By the late PROFESSOR JOHN DUNCAN, D.D.,
at the Free Church Assembly of 1844.
PROFESSOR DUNCAN said, that in desiring and aiming at the conversion of sinners and the edification of saints, it was of great importance that they should have a distinct idea of what the conversion of a sinner really means. He thought it was, in a great measure, owing to the want of this
that a number of those disorders in practice and errors in doctrine, to which Dr. Cunningham had referred, might be traced. Next to, and closely connected with, an earnest desire for the salvation of souls, and a constant expectancy, (which cannot be too strongly inculcated) was the right and scriptural understanding of what they aimed at when they desired and expected a sinner’s conversion. Conversion was not merely to be understood as a turning from one thing to another thing, but as the turning of an absolutely lost sinner to the God of free and sovereign grace. It was, therefore, of great importance in existing circumstances, and at all times, that their minds and spirits should be under the sober regulation of revealed truth. And while different suggestions had been thrown out as to the means of promoting these ends, one deeply important question for them to consider was, What was the improvement or the amelioration of those means which they were already employing under the authority of the Word of God, which ought to be adopted in their present circumstances? The question was not only, should there be more preaching, but should there be better preaching? Here he begged to refer to the earnest admonition given by Dr. Malan at the Assembly in Glasgow, to beware of Arminianism. He (Dr. D.) did not believe that Arminianism existed in their own Church. But he could not disguise from his own mind, that of late years, at least previous to the disruption,—he knew not how it may have been since, for they could not expect to get rid of all these evils in a day,—since evangelism had become more fashionable, it had become more indefinite and diluted; and if this does not amount to Arminianism, it is a rounding off the corners of that which is called Calvinism, but which I believe to be Jehovahism; it was a rubbing off and a smoothing down of the salient points of Calvinistic doctrine, into something which, if it was not Arminianism, was a kind of doctrine with which all who are called Calvinistic evangelicals, and Arminian evangelicals, could agree. Now this was just the beginning of the evil,—it was the letting in of waters,—the dilution of the gospel; and the dilution of the gospel would very soon lead to the perversion of the gospel. He remembered an anecdote of a poor man and his wife in England, who were labouring people. They attended a dissenting minister, who, in the course of his ministrations, recommended a Commentary on the Bible. These poor people accordingly laboured to be able to purchase one, and were at last able to do this. After perusing it for some time, the man asked his wife what she thought of the Commentary. “Why,” said his wife, “we used to read the Bible in the evening, and it seemed to do us good; and now that we have got the Commentary,—it is very good, no doubt, but I do not think it does us so much good. The Bible did us good like a glass of wine, but the Commentary does us good like the same glass of wine in a pailful of water.” Dr. D. reminded them that zeal for God’s glory should be ever uppermost in the minds of his servants. When they urged sinners to repentance, the character and claims of Jehovah should be laid as the basis for it. This was the basis of all revelation—Jehovah he is God. That was a doctrine not only of the Old Testament, but set forth and explained in the New Testament, where He was set forth as working all things after the counsel of his own will. The doctrine of man’s fall—his total fall, not merely from virtue and righteousness, but his total alienation from Jehovah, and the consequent loss of all internal good,—his entire separation from Jehovah God, out of which came the doctrine
that the fall was a total ruin,—ought to be much insisted on. The doctrine, too, of the Trinity ought not only to be referred to, but set forth in their whole preaching, in its relation to the manifestation of God’s glory in the salvation of sinners. Their preaching should be the gospel of the Triune God. The doctrine of the Trinity should be ever taught, though not ever formally taught. The doctrine of the person of Christ, which gives glory and excellence to the work of Christ, should be brought forward,—not salvation merely, but the glorious Saviour himself, and that not only for the sake of guilty sinners’ salvation, but for the exhibition of the Divine character—that it was worthy of God to save sinners for such a Saviour. Man’s total apostasy from God—his total depravity—would lead to the exhibition of what alone can be, in an apostate’s condition, any comfort or support—the love of Jehovah. It opened such a deep wound, that nothing but a Saviour—as a Saviour for an absolute sinner, dead in trespasses and sins—could heal it. God should be proclaimed as the sole Creator, Christ as the entire Saviour,—not the Redeemer only, but the quickener also, not the author of faith only, but the perfecter and finisher of faith. The doctrine of man’s impotency—of his total inability to bring himself back to God, should be