THE Half-yearly Meeting of Synod was held in the Hall of St. Jude’s Church, Glasgow, on Tuesday the 12th day of November. The retiring Moderator, Rev. Duncan Mackenzie, Gairloch, conducted public worship at eleven a.m., and preached from 2 Timothy iv. 13: “The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.”
After public worship was ended, the Moderator constituted the Synod with prayer. The roll was then called. There were present: From the Western Presbytery—Revs. Alexander Macrae, Portree; Neil Macintyre, Stornoway; Donald Graham, Shieldaig; and Duncan Mackenzie, Gairloch (Moderator), ministers; with Messrs. Neil Mackinnon, Portree; Donald Bethune, Harris; John Macdonald, Gairloch; Alexander Mackenzie, Lochbroom; and Alexander Macaskill, North Uist, elders. From the Northern Presbytery—Rev. John R. Mackay, Inverness, minister. From the Southern Presbytery—Revs. Neil Cameron, St. Jude’s; John Robertson, Greenock; Ewen Macqueen, Kames; and James S. Sinclair, John Knox’s (clerk), ministers; with Captain Macdonald, St. Jude’s, elder. Mr. Angus Fraser was appointed officer of Court. The minutes of last meeting of Synod were read and approved of.
At this stage, the Moderator intimated that his term of office had now expired. He thanked the Synod for the kindness and forbearance that had been shown him during the year of his moderatorship, and said that it now lay with the Court to appoint his successor. Rev. Neil Cameron moved, and Rev. J. R. Mackay seconded, that the Rev. John Robertson, Greenock, be appointed Moderator for the ensuing year. The motion was unanimously agreed to. Mr. Robertson rose and said that, while he thanked the Synod for the honour they would confer upon him, he did not feel able to undertake the duty connected with it, and begged the Court not to press the matter. Mr. Cameron said
that, in view of Mr. Robertson’s statement, he felt with regret that he could not press his motion, but must, in deference to the wish of their venerable friend, withdraw it with the consent of his seconder. The motion was then withdrawn. Thereafter, Rev. Ewen Macqueen moved, and the Clerk seconded, that the Rev. Neil Macintyre, Stornoway, be appointed Moderator. The motion was unanimously agreed to. Mr. Macintyre said that he thought some other member might be found who would be more suitable for the office, but that out of regard to the wishes of his brethren he would accept it. Mr. Mackenzie then demitted the chair, and Mr. Macintyre took the same. He thanked the Synod for the honour they had conferred upon him, and expressed the hope that he would receive divine guidance and strength for the discharge of his important duties.
It was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to that all the members of Synod meet as a Committee on Bills and Overtures at Mr. Cameron’s Manse at 3.20 p.m. The Synod then adjourned to meet again (God willing) in the evening at half-past six o’clock. The meeting was closed with praise and prayer.
Second Sederunt.—The Synod resumed its sitting, according to terms of adjournment, at 6.30 p.m. The meeting was opened with devotional exercises conducted by the Rev. Neil Macintyre, Moderator. The members present were the same as at first sederunt except that the Rev. John Robertson was absent, and Messrs. John Auld, John Knox’s, and Andrew Cameron, Oban, elders, were present. The Clerk reported apologies for absence from the Revs. D. Macfarlane, Dingwall; D. Beaton, Wick; N. Matheson, Halkirk; A. Sutherland, Ullapool; and M. Morrison, Glendale; and Mr. Benjamin Dawson, representative elder for Kames. The minutes of the former sederunt were read and approved of.
(1) The Clerk read the Report of the Committee on Bills and Overtures as to the order of business, which was adopted.
The order was as follows:—(1) Report of Committee on Bills and Overtures; (2) Report of Committee appointed by last Synod on Loyal Address to the King, and Resolution of Sympathy with Irish Protestants; (3) Matters of Reference from last Synod; (4) Half-yearly Financial Statement; (5) Report of Convener of Canadian Mission Committee; (6) The Case of Mr. P. M. Chisholm, Student; (7) Remit from the Southern Presbytery re the Functions of Elders; (8) Resolution on the Subject of Close Communion; (9) Foreign Mission Report; (10) Reports from Deputies to Summer Fishing Stations; (11) Any Competent Business.
(2) The second subject on the paper was the “Report of Committee on Loyal Address to the King, etc.” The Clerk read the Address drawn up by the Committee and forwarded to His Majesty King George V., with the reply received from the Secretary of State for Scotland, both of which have already appeared in the Magazine. He also read the “Resolution of Sympathy with
Irish Protestants” drawn up by the same Committee, and reported replies from the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable A. Bonar Law, M.P., Sir Edward Carson, M.P., and the Moderator of the Irish Presbyterian Assembly, the last of which he read in full.
