THE following excellent letter has been sent to the editor of the Oban Times1 by Mr. George Forrest, Ontario, in reply to a letter from the Rev. R. Macleod, Ontario, animadverting on the report of the Rev. Neil Cameron and Mr. Allan MacLachlan, last year’s Synod deputies to our Canadian people. Mr. Macleod is a minister in the large (Union) Presbyterian Church in Canada:—
BRUCEFIELD, ONTARIO, CANADA,
16th March, 1903.
DEAR SIR,—I see by a letter from Rev. R. Macleod, Ripley, Ontario, Canada, to the Oban Times of January 31st, 1903, that he
1 The Editor of the Oban Times cannot find room for this letter in full, but intimates his willingness to print it in an abbreviated form.—ED.
accuses the Rev. Neil Cameron, who visited this country last summer and preached and dispensed the Sacrament to the few whom the Rev. R. Macleod calls separatists, of giving a misleading view of the Canadian Presbyterian Church. He then proceeds to give the readers of the Oban Times what he calls “the facts as they really are.” But I notice that Mr. Macleod at once fell into the very error of which he accuses Mr. Cameron—that is of misrepresenting facts, as he seems to have drawn very largely on his imagination for his facts. He says:—”In regard to the petition that was sent to the F.P. Church from the forty-nine people scattered over tens of thousands of square miles . . . with all the canvassing Mr. Cameron’s friends made to get names adhibited to the petition, only forty-nine were found genuine enough as to what constitutes faithful Christians.”
Now, Mr. Editor, we do not need to be told that we are few in numbers and widely scattered; we are too well aware of that. But that we are scattered over tens of thousands of square miles.
I wonder what Mr. Macleod was thinking of when he allowed himself to write such nonsense! Surely his excited imagination ran away with his judgment; but it would be interesting information to us if he would kindly tell us how many tens of thousands of square miles we did travel in order to get these few names to the petition. Does Mr. Macleod really mean to make the people of the Highlands (for it is to them that he sends his warning) believe that “Mr. Cameron’s friends” travelled over all these square miles in order to get these few names? This is not giving facts as they are with a vengeance. For in getting signatures to the petition, the same plan was followed that is usually adopted by Presbyterian committees, and we gave the people an opportunity to sign it as time and circumstances would permit. Of course, we tried to get as many signatures of that people whom Mr. Macleod so lovingly calls Separatists as could be reached in the time at our disposal. But as far as I am aware there was not a single member or adherent of the Presbyterian Church in Canada asked to sign that petition. But, by the way, I am very glad that Mr. Macleod can find even one intelligent man among us, even if he does try to claim him for his own. But just think of it! It was this same man along with another that started that petition, and we are very happy that they did so, as we are very thankful for the result. It was the means of bringing the Rev. N. Cameron among us, although it appears to have aroused the indignation of some who formerly seemed to sympathise with us.
It is the Lochalsh people and the union of 1861 that Mr. Macleod says he wants to deal with particularly; but as Mr. Cameron’s reply on that point is clear and conclusive, I will leave that subject just now. But as Mr. Macleod makes the sweeping charge that all those people Mr. Cameron came to supply are Separatists, then all those who did not join in the union of 1875 are Separatists, myself included. I will tell by and by why I am so.
Mr. Macleod says he has been a minister of the Free Presbyterian Church in Canada “for sixteen years.” That rather astonishes me, for there was not a church of that name in existence sixteen years ago, and there has not been a Free Church in Canada for more than forty years, with the exception of a few who retained that name, but whom he calls Separatists. Has he given the “facts as they really are?” He says that during all these years he has never used organs or hymns in the public worship; yes, and not only that, but he has denounced these things publicly from the pulpit, and in all that time his Presbytery has never taken him to task for violating his ordination vows. He also mentions some of his neighbours who have had the same experience. Well, that is all very good on Mr. Macleod’s part and that of his neighbours so far as it goes. I am free to confess that I never had such a bad opinion of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, with all its faults, as to think she would censure anyone for singing Psalms. But, notwithstanding, the constitution of that Church binds Mr. Macleod and every one of its ministers to allow every congregation of that Church to use organs and hymns if a majority of them desire to do so; and if a majority of the Ripley congregation want these things they can have them, unless their love for Mr. Macleod exceeds their love for these things. If proof of this be wanted, it is to hand. The resolution regarding modes of worship attached to the basis of union of 1875 reads as follows:—”With regard to modes of worship, the practice presently followed by congregations shall be allowed, and further action in connection therewith shall be left to the legislation of the United Church.” The following dissent from that resolution was given in by some of the so-called Separatists on the day the union was consummated:—”Because of the resolution regarding modes of worship, we cannot enter the union without pledging ourselves for all time to come to allow the organ in all congregations now following that mode of celebrating the praise of God in public worship; and to allow in like manner all other practices as to modes of worship presently followed by congregations irrespective of the argument or disagreement of such modes of worship with our views of what the word of God and the standards of the Church require.”
