IN Professor Kennedy Cameron’s recently issued book—”The Scottish Church Union of 1900″—he makes certain references to the Free Presbyterian attitude of union with the Free Church and also certain statements about Mr Macfarlane’s induction in 1893. Why Professor Kennedy Cameron should thus have brought the Free Presbyterians into his book is best known to himself, but upon him, at any rate, lies the onus of stirring up controversy anew on this matter. The nature of his strictures, as far as Mr Macfarlane’s induction is concerned will be learned from the following letter sent to the editor of the “Northern Chronicle,” in whose columns extracts from Professor Kennedy Cameron’s book had appeared:—
Sir,—In last week’s issue of the “Chronicle” I read your review of the book written by the Rev. John Kennedy Cameron. In his remarks about the Free Presbyterian Church, and especially about me, he made some statements that were not correct. He said that I was under the Declaratory Act for a year, and was inducted at Raasay under it. Now, the truth is that I was not under that Act for one day. I was at Kilmallie in the year 1892, when the Act was passed into a binding law. As soon as we heard that, our Session “protested” against the action of the Assembly in doing that, and the protest was written in the Session record. Next year, 1893, I was translated to Raasay before the meeting of Assembly. On the day of my induction I stated publicly before the Presbytery and the congregation that I was not taking office as minister of Raasay under the Declaratory Act in any sense or to any degree. After I left Kilmallie, the Rev. John McAskill, Onich, was appointed moderator of the congregation. In 1894 an order came from headquarters to remove the protest from the session book. Mr McAskill refused to do so, and appealed to the Synod. From the Synod the case came to the Assembly. When the case was considered by that court, Sheriff Jamieson, who was a member of Assembly, said that he had to say that “on legal grounds” they could not compel the congregation to remove the protest from the Session record.
I remained a year without taking up a separate position. The reason was that the Constitutionalists asked me not to separate till they would make an effort to make the Assembly repeal the Act. They were to do this at the meeting of Assembly in 1893. I was a member of the Assembly that year. The Assembly refused to repeal the Act. When I saw that, I tabled my protest, and took up a separate position in defence of the truth. It is very mean of Mr Kennedy Cameron to cast up to me now that I remained a year with them, seeing it was to help them I did so. Rev. John Kennedy Cameron’s attack on our Church reminds me of the Samaritans who offered to co-operate with the Jews in building the temple after their return from captivity. When the Jews refused the offer, the Samaritans did everything they could to weaken the hands of the Jews in their good work.—I am, etc.,
D. MACFARLANE.
In a subsequent issue of the “Northern Chronicle,” Prof. Kennedy Cameron replied to the foregoing letter, in which he reiterates what he had said in his book, and assures Mr Macfarlane that he was not conscious of making any attack on him or the Free Presbyterian Church.