By the Rev. J. C. PHILPOT, M.A.
PEOPLE think sometimes how highly favoured ministers are; they view them almost as if they were angels, and were possessed of a faith far beyond the generality of believers. But if they could see them as they see and feel themselves, they would find that they are men of like passions with themselves, and often in their feelings sunk down lower than many of their hearers; more tried and exercised, more assailed with temptation, and, but for God’s grace, more prone to fall. In fact, it must be so. It is necessary that those who stand up to preach to the hearts of others should have a deep acquaintance with their own; that those who have to preach trials and exercises should be well acquainted with what they speak; and that those who set forth the Lord Jesus Christ should know something experimentally of His beauty and blessedness, grace and glory. Unless ministers are well exercised in their own minds, they are pretty sure to drop into the spirit of the world, and to depart in their feelings from the life and power of vital godliness. We must be in a thing that we may speak feelingly of it. You can now tell what a father feels when a son leaves his house for a foreign land; and those who have to pass through a similar experience will at once know that you were in it. So, therefore, unless a minister be feelingly in the things of God by a daily experience, he cannot speak of them with any life, power or freshness. The life of God must be kept up in the soul, or he cannot be a breast of consolation to the family of God. Now, this sometimes makes us very rebellious, that we should have to go through so many trials and temptations to be able to speak a word in season to others. We naturally love a smooth and easy path, and would almost sooner forego the blessing than get it in God’s way. But He gives us no choice in the matter; for He leads the blind by a way that they know not.
Few days, I think I may say, pass over my head without bringing trials and exercises in their train. Weak health, dejected spirits, opposition from without and from within, and, above all, darkness of mind, strong temptations, snares spread for my feet, a daily sense of backsliding and departing from the living God, a continual conflict with the horrid evils of my desperately wicked and depraved nature; all combine, more or less, to bring a daily exercise into my mind. And yet I would fain hope that these painful things are for my spiritual profit. I would fain hope that by them the Lord is showing me more and more what I am in myself, and that the things of time and sense are but a shadow that is passing away. I feel, too, the spirit of prayer stirred up by them in my bosom, and my heart’s affections more drawn up to centre in the Lord Himself. And I would fain hope, too, that these trials and exercises are not only for my own spiritual profit but that they are mercifully over-ruled for the good of the people of God among whom I may labour. I am well convinced both in my judgment and in my conscience that, however my coward flesh may shrink from exercises and trials, an unexercised and untried minister is rather a plague than a profit, a burden more than a benefit to God’s tried and tempted family.
But what a mercy it is for us, that when we come to the Word of God, we find that the blessed Spirit there sets forth trial, temptation, and exercise as the footsteps of the flock, as the path of the redeemed, as the way in which the Lord leads His beloved Church and people. Above all, what a mercy it is for the Church of God that there is one book especially in the inspired record, I mean, the Book of Psalms, that sets forth so minutely, describes so accurately, and traces out so vividly, the exercises, trials, and temptations which the Lord’s people have to pass through; so that therein, as the Lord the Spirit enables, they can read their spiritual features, and have from time to time some testimony from God Himself, that they are walking in a right way, though it be a rugged way, “to a city of habitation.” “Brethren, pray for us.”
God’s Golden Grain Gathered.
WE can, in a measure at least, understand the feelings of anxiety and sorrow which the patriarch Jacob had, when he uttered the following words, “Me have ye bereaved of my children, Joseph is not and Simeon is not, and ye will take Benjamin away; all these things are against me.” He was addressing his sons, and he was remembering that dark day when they had given him the blood-stained coat of many colours, which appeared evidence enough of the loss of his much-loved Joseph. Benjamin was now the consolation and hope of his old age, and the thought of parting from him made Jacob feel that the burden of this sorrow would weigh him down to the grave. How hard Jacob found it to reconcile the promise of God made to his fathers, Abraham and Isaac, with the providences which followed, and which he now was concluding were all against him. He was seeing the pattern from the underside, a mass, as it were, of tangled ends, and a confusion of strange colours. However, he had not seen ALL the pattern; he had not seen Joseph being cast into the pit, nor into the prison. He had not known his rise and progress in the house of Pharaoh, nor the purpose of God in setting him over the abounding store-houses in the land of Egypt. He did not now see that his parting from Benjamin was the only unforged link in the wonderful chain of providences, which was ultimately to re-unite him with his long-lost son.
It is beyond question that the pattern of God had another side; and though the aged saint could not fully understand, there was here given a glimpse, only a glimpse, of its glory, just a shadow of its beauty, an earnest of the greater glory yet to be unveiled. Little could sorrowing Jacob know that, in the humiliation and exaltation of his son Joseph, and the incidence of his beneficial office in Egypt, there was being fore-shadowed the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave to His sorrowing people this great promise, “I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also.” Little also, could sorrowing Jacob know that, as Joseph was making himself known to his brethren, the men who formerly would not have him rule over them, so, in the fulness of the time, this shadow would fade before the brightness of the day of grace, when the Lord Jesus Christ made Himself known to his brethren, with the seals of a broken body and blood that was shed. Jacob, then, did not experience the dark days he had laid up for himself, nor did he sink in sorrow to the grave. The Lord had intermingled the unfolding and fulfilling of His great promises with many clouds and shadows, but the promise was fulfilled. And, as with Jacob, so it is with the Lord’s people in every age, they pass through many dark hours before the bright dawn of the land of promise.
The people of God are seldom free from trouble in this world. They have sorrow on account of the sharpness of the inward warfare, which they wage day by day. They have sorrow because of the abounding sins found, alas, in the professing Church, as well as in the State. As we are wont to specially notice here, they have sorrow because of the departure of those whom they love in the bonds of the Gospel, to that Land where separation and sorrow shall never be known.
During the tragic years of the War now ended, a number were removed from the congregation of St. Jude’s, Glasgow, whose departure, one after another, was a source of grievous loss to the Lord’s people there. As we write, some of their names come before our minds; and, looking back, we ought to praise Him who, in High-priestly fashion, said, “Those that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.” We think of Mr. Donald Stewart, Miss Mary MacDonald of Overnewton, Miss Aggie Cameron, Mr. Duncan Young, Mrs. Moreland, Mr. Alexander Matheson, the Misses Morton, Mr. Norman Graham, Mr. James Skinner, Miss Mary Beaton, Miss Isabella McDonald, and Miss Jean Matthew.
We venture to say, in the words of the Apostle, “These all died in faith.” In the turmoil and unrest of a busy world, their walk and conversation was such, that it was evident their confidence reposed in Him, who rules supreme in heaven and earth. Their brightness of disposition was an encouragement to those who, in troublous times, might fear, as did the patriarch of whom we have already written. Their calm and clear discernment, in a dark and cloudy day, evidenced that holy fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom. They were steadfast in the Cause of Christ, esteeming the reproach of His blessed name of more value than the praises of the world. They were of those who love one another in the bonds of the everlasting Gospel, and we miss the sweetness of their fellowship, so much the more as in this day, from the gospel kingdom, the warmth of Christian friendship is becoming conspicuous by its absence. “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye love one to another.”
