Reminiscences of Scottish Life and Character by Edward Bannerman Ramsay

E >> Edward Bannerman Ramsay >> Reminiscences of Scottish Life and Character

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34

At one of the congresses of the English Church it has been said, and
well said, by Mr. B. Hope, that he and his friends of the High Church
party would join as closely as they could with the members of the
Romish Church who have taken common cause with Dr. Dollinger, "looking
more to points where they agree, and not to points where they differ."
Why should not the same rule be adopted towards brethren who differ from
ourselves so little on points that are vital and eternal? The principle
which I would apply to the circumstances, I think, may be thus stated: I
would join with fellow-Christians in any good works or offices, either
of charity or religion, where I could do so without compromise of my own
principles. On such ground I do not see why we should not realise the
idea already suggested,--viz. that of having an interchange between our
pulpits and the pulpits of the Established and other Presbyterian or
Independent Churches. Such ministerial interchange need not affect the
question of _orders_, nor need it, in fact, touch many other questions
on which differences are concerned.

Of course this should be arranged under due regulation, and with full
precaution taken that the questions discussed shall be confined to
points where there is agreement, and that points of difference should be
left quite in abeyance. Why should we, under proper arrangements, fail
to realise so graceful an exercise of Christian charity? Why should we
lose the many benefits favourable to the advancement of Christian unity
amongst us? An opportunity for practically putting this idea into a
tangible form has occurred from the circumstance of the new chapel in
the University of Glasgow being opened for service, to be conducted by
clergymen of various churches. I gladly avail myself of the opportunity
of testifying my grateful acknowledgments for the courteous and generous
conduct of Dr. Caird, in his efforts to put forward members of our
Church to conduct the services of the College chapel, and also of
expressing my admiration of the power and beauty of his remarks on
Christian unity and on brotherly love[193].

This is with me no new idea; no crude experiment proposed for the
occasion. I have before me a paper which I wrote some years since, and
which I had put into the shape of "An Address to the Bishops," to
sanction such exchange of pulpits, hoping to get some of my clerical
brethren to join in the object of the address. I feel assured much good
would, under God, be the result of such spiritual union. If
congregations would only unite in exchange of such friendly offices of
religious instruction with each other, how often would persons, now
strangers, become better acquainted! I wish the experiment could be
tried, were it only to show how prejudices would be removed; how
misunderstandings would be cleared away; how many better and kinder
feelings would grow out of the closer union on religious questions! Nay,
I would go farther, and express my full conviction, that my own Church
would _gain_ rather than lose in her interests under such a system. Men
would be more disposed to listen with attention, and examine with
candour the arguments we make use of in favour of our Church views. We
should gain more of the sympathy of our countrymen who differ from us,
by a calm expostulation than by bitter invective. Beautifully and wisely
was it written by a sacred pen nearly three thousand years ago, "A soft
answer turneth away wrath."

I have such confidence in the excellence of my own Church, that I
believe to bring persons into closer and kinder connection with our
system would be the more likely way to gain their approval and their
favourable judgment. In nothing do we lose more of the confidence and
estimation of our fellow-countrymen than in the feeling of our being
intolerant and exclusive in our religious opinions. It is curious people
should not see that the arguments addressed in a friendly spirit must
tell more powerfully than the arguments of one who shows his
hostile feeling.

With these feelings on the subject, it may be easily understood with
what pleasure I read, in the _Edinburgh Courant_ of November 10th, a
report of what our Primus (Bishop Eden) said, at the entertainment which
was given on the occasion of the consecration of St. Mary's Church,
Glasgow. In speaking on the question of Union, the Primus said--

"I think I may speak for my Episcopal brethren, when I say
that if the heads, especially of the Established Church of
Scotland--for that is the body that has most power and
influence--if a proposal were made by the leading men in that
Church, in concurrence with those who hold views similar to
themselves--a conference of the representative men of the
different Churches--to consider in a Christian spirit what
our differences are, and what are the points on which we are
agreed, we would be most happy to take part in it. Such a
conference might, in the providence of God, lead to our being
drawn nearer to each other. I believe that then the prayer
which the Bishop of St. Andrews offered up would he the
earlier accomplished, namely, that the Episcopal Churches
might become Reformed, and the Reformed Churches become
Episcopal. If any proposal of this kind could be made, I
believe we would be most ready to accept any invitation to
consider whether the various Churches might not be drawn
nearer to each other." (Great applause.)