(3) Matters of Reference from last Synod.
(a) The first of these was a remit from the Northern Presbytery consisting of a petition from the congregations of Scourie and Kinlochbervie, begging to be transferred from the Northern to the Western Presbytery, on the ground that these congregations could be more easily worked by the Western than the Northern. The petition had been allowed to lie on the table from last meeting. Rev. J. R. Mackay now moved, and the Clerk seconded, that these congregations be transferred, according to petition. The motion was unanimously agreed to.
(b) The second matter of reference was the question whether the Synod should meet once instead of twice a year, the whole subject of which had been remitted, on the motion of the Rev. J. R. Mackay, to the three Presbyteries for consideration until the November Synod. The report of the result of the deliberation of the Presbyteries was that the Northern and Western Courts were almost unanimous in favour of once a year, and that the Southern Presbytery was unanimous in favour of abiding by the present arrangement of twice a year. Various suggestions were also made as to the payment of travelling expenses of members. Rev J. R. Mackay moved that, in view of the lack of unanimity, the Synod decide to abide by the status quo in the matter of meeting twice a year, and of payment of expenses. He said that the only reason he had had for suggesting once instead of twice a year was that they had been accustomed to meet immediately after the services of Communion seasons when they felt exhausted and not quite fit for the work of a Synod, and that a date might be fixed for one meeting at another time when they were not so handicapped. The present arrangement had, however, worked wonderfully well on the whole, and perhaps it was better meantime to abide by it. The motion was unanimously agreed to.
(c) The Call from Chesley, Ontario, to the Rev. Walter Scott. The Clerk reported that Mr. Scott, who had returned from Canada at the beginning of September, had appeared at a meeting of the Southern Presbytery on the 4th October and expressed his willingness to accept the Call to Chesley. The Call was put into his hands, and he was inducted to the pastoral charge of Chesley at a meeting of the same Presbytery on the 11th October. Since then, Mr. Scott had left for Canada, and was now at his charge.
(4) HALF-YEARLY FINANCIAL REPORT.
Rev. John R. Mackay, as Convener of Sustentation Fund Committee, reported that he had received word that morning from Mr. Angus Clunas, General Treasurer, to the effect that he was in a position to pay ministers and missionaries at Martinmas at the
usual rates. In the light of that Report Mr. Mackay proceeded to move: “That the Synod adopt the Report of the Convener of the Sustentation Fund Committee, order the Treasurer to pay ministers and missionaries at the usual rates, and express their humble thanks unto the Lord of all things who had put it into the hearts of their people to contribute so liberally towards the material needs of ministers and missionaries, and who also had provided the people with the means of enabling them to shew this liberality.” Mr. Mackay, in briefly speaking to this motion, said that taking the Church as a whole, a healthy sense of the duty which they owed to those who ministered to them in holy things, seemed to be characteristic of their people. He sincerely hoped that this state of things would continue, and should it do so, he did not anticipate that there would be any dissatisfaction on the part of the Church’s servants. He drew attention to the fact that, hitherto, the General Treasurer’s salary had been paid out of the Sustentation Fund. The Sustentation Fund Committee had the matter up before them, and at their suggestion he should like, with the Synod’s sanction, to make this addition to his own motion, to wit: “and that the salary of the General Treasurer (£65 per annum) shall in future be a first burden on the Organisation Fund.” Mr. John Macdonald seconded the motion, and it became the finding of the Synod.
(5) REPORT OF CANADIAN MISSION COMMITTEE.
Rev. E. Macqueen, as Convener of this Committee, stated that he had received the report which had been forwarded by the Rev. Walter Scott, who was the Church’s deputy to the Canadian Mission last summer, and he read several extracts from the report, which were listened to with much interest. He concluded by saying that the report in full would (d.v.) appear in the Magazine. Mr. Macqueen went on to inform the Court that the congregation at Winnipeg had secured a site for a church building in a very suitable situation, and that it was decided that Mr. William Matheson, student, the present supply, be allowed to remain meantime. The Synod agreed to receive the report by the Rev. W. Scott, and to record their indebtedness for his services, and to approve the other arrangements reported by the Convener of the Committee.
(6) THE CASE OF MR. P. M. CHISHOLM, STUDENT.
