Search just our sites by using our customised search engine

Unique Cottages | Electric Scotland's Classified Directory

Click here to get a Printer Friendly PageSmiley

Kirkintilloch Town and Parish

St. Mary's Church.


Is the most interesting erection in the old town. It was built, as already mentioned, in 1644, and adopted as a parish church in lieu of the very ancient church of St. Ninian’s at the Old Aisle; which after that was abandoned to the rapacity of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, who made a free quarry of it Tor their own purposes, and gradually swept away every vestige of it.

Before saying anything of St. Mary’s itself, we give a list of readers and clergymen in succession from 1525 till the present day. Of course they officiated in St. Ninian’s Church down till 1646, when Mr. Bennet was ordained, who would probably be the first minister of St. Mary's. The other extracts also bear upon the history of the church.

From 1592 to 1610 was pure Presbyterianism in Scotland. From 1610 to 1638 was Episcopacy. From 1638 to 1662 was pure Presbyterianism. For twenty-eight years, from 1662 to 1690, during a period of terrible persecution, Episcopacy was maintained by military power. Since 1690 Presbyterianism has been the established religion in Scotland.

1st Mar. 1525. James Lyn, canon of Dunkeld, received investiture in the perpetual vicarage of the parish church of St. Ninian of Lenze.

7th Apr. 1527. Duncan Burnet, made perpetual vicar instead of James Lyn, resigned.

22^ d Sep. 1530. Alexander Annand, made perpetual vicar instead of Duncan Burnet, resigned. Annand inducted 25th Sep. (Sir Andrew Simson curate).

The parish was supplied in 1567 by Mark Edgar, reader, and by William Struders, reader at Glasgow and Exhorter on Sunday at Lenzie, at Lammas, 1569. The church was ordered by the Presb. 26th Feb. 1607, to be rebuilt. It was removed to St. Mary’s chapel in the village of Kirkintilloch in 1644, which had been proposed 47 years before.

1585. Ninian Drew, Reader from 1574 to 1580 pres, to the Vicarage by James VI. before 1st, and coll. 8th Oct. 1594; deposed 23rd Jan* 1598 for “his inabilities He protested and appealed 22nd Apr. 1600 against the appointment of Presb. to inaugurate his successor. He served the cure 18 years.

1600. George Slowan, or Aslowan, A.M., was laureated at the Univ. of Edinburgh 30th July 1597, and on the Exercise there 27th March 1599, nominated 30th Jan., pres, by John, Lord Fleming, and Adam, Commendator of Cambuskenneth 21st, adm. 22d, and inaugurated 27th April 1600: died before 21st Jan. 1607, aged about 30, in 7th min.

1607. William Struthers, A.M., a native of Glasgow, probably son of the Reader there, brought up at the schools, and had his degree from the Univ. there in 1599; he was an expectant in the Merse in 1602, and on the exercise at Glasgow 21st Mar. 1607; demitted the Vicarage here 29th Sep. 1611, and was trans.' to Glasgow 22nd Mar. 1612.

1613. Joseph Laurie, A.M., son of Mr. Blaise, L., Professor of Greek in the Univ. of Glasgow, whence he had his degree in 1606, adm. before 29th Sep. 1613. He gave in a supplication 24th Sep. 1617, against Duncan Bimet, reader and musician, alledging that he called him “ane dissembled hypocrite, one whose conscience was so wyde, that cairtes and wains micht go throw it, ane teacher of the word that was vnworthie, ane beggar, and ane beggars burd, and that he had als meikle silver as micht buy him from the gallows, lastlie, that he would break his head at the kirk of Leinze.” Duncan compeared, confessed, and submitted himself to the Presb. 1st Oct., who referred him to the Archbishop: Mr. L. was trans. to Stirling in 1620.

1620 John Forsythe, A.M., graduated at the Univ. of Glasgow in 1609, was on the Exercise there 9th June 1613, pres, by James VI. 12th Feb., and adm. (by the Archbishop in the College Kirk of Glasgow) 29th Aug. 1620; he gave I merk towards erecting the Library in the College of Glasgow about 1632, and was deposed in 1645.

1646. David Bennett, A.M., obtained his degree at the Univ. of St. Andrews in 1644, licen. by the Presb. of Dalkeith 4th Jan. of that year; trans. to Stirling 2nd charge in 1650, getting the stipend for that year.

1653. James Ramsay, A.M., son of Principal R. of the Univ. of Glasgow, “a very able and sufficient youth as we have of his age” attained his degree at the Univ. of Glasgow in 1647, and was ord. and adm. (by the Presb. with a Committee from the Gen. Assembly) 19th Feb. 1653. He was charged by the English “not to preach in that church, and the people not to hear him under high paynes,” and by Judge Moysley “discharged to preach in the neighbour churches,” yet the parishioners adhered to him with very few exceptions: he was trans. to Linlithgow in 1655.

1653. -Beverlie, was appointed by the English, at the desire of 27 persons, with the promise of the stipend, and ord. (by the Protesters) before 28th Apr.; he removed in 1655.

1656. Henry Forsyth, A.M., “lately a baxterboy, very feckless-like in his person, and mean in his gifts, but the son of a Gillespy,” was laureated at the Univ. of Glasgow in 1654, and adm. in 1656; deprived by the Act of Parliament nth June, and of Privy Council 1st Oct 1662. Orders were given by the Privy Council 4th June 1674, for his apprehension as a conventicle preacher, but it does not appear that they succeeded.

1665. Robert Bennett, A.M., trans. from Gargunnock, adm. in May; died in Mar. 1679, aged about 39, in 16th min. The insicht, &c., amounted to xx ti, awand out to doctors and apothecaries for drugs, &c., in the tyme of his sickness, xl ti, Frie gier, <Ld., v« ix ti vi s. viij d. He mar. Helen Hamilton, who survived him, and had a son George, appointed to a bursary of philosophy in the Univ. of Edinburgh 17th Feb. 1682.

1679. Alexander Wood, A.M., trans. from Wamphray: pres, by -in Sep. 1679, and adm. soon after: trans. to Cockpen in 1681.

1681. Robert Fleming, A.M., trans. from Meams, pres, by John, Earl of Wigton, in May, and afterwards adm. in 1681; demitted in

1689. He received from the Kirk-session of Cramond 27th June, 1703, when he had a “ great family ” vi ti xiij s iiij d., and another sum 25th

May 1705. A daugh. Helen, marr. George Stirling, one of the magistrates of Glasgow.

1687. William Cunningham e, marr. 2nd June, Lilias Mackgill of Kilsyth.

1690. Thomas Rob, A.M., brother of Mr. Michael R., min. of Kilsyth, took his degree at the Univ. of Edinburgh 19th July 1661 : was a member of the General Assembly 16th Oct. 1690; died in Glasgow in 1705, aged about 64. The Frie geir amounted to ij" iiij1 liij ti ix s viij d. He left to the session for the use of the poor j«ti. He marr. 24th Sep. 1688 Janet Lawson, who survived him.

1709. Samuel Telfer, A.M., trans. from Johnston, called in Jan.

1708, and 16th June 1709, and adm. 17th Nov. after: died 20th Aug. 1726, aged about 50, in 25th min; The Inventar amounted to j" vi* ti. He marr. Janet Car frae, who died 19th Jan. 1751, and had a son, John, merchant, Edinburgh, who died abroad, and two daugh. Julian, marr. Mr. Alexander Wardrop, min. of Whitburn, and Janet, Mr. David Stevenson, min. of Glendevon.

1727. John Forbes, called 28th Feb., and ord. 4th May: died 28th Mar. 1733 in 6th min.

1735. William Fleming, held a bursary of divinity on the Dundonald foundation in the Univ. of Glasgow; licen. by the Presb. of Hamilton 31st July 1733, pres, by John, Earl of Wigton, 22nd Sep. following, ord. 1st July 1735 : trans. to Paisley Abbey (2nd charge) 4th June 174a

1741. James Burnside, licen. by the Presb. of Haddington 25th Sep.

1739, pres, by John, Earl of Wigton 29th Nov. 1740, and ord. 19th Mar. succeeding: died in Aug. 1743, in 3rd min. He was esteemed an able, judicious, and pious minister. Under his auspices, during the season of revival, “ many were awakened and brought under great spiritual distress.”

1744. John Erskine, A.M., eldest son of John E. Esq. ofCarnock, the constitutional writer on Scottish Law, was educated under a private tutor, and afterwards at the High School and Univ. of Edinburgh, licen. by the Presb. of Dunblane (Mr. Duchal, Logie, Moderator), 16th Aug. 1743, pres, by John, Earl of Wigton 27th Jan., and ord. 31st May 1744: trans. to Culross, 8th Oct. 1752.*

1753* James Stoddart, A.M., formerly of Culross, 2d Charge, pres, by the Trustees of John, Earl of Wigton—, and adm. 16th Aug : died 2ist Dec. 1773, in 26th min. He marr. 18th Sep. 1756, Mary Euphan Douglass, and bad two sons, and two daugh., Alexander, George Alexander, Isobel, and Marion— Publication—The Revival of Religion, a sermon, Glasgow, 1764, 8vo.

1774. William Dun, A.M., licen. by the Presb. of Kintyre, 3rd Sep. 177a, pres, by Charles, Lord Elphinstone, and Lady Clementina, his spouse, 7th June, and ord. 18th Aug. 1774. He was imprisoned for three months in the tolbooth of Edinburgh, by sentence of the court of Justiciary nth Mar. 1793, “ for having torn three leaves out of a book which contained minutes of a society for Reform in the village of Kirkintilloch, at the time when the Sheriffs of Lanark and Dumbartonshire were making investigation to obtain that book/' He died 3rd Nov. 1798, in his 54th year, and 25th min.—Publications—Sermon preached at the opening of the Synod, Glas. 1792, 8vo. (which was answered by “ Political Preaching; or, the Meditations of a Well-meaning man” Glas. 1792, 8vo). Account of the Parish (Sinclair’s St. Acc.)