The Coadjutor Bishop of Edinburgh in his address, after briefly
referring to some proposals that had been made for union among the
churches in South Africa, went on to say--

"I do say, as one of the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal
Church now, and in reference to what fell from the Primus,
that I most heartily concur in what he said, and I cannot but
feel that, without the slightest breach of the great
fundamental principles of the Church of Christ, there are
many points on which we may be at one with Christians who are
not part of our organic body.

"I believe the proposal made by the Primus would have the
effect of drawing them nearer to us, and be a step forward to
that consummation which we all desire, and which our blessed
Lord prayed--with his last breath--'That we may all be one.'"
(Great applause.)

That two honoured Fathers of our Church, our Primus and my own Bishop,
should have made use of such terms, and that their views should have
been received by _such_ an audience with so much applause, I could have
offered a grateful acknowledgment upon my knees.

But after all, perhaps, it may be said this is an utopian idea, which,
in the present state of religious feelings and ecclesiastical
differences, never can be realised. It were a sufficient answer to the
charge of _utopianism_ brought against such a proposal, to plead that it
was no more than what was sanctioned by the teaching of God's word. In
this case it does not seem to go beyond the requirements of holy
Scripture as set forth in St. Paul's description of charity, and in
other passages which clearly enjoin Christians to act towards each other
in love, and to cultivate, so far as they can, a spirit of mutual
forbearance and of joint action in the sacred cause of preaching the
truth as it is in Jesus. I cannot believe that, were St. Paul on earth,
he would sanction the present state of jealous separation amongst
Christians. Take such separation in connection with the beautiful
sentiment, which we read in Phil. i. 18:--"What then? notwithstanding
every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I
therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."

The determination to exclude preaching that is not strictly according to
our own forms seems to me quite inconsistent with the general teaching
of Scripture, more particularly with this apostolic declaration. But I
would bring this question to a practical issue, and we shall find enough
in our own experience to confirm the view I have taken, and to sanction
the arrangement I propose. To bring forward co-operation in the great
and vitally important work of preaching God's word, which has been
already effected between persons holding on some points opinions
different from each other, take first the case of revision of the
English translation of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, as it has
been resolved upon by the authorities of the great Anglican Communion.
They have had no difficulty in finding Nonconformist scholars and
divines whose fitness to be associated with Anglican Churchmen in the
great work of arranging and correcting an authorised version has been
admitted by all. Thus we have Nonconformists and English and Scottish
Episcopalians united in adjusting the terms of the sacred text;--the
text from which all preaching in the English tongue shall in future
derive its authority, and by which all its teaching shall in future be
guided and directed. There is _already_, however, a closer and a more
practical blending of minds on great religious questions much differing
from each other on lesser points. In the field of religious and
devotional literature, many of our church differences are lost sight of.
Episcopalian congregations are constantly in the habit of joining with
much cordiality and earnestness in singing hymns composed by authors
nonconformists with our Church--in fact, of adopting them into their
church service. These compositions form a portion of their worship, and
are employed to illustrate and enforce their own most earnest doctrinal
views and opinions themselves. How entirely are such compositions as the
sacramental hymn, "My God, and is thy table spread," by Doddridge; the
hymn, "When I behold the wondrous cross," by Isaac Watts, associated
with our Church services! Nor are such feelings of adoption confined to
poetical compositions. How many prose productions by non-Episcopalian
authors might be introduced for the delight and benefit of Christian
congregations! How eagerly many such compositions are read by members of
our Church! With what delight would many discourses of this class have
been listened to had they been delivered to Episcopalian congregations!
Where such hymns and such discourses are admissible, the _authors_ of
them might take a part in conducting psalmody and in occupying the
pulpit for preaching to a congregation. If the spirits of such writers
as Doddridge, Watts, and Hall, have been felt to permeate and to
influence the hearts of others who have heard or read their words of
holiness and peace, we may well suppose that God would sanction their
making like impressions, in his own house, upon the hearts of those whom
they meet there face to face. Might they not communicate personally what
they communicate through the press? For example, why should not Robert
Hall have preached his sermons on Infidelity and on the Death of the
Princess of Wales, perhaps the two most magnificent discourses in the
language, in an English Cathedral? Why should not the beautiful
astronomical discourses of Thomas Chalmers have been delivered in St.
Paul's or in St. John's, Edinburgh? For many years, in want of better
materials, the sermons of Dr. Blair were more used in the Church of
England, and more read in private, than any similar compositions. It has
been for years a growing persuasion in my own mind that principles of
Christian love and mutual harmony are too often sacrificed to the desire
of preserving the exact and formal marks of church order, as the Bishop
of St. Andrews so happily expressed it to preserve _etiquette_. Surely
the great law of Christian love would suggest and enforce a union at
least of spirit amongst Christian believers, who cannot join in the
unity of the same organisation. Inability to join in the same form of
church polity and church order need not shut the door to religious
sympathies and religious communion, where there are so many points of
agreement and of mutual interest. The experience of the past will tend
to produce the conviction that there has too often been in our religious
disputes a strong tendency in all Christian denominations to make the
great principle of love, which is a principle to rule in Heaven and for
eternity, actually subservient and subordinate to a system of
ecclesiastical order, which, important as it is for its own purposes and
objects, never can be more than a guide to the ministration of the
Church on earth, and an organisation which must be in its nature
confined to time.