held up. The opposite doctrine—the doctrine of man’s ability to convert himself, countenances the absurdity that man is to return to a dependence on Jehovah by the belief of a certain independence,—which is not only absurd, but also most dishonourable to God. It would not do to tell a man that he may come to Christ, but that he must come. Some, indeed, would have man to do all, though he could do nothing; and others would have him to do nothing, because all was done for him. As long as I am told that I must come to God,—and that I can come, I am left to suppose that some good thing, or some power of good remains in me, I arrogate to myself that which belongs to Jehovah. The creature is exalted, and God is robbed of his glory. If, on the other hand, I am told that I cannot come to God, but not also told that I must come, I am left to rest contented at a distance from God, I am not responsible for my rebellion, and God Jehovah is not my God. But if we preach that sinners can’t come, and yet must come, then is the honour of God vindicated, and the sinner is shut up. Man must be so shut up that he must come to Christ, and yet know that he cannot. He must come to Christ, or he will look to another, when there is no other to whom he may come; he cannot come, or he will look to himself. This is the gospel vice, to shut up men to the faith. Some grasp at one limb of the vice and some at the other, leaving the sinner open—but when a man is shut up that he must and cannot, he is shut up to the faith—shut up to the faith, and then would he be shut up in the faith. God is declared to be Jehovah, and the sinner is made willing to be saved by Him, in his own way, as sovereign in His grace. Many may dislike this doctrine as harsh and severe, but it is because they view God’s sovereignty apart from his grace. They spoke of the sovereign God, but why not of the sovereignty of grace. For himself, he felt comfort when shut up to this truth, that God was sovereign, and his grace sovereign; for though he was a sinner—an absolute sinner, Jehovah had said, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” This doctrine came like heaven’s own thunder, and struck down all human dependence. It came upon man as lost, as the very chief of sinners, and depending solely on God’s will; and
then, oh how blessed to know the sovereignty of grace. It struck him down when he read, “The Son quickeneth whom he will.” His mind fixed on the “whom he will,” and he was undone, because it did not depend on his own will, but on the will of another. But he read again and found that it was the Son that quickeneth whom he will, and this raised him from the dust, because the Son, on whose sovereign will his salvation depended, was the same “Jesus Christ who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” It was of importance that the truth which gave such glory to God, which alone could comfort, because it alone brought man down, he declared; that Jehovah’s glory be exhibited; that men be made to feel their own emptiness; that they may see Christ’s sufficiency, and Christ’s yearning heart over sinners. On what had been said as to the mode of preaching, he should say not a word, as he was sure all were convinced that it was not by might nor by power, but by the Spirit of the Lord. If God gave the desire, and sent his servants forth with his glorious word impressed on the heart and conscience, he who had given his word for that very end would accompany it with demonstration of the Spirit; having appointed these means, and ordained them, he would give grace to apply them; and he believed that Jehovah had this end in view, and the more so, when they were feeling their infirmities and sins.
Donald Macdonald, Elder, Gairloch.
THE death of the saints deserves lamentation, because a gap is opened to let in the judgments of God upon us. It is said in Psalm civ: “Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moses, his chosen, stood before him in the breach, to turn away his wrath, lest he should destroy them.” This was a metaphor from a besieged city, when a breach is made in the walls, and the enemy ready to enter; but some champion stands in the breach to defend the city: such a champion was Moses who, by his constant and fervent prayers, put a stop to the judgments of God against Israel. When the Lord by death removes men of prayer, He makes way for his anger. Hence the death of saints has been ever looked upon as a dreadful sign of ensuing judgments, as it is written: “The righteous perisheth and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come” (Isa. lvii. 1). This must be true, especially, (1) when their death falls out in the declining state of religion, (2) when their death falls out in a time when the number of godly is small, (3) when their death falls out at a time when God is not calling others; such as in our time.
In Donald Macdonald the congregation of Gairloch lost a sincere believer and a man of prayer. While death has procured for him an accession to the Church triumphant, and in this we rejoice, yet there is indeed cause for lamentation and prayer to the Lord, like David in Psalm xii, “Help, Lord, for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.” Let the God of Jacob raise up others like-minded with our departed friend to fill his place and the places of others removed to their eternal rest in recent years.
