Parish life in the north of scotland
Download 1.26 Mb.
|
| But perhaps the most active and efficient, and I fear I must add unscrupulous, of the Junta of Moderate rulers was the well-known Dr. George Cook, then minister of Laurencekirk, but afterwards Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of St. Andrews. He was nephew of the celebrated Principal Hill, a leader who more than filled any place which he attained in the ecclesiastical courts. Dr. Cook strove to reach the same public eminence and notoriety. He failed, however, to do so, in spite of the sacrifices which he made of the principles cherished by his party in order to further his ambitious projects. 2:
In connection with these personages there was also a sort of nondescript named James Bryce, whom I scarcely know how to describe. Of his father I had heard much when in Aberdeen, and towards the close of my residence there I was in some measure acquainted with him. He was minister of a Relief Chapel in Belmont Street, the back part of which looked into Gaelic Lane, right opposite the Gaelic Chapel. Mr. Bryce was admitted, with his whole congregation at their request, into the pale of the Established Church of Scotland on the Chapel of Ease footing. His son James had, some years before, joined the Establishment, and was first presented to the parish of Strachan, Presbytery of Kincardine o' Neil, but afterwards went to India as minister of the Scotch Church, Calcutta, while at the same time he was connected by membership with the Edinburgh Presbytery. This man was shallow, flippant, and loquacious, and full of bitter hate against all who exhibited the spirit of Christ. He became the scavenger of the party; if any dirty work was to be done, which if proposed to any of their leading men would be received with a frown and regarded as an insult, Dr. Bryce of Calcutta was ready at a wink to come from the uttermost parts of the earth to do it. 3: Another worthy on the same side was Dr. Macfarlane of Drymen, afterwards Principal of Glasgow College and one of the ministers of that city. His abilities and attainments were of the same use to his arty as ballast is to an empty ship at sea, chiefly valuable for its inertness and dead weight, and at the same time giving the vessel a tendency to sink rather than to swim. But I must now glance at the leaders of the opposite party. And, first, I will mention Sir Henry Moncreiff Wellwood, senior minister of St. Cuthbert's, Edinburgh. My earliest conceptions of the high responsibility of the Christian ministry stood connected with this able man. As a leader of the Evangelical section of the church, Sir Henry did more for the interests of truth by his great moral weight as a minister of Christ, and his unswerving adherence to the vital doctrines of the gospel and to the great fundamental principles of the constitution of our Church, than by any of his polemical discussions on the platform of the Church court. To Dr. Andrew Thomson of St. George's I have already referred. As a preacher he was clear, consecutive, and scriptural. His great mind at once understood the beauty and harmony of the whole system of gospel truth as held by the fathers of the Church, and so explicitly laid down in its standards. He was a born controversialist; in this direction the vigour and power of his mind scarcely knew any limit. It was remarked by Lord Brougham, who had been his school-fellow, that there was not a man living whom he feared to meet in debate but one, and he was Andrew Thomson. Dr. Thomson's speeches in the General Assembly not only shook the listeners, but penetrated with a thrilling influence into the heart of every member of the whole Church. His ministry was eminently distinguished for its faithfulness. To his hearers' progress in knowledge and soundness in the truth; to the spiritual and secular instruction of the youth of his flock, and to the consolation and right exercise of the sick and the dying, Andrew Thomson devoted his days and his nights. The schools which he established in his own congregation, the school-books which he compiled for their use, and the method of teaching which he brought into practice, might with truth be said to stand at the head of all educational efforts and institutions of the day in which he lived. He was the editor of a periodical work, entitled "The Christian Instructor," in which he " defended the rights and privileges of the Scottish Church against all invasion." 