1799. James Jack, licen. by the Presb. of Auchterarder 20th Aug. 1793, Pres* by John, Lord Elphinstone 16th Apr. and ord. 12th Sep. 1799 : died 13th Nov. 1810, in 48th age, and 12th min. He marr. 24th Dec. 1799, Ann Stewart Erskine, who died 21st May 1801, aged 26, and had a daugh. Jane.

1811. Adam Forman, trans. from Carmunnock, pres* by the Commissioners of the Hon. Charles Elphinstone Fleming of Biggar and Cumbernauld, in Feb., and adm. 6th June; died 27th May 1843, &ge<l 83, in 52nd min. lie marr. 8th Aug. 1792, Margaret Brodie of Edinburgh, and had four sons and two daughters, of whom Adam the eldest was min. of Innerwick, and Robert, a merchant in London.

1844. George Little, inducted 25th February 1844, died 12th Sep. 1871.

1872. James Caven, inducted 25th January 1872. Died 23rd July 1893.

1893. T. Angus Morrison ordained and inducted 14th Nov. 1893.

Dr. Erskine afterwards attained great eminence. He was bom in 1720. “It would be difficult to say whether he was most distinguished by the fervour, the assiduity, or the ability with which he applied himself to every department of his pastoral duty.” Many of his sermons preached at Kirkintilloch are published, and he had an extensive correspondence—both while there and afterwards—with divines and eminent men in all parts of the world.

The celebrated Jonathan Edwards was one of his earliest and most esteemed correspondents, and many of Erskine’s letters to him were written at Kirkintilloch. The greatest part of the works of President Edwards, Dickenson, Stoddart, and Fraser of Alness, were edited by Dr. Erskine. He married, 15th June, 1746, the Hon. Christian Mackay, third daughter of Lord Reay, an amiable lady, by whom he had a large family. He was translated from Culross in 1758 to Greyfriars Church, Edinburgh, where he officiated for nine years, and delivered three sermons each Sunday. On 28th November, 1766, he received the degree of D.D. from the University of Glasgow; and in 1767 was translated to Old Greyfriars, becoming then colleague to the celebrated Principal Robertson, leader of the moderate party; while he himself was devoted to the doctrines and aims of the evangelical party in the church. It was a testimony to the amiability of both, that they should have been friendly colleagues in the same congregation for twenty-six years under such circumstances. Dr. Erskine is recognised as the leader of the party whose opinions and actions eventually culminated in the Disruption, and the erection of the Free Church of Scotland. He died 19th January, 1803.

He is “photographed” by Sir Walter Scott in “Guy Mannering”:—

“The colleague of Dr. Robertson ascended the pulpit. His external appearance was not prepossessing. A remarkably fair complexion, strangely contrasted with a black wig without a grain of powder; a narrow chest and a stooping posture; hands which, placed like props on either side of the pulpit, seemed necessary rather to support the person than to assist the gesticulation of the preacher,—no gown, not even that of Geneva, a tumbled band, and a gesture which seemed scarce voluntary, were the first circumstances which struck a stranger.

‘The preacher seems a very ungainly person,' whispered Mannering to his new friend.

“Never fear, he's the son of an excellent Scottish lawyer—he’ll show blood, I'll warrant him.'

“The learned counsellor predicted truly. A lecture was delivered, fraught with new, striking, and entertaining views of Scripture history— a sermon, in which the Calvinism of the Kirk of Scotland was ably supported, yet made the basis of a sound system of practical morals, which should neither shelter the sinner under the cloak of speculative faith or of peculiarity of opinion, nor leave him loose to the waves of unbelief and schism. Something there was of an antiquated turn of argument and metaphor, but it only served to give zest and peculiarity to the style of elocution. The sermon was not read—a scrap of paper containing the heads of the discourse was occasionally referred to, and the enunciation, which at first seemed imperfect and embarrassed, became, as the preacher warmed in his progress, animated and distinct; and although the discourse could not he quoted as a correct specimen of pulpit eloquence, yet Mannering had seldom heard so much learning, metaphysical acuteness, and energy of argument, brought into the service of Christianity.

“‘ Such,' he said, going out of the church, I must have been the preachers to whose unfearing minds, and acute, though sometimes rudely exercised talents, we owe the Reformation.'

“ ‘And yet that reverend gentleman,' said Pleydel, ‘whom I love for his father's sake and his own, has nothing of the sour or pharisaical pride which has been imputed to some of the early fathers of the Calvinistic Kirk of Scotland. His colleague and he differ, and head different parties in the kirk, about particular points of church discipline, but without for a moment losing personal regard or respect for each other, or suffering malignity to interfere in an opposition, steady, constant, and apparently conscientious on both sides.'"

A laughable incident is related of Dr. Erskine, which shows his good nature. For several Sundays he had returned from church without his pocket handkerchief, and could not account for the loss. Mrs. Erskine, suspecting an elderly-looking poor woman who constantly occupied a seat on the stair leading to the pulpit, sewed a handkerchief to the pocket of Dr. Erskine’s Sunday coat. On the following Sunday the doctor was proceeding in his usual manner towards the pulpit when, on passing the suspected person, he felt a slight tug from behind. He only turned gently round, and, clapping her on the head, said: “ No the day, honest woman ; no the day.”

Extracts from Cartulary of Cambuskenneth Abbey.

“Letters by Robert (Blacader) Archbishop of Glasgow, directed to the Dean of the Lennox, narrating that Mr. John Stirling, who had been presented by the Abbot and convent of Cambuskenneth for collation to the perpetual vicarage of the parish church of Kirkintilloch, vacant by the preferment of Mr. Robert Forman to the precentory of Glasgow, had been invested in the cure by the Archbishop personally, and charging the dean to give Mr. John, or his procurator for him, actual and corporal possession of the vicarage, and to defend him in the same. Dated at Stirling 31st May 1500.”

“Letter by the Official General of Glasgow, to the curates of the parish churches of Lenzie and Nionyabrun, or to any other chaplain or notary public willing to undertake the execution thereof, narrating that in consequence of a complaint made to him by the Abbot and convent of Cambuskenneth, the Official General had summoned before him John, Lord Fleming, Great Chamberlain of Scotland, and the whole parishioners of Lenze or Kintulach, and on their failure to compear, had excommunicated them, and directed the letters of excommunication to the curate of Lenze, who received and read them, but refused to cause them to be put to due execution; and that one Thomas Flemying laid violent hands on the messenger and bearer, beat him, and forcibly seized and carried off the letters, thus incurring the sentence of the greater excommunication; and further, that the curate of Lenze, Sir John Reid, and other clergymen named, continued to perform divine service when the said Thomas Flemying and other excommunicated persons were present, in contempt of ecclesiastical censures; and therefore charging the receivers of his letter to summon the said Thomas Flemying, Sir John Reid, curate of Lenze, Alexander Crestesone, and three other presbyters therein named, to compear before the Official General or his commissaries in the consistory of the Metropolitan Church of Glasgow, to hear sentence of excommunication passed against themselves, or to show reasonab e cause why the sentence should not be pronounced. Dated at Glasgow 20th March 1522.”

Extracts from Bannatync Club Papers.

Presbytery of Glasgow Register 27th Mar. 1593. “Quhilk daye the brethrene ar nocht satisfeit with the doctrine teichit be Mr. Niniane Dreive m nister at Leinyae this present daye, and findis him to have bein als unprofi abille in handling the text prescryvit to him as of befoir.”

7th Sep. 1596. “The presbiterie ordenis Helein Bull, in the parochin of Leinyae, refusing to marie Johne Miller, with quhome scho has bein proclaimit twyse as scho has confessit hir self, now being of mynd to marie Patrik Bryce, to mak her repentance in hir paroche kirk of Leinyae for hir inconstancie; and forder, to paye penaltie to the thesaurer of hir kirk the nixt Sondaye, afore scho enter to hir repentance, lykas wes doune afore scho was proclaimit with the said Johne Miller. Quhilkis being done, ordenis hir bandes of manage to be proclaimit with the said Patrik Bryce, gif the said Patrik will crave the same; and the said Johne can not find ressonabill cans to staye the same."

29th Mar. 1597. Anent the chapel in Kirkintilloch to be ane kirk— “Quhilk daye, anent the summondis grant it upone ane supplicationne gevin in before the presbiterie of Glasgow be the baillies of Kirkintilloch, quhilk is sub.scry vit be ane nobill lord my lord Fleming, and certane (parochineris) of the parochine of Leingae, as the said supplicationne in the self beiris; quhairin the parochineris of Leingae in general, and Robert Boyde of Badinhethe, Robert Boyde of Drwme, Johnne Park of Achinvuiil, Thomas Sommervell in Bourtiey, Robert Fleming in Baloche in special), ar ordenit to be summoundit to this daye, to thair counsale and deliberatioun anent the chapell within the toun of Kirkintilloch, to be maid ane kirk quhairin the word of God may be preichit, the sacrament is minist rated, and wther benefites of the word therein exercised. Compearit personalie (the) saidis Robert Boyd of Badinhethe, Robert Boyde in Drwme, and Robert Fleming in Baloche, quha heirand the contends of the said summoundis and supplicatioun, quhairupone the samin wes groundit to tend to ane novationne, and thairfore presentlie can give (na) ansuer, thairfore desyrit ane terme to give ansuer to the samin, quhilk terme is maid and assignit the xij. daye of Aprile nixt to cum,” etc.