This is so much regarding the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, but it is not all, for there has been further legislation since by the United Church. They have prepared and sanctioned a “New Book of Praise,” and have given authority to every congregation to use both it and the organ; and if a majority of any congregation wish to use them, there is no law of the Church to prevent them.
But there is another part of Mr. Macleod’s letter to which I would like to refer. He accuses Mr. Cameron of stating what is not substantiated by facts about the Headship of Christ over the Church and over the nation. Mr. Macleod says—”True, in the wording of the basis of union, perhaps the importance of that sub-
ject may have been overlooked by the committee in charge.” It will be seen by this that he admits that the subject of Christ’s Headship did not get the place in the basis of Union that its importance demands; but he would have us believe that it was merely an oversight, or that it was overlooked by the committee in charge; but when he tries to make us believe that he is not stating the “facts as they really are.” For this subject was discussed repeatedly in committee, in the General Assembly, in Synods, in Presbyteries, and in Sessions; and it was only to prevent a large number of ministers and others from keeping out of that union that that wonder-working peramble was attached to the basis. But they would not give that subject a place in its proper place in the basis, and one who occupied a prominent position in the Church declared in committee that if they insisted on placing that clause in the basis he would meet the brethren with a red flag. The night before the union took place a committee of the Assembly was appointed to confer with us, and to endeavour to overcome our scruples, as our objections were termed; but rather than give the subject of Christ’s Headship a place in the body of the basis, where its importance claimed a place for it, they would and did leave us out of the union. That is why we are called Separatists to-day; but by right that name belongs to them, not to us; but because they are the many and we the few, they throw it off and cast it at us:
I notice that they often speak of Christ as the Great Head and King of the Church. We too hold that to be true, and that He alone has the right and authority to appoint the ordinance of His own worship; but the Presbyterian Church in Canada has usurped that authority and has arrogated it to herself by preparing and adopting the New Book of Praise, and by authorising her people to use it in the public worship of God. So Christ was not only refused a place in the basis of union, but the Church has taken the crown off Christ’s head and has put it on her own. Are we to be branded as Separatists because we will not have a hand in this work? But, I ask, is it consistent or fair for Mr. Macleod to brand us as Separatists because we refuse to take part in the things which he himself finds it necessary to denounce publicly from the pulpit? Surely if it is right to denounce them, it cannot be wrong to renounce them.
Before I conclude I would like to ask, What would Mr. Macleod have us do? True, some of the Lochalsh people and that neighbourhood might go to Ripley if they thought proper, though it would be a very long walk for old men, still they might manage to go sometimes; but what about us who are altogether beyond the reach of Ripley or any of the four faithful ministers mentioned by him? For anything I know to the contrary, we might have to traverse the “tens of thousands of square miles” ere we found a church clear of these innovations, and if we did succeed in finding one such church in connection with the Presbyterian Church in
Canada, and if we should join hands with it, we would just be in the same boat with the main body, and bye and bye we might leave their ways, and thereby be liable to be denounced publicly by Mr. Macleod.
It seems Mr. Macleod is very much concerned about the people in the Highlands of Scotland lest they be deceived by Mr. Cameron’s report, but I fancy the people in the Highlands are as well acquainted with Mr. Cameron as they are with Mr. Macleod, and they are quite capable of judging which of them is most likely to give them the “facts as they really are.” I have endeavoured to give some “facts as they really are,” and there are more to follow if needful. I beg to apologise for being so tedious.—I am, etc.,
GEORGE FORREST.