4: Till I came to Aberdeen I had heard little or nothing about these parties and their leaders. My father, in all his life, only attended one Assembly. My first Assembly was that of 1824, and from that time forth I began to take an interest in ecclesiastical proceedings. On the 18th of May 1820, the General Assembly met at Edinburgh in the New Church aisle. Dr. Macfarlane of Drymen was succeeded, as Moderator, by Dr. MacKnight, son of Dr. MacKnight, the author of a critical work on the New Testament. The King's Commissioner was the Earl of Morton, a man of open profanity and loose character, but, being also poor, the appointment was given him in charity. The most notable members on the Evangelical side present that year were, besides Dr., then Mr., Andrew Thomson; Dr. A. Stewart of Dingwall; Mr. J. Robertson of Kingussie; Mr. Forbes of Tarbat; Dr. MacGill, professor of Divinity in Glasgow; and Mr. Doig of the East Church in Aberdeen, ministers. The ruling elders on this side were Mr. James Moncreiff, advocate, eldest son of Sir Henry Moncreiff Wellwood, Bart., D.D., and afterwards a Lord of Session; and Mr. George Ross, brother of the late Sir Charles Ross of Balnagown. On the Moderate side were Dr. Cook of Laurencekirk; Dr. Lee of St. Andrews; Dr. Irvine of Little Dunkeld; Principal Nicol; Mr. Mylne of Dollar; Mr. Donald Mackenzie of Fodderty; Mr. Wightman of Kirkmahoe, ministers; while among the Moderate elders were the Lord Justice-Clerk Boyle; the Lord Hermand; Lord Succoth; Mr. John Hope, Solicitor-General (afterwards Lord Justice-Clerk); Mr. Waiter Cook, W.S., brother of Dr. Cook; Sir John Sinclair of Ulbster, Bart.; and Dr. Bryce of Calcutta. It is unnecessary to notice particularly the ordinary business which came before this Assembly. One case, however, brought matters between the Moderate and Evangelical parties to a decided issue, and as it was in fact the seed which, then sown, broke through the soil at the Disruption of 1813, I shall record it with some minuteness. After the report of the Committee on Bills was read, Mr. Thomson gave notice of a motion “for the production of the Order in Council intended to regulate the form of prayer for the several branches of the Royal Family.” This very plain and ordinary request fell upon the Assembly, or at least upon the Moderate section of the House, with all the effect of a thunderbolt. Speaker after speaker rose up, one class contending that they could not conceive the object of the motion, that it was informal, that it ought to be withdrawn, and so forth. Those on the side of the mover, on the contrary, maintained that the Order in Council ought to have been produced independently of any motion to that effect. It was at last agreed that the motion should be discussed on Wednesday, the 24th of May, when the report of the Commission would be presented. But the motion, or what it implied, or the real causes of the excitement which it produced, cannot be fully understood unless I refer to some events in the national history. George III. died on 29th of January, 1820. George, Prince of Wales, had long previous to his father's death, and in consequence of his protracted illness, acted as Prince-Regent. Between him and his consort, the Princess Caroline of Brunswick, ever since their marriage in 1795, nothing at all approximating to connubial happiness had ever subsisted, and their indifference to each other had gradually ripened, particularly on the part of the Prince, into absolute loathing. In 1814 the Prince attempted to divorce her by setting on foot “the delicate investigation” into some charges whispered against her moral character, but of which she was fully acquitted. Immediately on the demise of George III., the Regent was proclaimed King as George the Fourth. In the month of February following, the Privy Council met at Carlton House, and there issued “ An Order intended to regulate the form of prayer for the several branches of the Royal Family.” The Order proceeded thus:- "At the Court at Carlton House, the 12th February, 1820:- Present the King's most Excellent Majesty; Archbishop of Canterbury; Lord Chancellor; Lord Privy Seal; Duke of Wellington; Lord Stewart; Marquis of Winchester; Earl Of Liverpool; Earl of Mulgrave; Viscount Castlereagh; Viscount Melville; Viscount Sidmouth; Lord Charles Bentinck; Mr. Wellesley Pole; Mr. Canning; Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer; Mr. Bathurst; Mr. Robinson." "In pursuance of an Act passed in the 10th year of her late Majesty Queen Anne, and of another Act passed in the 32nd year of his late Majesty King George III' wherein provision is made for praying for the Royal Family, in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, it is ordered by his Majesty in Council that henceforth every minister and preacher shall, in his respective church, congregation, or Assembly, pray in express words, 'For his most sacred Majesty King George, and all the Royal Family;' of which all persons concerned are hereby required to take notice, and govern themselves accordingly." (Signed) “JAS. BULLER.” Now, two things are evident in this document; first, the King's persevering hatred of his unfortunate Queen - even all mention of her is studiously avoided; next, that prescribing prayers for the Royal Family, “in express words,” to the Church of Scotland was unconstitutional and Erastian. Yet the Privy Council not only so framed their minute, but transmitted it to Dr. Macfarlane, Moderator of the General Assembly in the following terms: “COUNCIL OFFICE, WHITEHALL, 12th Feb., 1820. “ SIR, - You will herewith