Wherever or whenever this feeling may be called forth, it is a grievous
error--it is a very serious subject for our reflection, how far such
want of sympathy and of union with those who do not belong immediately
to our own church, must generate a feeling hostile to a due reception of
an important article of our faith, termed in the Apostles' Creed the
COMMUNION OF SAINTS. According to the description given by the judicious
and learned Bishop Pearson, this communion or spiritual union belongs to
all who are in New Testament language denominated SAINTS; by which he
means all who, having been baptized in the faith, have this name by
being called and baptized. Then he states all Christian believers to
have communion and fellowship with these, whether living or dead. We
should feel towards such persons (evidently, as the good Bishop implies,
without reference to any particular church order) all sympathy and
kindness as members of the same great spiritual family on earth,
expectants of meeting in heaven in the presence of God and of the Lamb,
and of joining in the worship of saints and angels round the throne. I
have no hesitation in declaring my full conviction that such
expectations of future communion should supply a very powerful and
sacred motive for our cultivating all spiritual union in our power with
all fellow-Christians, all for whom Christ died. It becomes a very
serious subject for examination of our own hearts, how, by _refusing_
any spiritual intercourse with Christians who are not strictly members
of our own Church, we may contravene this noble doctrine of the
Communion of Saints; for does not the bitterness with which sometimes we
find all union with certain fellow-Christians in the Church on earth
chill or check the feeling of a desire for union with the same in the
Church above? Nay, is there not matter for men's earnest thought, how
far the violent animosity displayed against the smallest approach to
anything like spiritual communion with all Christians of a different
Church from their own may chill the DESIRE itself for "meeting in the
Church above?" Can hatred to meeting on earth be in any sense a right
preliminary or preparation for desire to meet in Heaven? Nay, more,
should we not carefully guard lest the bitter displays we see of
religious hostility may even tend to bring men's minds towards a
_disinclination_ to meet in Heaven, of which the most terrible condition
was thus expressed by Southey:--"Earth could not hold us both, nor can
one heaven[194]."

One mark of any particular Church being a portion of Christ's Church on
earth seems to be overlooked by some of our English friends, and that is
a mark pointed out by our Lord himself, when he said, "By their FRUITS
ye shall know them." By this announcement I would understand that
besides and beyond a profession of the great articles of the Christian
faith, I would, as a further criterion of a Christian church, inquire if
there were many of its members who have been distinguished for their
Christian piety, Christian learning, and Christian benevolence. Is all
external communion to be interdicted with a church which has produced
such men as we might name amongst the children of our Established and
other Churches in Scotland? Look back upon half-a-century, and ask if a
similar act with that of the Archbishop of York and Bishop of Winchester
would then have created a like feeling. I can remember well the interest
and admiration called forth by the eloquence, the philanthropy, and the
moral fervour of Dr. Chalmers, amongst the High Church school of the day
too--the good Archbiship Howley, Bishop Blomfield, Rev. Mr. Norris of
Hackney, Mr. Joshua Watson, etc. I remember, too, the perfect ovation he
received in the attendance of Archbishops, Bishops, Clergy, Peers,
Princes, etc., of the great London world, at his lectures on
Establishments. We can hardly imagine any one saying then, "This is all
very well, but the Church that produced this man is no part of the true
Church of Christ, and no English prelate or clergyman could possibly
take service in it."

