and there a farmer, here a cloth-merchant and there
a handloom weaver, here a blacksmith’s wife and
there a working housekeeper, who kept life in the
whole place. It is not station that does it,
nor talent, though both station and talent greatly
help; it is character, it is true and genuine godliness.
True and genuine godliness—especially
when it is purged of pride, and harsh judgment, and
too much talk, and is adorned with humility and meekness,
and all the other fruits of holy love—true
and pure godliness in a most obscure man or woman
will find its way to a thousand consciences, and will
impress and overawe a whole town, as Marion M’Naught’s
rare godliness impressed and overawed all Kirkcudbright.
Just as, on the other hand, the ignorance, the censoriousness,
the bitterness, the intolerance, that too often accompany
what would otherwise be true godliness, work as widespread
mischief as true godliness works good. ’One
little deed done for God’s sake, and against
our natural inclination, though in itself only of
a conceding or passive character, to brook an insult,
to face a danger, or to resign an advantage, has in
it a power outbalancing all the dust and chaff of
mere profession—the profession whether
of enlightened benevolence or candour, or, on the other
hand, of high religious faith and fervent zeal;’
or, as Rutherford could write to Marion M’Naught’s
daughter: ’There is a wide and deep difference
between a name of godliness and the power of godliness.’
Even the schoolboys of Kirkcudbright could quite
well distinguish the name from the reality; and long
after they were Christian men they would tell with
reverence and with love when, and from whom, they
took their first and never-to-be-forgotten impressions.
It was, they would say to their children, from that
woman of such rare godliness as well as public spirit,
Marion M’Naught.
It was all this, and nothing other and nothing less
than all this, that made Marion M’Naught Rutherford’s
favourite correspondent. Her mind and her heart
together early and often drew her across the country
to Rutherford’s preaching. Marion M’Naught
had a good minister of her own at home; but Rutherford
was Rutherford, and he made Anwoth Anwoth. I
think I can understand something of her delight on
Communion forenoons, when his text was Christ Dying,
in John xii. 32, or the Syro-Phoenician woman, in
Matt. xv. 28. And then the feasts on the fast-days
at Kirkcudbright, over the cloud of witnesses, in
Heb. xii. 1, and all tears wiped away, in Rev. xxi.
4, and the marriage of the Lamb, in xix. 7. And
then, on the other hand, Rutherford is not surely to
be blamed for loving such a hearer. His Master
loved a Mary also of His day, for that also among
other good reasons. If a good hearer likes a
good preacher, why should a good preacher not like
a good hearer? Take a holiday, and give us another
day soon of such and such a preacher, our people sometimes
say to us. And why should that preacher not