God is gathering in His golden grain, and it is ours to scan the almost barren fields. We cannot do so without a feeling of sorrow and anxiety. We are apt to recall, “Joseph is not, Simeon is not, and ye will take Benjamin away.” We commonly say that we see very few being raised up to take the places of those who, for the cross, have been given the crown, and who, we believe, are now with Christ, “which is far better.” It is truly a day of small things, but such a day, we are exhorted not to despise. We ought to bear in mind the wonder-working power of Jacob’s mighty God, and how, when the aged saint had thoughts of sinking in sorrow to the grave, his long-lost son was enjoying an exalted position in the land of Egypt, who was yet, not only to receive his father in person, but also his families and flocks, and on the authority of Pharaoh, they were to enjoy the fulness that characterised the land of Goshen.
May we be enabled to wait upon the Lord, with whom are the issues of life and death, that He would raise up a seed that would do Him service. “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt” (Amos ix. 13).—A. E. Alexander.
Schism.*
“The passages in which schism and its corresponding verb are found in Scripture, divide themselves into two classes—that in which the word is used literally, and that in which the word is used figuratively. It is used literally in such passages as the following:—Matthew xxvii. 51; Mark i. 10; Luke v. 36; and John xix. 24. The literal is, of course, the foundation of the figurative meaning; but from these and similar passages in which it is found, we can determine nothing in regard to schism, but that it refers to a rending of some kind or other.
The passages in which the term is employed figuratively, are either those which speak of parties who were not believers, or those which speak of parties who were professedly Christian. Of the former class we have John vii. 43; ix. 16; x. 19; Acts xiv. 4; xxiii. 7. These are the passages of the class to which they belong. The persons spoken of were united in ignorance or unbelief of the Gospel. The Gospel is preached to them, or some of its attesting miracles are wrought before them, and there follows a division or schism among them in regard to it. This will not inform us as to the nature of the sin of schism in the church. It is the very division or schism among men which the Gospel is designed to produce; and by producing which, it translates men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God. We must look, then, to the other class of passages, in which the word schism is employed figuratively, for information on the subject we are now wishing to understand. They are only three in number (I. Cor. i. 10-11); (I. Cor. xi. 18); and (I. Cor. xii. 24-25).
“What then were the divisions or schisms in the Church in Corinth? It is apparent at once that they did not consist in separation from the communion of the Church, and the formation of other churches or sects. In order to obtain a proper idea of what is meant by a breach or schism in this application we must form a just notion of that which constituted the union whereof schism was a violation. Now the great and powerful cement which united the souls of Christians was their mutual love. ‘Their hearts,’ is the emphatic language of Holy Writ, ‘were knit together in love’ (Col. ii. 2). This had been declared by their Master to be the distinguishing badge of their profession. ‘By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another’ (John xiii. 35). As this, therefore, is the great criterion of the Christian character, and the foundation of the Christian unity, whatever alienates the affections of Christians from one another, is manifestly subversive of both, and may, consequently, with the greatest truth and energy be denominated schism.
*The above extract is from an Introductory Essay to Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.
The first passage quoted (I. Cor. i. 10) seems at first sight to indicate such a breach of that visible unity in the outward order settled in their assembly as results from some jarring in their religious opinions. It is unquestionable that there cannot be Christian union or Christian love where there is not Christian truth in its essential or fundamental principles. But the Apostle in his letter to the Corinthians (chap. vii. 19), (viii. 8), allows the greatest latitude consistent with the faithful maintenance of these. (See also Rom. xiv. 4; Phil. iii. 15-16.) Besides, it is manifest that there was no breach in their external unity. When they came together the divisions or schisms took place (chap. xi. 18). The differences among them were in regard to certain chiefs or leaders under whom the people severally ranked themselves, and thus without making separate communions, formed distinctions among themselves to the manifest prejudice of the common bond of love. ‘Now, this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.’ What it was that gave rise to such distinctions in the Church of Corinth, we are not informed, nor is it material for us to know. From what follows in the epistle, it is not improbable that they might have thought it proper in this manner to range themselves under those who had been the instruments of their conversion to Christianity, or perhaps those by whom they had been baptised, or for whom they contracted a special veneration.
It is evident, however, that these petty differences, as we should account them, had already produced consequences unfriendly to the spirit of the Gospel, for it is in this point of view solely that the Apostle considers them, and not as having an immediate bad influence on its doctrine. Thus, resuming the subject, he says, ‘Ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul, and another I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal?’ (chap. iii. 3-4). Thus it is incontrovertible, in the first place, that the accusation imports that the Corinthians by their conduct had given a wound to love, and not that they had made any deviation from the faith; and, in the second place, that in the apostolical acceptance of the word, men may be schismatics, or guilty of schism, by such an alienation of affection from their brethren as violates the internal union subsisting in the hearts of Christians, though there be neither error in doctrine nor separation from communion, and, consequently, no violation of external unity in religious observances and worship.
Fifty years after the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians was written, dissensions again broke out in the Church in Corinth. Clement, Bishop or Pastor of the Church in Rome, wrote to them in the name of the Church in Rome, ‘a persuasive not an authoritative epistle,’ which is still extant, and in which he speaks of dissensions under the name of factions and schisms. It was not till centuries after, when the liberties of the Christian people were nearly annihilated, the right of private judgment taken away, and the power of the clergy raised into a spiritual despotism, that mere separation from a Christian assembly was accounted schism, ‘irrespective of its causes, and condemned as a heinous crime against God whose authority was said to be condemned when the arbitrary authority of those who claimed to be His sole ministers was not obeyed. The true idea of schism, however, has never been lost. ‘He is a schismatic,’ says a writer of the fourth century, whose doctrinal views were as remote from those of the Bible as the East is distant from the West, ‘who, holding the same opinions and practising the same rites with others, has pleasure only in the dissensions of the Church.’ ‘It is to be inquired,’ says a learned Romanist of the sixteenth century, Cassander, who laboured with more heart than judgment, to reconcile Popery and Protestantism, ‘how rightly and justly it is determined of Protestants that they are heretics and schismatics. For there is to be considered as to the Church, the head and the body. From the head there is no departure but by doctrine disagreeable to Christ the Head; from the body there is no departure by diversity of rites and opinions, but only by the defect of love.’ ‘Whatever violates Christian love,’ says John Howe, ‘is the most destructive, mortal schism; as much worse than an unwilling breach of outward order, as malicious tearing in pieces of a man’s living body, is worse than an accidental rending of his clothes.’