The Clerk explained that Mr. Peter M. Chisholm, Arts’ student, who had been received as a student of the Church by the Southern Presbytery, and had been regularly employed in the work of preaching, was called before the said Presbytery, on the 29th August, to answer a complaint that had been made against him as having in St. Jude’s pulpit (in the absence of the minister) cast hitherto unheard-of reflections upon, among other things, the recognised practise of the Church in certain particulars—such as
the employing of elders to speak from the Word at Church services. At the meeting of the Presbytery Mr. Chisholm refused to express regret for what he had done, and the Presbytery unanimously decided that until Mr. Chisholm would apologise for his disorderly proceedings and submit to the Church Courts, he would be deprived of the privilege of preaching. He had appealed to the Synod against the decision of the Presbytery, and this was the occasion of the case now being taken up.
Rev. John R. Mackay asked whether Mr. Chisholm had given in Reasons for his Appeal, and if so, at what date? Mr. Sinclair, as Clerk of the Southern Presbytery, replied that he had received Mr. Chisholm’s Reasons on the 25th October.
Mr. Mackay thereupon moved as follows: “Inasmuch as Mr. Chisholm failed to give in Reasons for his Appeal within ten days after the Southern Presbytery pronounced sentence in his case, the Synod find that the said Appeal falls to the ground.” Mr. Mackay, in supporting his motion, said that this was a painful case to them all, and he dared say that to none was it more so than to him. At the same time he had no hesitation in commanding his motion to them. He did so mainly for two reasons: First, the law of the Church in matters of this kind was quite clear. Whether the Appeal was from the Kirk-Session to the Presbytery, or from the Presbytery to the Synod, the law was one and the same. He would quote Sir Henry Moncrieff’s (The Practice of the Free Church of Scotland, page 20) statement of the law in the case of an Appeal from the Kirk-Session to the Presbytery, as it was somewhat fuller than as stated by the same authority in the case of an Appeal from the Presbytery to the Synod. “A party,” says Sir Henry, “in a case which has been under consideration by the Kirk-Session, may appeal against their judgment to the Presbytery. An Appeal is taken at the meeting at which the judgment has been pronounced, and immediately on its being intimated to the party. Reasons of Appeal are either stated by him at the time, and entered on the Record, or they must be lodged by him in writing with the Moderator, or with the Session-Clerk, within ten days from the date of the Appeal. Copies of these Reasons, with all papers and extracts of minutes relating to the judgment appealed against, are transmitted by the appellant or appellants to the Clerk of the Superior Court, after having been duly certified by the Session-Clerk. The effect of an Appeal, duly prosecuted, is to bring the judgment under review of the Superior Court. . . . An Appeal may be fallen from at any time, but is always held to be fallen from if the Reasons for it be not lodged with the Session-Clerk or Moderator within ten days from its date.” The reason of this law was obvious. The case of an appeal differed from that of business that had to do with non-controversial matters. A Court of Appeal ought to be in circumstances in which it could give a deliberate judgment between contending parties. Therefore it was that in civil and
in ecclesiastical Courts it is demanded of an appellant that within a specified time he give in Reasons for his Appeal, and the Reasons ought, by way of a summary, to state the main grounds upon which the appellant would argue his case before the Court of Appeal. But this practice had been quite disregarded in the case now before them. The sentence complained against was passed on 29th August, 1912. Mr. Chisholm’s Reasons were given in on 25th October, 1912. The Northern Presbytery, for example, got word of the sentence and of the Appeal, but not a word came to them about Reasons.
Mr. Mackay then proceeded: “It might, indeed, be argued that on account of the appellant’s ignorance of Church law this point should not be pressed. I think otherwise, because (a) I deem that, when a man in Mr. Chisholm’s position sets out, so to say, to fight a fundamental Court of the Church before the Supreme Court, and thus causes anxiety and uneasiness to the whole Church, he ought to know at least the elements of Church law; (b) There is the important matter of setting a bad precedent. It is the case that already some years ago one of our students, now a minister of the Free Church, appealed from the finding of his Kirk-Session to the Western Presbytery, but he failed to give in his Reasons within the prescribed time. The Western Presbytery concluded that in that case the Appeal fell to the ground. I am not saying that the Supreme Court is bound to be ruled by the determination of an inferior Court, but I do say that the Church should be careful not to make, as the saying is, fish of one and flesh of another.
