Arran is divided into two
parishes—Kilbride and Kilmory. The former comprises most of the east
side, including Holy Island, and extending from Lochranza to Dippin
Head. Its utmost length is about 20 miles ; its utmost breadth is 6
miles ; and its area is 38,985 acres. Its population in 1801 was 2183,
and in 1881, 2176, of whom 971 were Gaelic-speaking. By far the largest
proprietor is the Duke of Hamilton, under whose uniformly kind sway the
people live happily. Brodick, on account of its central situation,
though, like Edinburgh, not on account of the number of population,
claims to be the capital of Arran. It was here with such surroundings
that a new sphere was presented to the energies and gifts of Mr Cameron,
who was inducted as colleague and successor to the well-known and highly
respected Rev. P. Davidson on 3rd Sept., 1874. On this auspicious
occasion there were present many representatives of several
denominations, indicative alike of regard for the newly-inducted pastor
and of the general sympathy the settlement evoked. It proved also
predictive of the good feeling and mutual appreciation that existed in
after years between the accomplished preacher and the vast variety of
visitors from all quarters that frequent this very popular summer
resort. A good deal of hard work lay before him. Lamlnsh and Corrie
claimed a share in his services, and received attention to the full
amount of their claim. In addition to three services on Sabbath and the
superintendence of the Sabbath School, two and sometimes three prayer
meetings were held in different parts of this wide district during the
week. Bible classes were likewise set agoing, and the young people
attended admirably. Diets of catechising were regularly held at
convenient centres during the winter months— an “exercise” recommended
by long established usage and the example of many worthy predecessors,
and calculated to keep fresh in the memories of the people not only the
Shorter Catechism, but the whole of the Westminster theology. He
endeavoured to visit all the families of his flock once a year at least
and sometimes much oftener, but I am afraid, like most ministers, he did
not wholly escape criticism on this ground. Wherever anyone was sick he
called very frequently at whatever cost of personal inconvenience to
himself, and dealt very tenderly with the suffering and dying, as well
as gently comforted the bereaved and sorrowful. It is said of Dr Guthrie
that he remarked on his death-bed that if he had realised what it was to
lie dying he would have dealt far more tenderly than he had been able to
do with those near the end of life.
Although pressed with pastoral work, Mr Cameron succeeded in finding
time to take a deep interest and a very active part in educational
matters. He unhesitatingly advocated the retention and teaching of the
Bible and Shorter Catechism in schools as an indispensable part of all
adequate training of youth. He took a special delight in examining
children in religious knowledge, and did all in his power to secure
prizes for them. But the Government Inspector has now almost entirely
superseded the time-honoured annual ministerial visitation and
examination of schools.
It will readily be admitted that Hr Cameron took a fair share in the
discussions incident to Church Courts, but it is not so well known that
he took an important part in all Presbyterial business and more solemn
duties. He acted for a time as clerk to the Presbytery of Ivintyre, and
was, if anything, too minute and accurate. The following address to a
newly-ordained pastor will indicate his high ideal of the duties
incumbent upon those who break the bread of life to men :—
“I have now to address to you a few words in connection with the
interesting position in which you now stand. You have now been solemnly
set apart to the work of the ministry—the most responsible and at the
same time the most honourable work in which anyone can be engaged. ‘We
are unto God,’ says the apostle, ‘a sweet savour of Christ in them that
are saved and in them that perish. To the one we are the savour of death
unto death, and to the other the savour of life unto life.’ Need we be
astonished that he added, ‘and who is sufficient for these things'?’
“My brother, you have now been appointed to an office for which you are
not sufficient—for which no one in the world i strfficient—for which the
might and wisdom and zeal of angels are not sufficient, and, therefore,
that in that office you may be found a worker that will not need to be
ashamed, it is necessary to tell yon that your sufficiency, like that of
the apostle, must be of God. He alone can give you success. I have no
intention of addressing you a lecture on pastoral theology, although
hints as to the division of your time, for example—what proportion of it
should be devoted to study and what proporion to pastoral work—would not
be out of place, but might be useful to one beginning his ministry. I
would not, however, discharge the duty laid upon me, nor would I be
faithful to you, were I not to address to you a few simple exhortations
bearing upon the position in which you now stand, and the office to
which you have been set apart.
“1. Be much in private, praying to God for grace to enable you to fulfil
your ministry. This exhortation is so common-place that it is apt to be
regarded as unnecessary ; and yet I dare not pass it over, but, on the
contrary, I give it the first place. The apostles appointed deacons in
the Church to attend to its outward and secular affairs, that they might
give themselves continually to prayer and to the preaching of the Word.
Prayer and preaching must go together. Without being frequent in prayer
you need not expect to be successful in preaching. If you be not given
to secret prayer, your ministry, you may depend upon it, will be
fruitless. Speaking generally, a praying minister is easily known. He is
full of life—his preaching possesses heavenly unction —and many other
things will show that he is much with God. Earnest and believing prayer
moves heaven itself. Jacob wrestled with God, and as a prince he had
power with God and prevailed. Yon likewise will have power with God, and
will prevail to bring down spiritual blessing upon yourself, upon your
people, and upon the district in which you are to labour, if you will be
a wrestler with God.
“2. Cherish habitually a holy frame of mind. This is the duty of all
Christians, but without it a minister of God’s Word need not expect to
be successful. Thorough preparation for the Sabbath by the study of the
word is very good—is indeed absolutely necessary—and ought not to be
remitted even for a single Sabbath ; but all your preparation will be of
little avail to render you an edifying preacher to God’s people, if you
neglect to give your utmost diligence to cherish habitually a frame of
mind suitable unto the work in which you are to be engaged. The means to
be used for cherishing a right frame of mind I need not occupy your time
in setting before you, for no one can know anything of the life of God
in the soul who does not from experience know by what means that life is
to be sustained in vigorous and healthy exercise.
“3. In regard to the preaching of the Word, let me earnestly gnard yon
against being a mere professional sermon-maker. I do so, because this is
a growing evil in our day. The faithful minister of Christ seeks to
preach the truth upon which his own soul lives—the truth which he loves.
The mere professional man preaches because that is his business. His
sermons come from his head rather than from his heart, and, therefore,
they do not reach the hearts of the hearers. They may instruct them—they
may increase their knowledge—but they do not edify their souls. The
article may be very good of its kind—it may show great natural gifts and
resources—but it is not relished by the discerning Christian whose
spiritual instincts inform him that the truth which the preacher sets
forth, perhaps with eloquence and earnestness, does not come out of the
treasures of a mind richly furnished with grace. He plainly sees that it
has been prepared like any other article of merchandise to serve a
purpose—perhaps for popular effect, To him it is lifeless and
uninteresting, for it is artificial. No art in its composition, no
earnestness in its delivery, no affected unction can render it edifying
to his soul—hungry for the bread of life.
“4. Preach the truth of God. Avoid ingenious speculations. God will
acknowledge only His own truth. Let Christ and Him crucified be the
burden of your preaching. Give prominence in your teaching to the
doctrines of grace. There never was a time when there was greater need
for exhibiting fully and faithfully and fearlessly the truth of God in
our preaching; for many keep it in the background, as if they were
ashamed to own it, while many openly oppose it. It is unnecessary to
tell you that you need not expect your ministry to be a fruitful one
unless you honour the truth of God ; for, assuredly, if you do not, God
will not honour you in your work. Be distinct and explicit in declaring
what the truth is. Do not be afraid that in so doing you may offend some
of your hearers. Faithfulness to Christ and to His truth and to the
souls of those whom you have undertaken to instruct in the truth is your
first duty. From the very outset of your ministry plant your foot firmly
on the truth as set forth in the Confession of Faith and in the Larger
and Shorter Catechisms. Do not be afraid of being called an exclusive
preacher, if you be not more exclusive than God’s Word is. I press this
upon you. With all my soul and heart I urge it upon you, for I believe
that your ministry and mine will be unsuccessful — will be worse than
unsuccessful—will prove a delusion and a snare to souls, unless we give
due prominence in our preaching to the cardinal truths of the gospel,
such as the sovereignty of God in choosing sinners unto salvation, the
vicarious sufferings of the Mediator, man’s utter inability to save
himself, either in whole or in part, the necessity of the Spirit’s work
in quickening and sanctifying the soul, the obligation which rests upon
the Christian to lead a life of holiness in the world. Let no one. be in
doubt as to the value which you attach to these truths, and the esteem
in which you hold them.
“5. Be not one-sided in your preaching. You cannot, of course, cram all
the doctrines of the gospel into every sermon you preach, but that is
not necessary in order to give full justice to every truth and full
opportunity to your hearers to learn the truth as a whole.
“6. Ill all your preaching be plain and pointed—explicit and direct. Be
faithful to the consciences of your hearers. Ever realise the
preciousness of their souls. Let your great aim be to bring them to
Christ, Be not, therefore, afraid to tell them the truth. Warn the
careless of their danger. Seek to lead those anxious in regard to their
personal salvation to Christ in whom alone salvation is to be found—to
be found freely by the chief of sinners. Strengthen the weak hands and
confirm the feeble knees. Say to them that are of a fearful heart, ‘Be
strong, fear not. Behold your God will come with vengeance, even your
God with a recompense ; he will come and save you.’ Let your preaching
be discriminating, and for that end seek the wisdom which will enable
yon to distinguish between the precious and the vile, and to give to the
saint his own, and to the hypocrite and sinner their own. Insist much
upon personal holiness—holiness of heart and holiness of practice, 011
the part of your hearers, that God may be glorified by the fruit which
they may bring forth in the world. And, in this respect, seek that yon
may be yourself an ensample unto your flock.
“7. Forsake not, either in preaching or in worship, the good old ways in
which our fathers walked, and in which they were owned and blessed of
God. You hear much said now-a-days about presenting to the people the
truth under new forms or aspects suited to what is called the growing
intelligence of our time; but, for my part, I prefer the old aspects of
the truth to the so-called modern aspects of it, Indeed, when I closely
examine these modern aspects of the truth, I am often at a loss to
discover the good old truth under them. The truth needs nd pompous and
affected style to recommend it. It disdains the conceited phraseology of
philosophy. It rebel upon its own native lustre—its own intrinsic glory
; and, indeed, one is tempted to conclude that lie who thinks that to
please modern taste the old time-honoured truths must be cast into new
moulds and uttered in new forms of expression, must have little
confidence in the native power of the truth or in his own acquaintance
with it, and that, therefore, to cover his own weakness and
deficiencies, he affects originality by means of a copious use of new
forms of expression which are but wretched substitutes for those which
the Church, after great care and deliberation, has adopted, and which
our excellent Shorter Catechism has rendered familiar to every child in
the land.