Having examined all the facts as we called them; all the Scriptural passages that bear on our subject we are now prepared to deduce and expound general principles, and these, so obvious are they, have necessarily been anticipated. The chief and most obvious of them is simply this, that there may be schism without separation. It was so, we have seen, in the Church in Corinth. Wherever uncharitable strifes and dissensions exist to break the internal unity of the faithful, or wherever there wants the spirit of love, there is already a schism in the body. Let a church fall into a state of internal dissension; there may be no controversy in regard to doctrine; there may be no separation from the body; but the bond of love is broken, we shall suppose—it matters not as to the cause—contention and ill-will prevail: that church is in a state of schism. Paul would have addressed it as he addressed the Corinthians, “I hear that there be schisms among you, and I believe it.” Every member in whom had died the spirit of love, and in whom dwelt the spirit of contention, must be accounted schismatic. Be the model of government Episcopalian, or Presbyterian, or Congregational, external unity may be unbroken, while schism reigns within. The case of a church will be still worse, if there is super-added to a breach of the bond of love, a difference in regard to ecclesiastical polity, or a difference in regard to fundamental doctrines, or if any of these differences be the occasion of a breach of the bond of love. In fact, if there be an essential difference in regard to doctrine, it renders Christian love impossible; it divides the body into two spiritually unconnected parts, Christian and non-Christian; and separation, instead of being a sin, will become a duty.
The Scriptural principle we are expounding, namely, that there may be schism where there is no breach of external unity, strikes at the root of every theory which, like the Roman, makes the unity of the church to depend on anything external. Every such theory partakes of the essentially un-Christian vice of attaching too much importance to what is outward. The apostolic method was to account everything of an outward or ritual character as subordinate to what was moral and spiritual (I. Cor. xiii. 1-3). Those who un-Christianise all who possess not the benefits of a supposed or real apostolic succession, account everything moral or spiritual as secondary to what is ritual. With Paul, a departure from essential truth incurred the highest displeasure; a breach of love was schism. With the patrons of a via media between Rome and Protestantism, essential error may be tolerated, and its poison become food through the virtues of a falsely so-called apostolical order; internal hatred and war may reign—there is no schism, till the bonds of that order are broken.
The converse of the principle we have been illustrating, is likewise true and obvious, that there may be separation without schism. Separation may be the result of the legitimate exercise of Church discipline: and the Church which excludes a party from its communion, for a Scriptural reason, and in a Christian spirit, is not guilty of schism in its act. With the party excluded the separation is of course involuntary; and, therefore, by whatever previous sins he may have exposed himself to such treatment, his separation, so far as he is concerned, possesses no moral character.
There is another situation in which voluntary separation may take place without schism:—a Church may have departed so far from the faith, or cherish within it such an admixture of un-Christian men, as to render voluntary separation an act of obedience to God. Is this doubted? Then, what means the Scripture, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what communion hath light with darkness?” (II. Cor. vi. 14). Or what means the direction given by Paul to the Thessalonians—“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us?” (II. Thes. iii. 6). Here the churches are commanded to exclude the “disorderly,” those who lived in disobedience to the Saviour’s laws, and to do it not in wrath but in love, still to account the excluded as brethren, and to admonish them as such for their restoration. But if the influence of the disorderly themselves so preponderate, or if the views of duty in regard to the matter on the part of the orderly be so defective, that this command is not obeyed, how are those to act who know the will of Christ and are desirous to do it? The Bible is ready with its answer:—“Come out from among them, and be separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” (II. Cor. vi. 17-18). “Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not her plagues” (Rev. xviii. 4). Will it be schism to obey these precepts? If it will, our Lord has commanded us to commit it. But no, we break no bond of love in thus acting. We come out from those whom we do not love as brethren, because we do not esteem them as such; and if we leave Christian brethren behind us, we need not cease to love them, because we cease to join with them in what we account wrong. Luther, when hurling his bolts at the corruptions of Rome, shrunk with a still superstitious sensitiveness from leaving the Roman communion. John Knox, on the contrary, judged that the Reformation was in constant peril of absorption into the body of anti-Christ, while the reformed associated with the worshippers of Rome, and wisely hastened the formation of a new and separate communion. Were the fears of Luther enlightened? The short-sighted haste of Leo X., and the guidance of Providence soon overcame them. Was Knox guilty of schism when he came out of the fellowship of a community with which he had already ceased to have any spiritual sympathy or any spiritual connection? Speak not of the beauty of the seamless garment of the Saviour, nor tell us of the presumption of tearing it; it was already so defiled by Rome, that the Saviour Himself would loathe and disown it.”
Knox’s Second Conference with Queen Mary.
THE Queen returned to Edinburgh. Then dancing began to grow hot. The Queen danced excessively till after midnight, because she was advertised from France, that persecution was renewed, and her uncles were begunne to trouble the whole realme. Mr. Knox, teaching upon these words of the second Psalme, “And now, understand, O ye kings,” etc., taxed the ignorance and vanitie of princes, and their despite all these in whom appeared hatred of vice, and love of virtue. Mr. Alexander Cockborne, his own scholler, was sent by the Queen to bring him down. The Queen had a long harangue to him upon the heads of his accusatione: That he had spoken unreverently of the Queen; and had troubled to bring her in contempt and hatred of the people. He answered, “Madame, this is oft the just recompense God giveth to the stubborne, that because they will not heare God speaking to the comfort of the penitent, and for the amendement of the wicked, they are oft compelled to heare the false report of others, to their greater displeasure. I doubt not but it came to the ears of Herod, that our Master, Christ, called him a foxe; but they told him not how odious a thing it was before God to murther an innocent. Madame, if the reporters had been honest men, they would have reported my words with all the circumstances. But because they want virtue worthie of credite in court, they must have somewhat wherewith to pleasure your Majestie, if it were but with flattery and lees. Madame, if your own ears had heard; if there be in you anie sparke of the feare of God, of honestie, and wisdom yee could not justlie have beene offended. After that I had declared the dignitie of kings, and rulers, the honour wherein God hath placed them, the obedience which is due to them, being God’s lieutenants, I demanded this question: “But what accompt, alas! shall be most part of princes make before the supreme Head and Judge, whose throne of authoritie so manifestlie and shameleslie they abuse, so that violence and oppression doe occupie the throne of God heere on this earth? For while murtherers, blood-thirstie men, oppressors and malefactors, darre be bold to present themselves before kings and princes, and the poor sancts of God are banished, whot sall we say, but the devill has taken possession of the throne of God, which ought to be fearful to all wicked doers, and a refuge to the innocent oppressed? How can it otherwise be? for princes will not understand, they will not be learned as God commandeth; but God’s law they despise, His statuts and holie ordinances they will not understand. They are more exercised in fiddling, and flinging, than in reading and hearing of God’s most blessed Word. Fiddlers and flatterers, which commounlie corrupt youth, are more pretious in their eyes than men of wisdom and gravitie, who by wholesome admonition can beate down some part of that vanitie, and pride wherein all are borne, but in princes taketh deepe roote and strength, by wicked education.” Of dancing, Madame, I said, that albeit I found no commendation of it in the Scriptures, and that in profane writers it is termed the pasture rather of these that are mad and phrenetick than of sober men.
