another kind.

The Prior of St Andrews, Patrick Hepburn, afterwards Bishop of Moray, a very avaricious man, heard that David had great success in his fishing and demanded a tithe of his fish. “Tell your master”, said the proud gentleman. “that if he wants to have it, he may come and take it on the spot.” From that time, every day as he drew up his nets, he exclaimed to the fishermen: “Pay the Prior of St Andrews his tithe”, and the men would throw every tenth fish into the sea. When Hepburn heard of this strange method of satisfying his claim, he ordered a priest to go for the fish. The priest went; but as soon as Straiton saw him, he threw the fish to him so sharply that some fell into the sea. The Prior then instituted proceedings against Straiton for the crime of heresy. Never had a council applied that name to a man’s method of paying his tithe. No matter, the word heretic at that time inspired such terror that Straiton began to give way; his pride was humbled and, confessing his sins, he felt the need of a forgiving God. He sought out all who could tell him about the gospel or could read it to him, for he himself could not read.

Not far from his abode was Dun castle, whose lord, John Erskine, provost of Montrose, had attended several universities in Scotland and abroad and had been converted to the evangelical faith. “God”, says Knox, “had miraculously enlightened him.” His castle, where the words of prophets and apostles were heard, was ever open to those who were athirst for truth; thus the evangelical Christians of the neighbourhood had frequent meetings there. Erskine detected the change which was taking place in the soul of his rough neighbour; he went to see him, conversed with him and exhorted him to change his life. Straiton soon became a regular attender at the meetings in the castle, “and he was,” says Knox, “transformed as by a miracle”.

Straiton’s nephew, the young baron of Lauriston, possessed a New Testament. Straiton frequently went to the castle to hear portions of the Gospels read. One day the uncle and his nephew went out together, wandered about in the neighbourhood, and then retired into a lonely place to read the Gospels. The young laird chose Matthew, chapter 10. Straiton listened as attentively as if the Lord had addressed to himself the discourse reported there. When they came to this declaration of Jesus Christ: “Whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven,” Straiton, affected and startled, fell on his knees, stretched his hands upwards and, without speaking, turned for a long time a humble and earnest gaze towards heaven; he appeared to be in an ecstasy. At last, no longer able to restrain the feelings which crowded on him, he exclaimed: “I have been sinful, O Lord, and Thou wouldst be only just if Thou wert to withhold Thy grace from me. Nevertheless, for the sake of Thy mercy, suffer not the dread of pain or of death to lead me ever to deny Thee or Thy truth.”

From then on he set himself to serve zealously the Master whose mighty love he had felt. The world appeared to him like a vast sea, full of movement, on which men are roughly tossed until they have entered into the haven of the gospel. The fisherman became a fisher of men. He exhorted his friends and acquaintances to seek God, and he replied to the priests with firmness. On one occasion, when they urged him to do some pious works which deliver from purgatory, he answered, “I know of no other purgatory than Christ’s passion and the tribulations of this life”. Straiton was carried off to Edinburgh and cast into prison.

Another Scot, Norman Gourlay, travelled on the Continent after taking holy orders, and was enlightened by the gospel. Convinced that “marriage is honourable in all”, Gourlay married on his return to Scotland. When a priest reminded him of the prohibition by Rome, he replied, “The Pope is no bishop, but an Antichrist, and he has no jurisdiction in Scotland”.

On 26 August 1534, these two servants of God were led into a hall in

Holyrood Abbey. The judges were already seated; with them was the King, clothed in red from head to foot. James V pressed them to recant, but Straiton and Gourlay chose rather to be burnt themselves. The King was affected and was inclined to pardon them, but the priests declared that he had no authority to do so since these people had been condemned by the Church. In the afternoon of August 27 a huge pile was lit on the summit of Calton Hill in order that the flames might be visible at a great distance, and the fire devoured these two noble Christians. If the Reform was afterwards so strong in Scotland it was because the seed was holy.

All these heresies, it was thought, proceeded from Patrick Hamilton; his family must therefore be extirpated. But Sir James Hamilton, a good-natured man, an upright magistrate and a lover of the gospel, was not prepared to let himself be burned like his brother. Having received an order to appear before the tribunal, he addressed himself immediately to the King, who sent him a message not to appear. Sir James therefore quitted the kingdom; he was then condemned, excommunicated, banished and deprived of his estates, and he lived for nearly 10 years in London in great distress.

