IX. Conclusion.
James Dodson
ON the 26th January, 1871, the congregation elected the Rev. Nathan Cosh. The call was signed by 82 members and 55 adherents. Mr Cosh accepted the appointment, and was ordained on the 3rd day of May following. There is nothing special to mention during the two years of Mr Cosh’s ministry. He received a call to Strathmiglo, which he accepted on the 25th July, 1873. He made many friends in the district, and not a few have kindly remembrances of him still.
We come now to consider the events which took place during the time of the last minister of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Douglas Water.
The Rev. Thomas Ramage was ordained minister of the Cameronian Church at Kilmarnock, on the 8th December, 1856; and after a period of about seventeen years, he was translated to the Church of Douglas Water.
The call was a very harmonious one, being signed by 96 members and 68 adherents. From the age and experience of Mr Ramage, the settlement was looked forward to as one full of hope and promise; and it is pleasant to be able to say that these prospects were not disappointed, until an unforeseen event happened which threw the congregation into a state of conflict and turmoil, the effects of which have not yet wholly passed away.
After the split in the Reformed Presbyterian Synod in 1863, the “Church of the Majority,” of which Douglas Water congregation formed a part, hailed with pleasure the negotiations for union into which they entered with
76
two different denominations at the same time, viz., the Free and United Presbyterian Churches. After eight or nine years, these negotiations were broken off, and a meeting of the R.P. Synod was held in Glasgow on the 11th April, 1874, to find out, through returns from their various sessions, what ought to be done in the existing circumstances.
From these returns, it was brought out that two congregations were for dissolving their Union Committee; five for delay; one minister for delay for one year; ten congregations for union with the Free Church; and nineteen for union with the United Presbyterian Church. They afterwards agreed to seek union with the Free Church, and this was finally accomplished in May, 1876.
At the time of the union with the Free Church, it was stated that Douglas Water Kirk-Session unanimously approved of the overture on union, but it was afterwards shown that one at least of the elders objected to it. The minister, acting on what he considered constitutional lines, did not call a meeting of the congregation, and put the matter before them as parties who had an interest in what was about to take place, but having obtained a majority of his Session, he considered it his duty to enter into the union along with the other congregations of the body to which he belonged. However, on his return from the Assembly of the Free Church after the union had taken place, he found a strong under-current of feeling in the congregation, against their being, as they said, “dragged into the Free Church against their will.” Days passed on, and the people became more and more divided. At length a meeting of the congregation was called, but it did not mend matters. At this meeting, the minister explained his position, and said he had been advised to adopt the
77
course he had taken; that they did not cease to be Reformed Presbyterians, and that the Synod would meet every year as a Church Court to deal with and protect their “civil rights and property.” But this explanation only confused them. One member asked—“What are we now? Are we Free Churchmen, or are we Reformed Presbyterians?” “We are both,” replied the minister. “We are Free Churchmen ecclesiastically, and Reformed Presbyterians civilly.” “I cannot understand that,” replied the man; “we cannot possibly be piebalds.” Another remarked—“Jonah fled from the presence of the Lord, and the whale swallowed Jonah.”
Several meetings of the different parties after this were held, and their position as a congregation fully discussed. But the point around which the whole difficulty finally turned was that neither party had any title-deeds for the ground on which the church and manse stood. The only semblance of a title which the congregation had to occupy the ground was the letter to Mr Milwain from Mr Scott, factor to Lord Douglas, dated 13th June, 1843.* Previous to the date of the Countess of Home’s succession to the property as heiress of entail in 1859, no feudal title ever was granted, or could have been granted, because the estate was held under the fetters of a strict entail. The Countess, after her succession, however, disentailed the estates, and executed a new entail. She allowed the congregation to remain in possession of the subjects, as her predecessors had done, and in 1874 she was asked to grant a feudal title in favour of the congregation. Mr Scott’s letter of 1843 was also submitted to her. The Countess and her husband, the Earl of Home, agreed to
_____
(*) See page 66.
78
grant a title, but resolved that it should contain conditions similar to those expressed in Mr Scott’s letter. In August, 1874, a feu charter was drawn up and sent to the agent of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. This deed was never revised or returned, and the reason was not far to seek. Its terms were not such as would make the congregation favourable to the approaching union with the Free Church.
Thus matters stood when the union did take place. The party who were opposed to the union now made application, and obtained a feu-charter. It was the same in substance as the one which the agent of the R.P. Church had neglected or refused to take, two years before. Thereafter, they raised an action against the minister and his session holding the subjects for which they now held a title. While this case was pending, the minister and others raised an action to have the title-deed reduced. On the latter, proof was led at considerable length before Lord Curriehill, in the month of February, 1879. His Lordship took the case into avizandum, and on 28th March, issued the following interlocutor:—
“The Lord Ordinary having considered the cause, repels the reasons of reduction; sustains the defences; assoilzies the defenders from the whole conclusions of the summons, and decerns: finds the whole defenders entitled to expenses; appoints accounts thereof to be lodged, and remits the same to the auditor to tax and to report.
(Signed) John Marshall.”
The Free Church party had to leave the buildings after this decision, and seek accommodation for themselves elsewhere.
Those left in possession made application to the “Church of the Minority,” as they were called—that is, those who had protested against the finding of the R.P. Synod in 1863, and were received back into their connection. The
79
first Communion which they had dispensed to them, after their sad experience, was presided over by Mr Dick, then minister at Wishaw. Thirty-two communicants sat down at the table. Truly, they had been sifted as wheat!
After this, they made a strenuous effort to keep up ordinances, and when it was found this could be no longer done, they cast in their lot with the Church of Scotland. On the 28th November, 1892, by decree of the Court of Teinds, they were erected into a church and parish quoad sacra, and here modesty demands that we let the curtain fall.
“Hail to the Covenant banner!
When bloweth the loud rising gale;
Let it float in the good olden manner,
And the cheek of the foe shall be pale.
Why should ye fear to unfold it?
Let your enemies fear to behold it!
In days that are past,
It rallied us fast,
And will bind us together if battle prevail.
Be it still the ensign that gathers!
Blood red are the folds as they spread;
And the blood is the blood of our fathers—
The martyrs who speak from the dead.
Why was it stained in this manner?
Because it is heaven’s own banner!
Thus bequeath’d, if it fall,
Alas! for us all,
Since shame everlasting shall cover our head!”