Yitt doe I not utterlie condemn it, providing, first, that the cheefe calling of these that use that exercise be not neglected for pleasure of dancing; nixt, that dance not as the Philistins their father did for the pleasure they take in the displeasure of God’s people. If anie of these two be done, they sall receive the reward of dancers, that is, hell, unlesse they repent. So sall their mirth be turned in suddane sorrow, for God will not alwayes afflict His people, neither yitt will He alwayes winke at the tyranny of tyranns. If anie, Madame, will say that I spake any more, let him presentlie accuse me.” Manie that stood by bare witness that he (Knox) recited the verie words. The Queen, after she had looked about to some of the reporters, said to him, “Your words are sharpe enough, as yee have spoken them; but they were told me after another manner. I know that my uncles and you are not of one religion, and therefore I cannot blame you to have no good opinion of them. But if yee heare anie of myself that mislyketh you, come and tell myself, and I sall heare you.” “Madame,” said he, “I am assured your uncles are enemies to God, and His Son, Christ, and that for maintenance of their own pompe and glory they spaire not to spill the blood of manie innocents. As to your own person, Madame, I could be glade to doe all that I could to your Grace’s contentment. I am called, Madame, to a publick function in the Kirk of God, and am appointed by God to rebooke the sinnes and vices of all persons. I am not appointed to come to every one in particular, for the labour were infinite. If it please your Grace to frequent the sermons, then sould yee fully understand that I like or mislyke, als weill in your Majestie as in all others. Or if your Grace will assigne to me a certaine day and houre, to heare the forme and substance of doctrine which is preached in publick, I will most gladly await your Grace’s pleasure, time, and place. But to come to wait upon your chamber door, or elles where, and then to have no further libertie but to whisper in your Grace’s eare, or to tell you what other thinke or speeke of you, neither will my conscience, nor the vocation whereunto God hath called me suffer it. For albeit I be heere now at your Grace’s commandment, yitt can I not tell what other men will judge of me, that at this time of day am frome my booke, and waiting upon court.” “Ye will alwayses,” said she, “be at your book,” and so turned her backe. Mr. Knox departed with a reasonable merrie countenance. Some Papists being offended, said, “He is not affrayed.” He hearing, answered, “Why could the pleasant face of a gentlewoman make me affrayed? I have looked in the faces of many angrie men, and yitt have not been affrayed out of measure.”—Calderwood’s History, Vol. II.
KNOX DECLAMETH AGAINST LETHINGTON.
“The flatters of the court daily reproaches the ministers: happy was he who could invent the bitterest taunt to distain their character. At length they began to jest at the term idolatry, affirming that men knew not what they mean when they call the Mass idolatry. Mr. Knox directing his complaint in public to God, uttered these words:—”O Lord, how long shall the wicked prevail against the just? and thy blessed Gospel, to be despised by men—by men, I say, who will boast themselves defenders of the truth? We complain not of thy manifest and open enemies, but of such as to whom thou hath revealed thy light; for now it is come to our ears, that chief professors will defend the Mass to be no idolatry. If so were, O Lord, miserable have I been deceived, and miserable have I deceived thy people, which thou, O Lord, knowest I have ever abhorred more than a thousand death.” But, said he, turning his face to the speakers, “If I be not able to prove the mass to be the most abominable idolatry that ever was since the beginning of the world, I offer to suffer the punishment appointed by God for a false teacher. And it appears to me,” said he, “that the affirmer should be subject to the same law, for it is the truth of God which you persecute and blaspheme; the invention of the devil, which, obstinately, against His Word you maintain: whereat, albeit you now flirt and flyre, as though all that were spoken were but wind, yet I am assured, as I am assured God liveth, that some that hear of this defection, and rayling against the truth and servants of God, shall see God’s judgments poured forth upon this realm, specially upon you, who cleave fast to the favour of the court, for the abominations maintained by you.”—Calderwood’s History, Vol. II.
Co-eigneachadh Soisgeulach.
LEIS AN URRAMACH TOMAS BOSTON.
“Co-eignich iad gu teachd a steach.”—LUCAS xiv., 23.
AGUS nach sona iadsan a ta steach? Am bheil bhur carraig mar an carraig-san, O pheacacha? Thugaibh fein breith, agus c’uime nach tig sibhse steach mar an ceudna. Cha’n eil tigh Chriosd fathasd air a lionadh. Thainig moran a stigh, ach “gidheadh tha ait falamh ann fathast” airson tuille, rann 22. Agus tha sinne air ar cuir amach gu “ur co-eigneachadh gu teachd a steach.” Tha sin air a sparradh oirnn ‘nar bonn-teagaig.
Se brigh a chosamhlachd so (ata ciallachadh an aon ni ris a chuirm phosaidh ata ann an soisgeul Mhata. xxii) a bhi nochdadh cuir air chul nan Iudhach airson an diultadh air Criosd, agus gairm nan Cinneach nan aite. Si ‘n t-shuipheir chum am bheil iad air an cuireadh ‘an so, Iosa Criosd, le uile shoichairean tearnaidh: is esan maraon fear deasachaidh, agus brigh na suipeir so. Ann am maduinn uinne, ann an linnibh na’n aithrichibh, bha daoine air an cuireadh chum na feisde so; oir eadhon aig an am sin, cha robh an saoghal a dh’easbhuidh luchd searmonachaidh fireantachd, II. Pead. ii. 5. Anns a mheadhon-latha, fo’n lagh, bha daoine air an cuireadh chum na feisde so, le faidhean, sagairt, agus Lebhitich. Agus anis anns an fheasgar, anns na amanaibh deirannach, amana an t-soisgeul, tha iad air an gairm da h-ionnsuidh mar gu suipeir; air da frithealadh an t-soisgeul, a bhi frithealadh deirannach grais do’n t-saoghal. Fhuair na Iudhaich a cheud taigse, ach cha tigeadh iad; ghabh iad an leith-sgeulan, mar a leughas sibh aig roinn 17, 18, 19, 20, de na chaibdeil so, Tha na Cinnich a faighail an ath thairgse; tha ‘n seirbhiseach air a chuir amach gu sraidibh agus gu caol-shraidibh a bhaile: tha ministeirean Chriosd a’ searmonachadh an t-soisgeul do na Cinnich bhochd, agus tha iad a gabhail ris. Ach cha ‘n eil na h-uile teachd a stigh comhlath: uime sin tha ‘n seirbhiseach air a chuir a mach “gus na rathaidibh mora, agus na garachaibh” far am agus feumaidh eadhon iad so, a bhi air an co-eigneachadh gu teachd a steach. Feudaidh e bhith, gu’n robh suil aig cuir amach an t-seirbhiseach da uair, ri rathad an Tighearna ann am frithealadh an t-soisgeul do’n t-saoghal Gheinteileach; air da’n t-soisgeul air tus a bhi air a shearmonachadh do na mheud dhíu sa chuir cul ri iodhol-aoraiddh an ducha, ‘sa rinn aoradh do’n fhiar Dhia; agus a chruinnich euid a dh-uairean maille ris na Iudhaich na’n sionagogaibh gu eolas De fhoghlum uatha, ged nach da ghabh iad ri pairt dheas-ghnathach do crabhadh nan Iudhaich: dh’fheudadh iad so gu cothromach a bhi air an cumail a mach mar “na daoine ciurramach, na bacaich, agus na doill” nan suidhe ann an sraidibh agus caol-shraidibh a bhaile. Ach na dheigh sin bha ‘n soisgeul air a thoirt chum nan oisnibh bu ro-dhuirche de ‘n talamh, far nach robh suim aon chuid air crabhadh Iudhaich na Cinneach, ach a bha uile air dol fodha, anns an iodhol-aoraiddh agus anns an aineolas bu ro-ghraineil; ni a dh’ fheudadh gu cothromach a bhi air a chumail a mach mar ‘na rathaidibh mora, agus na garachaimh. Faic Gniomh x. agus xiii. 42, 46, 49.