No one, I believe, who is acquainted with my own views and opinions on
religious subjects would say that I look with indifference on those
points wherein we differ from the great body of our fellow-countrymen. I
am confident that I should not gain in the estimation of Presbyterians
themselves by showing a cold indifference, or a lukewarm attachment, to
the principles and practice of my own Church. They would see that my own
convictions in favour of Episcopal government in the Church, and of
liturgical services in her worship, were quite compatible with the
fullest exercise of candour and forbearance towards the opinions of
others--I mean on questions not essential to salvation.

I believe that there are persons amongst us coming round to this
opinion, and who are ready to believe that it is quite possible for
Christians to exercise very friendly mutual relations in spiritual
matters which constitute the essential articles of a common faith,
whilst they are in practice separated on points of ecclesiastical order
and of church government. I am old, and shall not see it; but I venture
to hope that, under the Divine blessing, the day will come when to
Scotsmen it will be a matter of reminiscence that Episcopalians, or that
Presbyterians of any denomination, should set the interests of their own
communion above the exercise of that charity that for a brother's faith
"hopeth all things and believeth all things." Zeal in promoting our own
Church views, and a determination to advance her interests and
efficiency, need be no impediment to cultivating the most friendly
feelings towards those who agree with us in matters which are essential
to salvation and who, in their differences from us, are, I am bound to
believe, as conscientious as myself. Such days will come.

But now, to close my remarks on national peculiarities, with what I may
term a _practical_ and _personal_ application. We have in our later
pages adopted a more solemn and serious view of past reminiscences as
they bear upon questions connected with a profession of religion. It is
quite suitable then to recall the fact which applies individually to all
our readers. We shall ourselves each of us one day become subject to a
"reminiscence" of others. Indeed, the whole question at issue throughout
the work takes for granted what we must all have observed to be a very
favourite object with survivors--viz. that the characters of various
persons, as they pass away, will be always spoken of, and freely
discussed, by those who survive them. We recall the eccentric, and we
are amused with a remembrance of their eccentricities. We admire the
wise and dignified of the past. There are some who are recollected only
to be detested for their vices--some to be pitied for their weaknesses
and follies--some to be scorned for mean and selfish conduct. But there
are others whose memory is embalmed in tears of grateful recollection.
There are those whose generosity and whose kindness, whose winning
sympathy and noble disinterested virtues are never thought upon or ever
spoken of without calling forth a blessing. Might it not, therefore, be
good for us often to ask ourselves how _we_ are likely to be spoken of
when the grave has closed upon the intercourse between us and the
friends whom we leave behind? The thought might, at any rate, be useful
as an additional motive for kind and generous conduct to each other. And
then the inquiry would come home to each one in some such form as
this--"Within the circle of my family and friends--within the hearts of
those who have known me, and were connected with me in various social
relations--what will be the estimate formed of me when I am gone? What
will be the spontaneous impression produced by looking back on bygone
intercourses in life? Will past thought of me furnish the memory of
those who survive me with recollections that will be fond and pleasing?"
In one word, let each one ask himself (I speak to countrymen and
countrywomen), "Will _my_ name be associated with gentle and happy
'REMINISCENCES OF SCOTTISH LIFE AND CHARACTER'?"

FOOTNOTES:

[191] Sterne, in one of his letters, describes his reading Tristram
Shandy to his wife and daughter--his daughter copying from his
dictation, and Mrs. Sterne sitting by and listening whilst she worked.
In the life of Sterne, it is recorded that he used to carry about in his
pocket a volume of this same work, and read it aloud when he went into
company. Admirable reading for the church dignitary, the prebendary of
York! How well adapted to the hours of social intercourse with friends!
How fitted for domestic seclusion with his family!

[192] _Scottish Guardian_, vol. ii. No. ix. p. 305.

[193] "What is Religion?" a sermon by Rev. John Caird, D.D., Professor
of Divinity in the University of Glasgow, and one of Her Majesty's
Chaplains for Scotland. See especially concluding remarks.

[194] See Southey's _Roderick_, book xxi.

INDEX.