Our subject was born at Cove—where he died—a little hamlet on the shores of Lochewe, and gets its name from a commodious cave where divine services were held in past days, and contains the pulpit and some of the pews still, though in a decayed condition. Both his parents were godly. Notwithstanding the privileges of a godly upbringing, Donald continued in a state of nature till he was in his thirties, as far as can be ascertained. When the Lord’s time came, He used His own means and instruments to call our dear friend. A drowning accident was signally blessed of God to him: “Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known.” But the Word of God was the chief instrument to make an indelible impression on him at this juncture of his life. Ever after this period of Donald’s life, he appeared to his fellows another man. The change was a clear one, and it was the work of the Holy Spirit. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus was evident to all when it was said: “He which persecuted us in times past, now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed,” and so was Donald’s. He “which” had “begun a good work” then in his soul carried it on throughout a long life of witness-bearing. The graces of the Holy Spirit that were so manifest in him shone forth to the comfort and benefit of the Lord’s people. We asked an old worthy, could he tell us anything about Donald that might be suitable to place on record in his biography. “Well,” he answered, “I am afraid I cannot tell you very much, but one thing I know, and that is, that he thought very little of himself.” We thought this was a real description of him. Donald really was a little child in the household of faith, walking in true humility and in friendship with his God. One of the first times he was asked to speak to the “question,” he slowly read the words which were given out, and then sat and whispered to the one who sat next to him, in tones of marked sincerity, “Did I read that scripture correctly?” He thought he could not do that itself right, not to speak of attempting to give a mark of grace in the soul of the believer. Such was the sense he had of his own unworthiness. As time went on, he got strength to speak to the “question”; and would speak to edification. He frequently attended the Communions on the West, and as a rule, Inverness and Dingwall on the East. This was the bent of his mind and the joy of his heart. It gladdened the hearts of the Lord’s people to see and hear him at those seasons of solemnity. A good measure of his original strength continued with him, so that walking was no obstacle. He was making for the Communion at Shieldaig when he took a weak turn and went unconscious when alone on the lonely by-path by the coast between Red Point and Diabaig. By the good hand of the Lord, he gained consciousness after lying on the ground for some time and made for a house—a lone house at Craig. After having some food and a little rest, he took to the hill again and arrived in Diabaig in time to get part of the Thursday evening sermon, which sermon he had in view when he left home in the morning. Next morning, he finished the rest of the journey by sea, and was none the worse of his experience on the hill the previous day.
Donald was firmly grounded in the doctrine of the Westminster Confession, which is founded on the Word of God. He showed till the end of his day that he deplored the change made in the Creed and Constitution of the Free Church by the passing into law of the Declaratory
Act by the Assembly of 1892. This God-dishonouring Act is bearing terrible fruit in the Churches of Scotland to-day, to the eternal destruction of the souls of men. Laxity is the order of the day, and clergy and laity love to have it so. Donald had spiritual discernment to see the enemy coming in like a flood, and consequently kept aloof from Churches of latitudinarian views and tendencies. That does not mean that he was not sociable, for he was both a Christian and a gentleman. He was a faithful Free Presbyterian, and in being so, it was with a view to uphold, by grace the whole doctrine of the Word of God.
Our subject was an elder in the congregation for about twenty years. He was a faithful and diligent office-bearer. He secured the confidence and affection of the godly and the respect of the ungodly. He frequently presided at meetings in his own part of the congregation with the help of the other “men.” We are not going to claim that he was a man of great natural gifts, but he was a man of great grace. In this connection we quote from the celebrated Dr. Thomas Manton, the Puritan divine, to show who the best Christian is:—”He is not the best Christian that hath the most plausible gifts, that can with art and parts best perform outward duties, that hath the strongest memory, cleanest apprehension, readiest elocution; but he that hath a humble, mortified, holy, pure, and self-denying spirit; for this is a more weighty point of Christ’s undertaking, to make you holy, humble, and meek, than to furnish you with gifts, and make you free in speech.” All will admit that Donald had, by grace, the characteristics of the best Christian, according to this Puritan divine. His heart was in the public means of grace. During the last five years of his life he was confined to the house, and mostly to bed. He would sometimes get out of bed, and being helped into a car, would come to a service. He did a few times during that period attend on a Communion Sabbath. Few, if any, saw one so helpless come to Church. The last time he was at the Inverasdale Meeting House, he collapsed and had to be taken home before the service actually began. It was the Thursday of a Communion, and he was looking forward to commemorate the Lord’s death on the Sabbath. The doctor, who was always exceedingly kind to him, happened to be at hand at the time and gave him an injection which revived him. When he did get over this turn a bit, he said to the doctor, “Do you think I will manage to Church on Sabbath, Doctor?” Such was his desire for the public ordinances. During this period of incapacitation, his senses and faculties being unimpaired, he spent his whole time reading his Bible and praying. He scarcely ever stopped praying. Day and night he was overheard thus engaged, his daughter says.
His wife predeceased him by ten years. He left five married daughters and many grand-children to mourn his loss. One of his daughters, Mrs. MacLean, tenderly nursed him in his own home. We are sure that each had a place in his prayers. His little grand-daughter, Winifred MacLean, had a special place in his affections, and in his prayers too, we believe. We trust that the prayers of a pious father and grand-father will yet get an answer for them all. It was on the 22nd March, 1950, “he fell asleep,” being about five months over his ninetieth birthday. “So them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him” (I Thess. iv. 14).
—A. B.