“Finally, my brother, I commend you to God, to whose service you have
this day publicly devoted yourself and have been solemnly consecrated.
May the Holy Spirit fill you with all grace so that you may prove a
worker that will not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
truth. Cast all your care in connection with your work upon your Master
and He will care for you. He will make His grace sufficient for yon, and
His strength perfect in your weakness. Be strong in the grace that is in
Christ Jesus, and then whatever difficulties you may have to
encounter—whatever trials you may have to endure—however arduous may be
the duties you will be called upon to perform—in all the variety of your
circumstances and experiences, He will help and deliver you, until at
length you shall have been enabled by His grace to fulfil the ministry
which you have this day received of the Lord.”
The Re-union of the Presbyterians of Scotland, on the basis of the
Confession of Faith and of the old statutes, was a matter on which his
heart was set, and he fervently hoped that the Patronage Act of 1871
could be so improved as wholly to meet and adequately recognise the
position and protest of the Free Church of Scotland in 1843. He took an
active part in all the discussions and conferences bearing upon this
question, and intensely regretted what he regarded as a departure or
resiling from the Presbyterian principle of State-acknowledgment and
support of religion on the part of the majority of the representatives
of the Free Church as demonstrated by voice and vote in different
assemblies. In the Assembly of 1875, he stated that he heM that the
Disruption became a necessity after the decision of the House of Lords
in the Auchterarder case. Supposing there had not been another decision
by the civil courts encroaching upon the domain of the Church, it was
impossible for the evangelical party to remain in the Church after that
decision, without sacrificing both the rights of the Christian people
and the jurisdiction of the Church. The Stewarton decision did not touch
so sacred a matter as the Auchterarder one. Sir II. Moncrieff had
candidly admitted that the Patronage Act would have satisfied the non-intrusionist
leaders in 1842, but it would not have satisfied them after January,
1813. He thought it should, for they never had any idea of getting such
an Act, which had completely eliminated the Erasdan element contained In
the previous statutes, and, therefore, the Church was now thrown back
upon the statutes which formed the bulwark of her liberties. He then
adduced the testimony of Mr H. Mon crieff of East Kilbride in April,
1843, who, in moving to overture the Assembly for the repeal of the Veto
Act, said he attached much more importance to the principle of
non-intrusion than to anything else, for if he could get an Act which
would protect that one principle he was not for breaking up the Church.
The recent legislation had swept away the whole foundation of the
decisions against the Church, and the principle of spiritual
independence was not sacrificed by the Church not being able, proprio
motu, to change the constitution of her own judicatories without
consulting the other party.
Writing to a friend three years later, he says:—
“The recent lectures of Dr Kennedy, and more especially his speech last
week in the Free Synod of Ross, seem to me sufficiently clear and
explicit. When you find a man of his strong views in regard to the
present condition of the Established Church— especially in the
North—declaring publicly that, were he to get the modification of the
Constitution which he regards as necessary to meet his principles, he
would feel bound for the sake of his country and for the sake of
national religion, to sacrifice his private feelings to his conviction
that it would then become his duty, us a Free Churchman, to enter into
alliance with the State, it seems to me that you and youl friends are
bound to do all in your power to satisfy him and those who agree with
him.” He then indicates what is desiderated from the Legislature. “On
the difficult subject of spiritual independence (excepting the matter of
the Stewarton decision) we want nothing more than what you believe an I
what I believe the Established Church at present possesses. The Duke of
Argyll has admitted that if there be any doubt as to the Church having
been thrown back by the Patronage Act on the old statutes, it is but
reasonable that the doubt should be removed. This can be done without
any new definition of spiritual independence—without, in fact, anything
of the nature of an abstract resolution on the subject A clause in the
preamble of an Act to the following effect, which merely states an
undoubted fact, with a sufficient repealing clause, would suffice :—
“Whereas the government and supreme and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Church of Scotland in all matters spiritual (causes ecclesiastical) as
founded on the Word of God and set forth in the Confession of Faith
(chaps, xxv. 6, and xxx. 1 and 2) have been recognised, ratified, and
confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament, and, in particular, by the Act
1592, entitled ‘ Ratification of the Liberties of the True Kirk,’ and by
the Act 1690, entitled ‘Act Ratifying the Confession of Faith and
Settling the Presbyterian form of Church Government :
“And whereas by the Act 37 and 38 Vic. c. 82, entitled ‘Church Patronage
(Scotland) Act,’ the Acts of Anne c. 12 and of Vic. c. 6 and c. 7, and
also all other statutes or parts of statutes inconsistent with the
provisions of said Act of 37 and 38 Vic. c. 82 were repealed, and the
right of congregations to elect their own ministers, and of the Courts
of the Church to decide finally and conclusively upon the appointment,
admission, and settlement of ministers, was recognised and declared:
[“And whereas it is desirable that the right of the Courts of the Church
of Scotland to decide finally and conclusively upon all other matters
that come within the province of the Church as recognised and ratified
by the aforesaid statutes of 1592 and 1690 should be re-affirmed :]
“And whereas the Act 7 and 8 Vic. c. 44 is productive of much
inconvenience in the erection of parishes, and is a barrier in the way
of the union of Presbyterians in Scotland wrho approve of the standards
of the Church of Scotland:
“Be it enacted ... as follows:—
“I. This Act may be quoted as the New Parishes (Scotland) Act.
“II. It is hereby declared that the right to erect parishes quoad sacra,
and to invest the ministers of said office, including ruling in the
Courts of the Church, belongs to the Church of Scotland in the exercise
of her supreme and exclusive jurisdiction as recognised, ratified, and
confirmed by the aforesaid statutes of 1592 and 1690.
“III. The Act 7 and 8 Viet. c. 44 shall be repealed from and after the
passing of this Act: and also all Acts inconsistent with the provisions
of this Act: and also all Acts and laws inconsistent with the aforesaid
supreme and exclusive jurisdiction of the Church of Scotland in all
matters spiritual as recognised, ratified, and confirmed by the
aforesaid statutes of 1592 and 1690, and, in particular, the Acts
Rescissory 1661 c. 15 and 62 c. 1-2.”
In regard to the Bill prepared by Sir' A. Gordon and Mr F. Mackintosh,
to make further provisions in regard to the Church of Scotland; to
facilitate reunion therewith of other Presbyterian Churches in Scotland;
and submitted to the House of Commons in 1879, Mr Cameron writes in
reply to a newspaper criticism as follows:—
“In your leading article on Sir A. Gordon’s Bill, you gave as an
illustration of the great powers proposed to be conferred upon the
General Assembly that it could ‘ expel the Burgh Elders who represent
the ratepayers at large.’ The General Assembly, projnrio motu, admitted
the Burgh Elders. It does not, therefore, seem a greater exercise of
power to reject them, if it see cause, although there is not much
probability of its destroying an element of representation created by
its own exclusive action. Further, why should not the General Assembly,
which admitted as members Professors of Theology who had no charges, and
Burgh Elders who, as you hold, represent the ratepayers, not have power
to admit ministers of chapels, if it see cause ? In reference to the
possible admission of ‘lay assessors,’ it is sufficient to remark that
that would be un-Presbyterian.”
When another attempt was made in 1886 to pass a Bill to declare the
Constitution of the Church of Scotland, Mr Cameron was energetic in his
advocacy of the proposal presented with such ability and cogent
reasoning to Parliament by Mr Finlay, and afterwards associated with his
name. The important representative Conference of Free Church
office-bearers opposed to Disestablishment and Disendowment, held in
Tron Free Church, Edinburgh, on 16th February, 1886, and presided over
by Mr (now Sir) William Mackinuon, Bart, of Baliuakill, approved of Mr
Finlay’s Bill, “ which is to remove obstacles to the reunion of Scottish
Presbyterianism,” and considered that, if passed into law, it would
afford “a sufficient basis for cordial conference with a view to reunion
among all who hold by the principles of the Reformed Church of Scotlaud.”
The final form which this great and comprehensive, and necessarily
difficult question took in the mind of Mr Cameron may be gathered from
the subjoined propositions of which he approved :—
“1. Legislation which would declare the Constitution of the Church of
Scotland to be such as is set forth in the C aim, Declaration, and
Protest adopted by the General Assembly of 1842 ; such legislation to be
accompanied by a measure which would render adequate justice to all the
practical interests involved.
“2. That it is necessary for such legislation that it secure the
following points:—
“(1) A clear declaration as to the divine source of the Church’s
jurisdiction.
“(2) The repeal of all statutory enactments at present encroaching upon
the Church’s jurisdiction in spiritual matters.
“(3) The restriction of the action of the Civil Courts to the civil
effects only of ecclesiastical jurisdictions.
*3. That it is at the same time most desirable,
“(1) That such legislation should contain an express reference to the
aforesaid Claim, Declaration, and Protest.
‘(2) That such legislation should in some manner effectually recognise
the just claim of the Free Church to participate in the civil benefits
of the ecclesiastical establishment.
“4. That the Bill introduced into last Parliament by Mr Finlay would,
with suitable amendments, secure the above provisions.
“5. That a Committee be appointed to confer with Mr Finlay, and also, if
thought desirable, with any representatives of the Established Church in
regard to the various heads of these resolutions.”
It would almost appear that Mi’ Cameron was destined to have on hand
questions of law and liberty wherever he went—matters of moment, or the
reverse, in regard to which some of his brethren and himself were hardly
able to see eye to eye. When he left Renton he was promised—informally,
perhaps—that a new manse should be built for him at Brodick. The first
step towards the realisation of this desirable object was taken in 1881,
when a large and very successful bazaar—the first held in the Island of
Arran, and opened by the Duchess of Hamilton—realised over £1100. It is
admitted that no small part of the success was due to the high estimate
formed far and near of the genially popular pastor and widely known
Celtic scholar, for whose comfort the proceeds were intended. The late
author of “John Halifax, Gentleman” (Mrs Craik), who opened the bazaar
on the fourth day, pictured in prospect the erection of a fine home for
a hospitable and good man. As sometimes happen, differences of opinion
arose on this occasion, which rapidly developed somewhat later, when the
report, amplified by rumour, got abroad that the Deacons’ Court had
decided to devote the interest, if not a small part of the principal sum
so obtained, under ample guarantee, to the building of a private house
for the minister. The only foundation for this damaging story was, as
the Deacons’ Court records attest, a request by the minister that, as
His Grace the Duke of Hamilton had offered him a site out of personal
regard, the deacons, if they deemed it right, might permit him the use
of the interest, and, if necessary, of a small additional sum to be
collected by himself, for a few years. Three weeks later, apart
altogether from outside pressure, or, indeed, knowledge of the proposal,
he made a statement to the Court to the effect that he had thought the
matter over, and deemed it undesirable that his private affairs should
be in any way mixed up with their public proceedings. And yet how much
obloquy and unmerited remark he had endured for this comparatively
trivial incident It even formed an element in the Lamlash case, of which
it is difficult to give a condensed and consecutive account.