Tha againn anns a bhonn teagasg tri nithe. (1) A chrioch mhor a bhuineadh do mhinistearean a bhi aca fa chomhair an suil, ann an searmonachadh an t-soisgeul; agus is e sin, peacaich a thoirt a steach gu Criosd. Cha ‘n ann a mhain ga ‘n tarruing gu pairtidh, ach ga’n tarruing gu Criosd. Cha ‘n e mhain a bhi toirt orra a bhi ag atharrachadh an oibre na’n seirbheis, air dhoibh bhi fathast a fantuinn a muigh le bhi searmonachadh modhalachd a mhain dhoibh; ach is e a bhi toirt orra am maighstir atharrachadh mar an ceudna, le bhi ga’n faighail gu Criosd tre chreidimh. (2) Feumaidh ministearean an deagh aire a thoirt co ris a ta aca ri dheanamh gu’n toirt a steach; eadhon iadsan a ta na’n suidhe anns na rathaidibh mora agus anns na garachaibh, mar dheireich ann am broineagan agus fo chreuchdan, a chuid is neo-airidh agus is graineil do pheacaich. (3) An doigh a dh-fheumas iad a chleachdadh chum am faotainn a steach; “Co-eignich iad gu teachd a steach.” Cha ‘n ann le bhi deanamh ainneart air an cuirp. Chuir Criosd claidheamh an Spioraid ann an laimh-a ministearean, ach cha do chuir e claidheamh tiomail nan laimh. Feudaidh geur-leamhluinn le luchd airm, le pianadh, le croich, agus claidheamh, a bhi na meadhanaibh chum daoine iomain a stigh gus an ana-criosd, ach cha toir sin gu brath a stigh gu Criosd iad. Is co-eigneachadh modhail a ta againn sa bhonn-teagaig; a leithid ‘sa tha muinntir a cleachdadh ata cuireadh sluagh gu cuirm, cha ‘n ann gan slaodadh a stigh le spairn, ach ga’n cuireadh le caoimhneas agus dian-iarrtus gus am faigh iad an aonta. ‘S ann mar sin bu choir do mhinistearn peacaich a cho-eigneachadh gu teachd gu Criosd, a’ buintinn riù gu teo-chridheach agus da rireamh, chum is gu faiceadh peacaich gu ‘m bheil ministearn ro-dhurachdach air ghnothuch a’ Maighstir. Feumaidh sinn cuiridhean agus taigsean caoimhneil an t-soisgeul, a thoirt dhoibh air an aon laimh, agus “uamhas an Tighearna,” air an laimh eile, air chor ‘s ma theid daoinn chum ifrinn, gu ‘n teid iad an sin le fianuis na’m broilleach. Fadheoidh, tha lan eifeachd an Spioraid Naoimh air a thoirt fainear an so, a ta co-chuideachadh an fhocail, gu dheanamh eifeachdach chum iompachaidh an taghaidh; nach eil a deanamh spairn orra, ach gu caoimhneil ga’ n-eigneachadh gu teachd a steach.
TEASG.—
Is i obair mhor mhinistearain, peacaich a cho-eigneachadh ann an doigh soisgeulach gu theachd a stigh gu Criosd.
‘Se ‘n doigh is fearr ann ‘s an urrainn dhomh am bonnteagaig so a laimhseachadh, mo shuil a chumail air a’ ni sin a ta air a sparradh ann. Agus chum na criche sin, bheir mi fainear ciod a ta air fhilleadh ann. Ann’s
I. Tha peacaich do thaobh naduir a mach.
Mar biodh iad mar sin cha bhiodh feum airson an co-eigneachadh gu teachd a steach. Eisdibh sibhse uile a ta ‘n diugh a mach a Criosd, co as a ta sibh a mach, agus c’aite am bheil sibh.
Air tus, A pheacacha, am bheil fhios agaibh co as a ta sibh a mach?
(1.) Sibhse uile a ta mach a Criosd, tha sibh amach a teaghlach Dhe—Eph. ii. 18, 19. Is e teaghlach Dhia, teaghlach a chreidimh; cha buin sibhse dhi. Feudaidh a thigh a bhi na thigh falamh air bhur sonsa. Theich Adhamh ‘sa shliochd uile maille ris, amach as an tigh; agus cha sibhse an sin fathast far an d-fhag Adhamh sibh. Agus nach dubhach an cor sin, a bhi ‘mach a teaghlach Dhia? Ged tha sibh ann an tigh ar mathair, cha chomasach dhuibh athair a ghairm dheth-san, do bhrigh nach eil sibh ann an Criosd a Mhac! cha’n urradh sibh cuibhrionn na oighreachd na cloinne a thagar—Gal. iv. 30. (2.) Tha sibh a mach o co-cheangal sith Dhe, agus mar sin gun dochas slainte, am feadh’sa ta sibh anns an staid sin—Eph. ii. 12. Tha sibh a leughadh mu charabad glormhor, ann an Dan. Shol. iii. 9, 10. Is e sin cumhnant gras, cumhnant sith, mar air a chumail a mach anns an t-soisgeul shiorruidh; oir is e sin “focal na firinn, na macantachd, agus na fireantachd,” air am bheil Criosd a marcachd agus a toirt buaidh. B’e cumhnant nan gnionmh an carabad anns robh Adhamh agus a shliochd gu bhi air an giulan do neamh: b’ann aig Adhamh a bha stiuireadh a charabad so, ach cha b’fhada mharcaich e, nuair a bhriseadh an carabad na bhloighdean. Nis a ta carabad nuadh air a dheanamh anns a bheil Criosd a’ giulan a shluagh uile gu gloir; ach tha sibhse a mach as. B’e Righ Solamh, an t-Eadar-Mheadhonair Criosd a rinn e; cha robh neach eile comasach air a dheanamh ach esan. Rinn se e air a shon fein, gu bhi foillseachadh a ghloir fein, agus anabarra saoibhreas a ghrais leis; agus “airson nigheanaibh Ierusalem,” chum a cheile ghiulan dachaidh ann gu tigh Athair. Rinn se e do “fhiodh maircnamh Lebanon,” oir is aill leis an carabad a bhi na chumhnant siorruidh nach teid a chaoichd a