6th Nov. 1598. “Quhilk daye it is fund that the parochia of Leingae is dissolut and gevin to all kind of impietie, for laik of exercise of the word of God wiihin the saming, and of all gud ordour in discipline (in) the samin, and thairfore hastie remeid is cravit for the weale and salvatioun of the soules of the parochineris within the samin.”

8th April, 1600. “To pas to inaugurat Mr. George Slovan minister of Leingae.—The moderator and brethrene ordenis Mr. Patrick Scharp, principall of the college of Glasgow, Mr. Alexander Rowat, and Mr. William Levingstoun of that presbiterie, to pas the nixt Sondaye to the kirk of Leingae, and thair to inaugurat Mr. George Slovan minister of the said kirk, according to the canon of the aposlill Pauli."

16th May, 1604.—“To speik the Lord of Badinhethe.—The presbiterie ordenis Mr. Patrik Scharp, principall of the college of Glasgw, and Mr. David Wemes, ane of the ministers of Glasgw, to speik in Glasgw, Robert Boyd of Badinhethe, anent his not keiping of his kirk, he being ane elder and ane speciall gentilman of his paroche; and for halding of Robert Falconer in Deirdeik on his ground, the said Robert Falconer being excommunicat; and for the profanation of the Sabothe daye wsit about his place be playing at the futeball, toleratit and oursein be him; and anent the erecting of images in the yle of his paroche kirk, committit and authorized be him, to the sclandeir of God his kirk, and greiff of the saming: and farder, to crave the said Robert Boyd of Badinhethe contribution to the persecuted kirk of Geneve, etc., and to report,” etc.

4th March, 1607.—“Anent ane kirk to be within the toun of Kirkintilloch.—Quhilk daye, seing that it is fund meit and expedient be the erle of Wigtoun and presbiterie of Glasgw, that thair be ane kirk situat and buyldit within the toun of Kirkintilloch, for mony respects and cawssis, and the exercise of the word and sacramentis in the present kirk to be left af thair, and translated to the kirk to be buyldit in the said toun; thairfor the said presbiterie ordenis this to be intimat the nixt sondaye, in the said present kirk; and that all and everie ane of the parochineris of Leinzae be summondit to the nixt

Weddinsdaye, to object and say aganis this overture quhairfoir it aucht not to be fiillelie perfyted; with certificatioun to thame that sail not compeir, thai sail not be farder hard, bot the said Erles intentioun and mynd for the situating and buylding of the said kirk in the said toun, to have the full force and effect in tymes to cum.”

From Rev. Mr. Format?s Repot t in “New Statistical Account” 1845:— “The present parish church is in a very miserable state of disrepair. The walls are time-worn, and ungainly; the timbers in general fragile and insufficient; the galleries inconvenient and crazy, one of them having been lately taken down at an inconvenient season ; the seating is fast crumbling into ruins; the walls outside filled up with the dust of former generations to the height of four or five feet from the spring of the roofing, and with the walls and flooring, of course, intolerably damp.2 Under these circumstances, the Presbytery of Glasgow, some years ago, gave a deliverance enjoining the heritors to provide the parish with a new parish church; but a few of the heritors objecting, carried the matter to the Court of Session, where the decree of the Presbytery was reversed. In this case the architect reported, that the existing fabric might be repaired so as to be a serviceable church for from 25 to 35 years at an expense of ^660, while a new church of the same size wouid cost ^1280. Mr. Dunlop, advocate, is of opinion, that the same decision would have been given here as in the case of Roskeen, had the architect reported in regard to Kirkintilloch church, that, in consequence of raising the level of the floor, which was required there as in Roskeen case, it would be necessary to heighten the walls, in order to afford proper accommodation to the sitters. The architect however had ommitted all notice of this matter in his report; and when the chargers, on the cause coming into the Inner House, proposed to put additional queries to him to bring out the facts as to this matter, the Court held them foreclosed, by their not having previously objected to the report and refused to allow additional queries to be put. It was on this point that the case for the Presbytery was lost; and the church, accordingly, remains in its present ruinous condition. It contains about 800 sittings. No free sittings, and only a very few pay for their seats. The glebe amounts to 8 acres, including the garden. About 6 acres of the glebe were lately let for £14 10s. per annum.

“The Report of the Commissioners for Religious Instruction in Scotland calculate the teinds as follows :—

“Gross amount of teinds belonging to proprietors:—Meal, I boll, 2 firlots, I peck, 2 lippies, at £1 6s. 6d.; money £904 5*., total £905 11s. 6d.

“Applied to minister's stipends and communion elements out of the gross teinds:—Meal, 123 bolls, I firlot, 1 peck, at £1'2 9s. 4d.; barley, 121 bolls, 2 firlots, 3 pecks, 2 lippies, at £133 4s. 5d. ; money £26 7s. 6d.; total £262 1s. 3d.

“Value of the unappropriated teinds belonging to other persons, £643 1 0s. 3d. The church lands in the parish are, vicarland on the East croft of Kirkintilloch, 2 acres; Priest land, 2 acres at Auchinvole, held anciently of the Prebends of Biggar: Lady-yard, half an acre in middle of burgh-holm, held of chaplains of Kirkintilloch. ”

The church, which is built in the form of a cross, was closed for repairs in 1890, and was reopened on Sunday 30th November, after having undergone thorough repair and renovation, outside and inside.

The whole of the old grave-stones that used to stick up at all angles, and crowd the space around the church doors, have been laid flat, each over its particular “ lair,” so that no one’s right has been disturbed. This did not interfere with the operation of levelling the ground, although no soil was carried away. Two steps were added to the height of the entrance-stair, and the whole enclosure presents a gentle slope from back to front, with good walks and neat grass plots. A room for the elders, and a vestry for the minister, are also provided.

The rough casting was picked off the old walls of the church, revealing the substantial masonry of former days— the joints being scraped out and repointed. Several of the original windows are also shown, which have been built up when galleries and outside accesses have been added to the original plan. A fine old doorway also appears on the west side, which no doubt has been the principal entrance, as it shows an O G beaded opening, with a square panel above it, on which has been the coat-of-arms of the Earl of Wigton, although now obliterated.

The church is lighted with gas, interior and exterior, and four handsome outside lamps appear. It is also heated by hot water from a neat apparatus erected outside, concealed in a substantial building. The old skylights are superseded by eight dormer windows, and the stone flags of the passages are replaced by wood, covered with matting, the hot air from the pipes for heating ascending on each side through iron gratings.

Accommodation for the choir is now provided on a slightly raised platform, enclosed by a handsome railing, and a powerful harmonium is used for leading the music. The pulpit is still in the same place, but both it and the access to it are much improved. The whole interior is painted from top to bottom, the pews and wood-work of olive colour: the upholstery work of the fronts of the galleries and pulpit being of Utrecht gold velvet. All the alterations have been judiciously carried out. Everything has been made better, and nothing made worse.

Altogether the improvements on the “kirk,” outside and inside, are so marked as to be startling, and reflect much credit on Mr. Small, architect, Stirling, who designed them.

Besides the increased light, comfort, and elegance which the church now affords, the services, by the help of the harmonium and other subsidiary arrangements, are in keeping with modern ideas—in fact, the “auld kirk” has fairly surpassed herself.

These improvements, as is generally the case, must have had a main-spring behind them, and we understand that Mr. James Main (we mean no pun) deserves the credit of having taken the most active part in them, seconded by Mr. Whitelaw of Gartshore. We may just add that the heritors and people have now some reason to be proud of their church, and putting the change that has been effected into s. d.—which is the most customary standard for everything now-a-days, including honour, love, and even religion—the church is worth £1,000 more than it was ten years ago.


This church has a memorable history, the greater part of which was coincident with the life of the late Dr. Andrew Marshall, D.D., LL.D., and the church as a separate body may be said to have ended with his death. It was established about 1770, the first minister being Mr. John Thomson, a native of Port-Glasgow.3 He continued till about 1789, when he lost his voice, resigned his charge, and retired to Glasgow. He had a numerous family, and one of his granddaughters became a peeress of Ireland. In the autumn of 1799, a disruption took place in the Associate Synod. Messrs. Willis of Crawfords-dyke—Taylor of Leven-side—Watson of Kilpatrick—Hyslop of Shotts—with some others, left its communion, and formed themselves into a separate body. Of this movement Mr. Thomson was the reputed father. His writings had the credit of having brought it about.

Mr. Thomson’s successor was Mr. James Kyle; ordained in 1792, but became unfortunate, and was obliged to withdraw—he was succeeded in November, 1802, by the Rev. Andrew Marshall, afterwards D.D., LL.D.

It is to be regretted that as yet no biography of this distinguished divine has appeared; such a production written by some one of his contemporaries, having the requisite talent and courage for the task, would have superseded our present feeble efforts.

Dr. Marshall was born at Westerhill, parish of Cadder, 22nd November, 1779, and studied divinity under the late Professor Lawson at Selkirk. He was licensed by the Presbytery of Glasgow, and received a call from the United Associate Congregation at Kirkintilloch, which he accepted.

He was in the habit of writing carefully his discourses, but he used no notes in the pulpit—his forenoon discourse being invariably a lecture, and afternoon a sermon.