Several influences at work resulted in a petition for the erection of
Lamlash into a mission station coming before the Presbytery of Kintyre,
on 20th January, 1885. Mr Cameron’s attitude towards it is best given in
his own words. On the part of the-petitioners,
“There was shown 110 desire to have a separate mission station at
Lamlash, and, therefore, no difference of opinion existed, until after I
had expressed, in January, 1883, my decided disapproval of a proposal by
members of Whitingbay Free Church, and some others, to place services
which I had commeuced at Lamlash some months previously, and which were
admitted by all to have been giving entire satisfaction, both to the
native population and to the summer visitors, under the charge of the
Free Church minister of Whitingbay and myself conjointly. But joint-moderatorships
never work well, when, as in this case, it would be giving the minister
of another congregation equal rights with myself within a district which
had always formed part of the charge of Kilbride. It is true that I was
of opinion that, in the interest of the Free Church itself, Lamlash
should continue to form part of the charge of Kilbride; but, at the same
time, I was willing that the new church, which my office-bearers and
myself were preparing to erect, should be available, when finished, for
special services for such as might not be satisfied with the services
already regularly held at Lamlash in connection with the Free Church,
and who might consider it too far to walk to Brodick or Whitingbay. This
ought sufficiently to meet the case of any who might be 'persuaded that
their comfort and edification could not be satisfactorily provided for’
by the Free Church services regularly held within comparatively easy
distance of all the people at Brodick, Lamlash, or Whitingbay.
"The statement that while the question of the erection of a station was
in dependence, I closed an arrangement for the site behind the
Established Church, is entirely erroneous. Between the time in January
when, as stated in the preceding paragraph of the petition, the question
was carried to the Presbytery for •decision, and the time when three of
the petitioners went to Mr Murray, the factor, about a site, I had no
communication of any kind, directly or indirectly, with anyone connected
with the management of the Arran estate.
"The statement that I closed an arrangement for the site referred to, £
without the knowledge of the petitioners,’ seems to imply that, in
negotiating about a site for Lamlash, I was acting upon my own
responsibility and without the knowledge of parties who ought to have
been consulted in the matter. Now, the fact is that at every step in
these negotiations, from first to last, I regularly consulted my
office-bearers, who were the parties entitled tu be consulted in such
matters. All the meetings of the Deacons’ Court, at which these matters
were discussed, were publicly announced both at Brodick and at Lamlash.
It is not quite •correct to say that the site accepted is £behind the
Established Church.’ It would be more accurate to say that it is behind
the Whitehouse, the grounds of which it overlooks.
"In support of the prayer of the petition above referred to, two reasons
were urged: (1) That I was not proceeding with the erection of a church
at Lamlash, although I had undertaken to provide one; and (2) That if
Lamlash were separated from Kilbride, the contributions of the Lamlash
people to the Sustentation Fund of the Free Church, would be available
for the support of the station. The Presbytery, without any reference to
the merits of the case, and without citing the Kirk-Session of Kilbride
to appear for their interests, granted the prayer of the petition by a
majority of five to two votes. Against this decision Mr Inglis, the
elder from Kilbride, and myself dissented, and complained to the Free
Synod of Argyle.
“The case came before the Synod on 22nd April. The main argument stated
in support of the decision of the Presbytery was the importance of
Lamlash as a favourite resort for summer visitors. The Synod, after
hearing parties, £ sustained the dissent and complaint, but in respect
that the petitioners laid no statistics before the Presbytery relative
to the population and financial capabilities of the district intended to
be erected into a station, and that the Kirk-Session of Kilbride was not
cited to appear at the Presbytery for its interests, remit the ease baek
to the Presbytery and instrnet them, if they see cause, to proceed in
the matter according to the laws of the Church.’ In this decision, Mr
Inglis and myself acquiesced, and the Presbytery protested and appealed
against it to the General Assembly.
“The Presbytery having met by leave of the Synod, immediately after the
rising of the Synod, agreed to fall from their protest and appeal. A
motion was then made to cite the Kirk-Session of Kilbride to appear for
their interests in the case at a meeting of Presbytery to be held at
Campbeltown on 12th May, and to request the petitioners to supply for
that meeting the statistics referred to in the Synod’s deliverance. This
motion having been carried by a majority, I dissented, and complained
against it to the General Assembly, chiefly because the Presbytery
proceeded in the case (1) without a certified extract of the Synod’s
deliverance; (2) in the absence of the petitioners; (3) without showing
cause why further action should be taken, especially before there was
sufficient time to elect the lay members of Presbytery; and also because
(4) the names of representative elders, who ceased to be members of
Presbytery when the Synod rose, were put in the sederunt, and these
elders sat and voted as members of Court; because (5) a petitioner sat
and voted in the Presbytery in his own case ; and because (6) the
resolution of the Presbytery to proceed in the case with sueh undue
haste, was contrary to the spirit and intention of the Synod’s
deliverance, which contemplated, as stated by its supporters, giving
parties in the case time to consider their respective positions in
reference to the question in dependence.
“Although, in view of the undoubted irregularities in the Presbytery’s
procedure, I would be fully justified in carrying my complaint to the
Assembly, still, on finding that no practical advantage was likely to
result, seeing that the General Assembly could not competently deal with
the merits of the case when adjudicating as a Court of Review in a ease
of complaint against irregularities in the procedure of a lower Court, I
fell from my complaint, and thus the decision of the Presbytery of 22nd
April, citing the Kirk-Session, and requesting the petitioners to supply
the statistics referred to in the Synod’s deliverance, became final. The
ease would then come up in ordinary course at the first meeting of
Presbytery after the General Assembly, to be dealt with under the
Synod’s remit, ‘according to the laws of the Church;’ and should any
complaints or appeals arise in connection with it,, the services at
Lamlash, which admittedly had given general satisfaction for two years,
would in that case be continued on the same footing for possibly another
year, or until the meeting of the-next General Assembly, when the case,
I have no doubt, would be finally disposed of on its merits. This,
however, was prevented by the proceedings which I shall now mention, and
the matter was brought into the unfortunate position in which it now
stands.
“Some time previous to the meeting of Presbytery, held at Campbeltown on
12th May, the Moderator of Presbytery wrote to parties at Lamlash,
requesting them to get up another petition, and to forward it to the
Presbytery. This petition, as afterwards appeared, was a new step
towards the splitting up of the congregation of Kilbride, which is
comparatively small, and has never been self-sustaining, into two still
smaller congregations; and yet neither the Kirk Session of Kilbride nor
myself have ever received any notice of it. It was not until the 22ud
May, and then only incidentally, that I came to know that the Moderator
of Presbytery had written to Lamlash, and my informant could tell me
nothing of the petition thus got up.
“Crossiug from Ardrossan to Brodick on Tuesday, 26th May, I learnt, also
quite incidentally, that a petition from Lamlash was to come before the
General Assembly, then sitting. But the friend who informed me of this,
having only heard that there was such a petition, could tell nothing in
regard to the nature or object of it. After I arrived at Brodick, I
learned from the newspapers that the petition was to come before the
Assembly that very day at the forenoon sederunt. This petition, I
afterwards ascertained, was the same which was got up at Lamlash two
weeks before by direction of the Moderator of Presbytery. In the
interval the Presbytery Clerk apparently had charge of it; but, although
he had written me twice between 12th May and the meeting of Assembly, on
matters connected with the Lamlash easel he never alluded to the
petition to the Assembly. It was not until about a week after the rising
of the General Assembly that I learned that, at the evening sederunt of
the Assembly, on Monday, 25th May, leave was granted to the Presbytery
of Kintvre to meet at the close of that sederunt for the purpose of
considering matters connected with the petition of members and adherents
of the Free Church at Lamlash, and that, at the same sederunt, the
Assembly ‘appointed the Committee on Bills to meet on the following day
a quarter of an hour before the meeting of Assembly.’ The petition
stated explicitly that there was a division in the Presbytery on the
question of the erection of Lamlash into a station, and complained that,
in consequence of my disseut and complaint to the General Assembly, the
erection of the station had been ‘ withheld or delayed ;’ and yet one of
the parties in that division, unknown to the other party, ask leave of
the Assembly to meet as a Presbytery when it was impossible for the
other party to be present, or even to know of the meeting, and the
Assembly grant leave, and also appoint a special meeting of the
Committee on Bills, to facilitate the action of the party who had thus
obtained leave to meet as a Presbytery.
“The meeting of Presbytery was held that night, 25th May, between 11 and
12 o’clock, and it was then agreed to ask the General Assembly to
appoint assessors to the Presbytery in the Lamlash case, and to empower
the Commission at any of its stated diets to dispose of any complaints
and appeals which might arise in connection with the case. On the
following day, at the forenoon sederunt, the petition which had
apparently been passed through the Committee on Bills into the Assembly
without any relative extract minute of either Kirk-Session or
Presbytery, which, indeed, although asking the General Assembly to take
action with a view of dividing an existing congregation, and of having a
new one formed, did not pass through any of the inferior Courts, was
taken up by the General Assembly, and parties were heard in support of
it, although those chiefly interested, the minister and Kirk-Session of
the congregation proposed to be divided, were absent, and had no
knowledge of their proceedings. The main argument used at the bar of the
Assembly in support of the prayer of the petition was the importance of
Lamlash as ‘a place of large summer resort,’ The Assembly also took up
the application of the Presbytery for Assessors, which, on recount of
the extraordinary haste in these proceedings, made it necessary to have
the Standing Order anent the printing of papers suspended, to allow the
minute of Presbytery of the previous night to be received m manuscript.
The Assembly granted the application, and appointed Rev. Dr Rainy, Rev.
