REPLY TO A FREE CHURCH CRITICISM.
MY attention has been drawn to an Article in the Free Church Monthly Record for July, probably written by the Editor of that periodical, who was a minister of our Church for some years, but left it, not because of any errors in our Church, but for some other obvious ends.
In the Article referred to, he mentions my name as one who remained under the Declaratory Act for a year after it was passed as a binding law of the Church. He does this to meet the charge brought against them for remaining under the Act for fourteen years after it had been passed as a binding law. I wish to point out that there was a sufficient reason for my remaining in the Church for that year, while there was no reason at all why they should remain in it for so many years. Some were desiring to separate in 1892, but there was a cry among the Constitutionalists to keep together, to act in concert, and to wait till they should exhaust all constitutional means in their power to persuade the Assembly to reconsider their action, with a view to rescinding the Declaratory Act. At the Assembly of 1893 there was an effort made for that end, but the Assembly refused to rescind the Act, or even to appoint a Committee to consider whether anything could be done with a view to its being rescinded. The Assembly made it distinctly clear that they would never rescind the Act. There was therefore no alternative left for us but to separate, but they remained under the Act for fourteen years without making any effort to get it repealed. I was at Kilmallie the year the Act was passed into a binding law of the Church, and our Kirk-Session unanimously protested against the unscriptural change made, and requested the Clerk to record it in the Minute-book, which he did; and although the Assembly ordered such protests found in other Session and Presbytery Records to be deleted, somehow they forgot the Kirk-Session at Kilmallie, and the protest was never deleted. When I was inducted at Raasay I stated publicly that I was taking office in my new charge under protest, and this was entered in the Minutes of the Presbytery by the Clerk that day.
The Free Church ministers approached us as friends for the purpose of union between the two Churches, but when we refused to unite with them, they have turned to be our enemies. They are like the Samaritans who offered to co-operate with the Jews in building the second Temple, after the return from the captivity. When their co-operation was refused, they showed that they were not friends, but enemies, and they did all that they could to hinder the work of building the house of God.
“I am for peace; but when I speak,
For battle they are keen.”
D. MACFARLANE.
We expect (D.V.) to have a reply to some other points in said Free Church Article in a future issue.—ED.