receive an Order of his Majesty in Council, directing the necessary alterations to be made in the prayers for the Royal Family, so far as relates to Scotland, which you will be pleased to communicate in such manner that due obedience may be paid thereto. I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant, (Signed) “JAMES. BULLER.” “The Rev. Duncan Macfarlane, “Moderator of the General Assembly of “The Church of Scotland.” The Order in Council, prescribing prayers for the Royal Family to the Church of Scotland, was the point which Mr. Andrew Thomson took up. To the slur cast upon the Queen he did not make the most distant allusion. Every British subject who knew aught about the quarrel was full of it; so much so indeed that, when Mr. Thomson first mooted the Orders in Council in the Assembly, the officers of State had it that to set up a defence for the Queen, and make a direct attack upon the reigning sovereign was the object which the speaker had in view. Of these surmises he was fully aware, and therefore on the Wednesday thereafter, and after the Order was produced, Mr. Thomson, in submitting his motion, stated “that he believed a great deal had gone abroad respecting it that was erroneous, and that topics had been mentioned, as those which he should have occasion to introduce, which had not the most distant relation to the subject, nor had indeed ever entered his mind to entertain.” His motion clearly brought out both the principle which he advocated and the object he had in view. He moved: “That it be declared by the General Assembly that no civil authority can constitutionally prescribe either forms or heads of prayer to the ministers or preachers of this Church, and that the Orders in Council which have been issued from time to time respecting prayers for the Royal Family are inconsistent with the rights and privileges secured by law to our ecclesiastical Establishment; but that as these Orders appear to have originated in mistake or inadvertency, and not in any intention to interfere with our modes of worship, the General Assembly do not consider it to be necessary to proceed farther in this matter at present. And the General Assembly embrace this opportunity of declaring the cordial and steady attachment of the Church of Scotland to their most gracious Sovereign, and to all the Royal Family, and of further expressing their unqualified confidence that, actuated by the same principles of loyalty and religion which have hitherto guided them, her ministers and preachers will never cease to offer up, along with their people, their fervent supplications to Almighty God in behalf of a Family to whom under Providence, we are indebted for so many distinguished blessings, both sacred and civil.” The motion was thus framed with what we may call a beautiful propriety, but this does not express its intrinsic value. It, in fact embodies in few but most comprehensive terms that great scriptural principle of the Church of Scotland, her Spiritual independence, for which, at the moment I now write, the present Establishment has ceased to contend, whilst all who adhere to that principle are discarded by the State, driven from their homes and maintenance, and branded, like their apostolic predecessors of old, as "the movers of sedition" against the "law of the land" It was evident that the motion was understood in the sense thus indicated, for no sooner was it announced than it stirred up a determined opposition. The Procurator stated that it was a motion to which they could not agree. Mr. Thomson was, therefore, under the necessity- of entering more particularly into the merits of the question. He stated that it was an incontrovertible principle of the Church of Scotland that IT HAD NO SPIRITUAL HEAD ON EARTH, and that consequently the King in Council had no right to interfere in its worship. He proceeded to show that it was a vital privilege of our ecclesiastical constitution, essential to the safety - of the Church, and for which our fathers had vigorously struggled in the covenanting times, while the order in Council trenched upon this privilege by prescribing prayers to its ministers and preachers then considered the Acts of Parliament referred to, on which the Order in Council professed to be founded. The Act X. of Queen Anne in which ministers of the Scottish Church are enjoined to pray in express words for the Royal. Family the Church did not oppose. But of that Act he would say in general, that it proceeded from Erastian principles and ought not to have passed. But at that time there were peculiar circumstances in which it had been allowed to become law. These were, that then the, interests both of civil and religious liberty were in great jeopardy, from the schemes of the Pretender abroad, and from the machinations of his clerical abettors, not only among the non-jurant Episcopalians, but even among the Presbyterian ministers of the Established Church, who prayed for the Royal Family without mentioning in express words who they were, and who