Dr Adam, and others, Assessors to sit and vote in the Presbytery in the
Lamlash case. It does not appear, however, that any action was taken in
regard to the Lamlash petition. Even the resolution of the Presbytery of
22nd April, citing the Kirk-Session of Kilbride to appear for their
interests at a meeting of Presbytery to be held at Campbeltown on 12th
May, which became final, when I fell from my complaint, was not, so far
as appears from the printed proceedings, altered or amended. The
statement in the petition, therefore, that the Presbytery, when they
erected Lamlash into a mission station, were ‘ acting under a remit from
the General Assembly,’ does not seem to be correct, unless by ‘remit’
the appointment of Assessors be meant. The Presbytery, along with the
Assessors, having met by leave of the General Assembly in Edinburgh, on
Saturday, 30th May, agreed then to meet again at Lamlash on 11th June,
and to cite the Kirk-Session of Kilbride to appear for their interests
at that meeting. The Kirk-Session did not appear at the bar of the
Presbytery, but gave in an extract minute, in which, while still
retaining the views previously expressed by them to the effect that
there was no necessity for a separate station at Lamlashl and that the
erection of one would, by weakening the existing congregations, prove
injurious instead of beneficial to the Free Church cause in the
district, they agreed to offer no opposition to the Presbytery
sanctioning, should they see proper, a mission station there, the whole
responsibility in the matter resting upon the Presbytery. After hearing
a statement from the petitioners, the Presbytery agreed to form the
district into a mission station. From this decision Mr Inglis, the elder
representing the Kilbride Kirk-Session, and myself, recorded our dissent
; but we did not appeal to a higher Court. The newly erected station was
placed under the charge of the Rev. Mr Johnstone—a member of the
Presbytery of Greenock—one of the Assessors appointed by the General
Assembly to the Presbytery of Kintyre.”
It is important in this connection to call attention to a document
signed by Mr Cameron on 29th May, and given into the custody of
Principal Rainy, as it figures repeatedly in the progress of the case:—
“Edinburgh, 29th May.—Mr Cameron explained that he was willing to
consent to the Presbytery taking charge of Lamlash, erecting it into a
station, if they see cause ; that he agrees to abandon the site, leaving
it to the Presbytery or people to negotiate for the same site or a
better one, promising at the same time to do nothing to hinder their
obtaining it.
(Signed) “Alexander Cameron.”
It was expected that this proposed agreement, amicably arrived at, would
end or tend to terminate the difficulty. But when the matter came before
the Duke of Hamilton’s Commissioner, the elasticity of interpretation
was subjected to the following criticism by Mr Cameron, in a letter to
Dr Rainy, of date 27th August :—
“You can see from Mr Jamieson’s letter that the memorandum which you
wrote in Edinburgh, on 29th May, and which I agreed to sign, has left on
his mind the impression that I had proposed, and even actually arranged,
to make over, so far as I could, my interest in the site given me for a
preaching station at Lamlash to the Presbytery. I was certainly pressed
by yourself and friends to do what Mr Jamieson thinks I did; put, as you
are aware, I positively refused, because, as I stated to you, I believed
that if I were to do what you wished me to do, I would be breaking faith
with the Duke of Hamilton. What I agreed to was, as you knowr, to give
back the site to the proprietor, and to leave him free to give it, if he
thought proper, to the Station. It is clear, therefore, that your
document which I signed is liable to misconstruction, and that
consequently it is better for all parties that it should be withdrawn,
which, as the party who signed it, I accordingly now do. It was an
irregular thing from the first, for clearly you had no right to propose
to me, and I had no right to agree, to sign a document of the kind
without my Kirk-Session having been first consulted. I signed it, as you
know, with the view of my being at once relieved of my obligations in
connection with the church ordered for Lamlash; and when that purpose
failed, no further use should have been made of it ; nor should it have
been engrossed, as it was, in the Presbytery Record without my express
sanction. But although I now formally withdraw the memorandum., [ still
adhere to the resolution of the Kilbride Kirk-Session, of date 10th
June, which was so highly commended by yourself and the other Assessors
at the meeting of Presbytery on the following day. Of course, in
agreeing to that minute, the Kirk-Session did not surrender their right
to make such provision its they might consider necessary for supplying
ordinances to their own members and adherents at Lamlash. This was also
expressly understood when I signed your document on 29th May.”
The question of motive in the whole matter will probably with most
people be somewhat set at rest by an undoubtedly genuine expression of
feeling in the following communication to the Duke’s Commissioner, a
most genial and learned lawyer:—
“The obligations under which I have come in regard to a church for
Lamlash were undertaken entirely in the interest of the people and of
the Free Church cause in the district, and were the natural and
necessary result of arrangements entered into, and of responsibilities
assumed, long before the petition to the Presbytery for the separation
of Lamlash from Kilbride came into existence. Of the fact of these
responsibilities the Presbytery was informed as early as the 20th
January, when the case came first before the Presbytery. I am satisfied
chat His Grace will not allow me personally to suffer in this matter. I
am likewise satisfied that he will not be the less disposed to protect
my interests in this matter, if he should come to know, as Mr Murray and
yourself have all along known, that in negotiating for a site for
Lamlash I acted as faithfully to the Free Church as I could have done if
I approved as sincerely as I, for the most part, disapprove of the
public policy of those who now guide her counsels.”
On the 26th of October the following note was addressed to the Moderator
of the Free Presbytery of Kintyre:—
“Rev. Dear Sir,—In reference to the citation to the Kirk-Session of
Kilbride to appear at a meeting of Presbytery to be held at Campbeltown
to-morrow evening, to explain and defend, if it sees fit, the course it
may have taken in connection with the erection at Lamlash of a building
‘alleged’ to be ‘a place of worship ’ ‘in connection with the Free
Church,’ I have been instructed by the Kirk-Session to inform you that
it takes nothing to do with the erection of buildings whether in
connection with the Free Church or not, that being a matter which does
not come within its province as an Ecclesiastical Court.—I am yours most
respectfully.”
The reply was this :—
“At Campbeltown, 27th day of October, 1885, which day the Free
Presbytery of Kinttyre met and was constituted.
“Inter alia,—It was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to:—
“1. That though neither Mr Cameron nor the Kirk-Session of Brodick
appeared to answer the citation of the 13th inst., the Presbytery
understood, from information furnished to them, that a place of worship
is being erected at Lamlash under the direction of the Rev. A. Cameron,
of Brodick, which erection has not been authorised or sanctioned by the
Presbytery.
“2. That no such building can lawfully be opened for public worship in
connection with the Free Church of Scotland without the sanction of this
Presbytery.
“3. That the Presbytery, disapproving of the way in which this building
has been proceeded with, so far as it has been disclosed or ean be
gathered, hereby prohibit the opening of it for public worship.
“4. The Presbytery appoint intimation hereof to be made to the
Kirk-Session of Brodick to the congregation at Lamlash, and also to His
Grace the Duke of Hamilton.
“Extracted by (Signed) Alex. Macrae, P.C.”
There must have been some mistake oil misunderstanding as to the precise
position of affairs at this juncture, as appears from the view taken of
this deliverance by Mr Cameron, which was :—
“At a meeting of Presbytery in October a motion was agreed to
‘prohibiting the Iron Church from being opened for public worship.’ This
was quite incompetent, as the building was not Free Church or
denominational property.”
Accordingly, about the middle of Januaiy, 1886, the Iron Church was
opened by the Rev. Dr Williamson, Aseog, Bute, who preached in the
forenoon from Ephes. ii. 19 and 22, and in the evening from Rom. i. 16.
The day was very unfavourable, but the attendance was most gratifying,
and the collection amounted to ,£32 13s 1 Old. The structure presented
an elegant appearance was most comfortable, and well lighted.
The Free Synod of Argyll met at Lochgilphead on 28th April, 1886, and
took up the reference from the Presbytery of Kintyre in the Lamlash
case.
It was moved and seconded—“That the case be referred simpliciter to the
Assembly.” It was also moved and seconded— “That, inasmuch as the
abandonment and acceptance of sites for buildings, and also questions
directly affecting the erection, owner ship, and possession of property,
come within the province of the Civil, rather than of the Ecclesiastical
Courts, the Synod decline to interfere in this case, more especially as
it appears that the building in question at Lamlash is not Free Church
property, and that there is no evidence that it has been opened in
connection with the Free Church denomination.” Fourteen voted for the
first motion, and three for the second. From this finding Mr Cameron
dissented.
In May he stated that, although no money consideration could make up for
the annoyance to which he and his people had been subjected, he was yet
willing to acquiesce in any reasonable terms as to a satisfactory
arrangement at Lamlash. But nothing came of any overtures that may have
been made on behalf of either party in the somewhat complicated case, ft
is not unknown that pecuniary difficulties affecting the Iron Church
began, at and after this period, to press so heavily that at one time he
contemplated the necessity of selling his furniture in order to meet all
obligations. But such a sad pass -was fortunately and opportunely
avoided by the generous intervention of unfailing friendship.
The reference from the Synod of Argyll in the case of Lamlash came
before the Assembly on Tuesday, June 1st, 1886. Mr Cameron was asked to
go to the bar, but pointed out that he -was not a party in this case, as
it came before the Assembly by reference from the inferior Court. When
members refused to hear him in the House but at the bar, he protested
strongly against his having been compelled to take the place which he
then occupied, stating that that was the first time he had ever known,
in all his experience of Church Courts, of such a course being followed;
and he appealed to the Cheifs of Assembly whether it was not as a member
of the House, instead of as a party at the bar, that he should be taking
part in this case.
After parties had been heard, it was moved and seconded— “ That Mr
Cameron be asked whether he had received a title to the ground at
Lamlash from the Duke of Hamilton in his own name and favour?” It was
also moved and seconded—“That this question be not put to Mr Cameron.”
The first motion was carried by a large majority. But from this judgment
Mr M'Ewan and nineteen other members dissented, because the Assembly had
no right to interfere with the individual and personal rights of Mr
Cameron, and because the question put to Mr Cameron involves another
party, namely, the Duke of Hamilton. Two others dissented because “we
are not entitled to know whether the titles be in his own name.”
To the question put, Mr Cameron replied that this was a matter in which
other parties were concerned, and that he did not feel himself at
liberty to answer the question without their consent. He asked for time
to obtain this, and then promised to reply.
Dr Moir Porteous asked whether the Presbytery would now be willing to
take over the Iron Church, provided the site could be secured, along
with the consent of Mr Cameron! Mr Johnstone replied that the Presbytery
could not undertake to answer the question without communicating with
the local parties.
Mr John M‘Ewan, Edinburgh—Is it a fact that Mr Cameron or his Deacons’
Court has done anything to prevent the parties interested from obtaining
a site?
Mr Cameron—We have done nothing whatever to prevent a site being got.
The Duke of Hamilton decided that matter on his own responsibility, and
after making enquiry for himself.