His sister Catherine would not flee but appeared at Holyrood before the ecclesiastical tribunal and the King himself. “By what means,” they asked her, “do you expect to be saved?” “By faith in the Saviour,” she replied, “and not by works.” Then one of the canon lawyers, John Spence, proceeded at great length to distinguish between various kinds of works. Wearied with this theological babbling, Catherine excitedly exclaimed: “Works here, works there. . . . What signify all the works? . . . There is one thing alone which I know with certainty . . . that no work can save me except the work of Christ my Saviour.” Spence sat amazed and made no answer, while the King strove in vain to hide a fit of laughter. He was anxious to save Catherine, and made a sign for her to come to him; he then entreated her to declare to the tribunal that she respected the Church. Catherine, who had never thought of setting herself in rebellion against the higher powers, allowed the King to say what he wished and withdrew first to England, then to France.

But these punishments and banishments did not put an end to the storm. Several other evangelical Christians were also obliged to leave Scotland. Among them was Gawin Logie, a canon of St Andrews and principal regent of St Leonard’s College, where Patrick Hamilton had exercised so powerful an influence. Logie diffused scriptural principles among the students to such an extent that people used to say, when referring to an evangelical Christian, “He has drunk at the well of St Leonard’s”. He left Scotland in 1534.

The devil, if he cannot hinder us from duty, will hinder us in duty.
The chair of the scornful stands at the mouth of hell.

Thomas Watson

Cornelius (2)¹

James Buchanan

2 The circumstances which accompanied the change in the centurion’s views and profession and the means which brought them about – when he became a Christian convert rather than a Jewish proselyte. In the accompanying circumstances, many of them miraculous, we have a beautiful example of means concurring towards one end in God’s providence.

One day, a vision appeared to Cornelius at Caesarea, about 75 miles from Jerusalem, instructing him to send messengers to Joppa to call for one Simon, whose surname was Peter. Next day, while the messengers were on their way, Peter went up to the housetop to pray about the sixth hour, and he had a vision of a great sheet descending from heaven, containing all manner of beasts. He was commanded: “Arise, Peter, kill and eat”. When he objected: “Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten any thing common or unclean,” the voice answered, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common”. This was done three times, and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

While Peter doubted in himself what this vision should mean, the messengers arrived and unconsciously furnished a key for its explanation. Their words seem to have suggested immediately the true meaning of the vision, as appears from his language to Cornelius and his friends: “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean”. And when, after he declared the gospel, “the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word”, so that they began to “speak with tongues and magnify God”, the whole purpose of God in these visions was made clear. It was to show that the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, should he admitted to the privileges and hopes of the Christian Church.

The distinction between clean and unclean animals had been purposely adopted as a mark of separation between the Jews and the Gentiles, as we learn from the law of Moses: “I am the Lord your God, who have separated you from all other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto Me: for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be Mine.”

¹This is the final part of a chapter, reprinted with editing, from the “Illustrative Cases of Conversion” in The Office and Work of the Holy Spirit. It is based on Acts 10. The first part, last month, dealt with the state and character of Cornelius before Peter came to him.

So long as this distinction existed, a wall of partition separated the Gentile from the Jew. When Peter was told: “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common”, he was thereby informed, not merely that the distinction of meats should now cease, but that the Old Testament dispensation was passing away and that the separation between Jew and Gentile, which that distinction marked, was now to be completely abolished. This great lesson was taught by a series of successive, yet independent, events, concurring marvellously to accomplish the same end – so that Peter’s mind must have been as much impressed by the leadings of God’s providence as by the express declaration of His will in coming to believe the great truth that the Christian Church was to include both Jew and Gentile, and that they were all “one in Christ”.

While these circumstances accompanied the change which was wrought on the views of Cornelius, the means by which it was properly effected was the truth, declared by the Apostle and applied by the Holy Spirit. The message which Peter delivered was, in all respects, suitable to his case. It contained (1) an unequivocal recognition that Cornelius and other believing Gentiles belonged to the Church of God and were accepted of Him. “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of Him.”