thus left their audience to fill in mentally any name, dust as their political bias might direct them. The Assembly, participating in the alarm, did not oppose the passing of the Act, but at the same time did all in their power to counteract its consequences to the Church by passing an Act of their own to the same effect. Besides that, the Act X. of Queen Anne was inapplicable to this or any other case succeeding the period of her reign, seeing it required all ministers to pray exclusively for her most sacred Majesty Queen Anne, and the most Excellent Princess Sophia, "so that," said Mr. Thomson, "if we were to pray according to that Act, we should not pray for his Majesty King George, but for these other royal personages now passed away." He then took up the Act of George III., so prominently referred to in the Order of Council, and showed that it had still less to do with the subject in question, inasmuch as it had respect exclusively to the Episcopal Communion in Scotland, seeing that it conferred upon them certain immunities on condition that they should pray for the Royal Family in the form prescribed by the liturgy of the Church of England. He concluded a long and able speech by meeting anticipated objections to his motion, and by most forcibly insisting on its necessity and moral force. Mr. Thomson's motion was seconded by Mr. James W. Moncreiff, advocate, but before he addressed the Assembly, he was preceded by three speakers of the opposite side, the Solicitor-General, Dr. Cook, and Principal Nicol of St. Andrews. The speech of the Solicitor General abounded in unhappy personalities. he began by saying that, though he differed entirely from the rev. gentleman, he must do him the justice to say that he had treated a very delicate subject with a degree of temper, decorum, and propriety which he could not but commend; but in the sequel of his speech the learned gentleman entirely failed in just these qualities, and first misrepresented Mr. Thomson's views and sentiments, and then made a furious onset on his own interpretation of them. He must disapprove, he said, of Mr. Thomson's sentiment that the civil authority had been inattentive to the interests of the National Church. Where, he would ask, was this inattention to be found? Was it in the appointment by his Majesty as his representative in that Assembly of a distinguished nobleman of our own nation, whose character and conduct adorned his lofty station? Was it in the gracious extension of the amount of the donation granted to the Church to advance its own form of worship at home, or in the Royal Aid to propagate abroad, particularly in India, its own principles and doctrines? It was impossible, he continued, in viewing all these circumstances, to justify the observation of the rev. gentleman. Then, to damage Mr. Thomson's case, he ran out into personalities. “ The rev. gentleman,” he said, was by his own showing the only person, for a century back, who thought it necessary to become the Church's champion by bringing forward the present complaint, and he could' not help thinking that in this he assumed a lofty presumption." The rest of his speech was devoted to showing the special and invincible objections which he did most seriously entertain to Mr. Thomson's motion. These were, first, that the motion was one which “could not be received,” and as this looked very like arguing in a circle, he proceeded to say that, if he had but time, he could easily show that it was a motion which affected, in a declaratory form, the very constitution of the Church, and he added, “ that any man must have been but for a short time a member of Assembly, or have employed his time to very little advantage, who was not able to take precisely the same view.” Dr. Cook then addressed the house, and the substance of what he said may be briefly summed up in three things. First, that he coincided with the general proposition laid down in the motion, that no civil authority could constitutionally prescribe forms or heads of prayer to our Church, and that this principle, so strenuously entertained by Mr. Thomson, he would also maintain. But, next, he qualified all these sentiments by saying that, in the present instance, he did not see that this great and important principle was infringed. And, lastly, he therefore agreed with the right honourable gentleman that the motion ought to be submitted to a committee, according to the uniform practice of the Church. Principal Nicol began by proclaiming aloud his strong attachment to the Church of Scotland. To no living man would he yield on this point, but then he had a fear upon him that the present discussion, going forth to the public, would appear to them to be something very like a split between Church and State, and this, it appeared to him, would be the greatest of all evils. Besides, “this was not the time for any such misunderstandings, when both throne and altar are alike threatened by misguided men.” As to Queen Anne's Act, “he did not know what it was that had excited