Professor Thomas Smith moved :—
“That the Assembly do not find that the Presbytery of Kintyre was called
to interfere with Mr Cameron’s exercise of that right which appertains
to all ministers of the Free Church of conducting religious services at
any place within the district assigned to him ; while it is competent to
the Presbytery, if they see cause, to take steps in the regular way for
the disjunction of Lamlash from the congregation of Ivilhride, and for
the institution of a station there.”
Mr (now Dr) Stewart, Glasgow, seconded.
Mr R. G. Balfour, Edinburgh, proposed :—
“That the General Assembly find that Lamlash has been erected into a
station; that Mr Cameron has secured a site and erected a church at
Lamlash, and alleges that a few families there still adhere to him; that
the securing of this site and the erection of this church, which is
understood to be the property of Mr Cameron, or under his control,
constitute the obstacle which has rendered it impossible as yet for the
station at Lamlash to obtain from the proprietor a site for a place of
worship; that Mr Cameron has erected the building in question without
the authority or approbation of the Presbytery, and has caused it to be
opened and kept open for public worship against the prohibition of the
Piesbytery :—
“The General Assembly find that Mr Cameron’s conduct has been highly
censurable, and all the more so because, on the plea of caring for some
persons at Lamlash still adhering to the Brodick congregation, he has
inflicted a grievous wrong upon the body of the people at Lamlash
adhering to the Free Church. The Assembly prohibit and discharge Mr
Cameron from opening the said church for worship on the Lord’s Day,
without the leave of the Presbytery, under pains of process for
contumacy, &c.”
Mr Lawrie, Tulliallan, seconded.
Mr Neil Taylor, Dornoch, proposed :—
“That the General Assembly, having heard parties, and considering the
peculiarities in the case, find that Mr Cameron was justified in
providing a place of worship for the convenience of the adherents of the
Brodick Free Church congregation residing at Lamlash, and authorise the
Presbytery to take over the Iron Church, with Mr Cameron’s consent, and
on the understanding that Mr Cameron be relieved of the pecuniary
obligations connected with the undertaking.”
Mr Macaskill, Dingwall, seconded.
Professor Smith having withdrawn his motion, it was found that 104 had
voted for Mr R. G. Balfour’s motion and 39 for Mr Taylor’s motion. From
this judgment 10 members dissented.
“I. Because the motion of Mr Balfour is unnecessarily severe and
stringent. 2. Because the second motion was sufficient to meet all the
purposes contemplated by Mr Balfour’s motion without pain to any party.”
The last reason is very significant and far-reaching; and a nrid light
is thrown upon it by this personal reference:—
“After returning home from the General Assembly, I was attacked by a
sort of nervousness which completely unfitted me— although in other
respects quite well—for any mental exertion— even the small amount of
exertion necessary for writing letters of any importance. This feeling,
the result, I believe, of the annoyance and worry to which I was
subjected in Edinburgh, went off all at once when I went north to assist
Mr Baillie at his Communion ; and during all the time I was there I was
perfectly well. I preached seven times in five days, and on five of
these occasions to very large congregations in the open air. When I
reached this (Brodick) the nervous attack returned, and except on the
Saturdays and Sabbaths, when I have been obliged to exert myself, I have
since felt quite helpless, so far as any mental work is concerned. I am
ashamed to own all this, but it explains my delay in writing you. I
ought, of course, to have overcome this feeling, but it is not easy to
do so. You have asked how the case of Lamlash stands since the General
Assembly’s decision. That decision prevents me from using the building
for public worship; nor can 1 give the use of it to any other party. I
can preach to my own adherents at Lamlash in any place in the district
except in the building erected by myself on the site given to me by the
proprietor as a matter of personal favour. It will, therefore, be
necessary for me to divest myself of the control of the building, at
least for a time, so that my people may have the use of it without
giving an opportunity of bringing a charge of contumacy against me.”
It was some consolation to him while thus suffering that he received a
large amount of sympathy both from private sources and from the public
press. To mention only two newspapers, which may be taken as
representative, by way of contrast—the Scotsman and the Signal. A few
sentences from the latter will suffice :—“ If the preamble was designed
to give a true representation of the facts, it would have stated that Mr
Cameron had received a site and had contracted for the church before the
Station was erected.” “Where is it that a Free Church minister comes
under obligation not to open a church or hall for public worship within
his own district without the approbation of the Presbytery ” “In the
preamble the Assembly say that the church is ‘understood to be the
property of Mr Cameron or under his control,’ and then they prohibit
him, under pain of Church censure, from opening his own property for
worship on the Lord’s Day!” “He may preach anywhere about this building,
and he may even enter it and preach on any day of the week except
Sabbath.” “When the reference from the Synod of Argyll was stated and
sustained, the Synod, of which Mr Cameron was a member, ceased to be
parties, and he was entitled to deliberate and vote in the Assembly, of
which he was also a member, when the case was taken up upon the merits.
Instead of this, however, he was compelled to go to the bar, and was not
allowed as a member of the House to speak or vote upon the case. In this
way he was not only subjected to censuring and inquisitorial questions,
but was deprived of his constitutional rights.”—(Moncrieff’s Manual, pp.
60-63).
On the 24th of June an authoritative proposal was submitted to Mr
Cameron to take the Iron Church—the site to be included— off his hands,
at a sum to be fixed by valuation. But, considering all that had taken
place, it is hardly to be wondered at that he seemed to find it
difficult all at once to reconcile this line of action with the
interests of the members and adherents of Kilbride resident at Lamlash,
not to refer to personal considerations.
On April 16th, 1887, an appeal—not without authority, and not in an
unfriendly spirit—was urgently addressed to him to-come to a just and
generous settlement, in view of the forthcoming meeting of the Supreme
Court of the Church, to which he replied on 18th April, clearly stating
his position ; and wuth this communication may fitly close the case and
correspondence, as far ashe was concerned :—
“It was about half-past ten o’clock on Saturday night when I received
your letter, and, therefore, I had not sufficient time to reply to it
before the steamer left this morning. Besides, I would like to have more
leisure to bring out more clearly (1) whether or not the General
Assembly ought as a matter of simple justice, and apart altogether from
any questions as to the future use of the Iron Church, to cancel the
decision of last year in the Lamlash case, and (2) whether or not I have
acted all along in this business, not only justly, but also generously
towards the interests, which you advocate, although I have often had
sufficient provocation to dispense with the generosity. These are the
two main questions raised by your letter ; and the first of them may
easily be decided by reference to facts and documents, with which Dr
Rain! must be as well acquainted as I am, for he acted a principal part
in connection with all of them, whilst a brief narrative of the actings
of the Church Courts on the one hand, and of my actings on the other, in
connection with this matter, will enable any unprejudiced person to form
a correct opinion in regard to the second question. It is sufficient at
present to say that, assuming that I am right in thinking that the
decision of the Assembly has inflicted on me a grievous and cruel wrong,
your proposal about taking ‘ the sting’ out of it would only have the
effect of adding insult to injury, although I know very well that that
is not your intention. 1 cannot therefore be a party to any proposal in
regard to that decision which will not, in effect, remove every trace of
it from the Records of the General Assembly.
“I find in your letter a mistake which it is necessary to correct. I did
not say that the parties into whose hands, as I expect, the control of
the Iron Church will soon pass, are to act for me. They will act not for
me, but for themselves, and on their own responsibility. They have a
material interest in the building, which entitles them to assume the
control of it; but I am confident that they will deal both generously
and wisely with any applications for the use of it, that may be made to
them on behalf of any Free Church residents at Lamlash, who may wish to
have special services there for their own benefit. I hope that this
arrangement will result in giving satisfaction to all parties. When Dr
Rainy called here in August, I informed him of my intention to divest
myself entirely of the control of the building, and he considered that
that arrangement would do, if the matter were to pass into the hands of
responsible persons. Of course any parties who may have to decide on
applications for the use of the building must feel that they will have
to deal with a very responsible matter, although they will not be
answerable to Church Courts.”
The only services held in the Iron Church after this, while it remained
at Lamlash—from which it was ultimately removed to Glasgow—were one or
two prayer meetings, over which, on a week day, the late Dr Smeaton of
Edinburgh genially and profitably presided.
In October, 1888, Mr Cameron was beyond the pale of controversy. The
subsequent steps in the conduct of the Lamlash case were not wdthout
considerable intricacy and difficulty; but only a very brief summary of
results can be given here—for the sake of completeness. Rev. M. P.
Johnstone, Greenock, represented the Lamlash people, and the present
writer conducted the case for the representatives of the late Dr
Cameron. It may not be inappropriate, without attempting to cover a
tithe of the ground or of the various interests involved, to give one or
two extracts from a correspondence that shows how the situation was
simplified. In reply to a request by a deputation from the Free Church
station at Lamlash for a new site on which to build a church, the Duke
of Hamilton’s Commissioner wrote on 24th July, 1889 :—
“I wish in the first instance to make it plain to you and the other
adherents of the Free Church in Lamlash, that whatever views may be
entertained by you and others regarding the acting of the late Dr
Cameron in connection with the existing site and the Iron Church on it,
His Grace would never at the time that site was given have agreed to
give any site which did not in his opinion meet the wishes and
requirements of the late Dr Cameron and those whom he was supposed to
represent in Lamlash; and having —as the Duke has always had—a very
great regard for Dr Cameron while alive, and a sincere respect for his
memory now that he is dead, he will do nothing which would in the very
least degree indicate a lessening of that regard or a diminution of that
respect in connection with these arrangements; and the only feeling
which prompts His Grace to agree to the request of the deputation on
this subject is the unanimity with which, as you represented, the
adherents of the Free Church in the district make a request for another
site, and the Duke feels, looking to that unanimity, he can without the
least reflection on Dr Cameron’s memory agree to the request, but upon
the conditions I am to name.” .
(1) Refers to locality of site to be pointed out and approved.
“(2) As a preliminary to any such selection the Duke must insist that Dr
Cameron’s representatives shall be relieved of all the expenses which
were incurred by him in absolute good faith in connection with the
existing site, and with the erection of the Iron Church upon it. His
Grace feels that in making this condition he is only doing what is fair
and right by the memory of the late Dr Cameron, and in the interests of
his representatives, and because he is satisfied that whatever may be
the views entertained by some of your body regarding Dr Cameron’s
actions, he (Dr Cameron) acted in this matter, so far as His Grace is
aware, in the most absolute good faith, and in the belief that he was
doing the best he could for the interests of the Free Church of which he
was minister. ” ,
The site offered met with warm approval and appreciation of His Grace’s
kindness on the part of the people; but the condition attached was
submitted to some criticism, which was answered by an intimation that
the cost incurred in getting and erecting the Iron Church “may be
ascertained, if a difference of opinion shall arise, by arbitration
between the representatives of the late Dr Cameron and those who desire
the new site.”