He also delivered lectures once a month during summer in the evening, and these became very popular; strangers coming sometimes from considerable distances to hear them. He also preached to people in their working clothes, and these “ bareheaded sermons ” as they were called, were much appreciated. All his discourses were marked by great ability, his knowledge of the scriptures being unusually profound, and his sentiments being always clothed in beautiful language.

It was as a controversialist however that Dr. Marshall became famous, and made Kirkintilloch known over this, and other countries, in connection with his name.

In 1829 he delivered a sermon called the “Voluntary Sermon,” which was afterwards published and widely circulated. It was the “first shot” fired in a controversial war that raged over Scotland, and lasted for about fourteen years; many distinguished champions on both sides being engaged; and Dr. Marshall being one of the foremost and most ardent.

No one can read the “Voluntary Sermon” without acknowledging that it is written by a man of consummate ability and very great sagacity. Many of the opinions which he expresses have since attained wonderful growth; and are large factors in shaping the policy of Great Britain at the present day. In 1841 the degree of D.D. was conferred on him by Jefferson College, U.S., and afterwards that of LL.D. by another College.

In 1846 the union between the United Associate and Relief denominations took place, but Dr. Marshall and a large majority of his congregation declined to join in it A few of his people approved of the union, and formed themselves into a separate congregation in connection with the United Presbyterian Church, but the bulk of the congregation remained with their pastor.

The recusant party raised an action to have it declared that Dr. Marshall’s church belonged to them of right, and that he and his congregation ought to vacate it; but the Court of Session decided that Dr. Marshall and his people retained rightful possession, and that the property was theirs.

Dr. Marshall sustained great affliction in the death of his son Andrew, and in eight months after, a still more severe stroke, in the death of his wife, both happening in the year 1847. In November, 1852, Dr. Marshall’s jubilee was celebrated at a very enthusiastic meeting held in St. David’s church; his son, the Rev. William Marshall, Free church, Leith, being in the chair; when he was presented by the congregation with an affectionate address; and by them, and other friends, with a handsome service of silver plate. Bailie Bankier also appeared from Glasgow, with a deputation, and congratulated the doctor and his people on the event.

On that occasion Dr. Marshall acknowledged their kindness in an eloquent speech, embracing the history of the church, and an account of his ministry; but bewailing the loss of friends—he said:—“But where are they who might have been here—who might have been expected to be here ? Where are the tens, the hundreds, I may say the thousands, ministers and laymen, who, had I stuck to them till now, and sanctioned their doings, would doubtless have been the foremost to gather around me on such an occasion, and to offer me their congratulations? I have made a sacrifice, my friends; a very considerable sacrifice: yet I do not regret it. Considering the cause, so far from regretting it, I glory in it”

Now, while making due allowance for the atmosphere of controversial strife in which Dr. Marshall lived—and with a feeling of reluctance to differ with a man of his eminence— there is something in all this that is, to an ordinary mind, inexplicable.

Here was a man numbering friends by the thousand, who all deserted him because “he did not stick to them, nor sanction their doings”—or in other words because they differed in opinion from him.

Is that the inevitable penalty that follows, or ought to follow, friends who happen to take different sides in any controversy, be it theological, political, or municipal? We see it often enough to be sure, but* it is by no means universal, and is wholly unnecessary, if people could only state their opinions with calmness, and courtesy; and in the end, if they cannot agree, they may at least agree to differ.

From Dr. Marshall’s writings it is apparent, that while he was an able, he was also a bitter opponent—whatever view he took, he took strongly, and expressed it strongly—and the wounds he inflicted, rankled in those who received them, as much from the manner and temper in which they were given, as from the pain, or it might be the sense of defeat, in those who sustained them.

Nor was he a reluctant combatant, whose motto was “Defence not defiance”: firm and rooted in his own convictions, he was at all times prepared, not only to defend them, but to attack those who differed from him ; he conceived that it was his duty to do it, and he did it.

Notwithstanding what we have said, however, he had naturally a kind heart, and was entirely devoid of malice : he acted under a high conviction of duty, worthy of admiration; although we cannot admire his discretion as we do his zeal.

It is not by such means, however, that any man can retain friends; he may reconcile himself to their loss, and think that all happens through his sense of duty; but the loss is there all the same, and opinions may differ from his as to its true cause or its necessity.

We may regard Dr. Marshall as a type of the old Covenanters; a well-educated David Deans; the one being a diamond rough from the mines; the other a similar jewel cut and polished by the lapidary, but both having the same characteristics.

Both were upright, fearless, and unwearied in the discharge of what they considered to be their duty. Both possessed the same stern inflexibility of character; the rooted and immovable convictions; the honest and fearless avowal of them in season and out of season; the outspoken contempt of those who differed from them; and the readiness—speaking metaphorically—to throw them overboard.

After all, however, Dr. Marshall's faults were only those of frail human nature—and who is free from them? It is said that, “in the controversies into which Luther was dragged, that great reformer was wont to vent his worst feelings in alliance with his best convictions; and to damage the noblest cause by the coarsest language—a part of his conduct which he lamented with some compunction in his latter days. Calvin, Toplady, and Wesley had also faults in this respect.”

An incident may be here related, trifling in itself, but illustrative of the doctor's temperament, as a straw shows how the stream flows: the author being perhaps the only living witness who now remembers it. The doctor was officiating at a baptism on the occasion, and on entering the room where the ceremony was to take place, he courteously saluted the company. Strolling towards the table, on which several books lay, he lifted the nearest, and, glancing at the title on the back, he hastily threw it down, with a thud, as if it had burnt his fingers. Fortunately, all present knew the doctor, and only smiled in wonder at the incident. The book which had given visible offence happened to be Sir Walter Scott's “ Old Mortality.”

We turn, however, with pleasure to contemplate Dr. Marshall as a minister, and there he shines brightly.

Apart from his great talents, of which his people had the benefit, he was blest with a vigorous mind, in a vigorous body, and, for the long period of fifty-two years, he was able to fulfil all his duties, with little interruption.

Besides his pulpit ministrations already alluded to, he took much interest in the young, and had regular classes for their instruction in religious knowledge. Many even at this day look back upon these with gratitude. He was also a regular and diligent visitor of his people, and most kind and attentive to the sick. From first to last he fulfilled all his duties as a minister faithfully, diligently, and regularly.

One beautiful trait of his character was his entire freedom from a mercenary spirit; and the fact of a man of his calibre remaining in a small town like Kirkintilloch, would of itself prove this : for he had more than one opportunity of bettering his condition had he thosen to avail himself of them.

It is little wonder therefore that his people became strongly attached to him, and even when the storm of litigation shook the church to its very foundation, the great bulk of them still stuck faithfully by him.

An old lady remarked of him that “ he was a lamb in the house, but a lion on paper and it may be said that those who knew him best loved him most. Dr. Marshall latterly made application to be admitted to the Free Church. The Glasgow Presbytery wished him to make some concession of his voluntary principles, which—as might be expected— he declined to do, and the negotiations ceased. The doctor lived for two years after his jubilee, and died peacefully on the evening of a Communion Sabbath, 26th November, 1854, aged 75.

His funeral was attended by a large number of his congregation and friends from a distance—many coming uninvited—who accompanied his remains to Cadder burying ground.

Shakespeare says:—“The evil that men do, lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” Tried by this standard the old doctor comes out well; for his virtues still flourish green in the memories of his people; while his faults are long ago withered and forgotten.

Dr. Marshall was a voluminous writer. Besides editing the “Voluntary Magazine” for many years, and the “Banner of Truth ”; he published an immense number of sermons, addresses, etc.; and was a large contributor to the reviews and other periodicals of the day. The following are some of his publications :—

Sermon which originated the Voluntary Controversy in 1829.
Ecclesiastical Establishments considered.
Ecclesiastical Establishments further considered.
Letter to Dr. Andrew Thomson.
Reply to Dr. Inglis.
The Nature and Extent of the Atonement.
Catholic Doctrine of Redemption Vindicated.
Review of Chalmers’ Astronomical Discourses.
Review of Cunningham of Lenspaw on Millenarianism.
Posthumous work—The Atonement; or, the Death of Christ the Redemption of His People.

Miss A. M. N. Young thus writes of him :—

“In massiveness of thought and speech refined
Fired by the genius of true eloquence,
No feeble metaphor e’er marred his strain—
Caught from the echo of Heaven’s own high tones,
Fraught with rich droppings of immortal truth,
And unadulterate as its own pure source,
Free from the meretricious tricks of words
That please the ear, but fail to reach the heart.
Brave as Elijah in his Maker’s work,
As jealous of the honour of God’s name ;
Content to suffer and be much misjudged,
If but the cause fop which he lived were bless’d.
A wreath of names in Heaven’s just record kept,
Shall give eternal lustre to his fame,
And long shall rural Cadder’s quiet church-yard
Have hallowed memories blended with his name.
A type most rare in these degenerate days—
Of truth inflexible, and faith unstained.”

As the litigation in connection with the United Associate Church caused intense excitement in Kirkintilloch at the time, and will still prove interesting to many; we present our readers with a copy of the proceedings in the Court of Session from the authorised report. The case is remarkable for the galaxy of legal talent engaged in it.

For the Pursuers there appeared—

Dean of Faculty M‘Neill, afterwards Lord Colonsay, and latterly Lord President.
John Shanks More, Professor of Scots Law, Edinburgh University. George Graham Bell, afterwards of Crurie, Langholm.

For the Defenders—

Lord-Advocate Andrew Rutherfurd, afterwards Lord Rutherfurd. James Moncrieff, afterwards Lord Justice-Clerk.
John Inglis, afterwards Lord President.


25th January, 1850.