“My second reason for my motion is that I do not reckon that the Church as a whole, speaking through its Supreme Court, can be justly charged with acting harshly towards Mr. Chisholm by this decision. I hold that this Court is not at liberty to review the sentence of the Southern Presbytery because that sentence has not come before us in regular form. But we are at liberty to state the relation in which we understand Mr. Chisholm to stand to this Church, and to point out that in refusing to make an exception in his case, in so far as he failed to give in Reasons for his Appeal within the prescribed time, the Synod does not deal harshly with one of the Church’s students, for the Synod still regards Mr. Chisholm as a member in full communion with this Church. It still regards him as a student studying for the ministry of the Free Presbyterian Church, and I have no doubt that as long as Mr. Chisholm is so regarded he will, in the matter of financial help, through our bursary scheme, be treated like any other of our students. What has happened to Mr. Chisholm is that he is deprived of the privilege of preaching to our people until he satisfies the Southern Presbytery concerning certain matters on account of which they have called him to task.
“Now, I should like to point out that the case of a student who has been received by a Presbytery as a student studying for
the ministry of this Church, and who may thereupon have been employed by the same Presbytery in the way of conducting services among our people, is quite different as to his title to preach from the case of a man who has been licensed by a Presbytery of this Church to preach the Gospel. In the case of the latter, license could not be withdrawn without a regular process, proving against him fault of life or doctrine. But in the case of our students, I hold that a student is, during all the time of his studentship, under probation as to his suitableness as a preacher, and that a mere charge of imprudence on the part of a student will justify a Presbytery in saying that he is not to preach during the Presbytery’s pleasure. If the case were one and the same with a student and a licentiate, it would mean that the granting of a license to preach had become a mere sham. The Synod must give to its Presbyteries large powers as to how they will make use of a student’s services for the purposes of preaching. On these grounds I move that the Synod find that Mr. Chisholm’s Appeal has been fallen away from.”
Mr. Neil Mackinnon, elder, seconded this motion, and it became the unanimous finding of the Synod on the subject of Mr. Chisholm’s Appeal.
At this point, the Clerk asked whether the Synod had any instructions to give the Southern Presbytery as to how they would proceed in the case of Mr. Chisholm. Rev. A. Macrae then moved as follows: “The Synod, considering the desirability of giving the Southern Presbytery definite instructions as to how they are now to deal with Mr. Peter Chisholm, student, at present under suspension from preaching owing to certain irregularities, and having full confidence in the said Presbytery, instruct them that if Mr. Chisholm do not satisfy the Presbytery in respect of these irregularities before the 14th day of February, 1913, they remove his name from the roll of students under their jurisdiction; and that if the said Mr. Peter Chisholm act contumaciously at any time prior to the said date, the said Southern Presbytery deal with him forthwith.” Mr. Macrae said that they had no desire to deal harshly with the young man, but it was necessary that the Scriptural authority of the Church should be asserted and due submission be given to that authority. He hoped Mr. Chisholm would seriously consider his position. The motion was seconded by Mr. Donald Bethune, and unanimously agreed to.
(7) REMIT FROM THE SOUTHERN PRESBYTERY re THE FUNCTIONS OF ELDERS.
The Clerk stated that at the meeting of the Southern Presbytery at which the preceding case of Mr. Chisholm was dealt with, the Presbytery agreed to petition the Synod to give a deliverance on the subject of the general practice of the employment of elders (when necessity required) to speak from the Word at Church services.
Rev. John R. Mackay moved the following resolution on this subject:—”The Synod, after full and serious deliberation of the remit from the Southern Presbytery as regards the practice of the Free Presbyterian Church in asking elders to address the people publicly, have come to the following conclusions:—(1) The Synod desire to thank the elders of the Church for the hearty response they have given to the urgent call of the ministers to come to their aid by conducting public services throughout their bounds; and, further, to state that the Synod are not aware of any detrimental effects that have followed the indefatigable labours of the elders in their efforts to assist the ministers to have services conducted (in the absence of ministers or missionaries) in all places for public worship within the Church. (2) The Synod are not aware of having violated any principle of God’s Word, or of the practice of the Church of the Reformation in Scotland, by asking elders, in cases where need required, to hold and address meetings for Christian fellowship in their districts and, when called upon to do so by the ministers of the Church, beyond their districts. (3) The Synod declare that the elders of the Church have always kept the place assigned them, and have not usurped the distinctive duties of the ministry, and consequently the Constitution of the Church has not been violated. (4) The Synod deplore the ill-advised attack made upon the elders by certain individuals, and the uncalled-for disturbances caused in a few congregations by such statements. The Synod advise their people not to allow any one to disturb their minds, as they are all aware that elders have been addressing meetings in Scotland for many generations in the past, and that their being asked by the Church to do so is neither an innovation nor an unscriptural principle.”