bhriseadh. Tha aig a charabad so “puist do airgiod” na geallanna oirdheire sin a ta co sonruichte do chumnant grais, mar tha gealladh maitheanais, buan-mhaireannachd sa leithid sin, oir ta e “air a dhaingneachadh air geallanna ni’s fearr.” Agus do bhrigh nach eudthrom beag a ta anns a charabad so nuair ata peacach ann, rinn e “iochdar do or” daingean agus laidir, air chor ‘s nach tuit neach ata ann gu brath troimh, ged bu truime iad na beanntaibh luaidh; “Oir a ta bunait Dhe a’ seasamh daingean, aig am bheil an seula so, Is aithne do’n Tighearn an dream as leis”—Tim. ii. 19. Tha iad air an ‘deanamh tearuinte le ordugh siorruidh taghaidh Dhe. Cha tuit doiniomn feirg gu brath orra-san a ta sa charabad so, air a ta comhdach air do fhuil cro-dhearg Iosa Criosd. “Tha a mheadhon, an taobh a stigh dheth air a chomhdach le gradh”: tha gradh a linigeadh a charabaid; tha e os an cionn, air gach taobh dhiu; seadh tha e fodhpa, air chor is ged thuiteadh iad ann, nach fhaigh iad leithid do thuiteam craiteach, is nach comasach dhoibh eirigh a ris. Is sona iadsan a ta ann, ach, mo thruaigh a pheacacha tha sibhse a mach as. Tha sibh ‘nur luidhe far do leig a cheud charabad sibh nuair a bhris e. (3) Tha sibh a mach o fhabhor Dhe, air dhuibh a bhi mach a’ Criosd: nis tha sin namhasach, “oir a ta ar Dia-ne na theine dian-loisgeach,” agus cha ‘n eil fasgaidh a fheirg Dhe, ach a bhi fo’ chomhdach fuil an Eadar-mheadhonair—Eph. ii. 13. Tha ‘n aingal sgriosaidh a’ teachd seachad, ach cha’n eil fuil crathta air ursanaibh bhur dorsa. Tha Dia ann an Criosd a reiteachadh an t-saoghail ris fein; mar tig sibhse a stigh, agus a choineachadh ‘an sin, ciod ris am bi duil agaibh ach gu’n coinnich e sibh mar mhath-ghamhuinn o’n do bhunadh a cuileanan, gu’n reub e sgairt ‘ur cridhe, agus gu’n sluig e sibh mar leomhan—Hos. xiii. 8. Ciod am feum a ni ‘ur dleasdanais dhuibh, am feadh ata sibh mach a’ Criosd? an urrainn iad fabhor Dhe a chosnadh dhuibh? Cha teid bhur deoir a chaoidh ‘na shearraig, ni mo thig ‘ur uirnigh gu brath gu chluasan—Eoin xiv. 6.
San dara aite.—Am bheil fhios agaibh, a pheacacha, c’aite am bheil sibh?
Innisidh mi dhuibh c’aite. (1) Tha sibh air cluaintean an diabhuil, air beanntaibh an diomhainis, mu fhaill nan leomhainn, agus air beanntaibh nan leopaird, far am bheil Satan a’g iomain a threud. Tha sibh a mach a’ tigh Dhe, air seacharan fuadain a’ gleidheadh arain, a’g iarraidh deirce aig dorus an t-saoghail, ag radh, C’aite am bheil e? Cha’n aithne dhuibh Criosd aran na beatha; agus uime sin tha aolach taitneasan, agus buannachdan saoghalta co luachmhor ann ‘ur suilibh. Ach innis dhomh, a pheacaich, am bheil thu uair sam bith sasuchadh? “Bu mhiann leat do bhru a lionadh le plaosgaibh” an t-saoghail, ach am bheil iad da rireamh ga d’ shasuchadh? Nach eil a bhrigh air fhasgadh as na nithe sin, air chor is gu’m bheil thu ga’m faotainn na’m plaosgan falamh? Ann a d’ uile shiubhal air beanntaibh an diomhainis, an tainig thu riabh chum an aite sin mu’m b’urrainn thu radh—agus a dhearbhadh —se so mo shuaimhneas, agus an so gabhaidh mi tamh? Cha tainig ‘s cha tig gu brath, ach an tig thu gu Criosd.—Isa. iv. 2. (2) Tha sibh ann an ifrinn air thalamh. Is e bhi ann an ifrinn, a bhi an taobh a muigh.—Taisb. xxii. 15; agus cha tainig sibhse a stigh, tha sibh air ‘ur diteadh a cheana—Eoin. iii. 18,—ceangailte anns a phriosan—Isa. lxi. 1. Ciod an t-eadar-dhealachadh a ta eadar sibhse, agus iadsan a ta ann an ifrinn. Tha sibh araon ‘nur priosanaich; amhain gu bheil sibhse sa phriosan a muigh, ach iadsan ‘sa phriosan a’s faide stigh. Tha sibh maraon air falbh o Chriosd; amhain so, tha sibhse falbh uaith le’r deoin, ach is eigin dhoibhsan imeachd uath. Tha teine feirg Dhe, air a chuir ‘nur co-choguis araon, amhain cha’n eil e air a sheideadh suas na lasair, le anail an Tighearna mar shruth pronnusg ga lasadh annaibh-sa mar a ta e annta-san; ach cha’n eil fhios agaibh ciod cho luath ‘sa dh’fheudas e bhi mar sin. Ach fathast tha eadar-dhealachadh eile ann; tha iadsan nam priosanaich gun dochas; tha sibhse ‘nur priosanaich an dochais. Uime sin theid mi air aghaidh gu puing eile.
II.—Is e gnothuch mhor cairdean an Fhir-nuadh-phosda iadsan a ta muigh, a thoirt a stigh.
Fheara, sibhse a ta muigh, tha sibh far nach bu choir dhuibh a bhi; tha sibh air talamh toirmisgte. B’aill leinn sibh a bhi stigh, b’aill leinn bhur toirt gu Criosd, gu sibh aonadh ris, le creidsinn ann, is gabhail ris na h-uile oifigean.
Sa cheud aite,—Tha sinn ag’ innseadh dhuibh, gur e ar Tighearna amhain a ta air a sgeadachadh le ard ughdarras agus barrantas, gu bhi am Faidh, an Searmonaich, agus am Fear-teagaig mor, a sheoladh na slighe gu tir Immanuel.—Gniomh iii. 22, 23.