A Minute of Reference was then drawn up (by Mr J. A. Stuart, solicitor,
Edinburgh) between the Rev. John Kennedy, on behalf of the owners of the
Iron Church, and the Rev. M. P. Johnstone, on behalf of the congregation
of the Free Church of Scotland at Lamlash, whereby they submitted and
referred to the final decision and award of James S. Napier, Esq.,
Glasgow, sole arbiter, mutually chosen by them to fix and determine the
value of the said Iron Church.
The arbiter’s findings were given on 5th February, 1890, fixing the
present value of the Iron Church at two-thirds of the original cost—a
judgment in which both parties acquiesced. It is only right and what is
due here heartily to pay a high tribute for perfect fairness and
frankness to the respected arbiter and to the corresponding
representative.
The final stage in this protracted case was reached when, on 1st June,
1891, the General Assembly took up consideration of a petition by
members of the Kirk-Session of Kilbride, Arran, and by a large number of
people, representing that the decision come to in this case by the
General Assembly on June 1st, 1886, involved, in a way most painful to
them, the name and memory of the late Rev. Alexander Cameron, LL.D., as
also their Deacons’ Court ; and requesting that the decision complained
of should be rescinded, at least as far as it bore upon the
office-bearers of their congregation and on the respected memory of the
late Dr Cameron. I appeared in support of the petition, and briefly
stated the history of the case, emphasising the desirability and
necessity of granting the prayer of the petitioners.
Principal Rainy said there was no new element set before the House. He
hoped Dr Cameron had not suffered appreciably in health from that
judgment, but undoubtedly he felt it. He was •disposed to think that,
however unable to review the judgment of 1886—it must be an exceptional
case that would lead them to do that—the Assembly would be willing to
come to any finding that would have a solacing effect upon the minds of
those to whom the memory of Dr Cameron was dear, or who had regard for
him. He accordingly moved:—“Find that no charge against any of the
office-bearers was made or suggested in the judgment of 1886 which is
referred to in the petition. With regard to Dr Cameron, the Assembly
declines to review the judgment of 1886, but they willingly express
their respect for the memory of Dr Cameron, and disclaim any desire to
reflect on the motives under which he acted.”
Mr (now Dr) William Balfour, Holyrood, Edinburgh, seconded the motion,
and animadverted on the harshness of the judgment of 1886, in the case
of one who was doing his utmost to further the interests of his people;
but he gladly acquiesced in the tribute now paid to Dr Cameron’s memory,
for whom he had the greatest possible respect and regard. The motion was
unanimously agreed to.
The home life of Mr Cameron was a complete contrast to the estimate
formed by some of him from casual acquaintance or from rumours about his
ecclesiastical contendings. Rev. Dr Goold, Edinburgh, in a time of deep
bereavement, begins a letter to him thus:—
“We don’t often meet, and we sometimes do not see eye to eye, but I hope
there is no lack of personal friendliness between us. In this belief I
venture to trouble you with an enquiry.”
It was, like that of many others, in reference to summer quarters—a
matter that he readily and gladly attended to—as he could thereby often
oblige both strangers and natives.
The following note to Mrs Kennedy, Dingwall, at the time of her sorest
trial—the death of her beloved husband and his dearest friend, Dr
Kennedy—shows the same sympathetic and deeply-touched heart-chord :—
“I am sorry not to have been able to call, were it only to-shake hands
with you, for I did not wish at present to intrude upon you, nor even to
refer to your great affliction, which, notwithstanding all the sympathy
that friends may show, you must long bear alone. And yet not alone; for
the Master, whom he who has been taken from you so long and so
faithfully served, will, I trust, be Himself with you and yours,
according to His promise.”
As is well and widely known, liis hospitality hardly knew any bounds. It
was a great pleasure and a literary treat for him to meet many of those
who frequently called, and in this way he sometimes formed life-long
friendships. He was exceptionally liberal and mindful in giving money to
any who were in need; and occasionally, as often happens, some of those
not the neediest or most deserving succeeded in sharing in what could
not always well be spared. At all events, as he sometimes playfully
remarked:—“Money does not remain long with me.” In regard to a proposed
new hall at Lamlash he writes:—“I regret that in consequence of several
calls of a similar kind which I have at present to meet, I cannot
contribute a larger sum than one guinea, which I now enclose.
In 1887 he was busy endeavouring to secure a suitable site for a hall at
Brodick mainly for prayer-meetings ; and also arranging as to a central
site for a new Free Church at Corrie; but as in the case of building a
new manse for personal comfort, all these long-thought of proposals were
destined to be handed down to his successor—one soweth and another
reapeth.
In writing to two literary and life-long friends—Rev. Mr and Mrs Auld,
Olrig—under date 6th August, 1887, in connection with communion
services, Mr Cameron confesses he would not like to leave Caithness
without having the pleasure of seeing them, and adds—“I have not had an
idle Sabbath for years, and I would enjoy one, if I shall not be in your
way.” All who have had the privilege of even a brief day in the happy
home and society so much appreciated by Dr Kennedy will readily
acquiesce in the above estimate and prospect.
During 1888, in spring and in summer, the doctors—local and
visitor—repeatedly recommended him to rest, and pressed him to remove to
some retired place to recruit. But he put off from day to day in hope
that when the strangers should be gone it would be easier for him to
take a change. It was noted by many that he seemed to devote the summer
wholly to pastoral work—writing out admirable sermons in full, and
occasionally reading a large part of them from the pulpit on account of
failing health. It was remarked by visitors and natives alike that he
never preached more powerfully or profitably than during the last year
of his life.
Probably lie felt that his opportunities of pleading with men were fast
passing away, and, therefore, put all his ardour into his appeals.
On the 18tli of April the University of Edinburgh, his alma mater,
conferred upon him the honorary degree of LL.D., in recognition of his
great services to Celtic scholarship. It is no secret that the
University of Glasgow had in view to bestow a similar honour upon him
had it not been that it was anticipated by Edinburgh. Along with Mr
Cameron was capped ;n old fellow student, Mr Oliver, of Dennistoun, who
received the D.D. degree. Many congratulatory letters reached him on
this occasion. One wrote :—"Your old friends rejoice with you in your
promotion, and hope that you will long be spared and known as Dr
Cameron. What a pity that you had not a lady to share the charms of it
with you.” It need hardly be added that he was never married. In this he
was like Immanuel Kant and many other distinguished men, who seemed to
dread the possible rivalry between books and looks. Nevertheless it is
scarcely regarded as the ideal life. Another remarks:—“I have very great
pleasure in offering you the hearty congratulations of myself and family
on your having had conferred on you by the Edinburgh University the
distinguished degree of Doctor of Laws. It is extremely gratifying to us
all, as it must also be to your other friends, that you should have
received such a well-merited honour.” Another says —“Will you allow me
to congratulate you most enthusiastically on the honour which the
University of Edinburgh has conferred upon you? It must be a cause of
eager gratification to every former student of yours that your work for
Celtic Philology and your attainments in that department are at length
officially recognised. But to one who has so long known and proved you,
not only for a master, but for a true friend, it is doubly pleasing to
hear of the distinction proposed to be conferred.”
One other note will suffice :—
“At Campbeltown, 27th March, 1888, which day the Free Presbytery of
Kintyre met and was constituted inter alia, Mr Macquecn called the
attention of the Presbytery to the fact that the degree of LL.D. had
been conferred on one of their number, Mr Cameron, of Brodick, and he
moved that the Presbytery express their congratulations with Mr Cameron
on receiving from the most illustrious University in the kingdom its
highest degree. Conscious that this brother has well earned this honour
by his well-known abilities, and especially by his labours in connection
with Celtic literature, they hope that he may be long spared to enjoy
the distinction so honourably conferred upon him.
“The motion was seconded by Mr Mackenzie and unanimously agreed to.
“Extracted by A. Macrae, P.C.”
A melancholy and pathetic interest attaches to this kindly and
appreciative record: for this was l)r Cameron’s last, and the writer's
first appearance at the Presbytery. He was not destined to wear the
honour long; but it was well that his ripe scholarship had received this
lasting mark of recognition.
In reply to the congratulations of Dr Aird—so soon to be the venerable
and honoured Moderator of the Inverness Assembly, and in answer to his
desire for information about Gaelic Bibles aud Psalm-books, regarding
which he is pleased to say—“No other man but yourself can tell
accurately the dates,” Dr Cameron writes :—
“I beg to thank Mrs Aird and yourself very sincerely for your kind
congratulations. The honour of which the Senatus of the Edinburgh
University have judged me worthy, I neither sought nor expected; and I
can say without any false humility that I do not consider myself to be
really deserving of it. It is not for me, however, to quarrel with the
opinion of the Senatus and of yourself and other friends on this point,
but rather by more application to work in the future, if the Lord will
be pleased to spare me for a few years longer, to endeavour to make up,
to some extent, for my shortcomings in the past.
“I have to apologise for not sooner acknowledging your kind letters. The
last—that of the 27th nit.—I received on Saturday last on my return home
after some days’ absence ; and during the past days of this week I was
very busy with work which I was anxious to get out of my hands before
sitting down to acknowledge the congratulations of yourself and other
friends. Your letter of the 23rd I received before leaving home to
attend our Presbytery meeting in Campbeltown, and I expected that while
there I might be able to get definite information in regard to the date
of the publication of the first complete edition of the Synod of
Argyle’s metrical translation of the Psalms. Dr Russell, one of the
Established Church ministers of Campbeltown, is the Presbytery Clerk of
the Synod of Argyle, and has in his custody the Synod Records. I had
hoped that I might have been able to call on Dr Russell and see the
Records, which contain much valuable information in regard to the
efforts of the Synod to get the Scriptures and Psalms circulated among
the Gaelic-speaking people. I was not, however, able to call in
consequence of our sitting having-been a very lengthy one, and of my
having to make some preparation for a discussion on the overture on
ministerial inefficiency, which I regard as wrong in form, wrong in
principle, and not fitted to serve the end which it is intended to
promote] Our Presbytery, however, passed it by eight votes against four.
My opposition was in vain, and I might have been more profitably
employed searching the Records of the Synod of Argyle : but of course it
was my duty to be in the Presbytery.
“It was astonishing that so few ministers in the Northern Presbyteries
refused to conform to Episcopacy in 1882. I believe of the Established
Church ministers of the present day would become Episcopal if they
could; but the Presbyterian Constitution of the Church of Scotland, as
contained in the Statutes of! the Scottish Parliament, prevents them.