In support of this resolution, Mr. Mackay said that although he could not enter at great length into the argument for his case, he would like to point out certain facts. It was well known that Episcopalians held to the doctrine of a three-fold office within their Church, that is to say, they made the offices of a Bishop, of a Presbyter (or priest), and of a Deacon to be three distinct offices. Presbyterians, on the other hand, professed to find in the New Testament a two-fold office only, to wit, that of the elder and the Deacon. According to Presbyterians, an elder, or a Presbyter, or a Bishop, meant one and the same office-bearer in the New Testament. But they found that to the eldership belonged two departments, a higher and a lower, that of the preaching elder or minister, and that of the ruling elder or elder. But these departments were not regarded as air-tight compartments without community of function, as might be the case under Episcopacy. To a certain extent they might take part in identical duties. The preaching elder had his own share in Church government as well as in preaching the Word. The ruling elder was not allowed to administer the Sacraments of Baptism and of the
Lord’s Supper, but he submitted that it was in accordance with the New Testament and with the best thought of the Reformed Church of Scotland to say that, at least in cases like their own, where it was impossible for the regular ministry to supply the people with the means of grace, the ruling elder might and ought to break the bread of life to congregations otherwise unprovided for, that is, expound the Word of God among them. And although he did not deny that it was possible to quote some men who seemed to have spoken in a contrary sense, he was bound to say that he felt very much surprised indeed, to hear at this time of day that it should have been imputed as a fault to the Free Presbyterian Church, that in its present circumstances it should have availed itself in the sense explained of the help of elders.
Mr. Macqueen seconded the motion. He said that they had abundant evidence from the past history of the Church that the Lord had richly blessed the labours of laymen as distinct from those of the regular ministry. He called to remembrance the names of Finlay Munro, Norman Macleod (‘Tormad Saighdear’), Skye, and Archibald Crawford, Tighnabruaich, whose gospel addresses from God’s Word had been attended by the power of the Spirit, and made instrumental in the decided conversion of many souls. The Lord had set His seal to the work of elders in the gospel, and he (Mr. Macqueen) would never be a party to shutting their mouths. The motion was unanimously agreed to.
(8) RESOLUTION ON SUBJECT OF CLOSE COMMUNION.
Rev. Neil Cameron moved the adoption of the following deliverance on this subject:—
“The Synod would record their strong disapprobation of the conduct of some individuals connected with this Church, who have circulated unfounded charges among our people about the meaning of a resolution passed by the Synod in November last year. The resolution reads as follows:—’That the Synod approve of the procedure adopted by Mr. Macintyre at Winnipeg in the matter of admitting persons to the privilege of the communion, and give it to be understood that, while this Church does not hold close communion, none are to be admitted to the privilege mentioned but such as are known as God-fearing persons by a majority of those responsible for admission.’
“The Synod declare that the meaning attached by them to the above resolution is as follows:—(1) The office-bearers of the Church in Canada, having sent a request to the Synod to give a deliverance in regard to the position held by this Church about communion, the Synod gave it to be understood that neither the Church of the Reformation, nor the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, held or hold close communion; (2) The Synod gave it to be understood that none are to be received to the Lord’s Table
in this Church ‘but such as are known as God-fearing persons;’ and that none shall be admitted without the approval of the majority of the Kirk-session. That this has been all along the way of admission to the Lord’s Table in the Free Presbyterian Church will be quite manifest to all their people: (3) The Synod would also declare that it flows from ignorance, or something more blameworthy on the part of some, to have spread a report to the effect that the Synod, by foresaid resolution, had changed the Constitution of the Church and opened a wide door to receive members wholesale from other Churches to the Lord’s Table. The people of this Church may rest assured that the Synod did not and does not intend to open the door to communion, in the least degree, wider than it has been in the Reformed Church of Scotland since the Reformation, and in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland hitherto.”
Mr. Cameron said, in the course of a brief speech, that although it had been suggested by some that they were opening a wide door for members from other Churches to communicate, he for his part could say that it was only one person belonging to another denomination that had been received to communion in his congregation since 1893, and that on the same ground as stated in the resolution relating to Winnipeg. Mr. John Macdonald, elder, seconded the motion, which was unanimously adopted.
Rev. J. R. Mackay, in supporting this resolution, said that to adopt the theory of close communion would mean that, in future, it would be regarded as a fault if any Kirk-session allowed a child of God, howsoever eminently pious, or whatsoever part of the globe he came from, to sit down at his own request at the Lord’s Table with our people, if he did not first of all profess himself a Free Presbyterian. That was a position our Church never went in for. He reminded the Court of the manner in which John Bunyan was maligned and traduced in his own day as being little better than a devil because he would not adopt the theory of close communion. It shewed that there was nothing new under the sun.