'Aaple,' bottle of beer strong o'.
Abercairney, Laird of, prevented from _going out_ in '15.
Aberdeen dialect, perfect specimens of.
Aberdeen elders, opinion of.
Aberdeen provost, wife of, at the opera.
Aberdeen, two ladies of, mutual recrimination.
'A bonnie bride's sune buskit.'
Accommodation, grand, for snuff.
'Acts o' Parliament lose their breath
before they get to Aberdeenshire.'
Adam, Dr., Latin translation of Scottish expressions.
Advice to a minister in talking to a ploughman.
'A gravesteen wad gie guid bree gin ye gied it plenty o' butter.'
'A hantle o' miscellawneous eating about a pig.'
Airth, housekeeper at, on king of France.
Alexander, Dr. W. Lindsay.
'And what the devil is it to you whether I have a liver or not?'
Anecdotes of quaint Scottish character.
Angel-worship is not allowed in the Church of Scotland.
Angler and the horse-fly.
'Anither gude Sunday! I dinna ken
whan I'll get thae drawers redd up.'
'Anither het day, Cornal.'
'An inch at the tap is worth twa at the boddam.'
'An I hadna been an idiot I micht hae been sleepin' too.'
Annals of the parish, extracts from.
Answer to stranger asking the way.
Answers, dry, specimens of.
'A peer o' anither tree.'
Appetite, farmer's reason for minister's good appetite.
Asher, minister of Inveraven, anecdote of.
Athole, Duke of, and Cultoquhey.
Athole, Duke of, answer of his cottar.
Auction, anecdote of spoon missing.
Auld lang syne, beauty of the expression.
Auld, Rev. Dr., of Ayr, and Rab Hamilton.
Authors, older ones indecent.
'Ay, ir ye a' up an' awa?'
'Ay, she may prosper, for she has baith the prayers of the good and
of the bad.'

Baby, a laddie or a lassie.
Baird, Mrs., of Newbyth, remark of, as to her son in India.
Balnamoon, laird of, carriage to _haud in_.
Balnamoon, laird of, great drinker.
Balnamoon, laird of, joke with his servant.
Balnamoon, laird of, refuses his wig.
Balnamoon, praying and drinking at.
Banes, distinction of, by a beggar.
Banes, Frasers weel-baned.
Bannockburn, guide to, refusing an Englishman's five shillings.
Bannockburn, Scottish remark upon.
Baptism, minister and member of his flock.
Barclay of Ury, M. P., walk to London
Bathgate, mending the ways of
Beadle, equivocal compliment to minister's sermons
Beadle or Betheral, character of
Beast, a stumbling, at least honest
'Becky and I had a rippit, for which I desire to be humble'
Begg, Dr., on Scottish morality of the present day
Beggar, expressing his thanks to a clerical patron
Bellman of Craigie, notice from
Bestial, curious use of word
Betheral, a conceited one
Betheral criticising a clergyman
Betheral, criticism on a text
Betheral, evidence of, regarding drinking
Betheral, making love professionally
Betheral, on a dog that was noisy
Betheral, on the town bailies
Betheral, Scottish, answer to minister on being drunk
Betheral stories
Betheral taking a dog out of church
Betheral's answer to minister
Betherals, conversation of two, regarding their ministers
Blair, Rev. Dr. Hugh, and his beadle
Blessing by Scottish Bishops, form of, become a reminiscence
Blethering
Boatie, character on Deeside
Boatie of Deeside, and Providence
Books, older ones indecent
Border, _selvidge_, weakest bit of the wab
Bowing to heritors
Boy, anecdote of
Braxfield, Lord, a man of wit
Braxfield, Lord, character of, as a judge
Braxfield, Lord, conducting the trial of Muir, Palmer, and Skirving, etc.
Braxfield, Lord, delighted with reply of Scotch minister
Braxfield, Lord, spoke the broadest Scotch
Briggs, the sergeant, dry description of, by Scottish nobleman
Brougham, Lord, on Scottish dialect
Brown, Rev. John, and the auld wifie
Brown, Rev. John of Whitburn, answer to rude youth
Bruce, Mr., of Kinnaird, and Louis XVI. of France
Buccleuch, Duchess of, asking farmer to take cabbage
Bull, specimen of Scottish confusion of ideas
'Bulls of Bashan' applied by a lady to herself
Burnett, Dr. Gilbert, Bishop of Salisbury
Burnett, Sir Thomas, of Leys, and his tenant Drummy
Burnett, Lady, of Leys
Burns, a son of, and Charles Lamb
Burns conducted family worship
Burying-place, choice of
Bush, conversation with minister in church
Butler and Kincardineshire laird
'But my minnie dang, she did though'
'But oh, I'm sair hadden doun wi' the bubbly jock'
'But the bodies brew the braw drink'

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34