Robert Craigib and Others, Pursuers. D. F. M‘Neill, More, G. G. Bell.
Rev. Dr. Andrew Marshall and Others, Defenders. Lord Advocate Rutherfurd, Moncrieif, Inglis.

Church—Trust—Contract.—The title to a dissenting meeting-house was vested in trustees “for behoof of the members of the Associate congregation in Kirkintilloch, commonly called Seceders, and presently in connection with the United Secession Church.” The minister of the congregation declared his separation from the Secession Church, and a majority of the congregation adhered to him. Shortly thereafter a union took place between the Secession and the Relief churches, the two bodies taking the name of the United Presbyterian Church. In an action by a minority of the congregation, who adhered to the United Presbyterian Church, against the minister and the majority,—Held, that the defenders having separated from the Secession Church, was not a violation of the conditions on which the property of the meeting house was held in trust, so as to lead to a forfeiture of their rights to it, they still continuing to hold the doctrines and opinions originally maintained by that body, and that they were entitled to refuse to concur in the union with the Relief Church, and were not bound to submit themselves to the change in the church government consequent upon it

A congregation, belonging to that sect of Seceders known by the name of Burghers, was formed at Kirkintilloch about the year 1765. This sect had its origin some years after the Secession from the Church of Scotland in 1733, in consequence of discussions which had arisen in the body of Seceders in regard to the burgess oath, and which ultimately resulted in a separation taking place, and a division of the Seceders into two sections, commonly called Burghers and Anti-Burghers. This congregation acquired right in 1793 a piece of ground, upon which a meeting-house and other buildings were erected, and which continued thereafter to be occupied by the congregation. The titles to this ground were taken in favour of trustees, for behoof of the members of the Associated Congregation in Kirkintilloch, commonly called Seceders.

The causes of difference between the Burghers and Anti-Burghers having ceased to exist, the two bodies were again united in 1820, under the name of the United Associate Synod ; and the congregation at Kirkintilloch became at that time one of the congregations of that body.

In the year 1832, in order to keep up this trust, the surviving trustee conveyed the property vested in him to certain other parties as trustees, “for behoof of the members of the aforesaid Associated Congregation in Kirkintilloch, commonly called Seceders, and presently in connection with the United Secession Church,” upon which the trustees were infeft. A piece of ground had also been acquired by the congregation as a burying place, which was also held by the trustees under a title in the same terms.

Dr. Andrew Marshall became minister of the congregation in the year 1802. For some years prior to 1845, various doctrinal discussions had taken place in the United Secession body, in regard to the nature and effect of the Atonement; in the course of which (it is alleged by Dr. Marshall in the action to be mentioned) many views tending to the doctrine of universal pardon, and at variance with the recognised standards of the church, and with repeated declarations of both branches of the Secession, were avowed by individual members of the body, and allowed to pass without the censure, and even with the implied sanction, of the Synod. For several years measures had been in progress for effecting a union between the United Associate Synod and the Synod of the Relief Church, and the congregation of Kirkintilloch had previously sent an overture to the Synod in favour of this union. In October, 1846, an extraordinary meeting of the United Associate Synod was held in Glasgow for the purpose of discussing the proposed basis of union; and on that occasion, at a committee of the whole house, Dr. Marshall, who attended as a member of the Court, moved that, as a preliminary step to union on the part of the Synod either with the Relief or with any other body of professing Christians, it was necessary that the Synod should review and rescind some of its recent decisions in regard to the doctrinal points above mentioned. This motion having been put to the vote, it was supported only by Dr. Marshall and the elder from Kirkintilloch, and was consequently rejected. Dr. Marshall then stated that this decision terminated his connection with the Synod, and read and laid upon the table a paper of protest, in the following terms:— “Whereas this church, the United Secession, has for several years past, as her public deeds testify, departed from the doctrine taught in her standard books, and embraced errors contrary to said doctrine ; Whereas she has persisted resolutely in this course, refusing to be reclaimed, and treating the efforts of those who have sought to reclaim her with insult and scorn; And whereas, slill cherishing the same headstrong spirit, she is now taking measures to form a union with another religious body, by which she will leave altogether her former position, and probably drop her very name without having given proof of the smallest repentance, or done anything to retrieve the grievous injury she has inflicted on divine truth—the subscriber of this paper, while he protests against her unfaithfulness, while he denounces her obstinate perseverance in error, hereby declares in his own name, and in the name of all who shall adhere to him, that he* can no longer walk with her in the bonds of fellowship till she shall retrace her steps, and give credible evidence of returning to the principles from which she has departed : Further, he declares that in the meanwhile he remains exactly as he was, having made no change of any kind, occupying the position he has hitherto occupied, maintaining the doctrine he has hitherto maintained, claiming and asserting the various rights and privileges of a civil and of a sacred nature which have belonged to him as a member and minister of the United Secession Church, and holding out the right hand of fellowship, not only to all other members of that church who shall be pleased to join with him, but also to all Christians throughout the land, of every denomination, who maintain an honest adherence to the doctrine of the Westminster Confession.”

The committee, having recorded this statement and protest, recommended to the Synod to declare that, in consequence of it, Dr. Marshall was no longer a minister or member of the Church, and that ministers and preachers should be prohibited from preaching for him, or employing him in their public administiations, and remit to the Presbytery of Glasgow to take what steps might be necessary in consequence of this decision, according to the rules of the Church. The moderator having thereafter resumed the chair, the recommendations of the committee of the whole house were reported and adopted. At a subsequent sederunt of the United Associate Synod, the moderator was appointed to go to Kirkintilloch, and declare the church vacant; but having been denied access to the church by certain of the managers of the congregation, he made the appointed intimation at the church door.

The union between the United Associate Synod and the Relief Church was thereafter completed, the two bodies assuming the name of “The United Presbyterian Church." Immediately before the union took place, the United Associate Synod recorded a minute, from which the following is an excerpt—a minute in the same terms having been also entered into by the Relief Synod: — “The Synod having for a considerable number of years had the question of union with the Relief Synod under consideration, and having long and anxiously inquired into the extent of their agreement with each other in doctrine, discipline, worship, and government, have great satisfaction in declaring, as the result of their deliberations and enquiries, that any differences in opinion or practice which were formerly supposed to exist, and to present obstacles in the way of a scriptural and cordial union of the two bodies, either never had an existence, or have, in the good providence of God, been removed out of the way; and that the Synods, and the churches whom they severally represent, are agreed in doctrine, discipline, worship, and government; and, therefore, that the Synods, without compromising or changing the principles they hold as parts and portions of the visible Church of Christ, may unite with each other in carrying out the great ends of ecclesiastical association, etc. And this Synod declare that the Synod of the United Church shall be considered identical wiih this United Associate Synod, and shall be entitled to and vested in all the authority, rights and benefits to which it is now, or may become entitled; and that each of the congregations under its inspection, whether they shall adopt the name to be hereafter fixed, or shall retain, as they shall be permitted to do if they shall deem it proper, the name by which they have hitherto been designated, shall not be held, though coming, in consequence of the union, under the inspection of the Synod of the United Church, as in any respect changing their ecclesiastical connection, or affecting any of their civil rights.”

Two of the articles of the Basis of Union which was adopted by both Synods, were in the following terms 6. That with regard to those ministers and sessions who may think that the 2nd section of the 261I1 chapter of the Confession of Faith authorizes free communion—that is, not loose or indiscriminate communion, but the occasional admission to fellowship in the Lord’s Supper of persons respecting whose Christian character satisfactory evidence has been obtained, though belonging to other religious denominations—they shall enjoy in the United body what they enjoyed in their separate communions—the right of acting on their conscientious convictions. . . . 10. That the respective bodies of which the church is composed, without requiring from each other any approval of the steps of procedure by their fathers, or interfering with the rights of private judgment in deference to these, unite in regarding as still valid the reasons on which they have hitherto maintained their state of secession and separation from the judicatories of the Established Church, as expressed in the authorised documents of the respective bodies; and in maintaining the lawfulness and obligation of separation from ecclesiastical bodies in which dangerous error is tolerated, or the discipline of the church, or the rights of her ministers or members, are disregarded.

A majority of the members of the congregation of Kirkintilloch adhered to Dr. Marshall, and continued in possession of the chapel and other property of the congregation.

An action was brought at the instance of Robert Craigie and two other parties, being “ three of the trustees and fiduciaries for behoof of the members of the Associated congregation in Kirkintilloch, commonly called Seceders, in connection with, and under the inspection of, the United Associated Synod of the Secession Church,” and of certain other parties composing a minority of the congregation, against Dr. Marshall, and the three other trustees, and the majority of the congregation that adhered to him. The summons in this case set forth—“That the defenders having separated themselves from the said United Secession Church, and being no longer in connection with or under the charge, jurisdiction, and discipline of the United Associate Synod, or other judicatories of that body, have thereby violated the conditions on which the property belonging to the congregation was acquired and held in trust, whereby they have ceased to have any right or title to the same : That the pursuers above described as being members of the said congregation, have always adhered, and do still adhere, to the said United Secession Church, and to its principles and doctrines, and to the jurisdiction and discipline of the said United Associate Synod and other judicatories of that body, in accordance with which the said congregation have continued since the union of the two bodies above mentioned, and have been and are recognised by the said synod and presbytery, as the United Associate congregation of Kirkintilloch, for whose use and behoof the said subjects were acquired and held in trust as aforesaid. That the pursuers are in consequence entitled to vindicate the property belonging to the congregation from the defenders, and all others pretending to have a right thereto, in manner undermentioned, and to have the said meeting-house exclusively, and in all time coming, appropriated to the use of a minister, and of themselves and others who have already joined or who may join them as a congregation, adhering to the said United Secession Church, and remaining under the jurisdiction and discipline of the said United Associate synod and presbytery, and other judicatories of that body: That the said United Secession Church is now called the United Presbyterian Church, and the said United Associate synod is now called the synod of the United Presbyterian Church, composed of the United Associate synod of the Secession Church and of the synod of the Relief Church.” The conclusions of the action were, inter alia, for declarator, that the meeting-house and other heritable property of the congregation were “held exclusively for the congregation adhering to, and in connection with, the said United Secession Church, now called the said United Presbyterian Church, and in subordination to the said United Associate synod, now called the said synod of the United Presbyterian Church, composed as aforesaid, and other judicatories of that body, and subject to the jurisdiction and discipline thereof; . . . . and that the defenders had ceased to be in connection with the United Secession Church, now called the United Presbyterian Church, and withdrawn from the jurisdiction and discipline of the United Associate synod, now called the synod of the United Presbyterian Church, and other judicatories of that body; and had in consequence amitted, lost, and forfeited all right and title to the meeting-house, and whole property of the congregation ; . . . and that the pursuers, members of the congregation adhering to the United Secession Church, now called the United Presbyterian Church, had for themselves, and such as might join them, the sole right and title to the meeting-house, and other property, and to the exclusive possession and management of it.”