“I do not know much about the religious history of Argyle-shire after
the Revolution; but it is a very interesting subject, and well worth
study. There was a Mr Donald Campbell in Kilmichael-Glassary, who was an
evangelical preacher. The people were very ignorant and irreligious when
he went among them. He published some sermons on the ‘Sufferings of
Christ,’ which were translated into Gaelic and published before the end
of last century. A second edition was published in 1800. I have the
English edition and the two Gaelic editions. I have also another volume
published by this Mr Campbell.
“I shall write soon again if I can get more information for you. You
ought not, however, to let your own stores of valuable information in
regard to the traditional religious history of the North Highlands die
with yourself.—With kindest regards, I am, yours sincerely, “Alexander
Cameron.
“Brodick, 9th April.”
In a letter dated Brodick, 17th March, 188S, addressed to Dr Aird, and
referred to in the last, Dr Cameron gives a great deal of valuable
information about Gaelic books, that ought to be remembered. He says:—
“I am sorry that I have been so long without replying to your esteemed
letter of 12th inst. I was at Lenimore on Sabbath introducing Mr Kennedy
to his people there ; and having had to go to Edinburgh on Monday, I did
not get home until yesterday afternoon.
“The ‘Caogad,’ or first fifty Psalms, put into metre by the Synod of
Argyle, was published in 1G59. The Synod did not complete its metrical
version until 1694, but I do not know whether or not the completed
version was published in that year. Reid, in his ‘Bibliotheca
Scoto-Celtica,’ says that the first completed edition was published in
that year, but that he had never been able to meet with it. The first
completed edition of the Synod of Argyle’s version that I have seen was
published in 1702. This is also the oldest edition Reid had seen. It has
the 3rd edition of the Shorter Catechism (same date) bound up with it,
the 2nd edition (1659) having been published with the ‘Caogad.’ One
would think that if the Synod of Argyle’s completed version was
published in 1694, the 3rd edition of the Shorter Catechism would be
published along with it, whereas the 3rd edition was not published until
1702. according to the title-page of the edition published in that year.
“The next oldest edition of the Synod of Argyle’s version that I have
got was published in 1738, with which the 6th edition of the Catechism
is bound up. Between the edition of 1702 and that of 1738, two editions
were published, one in 1715 and the other in 1729.
“A metrical version of the whole Psalms, by Mr Robert Kirke, minister at
Balquhidder, was published in 1684, but there never was a second
edition. It does not appear to have been much used. I have the ‘Viogad’
and also Kirke’s Psalter, but they are very scarce.
“The date of the first edition of the Shorter Catechism is not known.
The second edition, as I have stated, was published in 1659.
“The first edition of the New Testament into Scottish Gaelic was not
published until 1767. It was prepared by Dr James Stewart, minister of
Killin. The first edition of the Old Testament was published in four
parts, and It different times. The 1st part, containing the Pentateuch,
was published in 1783; the 4th part, containing the Prophets, in 1786;
the 2nd part, containing Joshua to the end of 1st- Chronicles, in 1787;
and the 3rd part, containing 2nd Chronicles to the end of Song of
Solomon, in 1801. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd parts were prepared by Dr John
Stewart, minister of Luss, and son of Dr James Stewart, and the 4th part
by Dr John Smith, of Campbeltown.
“The Old Testament, translated into Irish by Bishop Bedel, was published
in London in 1685. Some 200 copies were sent to Scotland for use in the
Highlands. The Irish New Testament was published in 1603, and a second
edition, prepared by Bishop O’Donnell, was published in 1681. A copy of
this edition is bound up with my copy of Bedel’s Old Testament. The
volume belonged to the late Marquis of Breadalbane, at the sale of whose
library I purchased it.
“In 1690 Bedel’s Old Testament and O’Donnell’s Ne«v Testament were
published in London in one volume, in the Roman character, for the use
of the Highlanders of Scotland. There were also copies of the Testament
bound separately. Mr Robert Kirke, of Balquhidder, was the means of
procuring this boon to the Scottish Highlanders; and hence this edition
is usually called after him, ‘Kirke’s Bible.’ Another edition of the
Irish New Testament, in the Roman character, for the use of the Scottish
Highlanders, was published in 1754. The publisher was John Orr, a
bookseller in Glasgow.
“The publication of Kirke’s Bible in 1690, and the reprint of the New
Testament in 1754, both in Irish Gaelic although not, like Bedel’s
Bible, in the Irish character, were the only steps taken to make the
Scriptures available for our Highland countrymen previous to the
publication of the New Testament in Scottish Gaelic in 1767—a little
over a century ago.
“I hope that these hurried notes will be found to supply the information
you wish to get. 1 need not say that I shall be delighted to give any
further information that I may possess and that may in the least
interest you.”
These letters read like Mr E. Gosse’s “Gossip in a Library”— only Dr
Cameron’s is a Gaelic library, but not the less interesting-on that
account.
He struggled on through the summer and autumn months, working
excessively hard, paying pastoral visits to his people, and regularly
calling for the strangers. He did not seem to have secured as many
ministers on holiday to take a sermon for him as he was wont to do, for
he was almost proverbially successful in persuading reluctant preachers
to go to the pulpit for an hour At last, in the early days of October,
when he could no longer fight against growing weakness and the rapid
advance of several diseases that affected heart, liver, and latterly,
lungs, he agreed to go to Strathpeffer; but he was under promise, at the
same time, to assist the late Mr Baillie, Gairloch, at his communion,
and hoped against hope that he would be able to fulfil his engagement.
He only, however, succeeded in arriving at the hospitable home of his
old and most kind friend, Mrs Fullarton, Woodside Place, Glasgow—now in
her hundred and first year—when violent bleeding at the nose set in, and
he was quite prostrated. Only at this juncture did he allow his Gairloch
appointment to be telegraphically cancelled; and he managed, with great
difficulty, to go through to Edinburgh, where he was at once laid up in
Holyrood Manse, under the hospitable roof and genial care of his
unfailing and ungrudgingly kind friend, Rev. Dr William Balfour. Here he
lingered for several weeks, battling against overwhelming odds, but
brave and patient throughout all his trying illness. He had the very
best medical advice from Dr George Balfour and Dr T. A. G. Balfour,
George Square, who were unremittting in their attendance and kindness.
He received visits from many sympathetic and sorrow-stricken friends,
who had a few months before hoped and prayed that he might be spared for
many years to continue and crown his life-work: but it was otherwise
ordained, and he unmurmuring! acquiesced in the will of God. He was
nursed assiduously and admirably, under the superintendence of Miss
Balfour, by one of her servants, and by his own housekeeper, Miss Jane
Currie, who was called to Edinburgh when it became evident that he could
never see his much-loved home and people at Brodick. He had also the
careful attention and unwearied assistance of Rev. J. Iv. Cameron—who
succeeded him in the pastorate at Brodick—during the last three weeks of
his heavy trouble; and, being an eye-witness of the closing days of Dr
Cameron’s life, he kindly supplied the following touching account:—
“The worth of a man, and the nature of the Christian profession, are
always more or less tested on a sick bed, especially when the hope of
recovery gradually lessens at the apparent approach of death. The
triumphs of faith in such circumstances as these are often very
remarkable. To those who were favoured with a measure of the confidence
of, and whose painful lot it was to see the late Dr Cameron during the
three weeks of suffering, in Edinburgh, which terminated in his lamented
death, it was very apparent that his was no mere profession which could
not stand in the hour of trial. To a remarkable degree it was seen that
it was the man who lived that was there contending with death and the
realities of eternity. His patient suffering, and whatever few remarks
his painful suffering permitted him to utter, bore ample testimony to
the fact.
“For several days he clung to a very strong hope of recovery, but it
weakened with a gradual sinking of body under his disease.
Notwithstanding all the aid that medical friends did render him, his
condition from the first appeared to his friends to be very critical,
yet he himself for some time failed to realise that it was so much so.
This helped to strengthen his hope of eventually overcoming the disease,
at least in a measure. Proof of how little he realised his true
condition was afforded by the fact that he proposed to leave Edinburgh
on the following morning after his arrival there for to proceed to
Gairloeh, in the vest of Ross-shire; which is reached by train to
Auchnasheen on the Dingwall and Skye Railway, and thence by coach for a
distance of thirty miles. He was to have assisted at the Gairloch
Communion services. He intended thereafter to return to the favourite
Spa of Strathpeffer, and there lest for some weeks. He had a strong
personal desire to be at Gairloeh because of how refreshing the
Communion gatherings there, on previous occasions, proved to his own
soul. His services, too, were always in request in the north of
Scotland, where he was very much appreciated by the Lord’s people as a
preacher of the Gospel. It was, however, his promise, given some time
previously, to be there which most determined his purpose.
“His ministry at Brodick was not without peculiar trials and
difficulties, but the people of his congregation had always a warm place
in his heart. They were much on his mind during his last illness; and he
desired much, if it were the Lord’s will, to be restored to such a
measure of health as that he would be able to go back to work again
among them. He left Brodick immediately after the close of a busy summer
season; and on account of the many visitors who frequent the place,
representing! as they do, so many different classes of society and so
many parts of the country, the importance of the place deeply impressed
itself upon him, because of the opportunity that is there afforded to a
preacher to preach the Gospel to so many of his fellow men. Indeed, the
whole interests of the congregation continued to the end to hold a place
in his thoughts second only to his own spiritual welfare. Even the night
before he died, when he began to calmly put his house in order, his
Communion at Brodick was the first thing he arranged for. However
strongly, however, he expressed a desire to remain to work among his
people, he always beautifully joined with such a desire a strongly
expressed prayer for the grace of resignation to whatever the will of
the Lord might be towards him.
“His estimate of his own work in the ministry was very low. During his
last illness lie dwelt much upon himself as an unprofitable servant.
Indeed, to himself that work almost seemed a failure, though there is
much testimony to its having been otherwise. However low his estimate
was, yet his heart was in the work, and he greatly appreciated all
scriptural efforts made by others in it. To many it seemed strange that
he should have given so much of his time and talent to the prosecution
of his Celtic studies rather than to the real work of the ministry. From
his own lips there was the testimony that this was not due to any want
of love for the one, or entirely due to his love for the other. However
strong his love of Celtic scholarship may have been, it was the desire
of doing some service for the benefit of others that caused him to
prosecute his studies with such devotion.
