Horatius Bonar is one of my heroes. I am sure that of all Free Church authors, past and present, he is the one who has helped me most, probably because his writing style is very clear. He was a prolific author who realised the importance of Christian literature in the Christian life.
Of course, Bonar is known today for two of his beliefs: the validity of hymns in public worship and premillenialism. In his own day, Bonar was also known as a very effective and popular preacher and after an important ministry in Kelso he became the minister of a new congregation (Grange Free Church) in Edinburgh, which grew rapidly under his ministry. It seems to have been a very happy congregation until it was affected by the dispute connected to the introduction of hymns in the Free Church in the 1870s and 80s.
In his congregational magazine for 26th October, 1883, Bonar explained his views on hymnody for the information of his congregation. One of his main contentions was that hymnody had a prominent place in the European Reformation, including in Scotland. (His faulty reasoning on this matter was shown later in three articles called The Hymnody of the Scottish Reformation by David Hay Fleming.) My concern here is not about Bonar's opinions but the effect on his congregation of his imposing his opinion on hymn-singing.
Around about that time, some of the elders in the congregation put together a petition for the members of the Kirk Session asking that the Moderator (Bonar) should call a meeting of the Session to consider introducing the Free Church hymnbook into the congregational worship. The petition was signed by 17 of the elders (there were 28), although not all who signed desired the change.
The meeting was held on November 22nd. After the expected discussion, a motion proposing that the congregation should be consulted was rejected. Another motion was passed, by 14 to 7, which recommended that Bonar use the Free Church hymn book in public worship.
Some of the minority in the Session were under the impression that no change was imminent, so they were surprised when an announcement was made in December to the congregation informing it that the above motion had been passed.
The minority drew up a statement objecting to the course now being taken, and the points they made are probably found in every congregation when a radical change is proposed in church practices:
‘The undersigned are not prepared to sanction the use of the Free Church Hymn Book in our Congregational Worship, while not interfering with the use of Hymns outside of the meetings of the congregation proper; and for this plain reason, among others, that while all the members of the congregation are bound, as such, to be present at, and to join together in, stated public worship, they can be present at, or absent from other meetings, according to what they deem to be most for edification.
‘The members of the congregation have a standing and rights in this matter secured by the Scriptural Constitution of their Church. They became members – at least a number of them did so – on the understanding that the forms and materials of their public worship would be according to use and wont. There is, so far as the undersigned are aware, no evidence that the members generally desire the change which some contemplate. Some may desire it; others may be indifferent; others might submit to the change though really not wishing it; others might not object to Scriptural songs, while decidedly opposed to the hymn book. Others are opposed to uninspired hymns in public worship altogether, as, when so introduced, claiming at once to be equal, and ere long to be superior, to the Psalms which God himself has inspired, and provided for the Church. And others still object to the use of the hymn book so long as they are aware of the deeply esteemed fellow-members who are on the highest grounds of conviction and of conscience opposed to it. If doubts are cast on the accuracy of this statement of the views and feelings of the Congregation, the only becoming course, before taking any further step toward the introduction of the hymn book, is to set the whole matter fairly before the members, and to ascertain their mind.
‘A memorial, which avowedly did not commit those who signed it to anything beyond having the matter “considered by the kirk session”, was brought before the court on the evening of the 22nd November. At that meeting, according to the testimony of the undersigned as were present, the proceedings were as follows: At the commencement, one elder laid on the table a protest against entering on the question at all. Considerable discussion ensued; three motions were made and seconded: the first recommending Dr Bonar to use the hymn book; the second declaring that there ought to be no change; the third, that no further steps be taken till the mind of the congregation shall have been ascertained. The third motion being set aside, fourteen voted for the first motion, and seven for the second. A dissent and complaint to the Presbytery was entered against the motions carried; afterwards this complaint was withdrawn for the sake of peace – the dissent remaining. The ultimate agreement announced by the Moderator was, that having discussed the subject, and ascertained the mind of the session, the whole matter be deferred to another meeting, in order that all may meanwhile more fully consider it.
‘We think it but right that those facts should be placed before the congregation in view of the announcement which appeared on the cover of the Monthly for December, and because we are not in favour of any further agitation of this question – George Smeaton, William Nixon, Alexander Bell Smith, Charles Stein, D.C. Mudie, James Kennedy, William Martin, Alexander Hay.’
It is interesting to note that two of the objectors were long-time friends of Bonar: George Smeaton had studied with Bonar under Chalmers and became a Professor at New College; Nixon had been Free Church minister at Montrose and was a fellow-member of the Constitutionalist group with Smeaton and Bonar. When it came to God’s requirements, however, both men were prepared to disagree publicly with their pastor and friend. (Incidentally, Smeaton had been the one who had been instrumental in getting the congregation formed.)