In these words the Apostle clearly intimates the delightful truth that the Church of God is catholic – it comprehends all believers, of whatever country, colour or climate. This is a truth which the Jews and the Apostles themselves were slow to accept and which probably were first carried home to Peter’s mind by the memorable incidents recorded in this chapter. Peter was an agent in effecting a great change in the constitution of the Church by admitting Gentiles to the privilege of Baptism. It is clear that Peter now understood and declared the great truth, that the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles had been removed, and that, “in every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of Him”.

These words have, however, been grievously perverted, and several false inferences have been drawn from them. Some, on the basis that Cornelius was a Gentile and was accepted by God, have inferred that mere natural religion is sufficient and that all the various creeds are unimportant, provided those who profess them are sincere. This monstrous heresy, which prevails so extensively in the world – and has sometimes been presented to the public mind with the fascination of poetry: “For forms of faith let senseless bigots fight, / His faith cannot be wrong, whose life is in the right,” – is utterly repudiated by every Christian mind which really believes the truth and appreciates the value of the gospel.

The Articles of the Church of England do not hesitate to say that “they are to be held accursed who presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that [that is, if] he be diligent to frame his life according to that law, and the light of nature”. Most assuredly the sentiment which is here so pointedly denounced derives no support from the case of Cornelius. His religion was not derived solely, or even chiefly, from the volume of nature; it was drawn from the revelation of God’s truth in the Old Testament Scriptures, which had already converted him to the Jewish faith.

So far from representing the knowledge and belief of the truth as a matter of indifference, the narrative shows the care with which God provided further instruction for Cornelius, when he gave a series of supernatural visions, used the ministry of Peter, and granted the gift of the Holy Ghost, in order that the Jewish proselyte might become a Christian convert – a baptized professor of the gospel. When therefore Peter says, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of Him,” he did not mean that the privileges of salvation were extended indiscriminately to all, as if they might be safe under a form of natural religion while ignorant of the gospel. He simply meant that these privileges, and the knowledge and faith with which they are inseparably connected, were not confined to the Jews but extended to true converts from every nation under heaven.

Still less does the narrative afford any countenance to another erroneous opinion which it has sometimes been used to support – that a moral life will render a man acceptable to God, independently of religion; and that it matters little whether he is religious or not, provided only his conduct is decent. Whatever virtues are here ascribed to Cornelius – his justice, his charity and his social respectability – were the fruits of religious principle and inseparably combined with the fear of God, the faith of divine truth, and the habit of prayer. Thus those men of mere morality who, from taste or education or the influence of worldly prudence or the example of others, maintain a decent exterior, while they are utterly irreligious, living without prayer and without God in the world, have no right to found any hope of acceptance on the case of Cornelius, of whom it is said that he was a devout, or godly, man, “and one that feared God with all his house, and gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway”.

Nor does this narrative afford any support for the self-righteous doctrine that the virtues of a man’s character are the ground of his acceptance with God. It is true that the angel refers to the devotion, alms and prayers of Cornelius and declares that they had “come up for a memorial before God” – just as we learn that, at the last day, the Judge will refer to the conduct of

His believing people in feeding the hungry and clothing the naked as the proper evidence of their faith and love. But the sole ground of their acceptance is the redemption of Christ. And surely no one can imagine that the good qualities here ascribed to Cornelius merited his salvation, for Peter was sent to tell him, as a sinner, that, “through Christ’s name, whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins”. The prayers and alms of Cornelius are not referred to as the grounds of his pardon, for that rested solely on the redemption of Christ, but as the evidences of his faith in the promise of a Saviour, a faith which God graciously rewarded by making known to him the fulfilment of that promise in Christ.

Peter’s message, while containing an unequivocal recognition that Cornelius and other Gentile believers belonged to the Church of God, presented also (2) a summary of gospel truth, accompanied with appropriate evidence, to convince him that what God had promised to the fathers He had fulfilled in the Person of Christ. The gospel properly consists in the doctrine of Christ, in His Person, offices, work and reward; and all these points of gospel truth are presented in the Apostle’s short but comprehensive statement.