“A zeal for the honour of Christ characterised all his work in the
Church. And, when he was called upon either in or out of Church Courts
to stand in defence of Christ’s honour, he did so fearlessly. The spirit
which ruled in him in such matters became apparent during his illness in
a conversation which he had with two of his city brethren. Their
conversation at one point turned tipon the supply for his pulpit at
Brodick. He mentioned one man by name whose preaching met with a measure
of acceptance by his people. One of his brethren jocularly asked him
whether he were jealous of such a man. He replied in all earnestness
that he considered himself honest in saying that he was jealous of no
man who might become popular through his truly preaching the Gospel, but
that he was jealous of men who became popular whom he knew did not truly
preach the Gospel.
“Throughout his illness he appeared to maintain his professed reliance
on the merit of the atoning death of Christ; yet his few last weeks of
sickness had not for him a cloudless sky. He had his mental strife, and
no presumptuous delusion could bring peace to his troubled spirit. Only
true peace could satisfy a soul exercised as his then was. An intimate
friend called one day to see him, but on account of the weak state in
which he found Dr Cameron at the time, he said very little to him. When,
however, he rose to leave him, he said :—‘ There remaineth a rest for
the people of God.’ ‘Yes,’ replied Dr Cameron, ‘that is true, but it is
one thing to speak of it, and one thing even to preach of it, but I can
assure you from experience that it is a different thing to make personal
application of it.’
“On another occasion he was greatly awed with the thought of eternity,
which he saw about to break upon him ; and the solemnity with which he
three times in succession uttered the word eternity, is not to be soon
forgotten by those who heard him.
“It was well that it was not all darkness. He retained in his illness
much of his wonted reticence, yet it was apparent that there was light
at times penetrating the darkness, and that he had moments of true joy
in the midst of his sufferings. Some such moments as these were enjoyed
by him from the visits of the late godly Dr Smeaton, whose prayers were
very refreshing to him.
“Towards the close he as much desired to be away as he at first desired
to remain. The time seemed long till he should pass in to be with his
Saviour.
“The last attempt he made to speak was a few hours before his death, but
what he said could not be heard. Thereafter he became unconscious; and
after a few hours in this state, he peacefully fell asleep.”
The congregation for whose welfare he felt so anxious on his •death-bed
were not unmindful of him, and showed their continued attachment by
subscribing a sum of £40, with which they intended to present him on his
home-coming if he should recover. But when it became evident that the
end was approaching, Mr John Hastings, Lamlash, one of the elders, and a
most faithful and attached friend to Dr Cameron, was requested to convey
the people’s kindliest wishes, and take £20 to him in Edinburgh—a
parting gift which the dying pastor pathetically and thankfully
received. This was not unlike the spontaneous action of the Metropolitan
Tabernacle flock who, the other day, subscribed £700 for the comfort of
one of the world’s greatest preachers. The result proved similar in both
cases. Neither preacher returned to enjoy the gift, but passed to the
enjoyment of an eternal reward.
On Wednesday morning, the 24th of October, Dr Cameron rallied
considerably and seemed much better, and was pleased that another day
had dawned after a restless night. He then spoke of a fairer world and a
brighter light that knew no night where the Inhabitant shall never say,
I am sick. He rested composedly and conversed occasionally until
mid-day, after which he spoke little, and towards evening he fell into a
deep slumber which ended, as already stated, peacefully in the sleep of
the just about nine o’clock.
Many letters of sympathy and condolence were received from men
representing many different views of thought and life, but all alike
anxious to bear witness to the ability, kindliness, spirituality, and
influence of one whose work was widely appreciated, and whose memory
will long be held dear. The suddenness of his death—as far as the outer
world was concerned—elicited an immediate testimony to the sense of
profound loss sustained.
He retained unaltered his great affection for his old home in the North,
where he is survived by his younger brother ; but his last wish was to
be buried at Kilbride, Lamlash, near the scene of his latest labours—a
touching and final proof that he loved Arran well. The remains were
removed to Brodick; and many came to take a farewell look of the pale
but placid face. On Monday, 29th October, the funeral took place,
attended by a great assemblage of sorrowing friends from distant
quarters as well as from all parts of the Island.
A handsome granite monument marks his grave, and bears the following
inscription :—
Erected by the Free Church Congregation of Kilbride, Relatives, and
Friends,
To the memory of the Rev. Alexander Cameron, LL.D.,
Born July 14 th, 1827 ; Died October 24th, 1888.
Free Church Minister of Renton, 1859-1874, and of Kilbride, 1874-1888.
A man of undoubted piety; an able minister of the Gospel; an earnest
defender of Reformation principles; a theologian of no mean attainments;
the most eminent Scottish Celtic scholar of his day.
Do ghuth cho caoin ri clarsaich thall
An talla Thiira nan corn hall.
I)’ fhocal taitneach mar an druchd
’Tlmiteas ciiun air raoin nan sliabh,
N uair a bhriseas a’ ghrian o mhiiig.
—Fionnghal, Duan v., 468-72.
(IV.)
Aoidheil agus a’ gnathachadh aoidlieachd.
Gath soluis do’n am nach 'eil beo.
Translation.
Thy voice is sweet as yonder harp
In Tara’s hall of generous bowls.
Thy word is pleasant as the dew
Which gently falls on mountain-plains,
When breaks the sun athwart the gloom.
Affable and given to hospitality.
A ray of light to the time that is gone.
It is appropriate and interesting to add that Dr Cameron’s splendid and
valuable library, containing nearly 5000 volumes, chiefly Celtic, was
bought by Sir William Mackinnon, Bart., Balinakill, for £600, and
presented as the “ Camei’on Collection” to the University of Edinburgh,
where it is conveniently located in a separate room. This mode of
disposing of it was what Dr Cameron desired, though he hardly knew how
it could be accomplished; for he hoped that the books, which cost him so
much time and money to collect, would not, if possible, be scattered. It
is highly satisfactory to find that his wish has been so perfectly
realised. It is also due to the Duke of Hamilton to state that his Grace
spontaneously offered the same sum for the same books, and readily
acquiesced in the above purchase.
On Tuesday, 8th January, 1889, the Free Presbytery of Kintyre met and
“put on record an expression of their sense of the loss they have
sustained by the death of their brother, Dr Cameron. While he differed
from the majority of his brethren in many of his ecclesiastical views
and positions, they cannot but express their appreciation of his earnest
piety and his ripe scholarship, especially in the department of Celtic
philosophy. Having clear convictions, he held them firmly and advocated
them with courage, at the same time maintaining, as all who knew him
intimately arc ready to testify, a deserved reputation for genial
friendliness and hospitality. The Presbytery, with much sorrow call to
remembrance, while now taking notice of their brother’s decease, that so
short a time has elapsed since they had occasion to congratulate him on
receiving the well-earned honour of Doctor of Laws, and they regret that
he has been taken away in the middle of his work, and while he had in
hand important literary efforts, the completion of which would have been
a great boon to Celtic students.”
Emerson says—“This is what we call character—a reserved force which acts
directly by presence and without means.” “Half his strength he put not
forth.” “Somewhat is possible of resistance, and of persistence, and of
creation, to this power, which will foil all emulation.” “Greatness
appeals to the future.” That being so, this chapter may fitly close with
the following estimate of Dr Cameron’s character by one who knew him
long and well— the Rev. Hugh Macmillan, D.D., LL.D. :—
“Dr Cameron and I were fellow-students in the Divinity Hall of the Free
Church College of Edinburgh for four sessions from 1852 to 1856. We sat
on contiguous benches, and had frequent opportunities before and after
the meetings of the classes of exchanging words with each other. What
struck me specially in these days was his great earnestness and quiet
thoughtfulness He did not take a prominent part in the work of the
classes, nor obtrude himself much upon the notice of his
fellow-students. He was shy and self-contained, and seemed to shrink
into himself at the approach of any one with whom he was not familiar.
But he made a most creditable appearance in all the oral and written
examinations, and earned the high respect and esteem of his professors
and his compeers. While those who had the privilege of his friendship
saw beneath his constitutional shyness and reserve a force of character,
a warm and generous nature, a mind of fresh and vivid power, and a
capability of devotion to any cause he espoused, that were all the more
concentrated and persistent that he was reluctant to give outward
expression to them, I was not one of those who were admitted into the
inner circle of his friends. He was for one thing older than I was ; and
perhaps I was more attracted in my youth by a frank enthusiastic nature
than by one whose excellencies were not on the surface but required to
be brought out, like precious metal dug up from the depths. But my heart
warmed to him on account of the many good qualities which I could not
help knowing he possessed and showed, and very specially on account of
the dear old mother tongue which we spoke together as often as
opportunity offered Even at that time he impressed me greatly with his
extensive knowledge of Celtic literature and philology. He gave me
glimpses into the wonderful beauty and expressiveness of the language
which filled me at once with admiration and surprise. After our college
curriculum was finished, we parted ; and we met but seldom, owing to the
wide distances between our respective spheres of labour. But I was
always glad to see him ; for his conversations on his own favourite
topic of Celtic lore, and also on other subjects of more general
interest, were invariably most interesting and instructive, and left me
richer in the possession of a new thought or a new way of regarding an
old thought. I knew 110 one who had such power as he possessed of
clearing up some doubtful or obscure question of philology, by the
side-lights which he threw upon it, from his studies of comparative
language He had a wonderful power of linguistic analysis ; an
extraordinary patience and skill in hunting out words and idioms or
facts to their remotest origins. He was admirably qualified to make the
study of the Beltic group of kindred languages a thoroughly scientific
pursuit. The literary remains which he has left behind give abundant
evidence of his vast and varied and exact scholarship. And we feel that
in him we have lost one who would, had he been spared to labour longer,
have shed a new halo of interest and significance round the language and
literature of his native Highlands. He did much valuable work in his
life time, cut off prematurely, we cannot but think, at a time when his
mind was ripest and most capable of arranging and utilising its great
stcres of erudition. But we feel sadly that he might perhaps have done
more even within the limits of his life-time, had he not unfortunately,
as we all have more or less, the defects of his qualities, and the
constitutional dreaminess and want of practicality which seems to belong
to the Celtic temperament, and is ever, indeed, one of the concomitants
and proofs of genius. He could not have found it easy, with his
methodical habits, and the very varied and arduous duties that he had to
perform as a minister and a pastor in important churches, to find time
and energy to carry on his own favourite leisure pursuits. It was
astonishing, indeed, that he was able to finish an amount of work which
must have required the greatest labour and concentration of mind. We are
grateful for the valuable monument of learning he has erected ; but we
cannot but regard it as we do the Torso of the Vatican, as a noble relic
of what he might and could have finished.” |