Defences were given in for Dr. Marshall, the majority of the congregation that adhered to him, and for three of the trustees.

The defenders stated the following pleas :—

1. The pursuers, whether as trustees for the congregation, or as members of the congregation, had not libelled, and did not possess any sufficient title to pursue. 2. Even if the pursuers had ever such a title, they had lost it, by having submitted themselves to the jurisdiction and discipline of the United Presbyterian synod, and its subordinate church judicatories. 3. The statements in the summons were not relevant to support the conclusions deduced from them. 4. The defenders being a majority of the congregation to whom the property belonged, were entitled to the control and management of it, so long as they continued to retain the character and maintain the doctrines on which the congregation was originally formed, and apply the property to the purposes for which it was designed ; and as the defenders had done so in all respects, there was no ground in law for interfering with their possession. 5. It was not an implied condition in any of the grants of the property in question, that the congregation should remain subject to the jurisdiction and discipline of the United Secession Church ; and there was no ground in law on which the declaratory conclusion to that effect could be maintained. 6. Even if such condition had been implied, fulfilment of it had been rendered impossible, and the defenders were liberated from the effect of it, by the union of the Secession Church with the Relief body; and the conclusion 'to have it found and declared that the pursuers still adhered to the jurisdiction and discipline of the Church, was altogether inept 7. The conclusion to have it found and declared that the property in question was held for behoof of a congregation in connection with the United Presbyterian Church, had no foundation in the titles libelled on in the constitution of the congregation, or in the true principles and discipline of the United Secession Church. 8. It lay with the pursuers to show that the defenders had departed from the doctrine and standards of the United Secession Church. But farther, and separately, the defenders pleaded, that the United Secession synod having abandoned their doctrines and standards, and having directly sanctioned essential doctrinal error, the course adopted by the defenders was in every view justifiable and incumbent upon them.

The pursuers pleaded :—The defenders were not entitled to maintain any objection founded on the union between the Secession and Relief churches, on the ground of its being an unconstitutional act, or of its involving a departure from the tenets of the Secession Church, inasmuch as they had left that Church before the union took place, and ought at that time to have surrendered the property in question. Dr. Marshall’s act was a voluntary, deliberate, and complete separation from the Secession Church. By this proceeding he had put himself out of connection with the United Associate synod, and had ceased to be a minister of that body. Those who adhered to him also put themselves out of connection with the Church. They had charged the rest of the Church, as the ground of separation, with holding erroneous doctrines. A charge of heresy of this description made by one congregation, or part of a congregation, against the whole body of the Church, was not to be assumed unless supported by some prima facie evidence of its validity. And it was necessary for the parties making the charge, in order to entitle them to possession of the church, under the terms of the trust, to be able to show that they alone constituted the true Secession Church, as being the only parties who held by its original doctrines.

But the union was not in any respect at variance with the principles or constitution of the Secession Church, nor did it imply any departure from the original contract amongst the members of that church. Both bodies, the Seceders and the Relief, had left the Established Church on substantially the same grounds—the relaxation of discipline in the Establishment, and the oppressive use of patronage. Both bodies continued to adhere to the standard of the Established Church. Whatever minor differences there might at one time have been between the bodies, they had now ceased to exist. It was not from controversial work, where* immaterial points of difference were often magnified into undue importance, that the court were to look for a true statement of the principles held by the churches, but to the authoritative profession of these principles by the churches themselves. Previous to their union, the two churches had declared that they agreed in doctrine, worship, and government, and that without changing their principles they were to unite together. There was nothing in the original act of Secession importing a prohibition against a union with another body of Christians holding the same principles with themselves; and there was nothing in the doctrines or standards of the churches to debar them from such a union. In uniting, neither church conceded or adopted anything at variance with its original principles. It was said, that the very fact of a union having taken place was a sufficient bar to the title of the pursuers. Had it been the case of a bequest to the Secession Church, would it not have gone to the united body? Could it be said that the identity of the Secession Church had been destroyed by the admission into its body of a number of ministers holding the same tenets with itself? It was nothing more than an extension of the Church, the United Associate synod remaining still the same.

The defenders pleaded:—That the case of the defenders, the members of the congregation, and the trustees, was to be considered separately, in the present discussion, from that of Dr. Marshall, as his acts as a constituent member of the Church court could not affect their rights and interests under the trust under which the property in question was held. The preliminary question to be disposed of was, What was the situation of the pursuers who were attempting to disturb the defenders in their possession of the property in question ? They were not the parties in the trust-deed for whose behoof the property was to be held, but a new body including in it the Relief Church. The pursuers were not entitled to place the congregation under the jurisdiction of the Relief synod. There had been all along very great and important points of difference between the Secession and the Relief Church, as wa6 to be gathered from works upon these Churches—more especially as regarded the subject of communion with other bodies—the Secession excluding from communion all who did not concur with them, and the Relief admitting many who differed from them, even in some essential particulars. The ground upon which the Relief had separated from the Establishment, was solely that of the exercise of the right of patronage, and not upon any grounds of doctrinal difference; while the case of the Secession was different. Looking to the nature of the union, it was impossible to sustain the pursuers1 title to sue. They were not the parties for whom the property was held in trust. To entitle them to claim the property, they must show that the Secession and the United Presbyterian Church were identical and the same body. It was not an extension of the Secession that took place at the union, but a fusion of both bodies into one ; the effect and result of which was, that both the original churches lost their identity, and an entirely new body, the United Presbyterian Church was the result.

Lord Justice-Clerk. . . . 1st. I am not prepared to hold that the course followed by the Synod was, in form, regular, complete, and sufficient to dissolve Dr. Marshall’s charge, and to infer, from the date of his protest and that meeting, loss of civil rights, if he any had, in this property. When forfeiture is dated from a certain punctum tcmporis, the proceeding must be at that date sufficient, correct, and complete, according to the forms and usages of presbyterial discipline. I think it was not. But on this point I do not rest my judgment.

2nd. As against the majority of the congregation, so as to date, as a legal result, forfeiture of the property from a certain day, there is no act of the Synod whatever. The congregation, I shall assume, adopt and adhere to Dr. Marshall's protest, and notify that to the Synod—by which act, they say we remain as we were, true and proper Seceders. Now, against the congregation no step whatever is taken by the Synod to throw them out of the Church, or by the pursuers even by protest, so as to enable the pursuers to maintain that the forfeiture took effect irrevocably from and after a certain date before the institution of this action. The case, therefoie, foils here as against the congregation.

But, thirdly, and mainly, As regards both Dr. Marshall and the congregation—and on this ground I rest my judgment—supposing separation to involve prima facie any violation of the conditions of the trust, to the extent of requiring reasons for the separation to be established, the separation was not, in truth, from the United Secession Church such as it had existed, but withdrawal from it in a proposed act of union with another distinct and separate sect of Christians.

It appears that, owing to certain opinions which Dr. Marshall ascribed to some eminent men in the Secession Church, he apprehended dangers to the truth, and brought these opinions, or modes of expressing opinions, before the Synod of the United Secession Church at last in the form of a libel. More important errors than those he imputed could not well be stated by those holding the standards of that Church; but the more important the doctrines, the less, others thought, was heresy to be presumed and the more were expressions, though perhaps thought to be incautious, novel, or ambiguous, to be favourably construed, as others thought, especially when the errors imputed were disclaimed by the parties, and they met the charge by declaring their agreement in doctrine with the person imputing heresy. I hope I avoid the slightest indication of opinion or remark on this part of the case, in what I am stating. Dr. Marshall thought the Synod erred grievously in not, by severe sternness of expression, repressing what he thought had (to say the least, in his opinion) the appearance of countenancing the errors in question; and he plainly thought that the leniency proceeded from secret but unavowed tendency in the majority of the Synod, or those leading them, to the errors themselves. Still, that was disclaimed by the Synod ; and hence, whatever Dr. Marshall might dread or suspect, he then, it appears, saw no cause for separation from the United Secession Church, which professed to agree in the views he held; and hoped, probably, that what he thought sounder doctrines, or sounder exposition of them, would be gradually restored. At all events, whatever his views, he did nothing in May 1845. But a general movement was going on for union with the Relief Church—proposals had been sent round to all the congregations, seemingly, of the Secession Church—committees of both bodies had met, aud had framed articles of agreement or union to be proposed to, and considered by, the synods of the two bodies respectively. These, of course, must have been well known, in substance at least, to every intelligent minister of the Secession Church, especially one taking an active part in polemical or theological discussions in that body.