Chuir e suas a thigh-foghlum ‘nar measg-ne, ach cha’n eil aig ach beagan fhoghlumaich; agus thainig sinne chum ‘ur co-eigneachadh gu teachd a stigh, gus am bi a thigh air a lionadh. Tha moran dheisciobul aig Satan; tha moran fhoghlumaich aig gliocas feolmhor; mo thruaigh gu’m bheil! O fagaibh iad. Is e ar Tighearn a mhain, an Treoraiche mor, air a thoirt leis an Athair, gus a Chanain neamhaidh.—Isa. lv. 4. Cha tainig, ‘s cha tig, neach riabh an sin, ach a luchd leanmhuinn-sa; thigibh a stigh uime sin, thugaibh sibh fein suas dha, gu bhi air ‘ur treorachadh leis. B’aill leibh uile a bhi sona; b’aill leibh uile a dhol do neamh fa-dheireadh; ach tha sibh uile air seacharan ann am fasach gu’n slighe; agus gu cinnteach caillidh sibh, sibh fein, mar gabh sibh esan mar ‘ur Treoraiche. Tha’n t-slighe gu gloir na slighe dheacair, agus cha’n eil sibhse eolach uimpe, seadh, is luchd turuis dall sibh, ata an cunnart na h-uile tiota tuiteam thar craig-eigin. O! an gabh sibh fear-iuil? Tha sibh anis, mar gu’m b-ann ‘nur seasamh, far am bheil da shlighe a’ coinneachadh, gu’n fhios agaibh co-aca a ghabhas sibh. Tha ‘ur gliocas fein, ata na h-aimideas, a’ comharrachadh amach slighe fharsuing reidh, ag radh “Ge b’e neach a ta baoghalta thigeadh e stigh an so.”—Gnath. ix. 16. Ach na rachaibh a stigh an sin, oir “tha na mairbh an sin, agus ata a h-aoidhean ann an doimh-neachdaibh ifrinn,” rann 18. Tha gliocas an athair, ar Tighearn Criosd, ag comharrachadh amach slighe chumhaann dhuibh, ach tha i treorachadh chum beatha; agus tha e’n diugh ag-radh ribh, “Ge b’e neach a ta baoghalta thigeadh e an stigh an so,” rann 4. Thigibh a stigh uime sin, a’ cuir cul ri’r gliocas fein, thugaibh sibh fein dhasan, gu bhi air ur treorachadh, agus air stiuireadh leis, “Eisdibh agus mairidh ur n-anam beo.”
(Ri leantuin.)
London F.P. Communion Services.
Communion Services.—Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Eccleston Street, Buckingham Palace Road, London, S.W.1.
In connection with the dispensation of the Lord’s Supper on Sabbath, 21st April, the following Services have been arranged (D.V.) to be conducted by the Rev. D. M. MacDonald, Portree and the Rev. D. Campbell, Raasay:—Thursday, 18th April, 7 p.m.; Friday, 19th April, 3.30 p.m. (Gaelic), 7 p.m. (Fellowship Meeting); Saturday, 20th April, 3.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m.; Sabbath, 21st April, 11 a.m., 3.45 p.m. (Gaelic) and 7 p.m.; Monday, 22nd April, 3.30 p.m. (Gaelic) and 7 p.m.
Services are held every Sabbath at 11 a.m., 3.45 p.m. (Gaelic) and 7 p.m. Weekly Prayer-meeting, Wednesday, 7 p.m.
Gleanings by the Way.
The late Rev. Neil Cameron, in his declining years, was at a communion in the West Highlands on one occasion. While there he met a sympathetic old man and he advised him strongly not to do too much preaching as it was too much for a man of his years. They were passing beside one of the old man’s fields when this conversation was going on. At the side of the field Mr. Cameron noticed a plough. He asked the old man which was better for the plough, to be working with it or to be standing idle as it was now. The old man exclaimed, “The rust, the rust!” “Well,” said Mr. Cameron, “that is the way with me, the rust is worse for me than any fatigue from my labours in the Lord’s vineyard.” Some don’t mind the rust.—A. B.
Getting Sweeter and Sweeter.—The late Rev. D. Macfarlane, Dingwall, in a discourse in referring to the Cup given by the Father, remarked that it was getting more and more bitter until Christ drained the dregs. When the Saviour gave the Cup of Salvation it was getting sweeter and sweeter until they shall drink it in all its sweetness in heaven for ever. On another occasion he said: “As the morning of the resurrection dawns Christ will say to his people what a mother says to her children: ‘Children! It is time to rise, the Day is dawning’—the Day that will know no night throughout eternity.”—D. B.
Restraining Grace.—Rev. N. Cameron, on one occasion, returning thanks at food happened to mention “restraining grace.” He hesitated for a second and then solemnly said: “Wonderful though that grace be there is a day coming when it will be withdrawn and the sinner will be seen as he is.”
The late Mr. Murdo MacAskill, Glendale.
It is with sincere regret that we record the passing away of another of our elders in the person of Mr. Murdo MacAskill, Glendale, who was well known to many of our people. Mr. MacAskill, who had reached two years over the allotted span, was born at Kyles Scalpay, Harris, and was the son of Peter MacAskill, for many years an elder in our congregation there. A notice of Peter MacAskill appears in the Free Presbyterian Magazine for June, 1906, and is there described as “perhaps one of the most wonderful trophies of grace in the present age.” It is said of him that in speaking in public he “seldom concluded without strongly appealing to the careless, and especially to the young, to seek and make sure for eternity.” Thus we see that Murdo MacAskill had a privilege which few in our dark age have, for we may be sure that in his home he was well instructed in the Word of God, but our friend, though outwardly orderly, grew up like the rest of Adam’s race without God and without hope in the world until God’s appointed time.
After leaving school he served in a shop in Stornoway for some time, and then went out to the Falkland Islands, where he continued for a number of years giving faithful service to his employer. A notable proof of the confidence which his employer placed in him is afforded in the fact that, after coming back to this country, that employer often approached him to recommend to him young men to go out there as shepherds. Over forty years ago he came to Glendale and set up a general merchant’s business, and shortly afterwards married Miss Alexandrina Macfarlane, who proved a true help-meet to him till death removed her, less than two years before himself. This was a blow from which he never recovered.
We are not in a position to say when, or by what means the Holy Spirit brought him from a state of nature to a state of grace, as he was regular in his attendance on the public means from the time he came to Glendale, and he himself was very reticent to speak of his experiences, but that he was savingly changed no one who knew him intimately could question. He became a member in full communion in 1909 and was elected a deacon in 1911, and ordained an elder in 1921. Such was the confidence which the elders in the congregation reposed in him that he was employed to conduct the services in Glendale, during a protracted vacancy, and long before he was an elder himself. Being possessed of a ready gift of speech, and an accurate and extensive knowledge of the Word of God, he was a very acceptable speaker. In 1934 he was appointed by the Church as missionary for Waternish and Glendale, and he served both parts of the congregation diligently and faithfully, and at times in very poor health.
The writer, who had the privilege of knowing him intimately, could see that he was not a stranger to the temptations of Satan, but could say with the Apostle, “We are not ignorant of his devices.” Often we have known him being cast down for days, and not inclined to converse on any subject, and on account of how reticent he was to speak of his trials it was difficult to say anything by way of giving encouragement. Sometimes, when in that condition, a passage from the Scriptures quoted to him would cause him to brighten up, and if in that way his bonds were loosed his conversation would become very edifying. We think, however, it was in prayer that he excelled. At times, when called upon in the prayer-meeting, it would be noticed that he was in bondage, and one felt that he was struggling with something which he was finding impossible to get rid of, but when liberty came, whatever weariness the first part of the prayer might occasion was soon forgotten.