The Moderator (Rev. Neil Macintyre) at this stage left the chair, which was occupied by the Rev. D. Mackenzie, ex-Moderator, pro tem., and made a statement with regard to a petition on this subject that had been forwarded from Lewis to the Clerk of Synod. He had made enquiries and had found that a number of the names had been appended to this petition without the authority of their owners. The petition was therefore unreliable and worthless. As to the Winnipeg matter, he had to say that he had prepared a number of questions with which to test any belonging to other denominations that might ask the privilege of communion, and that it was one gentleman from England who came forward and asked and received the privilege. The story had got abroad that he had admitted a host of Dutchmen, Irish, and foreigners. Such was the language used.
(9) FOREIGN MISSION REPORT.
Rev. Neil Cameron said that he had not received any report from Rev. J. B. Radasi for this meeting of Synod, and consequently he had not much to say. He wished to bring before them the desirability of proceeding at once to build the proposed church at Ingwenya or Bembesi. The building set up there at the beginning was in a dilapidated condition, owing pretty much to the fact that white ants cut through posts of wood there in a short time. To patch it would be useless; to build one of the same kind would mean rebuilding again in a few years. The only prudent way would be to build a permanent church there. This would be even more economical at the latter end. As our Mission there has now taken a permanent shape, the Synod should authorise the Foreign Mission Committee to proceed with this piece of absolutely necessary work at once. He then moved that the Synod give full powers to the Foreign Mission Committee to proceed with the building of the church at Bembesi without any further delay, and that the offer of Mr. John M’Keurtan be accepted.
Rev. J. R. Mackay, in seconding Mr. Cameron’s motion, said that this seemed to him the right course to pursue. Mr. M’Keurtan’s offer for the building of the new church at Ingwenya was already regarded as the best available; only we were naturally anxious to fix down Mr. M’Keurtan to the last penny in respect of cost of transfer of goods. Mr. M’Keurtan, however, might find it difficult to give what we wished, and it seemed now that, being quite busy at Bulawayo, he was not too anxious to get this work at Ingwenya. He, from all he knew of Mr. M’Keurtan, regarded him as a thoroughly honest and reliable tradesman. He had done quite good work for the Church already at Ingwenya. When, during his recent visit to Matabeleland, he (Mr. Mackay) wished Mr. Donald MacLean, Bulawayo—a sincere friend of the Church—to get some work executed for the Mission, Mr. MacLean, of his own accord, put that work in Mr. M’Keurtan’s hands. Mr. Mackay had been more than once in Mr. M’Keurtan’s home in Bulawayo, and his impression of Mr. M’Keurtan was that the Church could not do better than ask Mr. M’Keurtan, at his estimate already given, to build their new church for us at Ingwenya. The motion was unanimously agreed to.
The Psalms in Kafir.—Mr. Mackay reminded the Synod that at their meeting in July last, he expressed himself as anticipating that ere a year had run out, we should have the entire Psalm book rendered into Kafir metre. What information came to hand since then, tended to strengthen this anticipation. Writing from Ugie on 2nd September, 1912, Mr. Bokwe said:—
“DEAR MR. MACKAY,—I am revising and re-writing (for the third time) the Kafir metrical Psalms, incorporating improvements, etc., suggested by Messrs. Brownlee Ross and Inspector M’Laren.
Mr. William Kobe-Nlsikana and I have gone over it together. In the rough we are now as far on as Psalm 80, but, of course, this means I have still to carefully revise and supply Principal Henderson and you with fair and final copy for handing to the compositors. An instalment (pages 1 to 47) of this fair copy I have just sent to Principal Henderson, Lovedale; and a triplicate copy I am posting to Mr. Radasi, who will pass it on to yourself after examining it, in order to let him express his judgment on what we are doing, and guide us whether this production will be intelligible to the people at Matebeleland. I see by your Magazine (for which thanks) that the Lovedale printed Shorter Catechism can be understood by those who can read there. If so, these Psalms are less difficult. Should Mr. Henderson and yourself think to proceed with setting the mss. (now being supplied) into type, I should, of course, like to read the proofs; for this I have preserved my own copy, should any portion of it be set into type. Should any delay occur, the blame will not be with want of copy from us to go on with.”
Again, in a letter dated 30th September, Mr. Bokwe wrote:—
“DEAR MR. MACKAY,—At the beginning of this month I posted to Mr. Radasi the first forty-seven pages of the ms. we have handed over to Principal Henderson, Lovedale, of the Kafir Psalms of David in metre, asking him, after perusal, to send to you in Scotland, so that you may be in a position to know what we are handing to the printers—should Mr. Henderson pass it as fit to set into type. Mr. Radasi has not yet replied to my letter. Since then I have the enclosed forty pages more (ending with Psalm xxxvi.)—also sent to Principal Henderson. He writes to say he hopes to proceed almost immediately with setting the mss. into type.”
