Page images
PDF
EPUB

rebuke to the offender, and this sentence was afterwards confirmed by the General Assembly. The censure does not appear to have affected his popularity in the Church, for two years afterwards he was chosen to preach before the High Commissioner; in 1770 he was raised to the Moderator's chair; in 1789 he was all but chosen principal clerk of the Assembly; and on till the time of his death, at the advanced age of eighty-four, he occupied one of the highest positions in the Church. "The grandest demigod I ever saw," says Sir Walter Scott, "was Dr Carlyle, commonly called Jupiter Carlyle, from having sat more than once for the king of gods and men, and a shrewd clever old carl was he.'

The termination of the proceedings before the Church Courts did not terminate the controversy they had originated; -nor is it terminated yet. The one party declared that never since the day when Galileo was thrown into the prison of the Inquisition, for saying that the earth revolved round the sun, had anything so disgraceful to the Church occurred. Home had written the noblest drama of which his country could boast, and for this he was compelled to evacuate his parish by the terrors of deposition. The Church had degraded the man whom all ages would delight to honour. Was there anything essentially sinful in dramatic composition? If there were bad plays, might there not be good plays? and was it not so with "Douglas?" Was not its morality faultless? and were not the feelings it delineated the noblest that can fill the breast— the love of a mother for a lost child, and the ambition of a youth to excel? And why this horror of the theatre? Is not man so framed by God that he must have amusements? And if he is denied the amusement resulting from theatrical representations, is it not certain that he will seek for excitement of a coarser and more ruinous kind? Has it not been proved by experience, is it not written in the registers of police-courts, that when theatres are shut crime increases ?

It was argued, on the other side, that the playhouse had ever been the favourite haunt of vice. The question was not -What was the duty of Christians supposing the stage purified from immorality? but-What was the duty of Christians looking at the stage simply as it was, notoriously immoral? Were not the great majority of plays, even those of Shakspeare himself, confessedly obscene? Were not things spouted on the

1 Morren's Annals, vol. ii. pp. 122-29. Carlyle's Autobiography, pp.

stage which could not be repeated in the parlour? Were not many pure minds first familiarised with vice by seeing it represented on the boards of a theatre? many consciences so seared that they never afterwards recovered their tenderness? And how could the play of "Douglas" be defended on high Christian principles? Did it not use language which looked very like swearing? Did it not give its sanction to something very like suicide?

Such were the arguments of the opposite parties; and, as is usual, there is truth on both sides. Let us try the question by the light of the present day, now that the world is a century older. Would the author of such a play as "Douglas" be dragged before the Church Courts and deposed now? It is certain that Home is generally mentioned as a man of whom his country is proud; and it is certain, too, that never since he left Athelstaneford, amid the regrets of his people, has Dramatic Poesy visited one of the manses of Scotland, so rudely was she frightened away. Dr Carlyle affirms that in his own day there was such a change in public opinion, that in 1784, when Mrs Siddons acted in Edinburgh, during the sitting of the Assembly, the Court was obliged to fix its most important business for the alternate days, when she did not act, as all the younger members, clerical as well as lay, flocked to hear the great Tragedy Queen.1

But we must now revert for a little to the operation of patronage. The Moderate party had been gradually gaining in strength. Less and less attention was being paid to the call. In every disputed case the General Assembly ordered the man who held the presentation to be settled in the parish, however obnoxious he might be to the people; and the presbyteries, awed by the example of Dunfermline, did not in general venture to resist. Among the cases which occurred, that of Nigg, a wild parish in Ross-shire, was perhaps the most remarkable. When the presbytery met in the parish church to induct a Mr Grant, whose character was equivocal, but who held a presentation, not a creature connected with the parish appeared but one man, who was commissioned to tell them that the blood of the parish of Nigg would be required of them, if they should settle a man to the walls of the church. The presbytery had proceeded thus far with the greatest reluctance; but, startled by this strange apparition, they hesitated to proceed further, and resolved to lay the case before the Assembly.

1 Autobiography, p. 322.

The Assembly heard their tale, rebuked them for their cowardice, and enjoined them to proceed.1

The parish of Jedburgh became vacant about the same time, and the magistrates of the town, the elders of the Church, and the great majority of the people, set their hearts upon Thomas Boston of Oxnam, son of Thomas Boston of Ettrick, now in his grave. But first one minister was presented; and when he withdrew, on account of the opposition of the people, another was presented, more obnoxious than the first. The people of Jedburgh resolved to abandon the walls of their old abbey, and erect a meeting-house, where they could hear the gospel preached to them by the lips of a man whom they loved. By the month of December 1757 their church was erected; and Boston, abandoning Oxnam, where he had only £90 a year, received £120 from the pious liberality of the people who rallied around him.2

In 1759 the Earl of Balcarras presented Dr Chalmers of Elie to the church of Kilconquhar. The people almost to a man opposed his settlement. The Presbytery of St Andrews and the Synod of Fife, sympathising with the people, delayed to proceed; but the Assembly had no such sympathies, and ordered the presbytery to carry the translation of Dr Chalmers into effect. The people in such cases had now found out a remedy. In the populous village of Colinsburgh they built a church, and invited a Mr Colier from England to come and be their minister.