The attempt to get the issue solved through discussion came to nothing. At the next session meeting (in December), the majority refused to listen to the concerns of the minority and forced through their motion. The outcome was that ten elders, several deacons and other families left the congregation. An ironic aspect of the process was that it was preceeded by a request from Bonar for peace in the congregation. Yet it became evident that the only acceptable peace was the opinion of the majority of the session.
One of the elders who left was the session clerk, William Martin, and his resignation letter to Bonar has been preserved:
‘Reverend and Dear Sir,
‘In tendering through you, as Moderator of the Kirk-Session of Chalmers Memorial Free Church, my resignation of the Eldership it has been my privilege to hold since 1868, I fell it is my duty to put on record, and reserve to myself the liberty of making public, the cause which has brought me most unwillingly to come to this resolution.
‘You are fully aware of my conscientious objections to the use of uninspired Hymns in the public worship of God, based, in the first place, on the fact that the Church has already sufficient material for praise in the inspired Psalter; and, in the second place, on the danger likely to come to the Church through the use of many Hymns which convey erronious doctrines. And you are fully aware that at the Session Meeting I warned my brethren that the introduction of Hymns was likely to produce serious division in our own congregation in particular. I have to complain, in the first place, in so far as I personally am concerned, that my own conscientious convictions have not been regarded with that amount of kind consideration which brethren should evince, even to the weakest; but I have also to complain that, in spite of my distinct statement that “some Members had left, others were speaking of leaving; while many, though not going so far as leaving, would be greatly annoyed by the introduction of Hymns”, a division was taken in the Session, and the motion in favour of hymns carried by fourteen to seven. I felt that for such a majority to enforce their finding in the face of such a minority, even on the ground of expediency, was a most unwise step, and disastrous to the peace of a hitherto undivided and happy congregation, and I stated this exactly in these terms, pointing to the Deliverance of Assembly of 1872 to show that only with due regard to the peace of congregations were Sessions at liberty to introduce Hymns. Doubtless the majority were afraid to face the congregation, and you have carried their resolution into effect without consulting the feelings of those who join in praise.
‘I had fain hoped that when at length the Session realised the full effect of their (in my opinion improper) conduct, some steps would be taken to prevent so many Office-bearers (Elders and Deacons) and so many Members leaving the church, to which they were united by ties of the most tender description. It now seems scarely likely this hope may be realised, and I regret exceedingly I cannot remain in office.
‘I reserve to myself to make this statement public, becuase I feel I have been shamefully misrepresented, and also because the real state of matters has not been truly represented to the congregation. The statement on the “Record” would have it appear as if seventeen were in favour of the introduction of Hymns, and four dissentients, while the numbers voting were withheld.
‘I must, moreover, add that when, at the last Session Meeting at which I was present, I was peremptorily silenced, and prevented bringing up the statement which I annex, signed by eight Elders, I felt my liberty unwarrantably interfered with, and that I could certainly not return to any meeting until I was properly reinstated in my liberty.
‘For what of failure and of unworthiness has mingled with the discharge of my duties I desire to be deeply humbled, but I feel assured that in regard to the immediate cause of my resignation it will yet be seen that the course I have followed has not been divisive, but faithful to the best interests of the congregation and the Free Church.
‘With most tender regret I leave the work of the Sabbath School, and I pray that one more worthy and more qualified may be found as Superintendent. I am, Reverend and Dear Sir, Yours respectfuly, Wm. Martin.’
Obviously, one is saddened by what took place in this congregation. Yet one must also be surprised at some of the details. Was it wise not to consult his congregation regarding this major change? Was it wise to pursue a path which meant losing experienced elders and dedicated workers in the congregation? Was it wise to appeal for unity when it was his policy that caused the disagreement? Was it wise for him to proceed in a policy that alienated him from some of his longstanding, and theologically astute, friends?
Bonar had his way and hymns, and later on music, became part of public worship. He died in 1889, although for the last couple of years he was not well enough to take much part in congregational life.
What happened to his congregation? In 1900, it joined the United Free Church, and in doing so accepted several matters that Bonar had fought against in his ecclesiastical journey: he had opposed union with the United Presbyterian Church (now his congregation went into that union); he had opposed changes to the Westminster Confession of Faith (now his congregation went along with the changes concerning subscription to the Confession introduced by the Declaratory Act of 1892); he had opposed liberal theologians in the Free Church (now his congregation were in a denomination where liberals could say what they wished about the Bible).
Of course, we cannot blame Bonar for a decision made after he died. Yet a case can be made that his congregation lost a great deal of its conservative strength when it made the disagreeable switch in public worship.
As an aside, it is interesting that his son (Horatius Ninian Bonar), who was Free Church minister in Saltoun, voted with the Constitutionalists in the Free Church who opposed the union in 1900, but he too went into the United Free Church. It is also the case that the descendant church of Bonar, although involving several mergers with other congregations, was an evangelical congregation of the Church of Scotland.
No comments:
Post a Comment