Later we had the following from Mr. Radasi, dated 8th Oct.:—
“MY DEAR MR. MACKAY,—I have received from Mr. Bokwe the enclosed mss. (pages 1 to 47) of the metrical rendering of the Kafir Psalms. Mr. Bokwe informs me that they have already translated up to the eightieth Psalm, and that they are giving Mr. Henderson fair copies in instalments for his compositors, when he feels inclined to begin setting it into type. He has also informed me that the Rev. Brownlee Ross, M.A., and Inspector James M’Laren, M.A.—the former an expert Kafir scholar and the latter a Hebrew scholar as well as an authority (though not a speaker) of the Kafir language—after going over Mr. Bokwe’s rendering of the Psalms, have both pronounced the opinion that, should they keep on as they have begun, they see no reason for not proceeding with the printing as they supply the mss. I have also myself read carefully the Kafir version of the mss., and compared it with the English version of the metrical Psalms. I find that the translation is a correct one, and that the letter of the scriptural text has been preserved; and if Mr. Bokwe and the other will keep on as they have begun, my opinion is that the rendering will
be quite suitable for our purpose, and that the authorities at Lovedale ought to be instructed to proceed with the printing.”
In view of all these facts, Mr. Mackay moved that the Foreign Mission Committee be authorised to negotiate with the Lovedale Press about printing and publishing, as early as may be, 2,000 copies of the metrical Kafir Psalms, and also to take the necessary steps to secure the copyright. Mr. Mackay expressed the conviction that other denominations would buy this Psalm book. This motion was unanimously agreed to, and became the finding of the Synod.
(10) REPORTS FROM DEPUTIES TO SUMMER FISHING STATIONS.
Rev. Alexander Macrae delivered the following reports of the Rev. Murdo Morrison, Glendale, and Mr. Angus Mackinnon, missionary, Laide, Aultbea, who were sent to conduct Gaelic services at Fraserburgh and Lerwick respectively during the fishing season last summer:—
Rev. M. Morrison’s Report.—”The Convener of the Committee for Supply at the East Coast Fishing Stations asked me to go to Fraserburgh for four or five Sabbaths. After due consideration I consented to go there for the two last Sabbaths of July and the three first Sabbaths of August. The hall in which we held Divine Services was the usual one, and had been engaged by the Convener some time previously to my appearing on the scene. I held two services each Sabbath—the forenoon diet beginning at eleven o’clock, and the evening at six p.m. Besides, when occasion permitted, I held service on Monday evenings in one or other of the fisherwomen’s rooms. Part of my work also consisted in visiting the fisherwomen on such days and at such times as they were thought to be free from their usual labour. In the course of these visits I usually sent word to the girls occupying different rooms on the same landing and in the same building, to gather, if they were so minded—(it must be borne in mind that women of different denominations mingle together in these rooms)—into one particular room, and there had worship. This is an essential part of one’s work as deputy at these fishing stations, and to me indeed, at times, it proved pleasant and enjoyable. Yet, notwithstanding, one could not help feeling sad and depressed at the amount of indifference which some of the fisher girls, outside our own adherents, showed to pious restraints and religious duties. Some of them bid adieu to church-going and religious obligations as soon as they leave the home circle and appear on scenes which foster and minister to their indifferent inclinations. I must say—but without disparagement of the large number whose lives and conduct, religiously and morally, are without reproach—that a considerable number of these young people spend their Sabbaths without reading or hearing a syllable of or upon the Word of God. Young men and women in crowds either
perambulate the surrounding country or sleep in their bunks on the Lord’s Day. This conduct on their part should be unsparingly denounced by those who are charged with their spiritual oversight and instruction. I am, however, glad to have to say that conduct of this kind, so far as I observed, cannot be reported of the people of our Church prosecuting the fishing industry on the East Coast. Nor can this be said of the larger proportion of the people belonging to the other Churches, from Lewis and the north of Scotland, which are represented there, but still it can be said of some of them, and the ‘some’ are a considerable number of persons.
“The attendance at the services was on the whole encouraging, and a number, belonging to the other denominations, from Lewis and Sutherlandshire came to us every Sabbath. The number among the fishing population of Lewis which represent our Church is relatively small. It is the rural districts of Lewis which, for the most part, swell the mass of hired people engaged in this industry in the summer season. In view of the very encouraging attendances at our hall, I am of the opinion that a deputy should be sent to Fraserburgh still earlier in the season—say the beginning of June. For by the time it has been customary for a representative from us to arrive in Fraserburgh in the past, the season was half over, and the people were already accustomed to other places of worship. I consider this a reason why, if at all possible, one should be sent earlier to Fraserburgh.