the rev. gentleman's alarm, as he had already confessed that what he now complained of was practised in the days of Queen Anne.” The poor Principal was galloping on, full tilt, on this broomstick sort of argument, when he was at once brought up by an emphatic “No, no,” from Mr. Thomson. Dr. Nicol tumbled down at once, and quickly dropping the reins, said, “ I mean that the Church in Queen Anne's days was quite as pure as it is at present,” and so forth. He concluded by moving that the house do now adjourn; but not with the view of evading the discussion, for there would still be room for that on the question of adjournment. This was fairly beating a retreat, giving both his opponent and the discussion what is usually called leg-bail. But the Solicitor-General came to the rescue of the floundering Principal. He moved, as an amendment to the last motion that the question be dismissed, that it may be hereafter referred to a committee on overtures, upon which the Principal recovered from his panic, obediently got up, and said, “ I withdraw my motion.” Mr. Thomson's motion was seconded and supported by Mr. Moncreiff, who, in an able speech, stated with great clearness and force his reasons for giving the motion his support-following the mover consecutively on every point, and thereby giving additional weight to his statement of the case. This motion of Mr. Thomson called up many speakers on both sides; but as the whole force of his reply at the close of the debate fell on the defence of the Orders in Council set up by the Justice-Clerk, I shall only notice his leading arguments. This vigorous adherent of the Moderate party, Lord Justice-Clerk Boyle, was one of the presiding judges of the Court of Session, and a member of the Privy Council, so that his political influence was very considerable in Scotland both in Church and State. With his learned friend the Solicitor-General, his Lordship agreed as to the propriety with which the motion was introduced. As, however, he considered the subject of great importance, he could not agree with those who were inclined to dismiss it on a point of form. He boldly and openly deprecated the idea that the Assembly wished to evade the motion, but then, he would not say whether the proposition before the house was declaratory or not. He would, however, call upon every member present to say how its conclusions were arrived at. Mr. Thomson's motion, he continued, carried on the face of it a most unfair mode of procedure by, first, denying the power of the civil authority to prescribe prayers, then, alleging an encroachment on the rights of the Church in this respect, while lastly, professing loyalty. This was but a trap and a snare for their feet, but he would throw such a flood of light on the authority and the substance of this questioned Order, that the way would be made plain before their feet. As to the Privy Council's authority, his Lordship could not see why the Order should not be referred to the two Acts to which they allude. He had carefully looked into the X. of Queen Anne, and could not find that it was repealed, and it mentioned particularly the members of the Royal Family that were to be prayed for. He deprecated also the unfair construction put upon the term “ Sacred Majesty” in the Order, which an honourable gentleman seemed to think was meant to intimate that the sovereign was Head of the Church. He would affirm that it meant no such thing. It was borrowed from the Act of Queen Anne, and was the language of addresses from church courts at all times. But who could suspect either King or Government of any wish or intent to encroach upon the rights of the Church of Scotland. Did, or could, this Assembly forget the gracious manner in which their deputation was lately received by the King -how they were admitted to a closet audience of His Majesty, when he expressed his resolution to support the constitution. of the Church of Scotland. And were they, in the face of such things, to declare, by assenting to this motion, that almost the first Act of His Majesty's reign was an encroachment on the privileges of the Church. The learned Lord then threw himself into the substance of the Orders in Council. He would undertake to put it in the very light of a meridian sunbeam, and that, too, by an illustration the simplest and most obvious. The Order did not prescribe a form of prayer; it was absurd to suppose so. It merely prescribed the individuals that were to be prayed for. This he could prove by a most clear and convincing illustration. It often happens, when a clergyman is requested to remember in his prayers a sick person, that a paper is handed up to him mentioning the name and case of the individual; but is the minister on that account to pray for the individual by using the very terms written on the paper ? Is it expected that he will adhere to the express phraseology of the paper any more than that he will think of praying for an individual of the family who is not name? Download 1.26 Mb. Share with your friends:
|