He intimates the personal dignity of Christ: “He is Lord of all”; His humiliation, as “Jesus of Nazareth”; His divine mission, for God sent the Word “unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ”; His divine unction with the Holy Ghost, whereby He became the Christ, the Lord’s Anointed, for “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power”; His holy life and ministry of kindness, “who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, for God was with him”; His miraculous power: “we are witnesses of all things which He did, both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem”; His ignominious and painful death, “whom they slew, and hanged on a tree”; His resurrection from the dead and manifestation to His disciples: “Him God raised up the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God; even to us”; His commission to the Apostles: “He commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead”; and finally the sum and substance of the gospel: “To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins”.

Even this brief analysis may suffice to show how full it is of gospel truth and how admirably suited to the case of Cornelius. He was a devout man, a proselyte to the Jewish faith, one that waited for the consolation of Israel. He had even heard – for the Apostle speaks of him as knowing – the Word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ. But probably he had not had an opportunity of satisfying himself as to the

truth of the gospel and was waiting, in a prayerful spirit, for clearer light. And while he waited and prayed, God sent those visions and this message, which afford such a touching proof of God’s care for every humble inquirer. And the message was in every respect suited to his case, for it made known to him the substance of the gospel in two brief but comprehensive summaries. It is described (1) as God’s proclamation of peace through Jesus Christ and (2) as a message which declares “that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sin”.

The message also made known to him the evidence by which the truth as it is in Jesus is certified as of divine and infallible authority. Peter appeals to God’s testimony, who anointed Him “with the Holy Ghost” and who was with Him in His mighty works. He appeals to the testimony of the Apostles, who were eye-witnesses of His miracles and conversed with Him after His resurrection. And he appeals to the witness of ancient prophecy, for “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”. And, when this reference to the evidence which arises from all this testimony was immediately followed up by the descent of the Holy Ghost – so that “they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost; for they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God” – need we wonder that Cornelius at once embraced the gospel and, by baptism, entered the Christian Church?

The Holy Spirit was the agent by whom Cornelius was convinced and established. This was partly by His miraculous gifts, which are no doubt intended in the narrative, and which afforded evidence on which the faith of Cornelius might securely rest; but partly also by the power of the Spirit accompanying the preaching of the Word, by which Cornelius was enabled to believe to the saving of his soul.

3. The nature of the change wrought on the mind of Cornelius, and its practical results in his life. As a believer in Old Testament prophecy, he had long expected the Messiah. The change properly consisted in Cornelius being enabled to believe that the Messiah had actually come, and that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. The whole of Peter’s message was directed to establishing this great truth, that “Jesus is the Christ”; and the cordial reception of that truth, in its full gospel meaning, constituted the change in the mind of the devout centurion.

In the case of one who had previously been so conscientious, and whose whole character was consistent with his profession as a Jewish proselyte, there was no room for such a striking manifestation of the change which is wrought by conversion as in the case of the Philippian gaoler or even of Saul of Tarsus. But it was doubtless attended with a very great change. Not only

is it said that “he was baptized”, in token alike of his faith in Christ and his submission to Christ’s command, but he and his household “glorified God”.

We have here a beautiful example of the way in which the providence of God works in different places, for the same object. The concurrence of events at Joppa and at Caesarea demonstrated the activity of Him “who is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working”. We have also an interesting example of personal and family religion, under the less perfect dispensation of the Old Testament, one which may well put to shame many who enjoy far higher privileges among ourselves. Cornelius was a godly man, caring for the souls of those who were committed to his care: “he feared God with all his house”; “he prayed in his house”; he had “a devout soldier” as his servant; and he collected his whole household to listen to the Apostle, saying, “Now, therefore, are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God”.

Again, the case of Cornelius affords a memorable proof of the efficacy of prayer, and how much prayer is involved in the advancement of believers, as well as in the conversion of sinners. Cornelius was praying when “the man in bright clothing stood before him”; Peter was praying when the sheet descended from heaven; and the centurion’s kinsfolk and friends were assembled for the same purpose when Peter arrived. The instruction of Cornelius and his family, important as it was, was not the chief object of God in this wonderful interposition. It was designed to remove the prejudice which the Jews, and even the Apostles themselves, still entertained against the Gentiles, and to open the door for their admission into the Christian Church.