All this time Mr Gillespie was living and labouring at Dunfermline. His abilities were not high; but his piety was sincere, the cause in which he had suffered was dear to the people, and a numerous congregation clustered round his pulpit. At his first dispensation of the sacrament of the Supper, he asked some of his old friends in the Established Church to give him their assistance; but, afraid of the consequences, they refused. The good man still loved the Church in which he had ministered, and rather than seek assistance elsewhere, he resolved to take the whole burden of the work upon himself. In those days it was no light load; yet at thirteen different sacramental seasons, stretching over five or six years, he manfully bore it. On each of these occa

1 See the Appendix to the Patronage Report, where the case is fully stated. Also Morren's Annals, vol. ii.

2 Historical Sketch of the Relief Church.

sions, within five days, he preached not less than nine sermons, and addressed seven or eight tables.1

When Boston set up his tabernacle at Jedburgh, he invited Gillespie to come and assist him. Their principles were the same; Gillespie loved the son for the father's sake, and went.2 Thus these two men were joined together in a common cause. Colier was afterwards invited by the people of Kilconquhar on their recommendation; and, of course, when he came, he joined in their brotherhood. But why should they not be bound together by ecclesiastical ties? They were all Presbyterians; why should they not join themselves together in a Presbytery? Gillespie had long stood alone, hut now he was convinced that matters were ripe for such an issue. The door of the Established Church seemed to be hopelessly barred against him. Cast out by it, what better could he do than seek for union and communion with those who thought and felt like himself. On the 22d of October 1761, the three ministers, Gillespie, Boston, and Colier, each accompanied by an elder, met at Colinsburgh, and constituted themselves into a presbytery, calling it the Presbytery of Relief. It was to be the refuge of all those who sought relief from the evils of patronage.3

Thus the foundation of another Dissenting Church was laid. The unrelenting rigour of the General Assembly did it. Why should not Gillespie have been invited back, as the Erskines were? Gillespie never lost his attachment to the Church, as the Erskines had. Time after time his friends moved the Assembly to restore him; but still the Assembly refused to do it. Its coldness did not diminish his love. On his deathbed he recommended his congregation to re-seek the communion of the Established Church, which it actually did; but it was many years before the Assembly stooped to receive it.

CHAPTER XXVI.

HUME'S "Essay on Miracles" had never yet been satisfactorily answered. Hume himself thought it unanswerable; 1 This fact was stated by the proprietors of his chapel, in seeking readmittance to the Established Church. It is also stated by Dr Erskine, in his Introduction to one of Gillespie's works. See Morren, vol. i Pp. 258, 279.

Life of Gillespie ; and Historical Sketch of the Relief Church, p. 278. 3 Historical Sketch of the Relief Church, pp. 284-87.

No

and, in truth, one may almost pardon him for thinking so. It is undoubtedly one of the finest pieces of reasoning in our language. The chain seems perfect in every link. ordinary eye-sight could discover the flaw. But Dr George Campbell, Principal of Marischal College, Aberdeen, one of the ablest men the Church of Scotland has produced, now detected and exposed the weak point of the celebrated argument. A man so eminent deserves a more than passing notice.

He was born at Aberdeen in 1719; and, after completing the usual course of training for the ministry, was presented to the parish of Banchory-Ternan, which sweetly lies on the banks of the Dee, midway between the granite city and the wild scenery of Braemar, where royalty has now found a retreat. In this rural scene he remained for nine years, almost unconsciously disciplining his mind for positions of greater dignity and wider usefulness. In 1757 he was removed to one of the churches of his native city: and two years afterwards, by the interest of the Duke of Argyll, he was promoted to the principality of Marischal College. He proved that he was worthy of the place, by publishing his "Dissertation on Miracles" in 1762.

[ocr errors]

Mr Hume had maintained that belief depends upon experience. Thus, our belief of any fact attested by witnesses results from our experience of the usual conformity of facts to testimony. "But a miracle," says he, " is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined." The laws of nature, in fact, rest upon the authority of a uniform and universal experience; if experience contradicted them they would no longer be laws; and as no testimony can be stronger than such an experience, no testimony can establish a miracle. The evidence of testimony cannot subvert the evidence of experience, for our belief in testimony depends upon experience.

In opposition to this, Dr Campbell maintained that testimony has a natural and original influence upon belief antecedent to all experience; and, consequently, that Mr Hume's argument is based on a false hypothesis. Inexperienced childhood, says he, is credulous; experienced age is distrustful. Experience, instead of creating belief, rather modifies it; and, from the original constitution of our minds, we are inclined to give credence to testimony, till it is overborne by

« EelmineJätka »