His heart was in the Cause of Christ, and he had an open door for the Lord’s people. This was to be seen at communion seasons, when he and his like-minded partner would have the house literally full, and strangers coming from a distance and returning after the evening service would be sure of a hearty invitation to partake of their hospitality between the services. Those who accepted of these invitations have pleasant memories of the kindness which they received.
Though he never got over his wife’s death, which was rather sudden, it was in July, 1944, that alarming symptoms began to appear. Previous to this he went to Edinburgh for medical advice but his condition was not considered serious. After returning from Edinburgh he began to suffer severe pains which continued with little or no relief to the end. In January, 1945, he was removed to the Northern Infirmary, Inverness, in the hope that something could be done for him, but it was not to be. His time had come, and we believe that he was prepared. On account of the severe pain, he was not able to converse much during his last illness, but it was noticed that he was continually in prayer, showing clearly that his affections were not on this world. Often, when oblivious to everything around him, he was heard repeating, “Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places.” He passed away from this world of sorrow on 21st February, 1945, and the following Saturday all that was mortal of him was laid in the Glendale grave-yard to await the trump of arch-angel. The large concourse of people who gathered to his funeral from many parts of Skye showed the esteem in which he was held.
We would express our deepest sympathy with each member of his family, with his sisters and only surviving brother, and would pray that they would know Christ as their own personal Saviour.—J.C.
The late Mr. Donald Macrae, Elder, Inverness.
By Mr. F. BEATON.
THE late Donald Macrae was a Christian indeed. Of a happy and courteous disposition, which won him a welcome wherever he went, he had a deep experimental knowledge of the doctrines of grace, and ever stood firm as a rock on the side of truth in the time of trial.
He was born at Aultgrishan, Gairloch, on the 7th August, 1862, being the son of John Macrae, and his wife, Mary Macdonald. His mother was noted for her godliness, and he was highly privileged in having a place in her prayers, seeing her example, and receiving her instruction. To her he was very strongly attached.
He left home at an early age, and engaged in farm-work at Humberston, Dingwall. He was a hearer of Dr. Kennedy, but had not then the understanding heart. While still under the age of twenty years, he went to Strathdearn, where he worked as a ploughman on several farms. During this period he sat under, and greatly profited by, the ministry of the late Rev. D. Macfarlane, for whom he had a life-long regard. While engaged at his lawful calling there, he came under conviction of sin, and also experienced the liberty wherewith Christ makes sinners free. He and another ploughman were ploughing on the farm of Invererne, when these words were spoken with power into his heart: “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left” Luke xvii. 36. Instantly his bands were untied—light and liberty entered his soul, and he rejoiced in the Lord and in his salvation. The solemn distinction made in the foregoing scripture between the case of the two men induced Donald to follow carefully his companion’s career, but to the day of his death, his companion gave no indication of concern for his soul’s salvation.
Donald had many precious and pithy notes to tell of Rev. D. Macfarlane’s preaching of this period, and of how beneficial it proved to himself. Again and again as he listened, his difficulties were described and removed. On one such occasion when quite singular points in his case were most minutely dealt with so that he could not doubt but that the application was to himself, the preacher concluded by saying: “If you will come before the Session we shall receive you into the fellowship,”—but he failed to go forward,—to his loss.
He entered at this period upon apprenticeship as gardener at Moyhall. The head-gardener, Mr. Rhind, was a godly man who held prayer-meetings. Donald enjoyed and profited by his fellowship. When he died his ungodly son was appointed to his post. He would have Donald do what was not work of necessity on Sabbath. Donald refused and gave up his employment rather than transgress the fourth commandment. He went to Edinburgh and thence to the Vice-regal Lodge gardens in Dublin. There he visited many churches and heard another gospel, not the gospel of Christ. At last he heard in a Baptist Church, “the joyful sound.” He would however, have the matter settled by the Great Shepherd of the sheep, who says, “Prove me.” This he would reverently do. So he prayed that if the minister was one of Christ’s own messengers sent forth to feed the flock, He would condescend to guide the minister to come to speak to, and shake hands with him next Sabbath. On Sabbath Donald was on the watch-tower to see how the Lord would deal with him. He went early to Church and sat in the back seat. That day, the minister, too, arrived early. He did not enter the vestry as usual but came to the main door, entered, went direct to Donald, spoke kindly to him and warmly shook hands with him. Thus the requested token was given.
After a time Donald’s health broke down and he came home. Next he went to an Inverness nursery. It was now 1893. When in that year Rev. D. Macfarlane separated himself by protest, tabled at the Assembly, from the Declaratory Act Free Church on account of its casting out the doctrine of God’s sovereign choice of sinners in Christ, to salvation, before the world began, as revealed in the Scriptures and contained in the Confession of Faith—a casting out which, at that time, was reaffirmed with the express declaration that it bound the whole Church—he, too, separated and joined those who then set about organising the Free Presbyterian Church.
That same year he got employment at Linlithgow. In 1894 he married and a few months later went to Falkirk but found no gospel there. “The Canaanite was then in the land.” He now came north to Aultnaharra of Fearn where he had the joy of joining in worship with Free Presbyterians. Here he was received into full church membership. After six years he removed to Tain and then to Borrohol where he remained fifteen years. As this place is isolated, he stipulated when engaging with his employer, that he be set free each third week-end to travel to Halkirk or Helmsdale on Saturday for Sabbath public worship, returning on Monday morning, and that he be free to attend the services at three communion seasons each year. These privileges he highly valued. At this time he was elected to the elder’s office in the Halkirk congregation. His next removal was to Dingwall where he again came under the edifying ministry of Rev. D. Macfarlane. At the heights of Fodderty, where, for a short time he occupied a croft, a daughter, Mary, and a son, Alexander, died. In 1926 he removed to Inverness where another son, Murdo, died in the hope of a blessed immortality.
Donald Macrae discharged the duties of his office conscientiously and throughout the troubles through which our Church has been passing in recent years he stood true and steadfast, assured that what he stood for was based on the truth, and firmly held according to truth, will stand against all opposition.
In his last illness his hope shone unclouded to the end. A fortnight before his death he said to his son, John, “I am going to leave you.” When asked where he was going he answered, “To eternity; I gave you a hint of that a week ago.” Later, he said, “A stranger is coming to the house.” To the query who it was, he replied, “Death.” Two friends visited him and one of them said, “You will soon, Donald, be where there is no sickness or trouble.” “Yes, and that will be better,” was his answer. Two days later he was given the Scripture, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. ii. 14). He passed away peacefully on Wednesday, August 29th, 1945.
The above is Mr. F. F. Beaton’s adequate account of this worthy elder of the Inverness F.P. Church congregation. He was eminently a man of prayer, and gave no uncertain sound when occasion arose to speak out in days of trouble. His remains were conveyed to the graveyard of his native parish to rest there until the heavens be no more.
We sympathise with his bereaved widow, who is now, for the main part, an invalid, but is like-minded in the things of the Spirit of God with our late friend. We sympathise with his son and daughter. May they be found loving, and walking in, the footsteps of their God-fearing parents!—D. A. Macfarlane.