But this proposed union plainly might alter, and very reasonably, the the whole aspect of matters in Dr. Marshall’s opinion. He might have ascribed the judgments of the Secession Synod, to which he objected, to the influence of eminent and learned individuals in his own body, or to the natural reluctance on the part of the body to believe in any heretical views, or even objectionable expressions, on the part of those who had long been able and faithful ministers of the Secession ; and so he might think, that when the influence of these men died away, the doctrines preached would be more in conformity to his views of their standards of faith. But if another and powerful body of dissenters were ready to join the Secession without objecting to what had been done as to these doctrines, during the very time the discussion as to union was going on, Dr. Marshall might naturally dread, on the part of that body, a tendency to favour the same errors, and might think that, if the union were formed without a distinct acknowledgment of these tenets being erroneous, the standard of faith would be for ever and seriously impaired, and most dangerous doctrines come to prevail. Hence the occasion of the proposal for union seemed at once to suggest and require a preliminary declaration, as he might think, from the Secession, to secure the purity of their own faith, and to test the views and tendencies of those with whom they were about to unite......

The desire to keep separate—to keep one sect apart from all others —as in itself a good way strictly to maintain certain peculiar opinions, especially if of a severe and stern character—to stand by a name as recalling for ever the struggle in which the sect had its origin, and fixing down, as it were, in stern, exclusive, and deeply graven characters, the aspect and tone of language even, as well as of devotional sentiment, which that very name forces on every one—the desire to prevent the risk of defection in faith or in zeal for that rigorous exposition of doctrine, which the very name of such a sect as the Secession may be thought to guard againsf, by a sort of standing reproach to all who do not utter the very language of Erskine, Wilson, Fisher and Moncrieff, and the resolution to make no union with any body, but steadily to require all to join distinctly to the name of the Secession, in order to proclaim that, as it was formed in 1733, so it remains, and, on that footing, that all must enter it as members thereof, without separate pretentions, notions or origin ;—such desire may be unreasonable—it may be to many unintelligible—it may appear idle caprice: But it is the first privilege of every congregation of such a body—it is their right—it is a desire springing from attachment to the causes which led to the formation of the Church, and the constant commemoration of which, as the true (and, they may think, the most important) distinctions from all other churches, they may deem the best safeguard for the maintenance of the principles involved in these causes of secession. It seems to me utterly repugnant to every notion of such a sect to suppose that their congregations can be compelled to unite with any other church or sect whatever.....On the whole, the defenders must, in my judgment, be assoilzied.

Lord Moncrieff.— . . . . If it is thus to be inferred that the defenders have, on just and fair grounds, refused to concur in this union with the Relief, and to refuse to acknowledge the Synod of the United Presbyterian Church as being in any sense identical with the Synod of the United Secession Church, it may now be inquired, what title these pursuers, as members of the United Presbyterian Church, and in connection with the Synod of that church, can have to insist for a conveyance of the heritable subjects, which are held in trust solely for the members of the congregation which was in connection with the United Secession Church, and has no connection, except that recently formed, with the newly constituted Synod. The pursuers cannot escape from this point of title, by running to the other point of argument, on the idea that the defenders had left the Secession Church. That is quite a different question. But the defenders are in possession of the property, and the pursuers have to evict it from them. Can they so evict it, when, by the showing of their own summons, they would not constitute the members of a congregation in connection with the United Secession Church, even if it were true that the defenders had separated from the Synod before the union took place ? Still, the title of the property would remain as it was, and it could not be claimed by the pursuers, seeing that they are in no sense the parties for whom the trust was constituted and held. The pursuers seem to have overlooked this difficulty in their case. By the proceedings of the Synod, it has been rendered impossible for the defenders, at present, to be in connection with the Synod of the United Secession Church, because that Synod, and that Church are, qua such, extinguished by the act of the pursuers. But the defenders hold the property as it was before, and have done no act by which it can be forfeited to any one, and least of all to the pursuers, who have assumed a character which excludes them from it. Consequently, wherever the true title of property may be, it is not in the pursuers, and they can have no right to insist in such an action.....I think, therefore, that the defenders ought to be assoilzied from the conclusions of the action.

I wish to say, before concluding, that, while I have studiously avoided saying anything of the doctrinal controversy in which Dr. Marshall had been engaged with some of the members of the Synod,

I think with your Lordship, that in some eventual results there might be a question remaining behind on that subject, on which I should think reserve necessary.

Lord Cockburn— .... The defenders’ main battle is, that the union with the Relief implies an abandonment of principle, or of system, by the Synod; and so gross a one, that it destroys the identity of that bodyt and entitles the defenders to be considered as the persons for whose use the chapel was acquired. There can be no doubt of the relevancy of this plea.....

In order to ascertain whether the junction involves a change of ecclesiastical nature, two things are necessary, 1st, that we should know—and know exactly—what the peculiar principles of the Synod at the period of the union, or at least in 1820, were. And 2nd, what deviation from these principles is implied in the amalgamation with the Relief. And in proving either of these facts, we must be guided chiefly, if not entirely, by what are referred to in the proceedings of the two sects, as “ the authorised documents of the respective bodies.” These are, their standards, or testimonies, or declarations, or acts, or other authentic evidence, which authoritatively records, or discloses the principles of the two communities.

But hitherto we have had a total absence of anything approaching to precision on these matters. There is no statement in the record, or anywhere, of the exact peculiarities that constitute the principles either of the Synod or of the Relief. Of course there is, and can be, no precise statement of the changes implied in the union of these two bodies. Almost the only repugnance between them that the record specifies, is in their different views about the atonement; but this seems to have been forgotten in all the subsequent discussions. Then it turns upon differences about patronage—next about the theological doctrine—then about laxity of discipline, and so on. But the exact number of these alleged abhorrences has never been given; their exact nature has never been explained; and as to proof of their existence, we have not had a legal particle of it. We had the opinions of each community as represented by its opponents, or by its injudicious and unauthorised friends; or we have been asked to gather it, as a matter of general history, from any of the sources, direct or indirect, from which general history flows. But I defy both parties to point out one single atom of admissible and authoritative evidence hitherto produced upon this subject.

If there be nothing better than this to be obtained, we must proceed on what we can get; and the matter will probably depend on where the burden of proving lies. But it is very improbable that the principles of two bodies, so large and so old, cannot have their essences proved by some simpler and weightier evidence. The discussion at the bar was conducted with great ability, and with much desultory learning. But the only result upon me was, that, at the end of it, I felt myself seated in a thick fog.

How many religious sects are in a state of disjunction, and even of fierce hostility, from mere mutual ignorance. Both the Synod and the Relief declare, as the reason for their uniting, that “ any differences in opinion or practice which were formerly supposed to exist, and to present obstacles to a cordial and scriptural union of the two bodies, either never had an existence, or have, in the good Providence of God, been removed.” Whether this be true or not, it is at least possible, and I think not improbable. Each party may, therefore, still keep its own opinions, and yet the two need not differ.

If we must proceed on what we have, there is nothing to remove from my mind the prima facie evidence of the identity of their principles, which is supplied by the mere fact of their uniting. That religious parties should differ on imaginary or immaterial grounds is no uncommon occurrence; but that, with real differences, they should unite, is, I suspect a case without example, unless where secular considerations have extinguished ecclesiastical feelings. No such considerations have been averred to operate here. And, so far as appears, the junction has been acceded to by the whole members ot both bodies, except the defenders. The defenders, nevertheless, may certainly be right, and every one else wrong. But, prima facie, the probability is the other way.

The Court then pronounced this interlocutor:—“Sustain the 4th, 5th, and 6th pleas in law stated on record, in defence against the present action : Assoilzie the defenders from the conclusions of the summons, and decern: Find the defenders entitled to expenses.”


I. Robert Aitken was ordained as the first minister, 5th September, 1811, and translated to Dundee, 5th June, 1816.

II. John Russell, ordained 9th November, 1819; died 25th February, 1824.

III. William Tannahill, ordained 10th October, 1826; united with the Original Secession Synod, 18th May, 1842; died 27th November, 1846, in the fiftieth year of his age, and twentieth of his ministry.

IV. John Blakely, D.D., ordained 2nd August, 1848; died 27th November, 1866, in the fifty-first year of his age, and eighteenth of his ministry.

V. Thomas Gilchrist, ordained 29th April, 1869, but after a brief ministry died.

VI. Andrew Millar, ordained 1873 ; went abroad in 1890.

VII. David Matthew, inducted 5th June, 1890.

The old church where these clergymen officiated is now a thing of the past; it has been taken down and removed, and on the same site a handsome church has been erected, of an elegant design, seated for 500, and costing upwards of ^2,000. The number of members is 230.


The Methodists have never taken root in Scotland so strongly as in England, and have always been weak in Kirkintilloch; but since 1817 they have continued as a small but united body.

They have never been able to sustain a settled pastor, being supplied by lay-preachers, and other brethren. The church has accommodation for 180, and there is a missionary resident at present.


Was built as an extension church, constituted a quoad sacra parish by the General Assembly 30th May, 1836. The boundaries of St. David’s parish are as follows:—From the bridge leading from Campsie on the north, along the Coal Road, and then up the High Street to the Cross; thence along the Cowgate and down the Broad Croft to the river Luggie, and by it to the canal; then across the canal by the Hillhead-bridge, onward by the Longmuir road to the Twechar road; then up the Board-burn, and onward to the Moss-water: it is then bounded on the east and north by the parishes of Cumbernauld, Kilsyth, and Campsie.