“In connection with the matter of expense, the collections made well-nigh defrayed the cost of hall and deputy. The difference was made good to me out of the Organisation Fund. I may mention, in order to show their willingness and liberality in this respect, that the few we had from North Tolsta in Peterhead, whom I did not see at all, collected privately among themselves so much and sent it to me to meet part of the expense.—(Signed) MURDO MORRISON.”
Mr. A. Mackinnon’s Report.—”I left Aultbea on the 5th of June with the mail coach to Achnasheen, and thence by train to Aberdeen. I was two days and two nights on the whole journey to Lerwick. I left Aberdeen with the mail steamer on the 6th day of June and arrived at Lerwick on the 7th. We had our services in the Masonic Hall, which we found very suitable for our meetings. The hall would accommodate about 300 people, and on some occasions the people were turning back from the hall as we could not find room for them. There were only about sixty of our people at Lerwick, of which the majority was from Tolsta, Ness, and Lewis, but the Free Church and U.F. people were crowding the hall. I continued at Lerwick for five Sabbaths, and thought that, in future years, it would be very urgent that our Church would have some one to conduct the services at Lerwick for eight weeks at least. I must say that I was well pleased while labouring among the people at Lerwick; they attended well upon the means of grace, and were also in earnest to support the cause.
I paid £1 1s. for my board and lodgings, and 5s. every Sabbath for the hall. The people paid all my expenses except £2 13s. I stated the income and expenditure to the Rev. John R. Mackay, Inverness, on my way back from Lerwick. I trust the Most High will guide all our humble efforts to be for His own glory and the good of poor souls.—(Signed) ANGUS MACKINNON.”
The Synod received the reports, and recorded their thanks to the deputies for their services. Rev. D. Mackenzie strongly urged that attention should also be given to the fishing stations in England such as Yarmouth and Lowestoft. The Court agreed to call the attention of the Committee to the needs of those places, and suggested that the Rev. D. Mackenzie himself might be appealed to, when the time came, to go and supply them, if supply was decided upon. Rev. Neil Macintyre was appointed Convener of the Committee.
(II) ANY COMPETENT BUSINESS.
(1) A petition from Stratherrick for a missionary, in view of the resignation of Mr. John M’Gillivray, was considered. Rev. J. R. Mackay moved, and Rev. E. Macqueen seconded, that Mr. Malcolm Macewan, elder, Lochgilphead, be asked to take up missionary work at Stratherrick, at the usual salary. The motion was unanimously agreed to.
(2) Mr. Angus Mackinnon, missionary, Laide, sent a petition requesting that he might be allowed to attend the theological classes at Wick, or one of them such as Church History, that he might have opportunities to improve his knowledge and education. He stated that he had received a grant of money from the Mackinnon Funds for this purpose. The Synod agreed to accede to Mr. Mackinnon’s request, on the condition that he would provide suitable supply for the congregation of Laide in his absence.
(3) There was a petition from Tolsta, Lewis, to the effect that Mr. Donald Murray, elder, would receive a small salary of £5 per annum, in view of his services. Rev. D. Graham moved, and Mr. D. Bethune seconded, that the grant be given. The motion was agreed to.
(4) Another petition was presented from Breasclete, Lewis, requesting that a missionary be sent regularly every Sabbath to Achmore, as the services were liable to fall. Rev. N. Cameron moved, and Rev. E. Macqueen seconded, that the Synod leave the matter with the Rev. Neil Macintyre to secure a missionary, as desired. The motion was agreed to.
(5) Rev. E. Macqueen moved that the Synod enjoin the Presbyteries to inquire as to the careful observance of the deliverance forbidding prayer at the grave within their bounds. He said that the “Directory of Public Worship” explicitly forbade praying; it only allowed that the minister may give an address—”may put” friends present “in remembrance” of the duty of “meditations and conference suitable to the occasion.” The motion was agreed to.
(6) Rev. D. Mackenzie moved that the Synod urge Parliament to pass the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, with relation to immoral traffic, presently discussed, without proposed changes. Rev. J. R. Mackay seconded the motion, which was agreed to.
The Synod adjourned at 9.50 p.m., to meet again (God willing) at Inverness on Tuesday after the last Sabbath of June, 1913.
The meeting was closed with singing the hundred and twenty-first Psalm and prayer.