The church was opened 8th June, 1837, and cost about ^2,500. It has 1012 sittings.7 The first minister was— “ 1838. Thomas Gray Duncan, a native of Edinburgh, licen. by the Presb. of Dumfries 2nd Apr. 1833, became missionary at Leswalt, elected to this charge by the subscribers and seatholders 15th Mar. and ord. 3rd May 1838. On joining in the Free Secession, and signing the Deed of Demission he was declared no longer a min. of this church 28th June 1843, became Free missionary at Stranraer, was adm. to Free Lockerby 19th Apr. 1844, and to Trinity Church, Newcastle, in 1850. He died 18th Dec. 1861, aged 52, in 24th min., leaving a widow and two sons. Publication —On the present Doctrinal State of the Church of England, a letter written to the Rev. Clement Moody, 1844.”

Mr. Duncan was exceedingly popular, and at his demission of the charge of St. David’s the great bulk of the congregation joined the Free Church, and in consequence, St. David’s was shut up, and remained so for eight years, during which time it fell into a state of great dilapidation. The windows were broken, the buildings in disrepair, and even grass grew in the passages.

It was re-opened as a mission-station in 1851, and the following is a list of the clergymen who have laboured in it since it was re-opened :—

(1.) As a mission station, 1851-1853—Rev. Messrs. Smith, Rose, Wallace, and Scott. By this time the nucleus of a congregation had been formed. It was then raised to a chapel.

(2.) As a chapel—Rev. Mr. Wilson, appointed 1853, died 1855 Mitchell, 1855, resigned 1859 M‘Gregor, 1861, translated 1868 Campbell, 1868, 1870 Somerville, 1871, 1873,

(3.) As a parish, quoad sacra—Rev. Mr. Graham, appointed 1874, translated 1884. „ Reid, „ 1884.


The congregation of St. David's quoad sacra church at the Disruption—with the exception of a few families—threw in their lot, along with their minister the Rev. Mr. Duncan, with those who came out; but the Established Presbytery of Glasgow took no measures to eject them from the church till the spring of 1844, when Mr. Duncan accepted a call which he had received from Lockerbie.

In a few weeks the congregation gave a unanimous call to the Rev. David Cunningham, probationer, Kilmarnock; then quietly evacuated the church and worshipped for that summer in a field on which the present church now stands. They had taken measures at the outset to collect funds to build a new church, and met with much sympathy and liberality.

Mr. Cunningham was ordained in presence of a large congregation in the usual field on 29th August, 1844, and on the same day he laid the foundation stone of the present church. It is a law of the church that previous to an ordination the church officer must proclaim at the entrance that all who had any objections to the life or doctrine of the reverend probationer must substantiate these on the spot. Mr. Telfer, the officer on this occasion, proceeded to the gate of the field and went through the prescribed ceremony. At the end of autumn the Rev. Mr. Tannahill of the Original Secession, placed his church at their disposal, which offer was thankfully accepted, and the congregation met there during the winter.

The church—which is seated for 800—was opened for service on 18th May, 1845, by Dr. Candlish, the collection for the day being ^102. The total cost of the church was £1 ,286 6s. 5<1., of which £706 14s. 9d. was contributed nearly all by the congregation; ^379 1 is. 8d. was received from the Central Building Fund, and £200 of debt remained but was cleared off within a short time.

Mr. Cunningham died on 9th November, 1868, and Mr. Steel was ordained his successor 26th August, 1869. Mr. Patrick was ordained as Mr. Steel’s successor on 19th December, 1878, and on his translation to Dundee he was succeeded by the present minister the Rev. H. Reybum.


Had its origin in a minority of Dr. Marshall's congregation who were in favour of the union of the United Associate and Relief Churches, under the name of the United Presbyterian Church, and kept their connection with that body after the union. They called Mr. W. Fleming, Brechin, to be their minister, but he preferred to go to Kirkcaldy. In 1854 a call was given to Rev. John Mitchell, who had been minister in Leven, Fifeshire, for seven years, which call Mr. Mitchell accepted, and was inducted 27th April, 1854, in the Methodist Chapel, Queen Street, kindly granted for the occasion.

The present church was opened in 1855 by the Rev. Drs. Eadie and Anderson, of Glasgow, and Mr. Mitchell. It cost about ;£i,6oo, and is seated for 560 persons.

In June, 1892, the Rev. Alexander Taylor, M.A., was ordained as colleague with Mr. Mitchell.


After the death of Dr. Marshall, of the United Associate Church, the congregation called his son, the Rev. William Marshall, of Leith, to succeed his father, which call he accepted, and the congregation under his charge was, on application, admitted to the Free Church of Scotland on 15th May, 1856 : the church being thereafter called the Marshall Free Church.

Rev. William Marshall died 13th January, 1860, in the forty-seventh year of his age, and twenty-first of his ministry, and was succeeded by Rev. James Cowe, who was ordained minister of the congregation on 10th January, 1861, but was separated from his charge on 6th December, 1865.

Rev. Andrew M. Brown, M.A., B.D., was ordained and inducted 22nd August, 1867, by the Free Presbytery of Glasgow.

As the accommodation of the old church was beginning to fall short of modern requirements—besides, the surroundings being unpleasant—a movement was set on foot to build a new and commodious church in a more suitable locality. Under the active exertions of the pastor, aided by a committee, the sum of ^1,100 was subscribed, and a suitable site being secured, a design for a church was furnished by Messrs. Clarke & Bell, architects, Glasgow, which was adopted, and the church built.

It was opened 16th February, 1873, by Dr. Robert Buchanan, Glasgow, and is a handsome building of the Gothic style. The total cost, including bell and painting, was £2,500, and the sittings number 600. The congregation resolved to change the name from “Marshall Free Church” to "St. Andrew's Free Church,” both in honour of Dr. Andrew Marshall, who had been so long their minister, and of the Rev. Andrew M. Brown, under whose charge and exertions the church had been erected.

The old United Associate Church was sold some time previously to Mr. Wallace, of Solsgirth, for £287 6s., and was ultimately bought by the volunteers, who have used it since as a drill-hall.


Was founded in May, 1887. For some time previously a number in the burgh holding the distinctive principles of this body of Christians often met and discussed the feasibility of forming a church. The result was, that an invitation was given to the Rev. J. B. Gillison of Largo, and, after consultation with him and several ot the leading ministers of the denomination, the church was founded, its membership consisting of twelve.

At first the services were held in the Conservative rooms, and subsequently in the temperance hall. Soon, the desirability of building a suitable place of worship was felt, and ground was secured in Regent Street of sufficient extent to raise a church capable of seating 500 or 600, and a hall to hold 250. The hall was erected in 1888 at a cost of ^850. In March 1891 Bellevue cottage, suitable for a manse, was purchased by the congregation.

The Rev. Mr. Gillison’s health broke down, and he was obliged to leave this country for Australia in 1890, carrying with him many tokens of high appreciation and sympathy from the church and community. The present pastor, Rev. W. B. Nicolson of Broughty-Ferry, accepted an invitation and was settled in October 1890. The membership in May 1893 was about 130.


Is situated in Union Street, and is the most striking edifice in the town.

It is built of red Dumfriesshire stone, of a design termed late Gothic—almost Tudor.

The interior, consisting of an imposing and lofty nave, with two aisles, is supported by handsome pillars, which, as well as the arches, are of solid stone-work ; the stone, which is of a pretty white colour, came from Giffnock.

The architects are the famous firm Pugin & Pugin, Westminster, London, and the design and execution of the whole work bear the impress of talent.

Messrs. Devlin & Sons, Glasgow, executed the mason-work, but all the rest was done by local tradesmen viz., Mr. Graham, joiner; Messrs. Williamson, plasterers : Messrs. Caldwell, slaters; Mr. Cunningham, plumber; and Mr. Edgar, painter. The grounds were laid out by Mr. Scott, Lenzie.

The church holds 800, and the old building, which it has superseded, is utilised for school purposes.

The whole cost amounted to about ,£5,000, and for a congregation of working people, is a marvellous sum to raise.

The following clergymen were born in Kirkintilloch parish:—

Established Church.

Rev. David Gemmill, Gourock. Died at Kirkintilloch, 8th June, 1842. .James Allan, Greenhead Church. Deceased.
David Chapman. Went to America.
David Watson, Woodside Church, Glasgow.
James Buchanan, B.Sc., Eaglesham.
George Caldwell, Symington.
Rev. William Graham, Bannockburn and Carluke. Died 17th Sept., 1806.
John MacKay, Glasgow.
Charles Findlay, Thurso. Deceased.
James Patrick.
Alexander Stirling, England.
Alexander J. Yuill, Bedford Street, Glasgow.

United Presbyterian Church.

Rev. David Buchanan, England.

Free Church.

Rev. Robert Scott, Berwick. Deceased.
Alexander Stirling, York.
William Reid, Airdrie.
James Scott, Arbroath.
Thomas Calder. Deceased.
Archibald Alexander, M.A., Spittal.
George Faulds, Melbourne.
David Forsyth, Rose Street, Glasgow,
James Stirling, Edinburgh.
James Findlay, M.A., Camlachie. Died 24th July, 1881
John Arnott, M.A., Dailly.

Return to Book Index Page


This comment system requires you to be logged in through either a Disqus account or an account you already have with Google, Twitter, Facebook or Yahoo. In the event you don't have an account with any of these companies then you can create an account with Disqus. All comments are moderated so they won't display until the moderator has approved your comment.

comments powered by Disqus