A BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH.
THE origin of the Fellowship, or “Men’s,” Meetings held on the Friday of the Communion in the Highlands is involved in obscurity. The earliest traditions of “the Men” gather round the name of John Munro (“Caird”), a convert under the ministry of the Rev. Thomas Hog, Kiltearn, and from whom descended the Rev. John Munro, Halkirk, and the Rev. Christopher Munro, Strathy. According to Dr. Kennedy’s testimony exercised believers used to meet in private houses and for their mutual edification discussed their religious experiences. In this way the Fellowship Meetings began and in order to have them under the control of the ministry it was ultimately decided that they should have a place in the religious exercises of the Church and especially on the Friday of the Communion when they would be presided over by a minister. Accepting this testimony as to the origin of the Fellowship Meetings it is seen that Ross-shire can claim to be the early home of “the Men” and here, under a number of gifted and pious preachers the institution flourished, so that this part of the Highlands was privileged to possess some of the brightest and most shining lights of their class. In connection with the Fellowship Meetings’ Controversy in Caithness and Sutherland in the 18th century, it is of some interest to remember that it was not the first controversy to rage round fellow-ship meetings. Baillie in his Letters in referring to the Aberdeen Assembly (1640) informs us that Mr. Henry (afterwards Bishop) Guthrie made no small stir about certain private fellowship meetings which had originated during the persecution in Ireland and were continued in Scotland by those who had fled to this country for refuge. Those especially held under the leadership of the Laird of Leckie, at Stirling, came under “Mr. Harry’s” ban. The “Irish Novations,” as the objectionable points in connection with these meetings were termed, proved a troublesome affair for all concerned. Alexander Henderson was opposed to the meetings but Robert Blair, David Dickson and John Livingstone were favourable. No satisfactory solution was come to at this Assembly, but the year following a settlement was made. It was of short duration, however, for the Laird of Leckie gave in a bill of complaint to the Assembly against Mr. Harry Guthrie for slandering him at the Aberdeen Assembly. It ended more happily than most ecclesiastical controversies, for, according to Baillie, “the parties agreed, both in a writ, read to the Assembly, under their hands, declaring their good opinions each of other: for Leckie truly witnessed, that he knew no blame to Mr. Harry, neither in doctrine nor life; and Mr. Harry testified, that he never had a thought that Leckie, or any of his family, was guilty of those slanders he complained of.” Guthrie’s contention found embodiment in the General Assembly Act of 1647, Section VII., which reads as follows:—”Whatsoever hath been the effects and fruits of meetings of persons of divers Families in the times of corruption or trouble (in which cases many things are commendable, which otherwise are not tolerable) yet when God hath blessed us with Peace and the purity of the Gospel, such meetings of persons of divers Families (except in the cases mentioned in these directions) are to be disapproved, as tending to the hindrance of the religious exercise of each Familie by itself, to the prejudice of the publick Ministry, to the renting of Families of particular Congregations, and (in progress of time) of the whole Kirk; besides many offences which may come thereby, to the hardening of the hearts of carnall men, and grief of the godly.” Had this Act been carried out to the letter it would have made an end of Fellowship Meetings and if the Fellowship Meetings it condemns were similar to those which became such a well recognised institution in the Highlands it is more than probable the Act would have been quoted by the opponents to Fellowship Meetings in the Synod of Sutherland and Caithness. Still the fact that the evangelical ministers of the time were favourable to these private meetings and that Mr. Hog, who came to Kiltearn in 1654, would, in all likelihood, have associated with those of like sentiments, makes it probable that there may be some connection, even though distant, between the Fellowship Meetings of the first and those of the second controversy. But this is stated tentatively, for it must be acknowledged that the links in the chain are not such as would enable one to take up such a position with anything like certainty. The history of the Fellowship Meetings in later times while interesting cannot be dealt with here. They have been highly praised by some and severely criticised by others, but it will be generally admitted by all candid minds that, when rightly conducted, they are eminently conducive to the spiritual edification of those who attend them. Before leaving this subject it is necessary to point out that all “the Men” are not to be judged by the opinions held, and the attitude to the church and ministry assumed, by the Separatists. Both Dr. Kennedy, Dingwall, and Mr. Auld, Olrig, who have done so much to perpetuate the memory of “the Men,” enter a strong caveat against classifying “the Men” generally with the Separatists. According to Sage, Peter Stewart, Strathmore, Caithness and afterwards Catechist of Duthil was the founder of the Separatists. Limits of space forbid any attempt in this paper to deal with the position taken up by these men, except in the briefest form. Some of them were noted for piety and outstanding gifts, such as Peter Stewart, John Grant, Joseph Mackay, Sandy Gair and others.
For a description of what these Fellowship Meetings really are see Dr. Kennedy’s Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire, p. 83, (4th Edit.).
Dr. William Mackay, in his preface to the Inverness and Dingwall Presbytery Records, says: “It was long after the period to which these records refer, that ‘the Men’ who have for the last century and a half been so noted as catechists and expounders and men of prayer, first appeared within the bounds of our Presbyteries,” p. xxv. In his Urquhart and Glenmoriston, in referring to ‘the Men’—na Daoine, he writes: “There were none in our parish before Culloden” (p. 382, 2nd Edit.). I have carefully gone over all the extant pre-Revolution church registers (Synod, Presbytery and Kirk-Session) of Sutherland and Caithness but there is no reference to “the Men” in any of them. The first reference is as late as 1737. The fact, however, of non-mention in church records does not necessarily mean the non-existence of “the Men.”
Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire, p. 91 (4th Edit.). There is an interesting account of John Munro (“Caird”) in Memorials of Rev. C. Munro, Strathy, p. 298.
There is a document extant, dated 17th September, 1788, setting forth the rules of the society of “the Men” in Ross-shire (Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, VIII. 543).
“Some Brownists,” says Baillie, “insinuating themselves among them whereas their ministers were away, did move divers towards their conceits. The most of them good people flying over to us [from Ireland] were heartily embraced of us all. Their private meetings were overlooked. Some of their conceits though spreading, we let alone, till the Laird of Leckie, one who had suffered much by the bishops, was marked, using his Irish form of private exercises in Stirling.” From these words it would appear that the “Irish novations” referred chiefly to Brownist ideas,
For Instance, Rev. Murdo MacDonald, Durness, who took a part in the Fellowship Meeting Controversy, writes: “It was ordinary at such conventions to start questions, either frivolous or ill-stated, and to allow ignorant people to harangue on them at random, perhaps without touching at all, or very superficially, on the subject in debate, while the ministers present allowed them, without control, correction or direction to ramble on in their undigested stuff.” In modern times, “the Men” have been severely criticised in “Investigator’s” [Rev. Dr. K. Phin, Galashiels] The Church and her Accuser in the Far North (Glasgow: 1850) and Fanaticism in the North (Edinburgh: 1852). An article in the Quarterly Review (September, 1851) entitled “Puritanism in the Highlands—The Men,” is founded on “Investigator’s” pamphlets and written in the same spirit. Imcheisd Eaglais na h-Alba (Embarrassment of the Church of Scotland) by Rev. J. Macdonald, Alvie, is a bitter attack in verse on Peter Stewart. Rev. Gilbert MacMillan’s Reminiscences of the North (Inverness: 1905) contains a description of “The Men” which is nothing better than a caricature.
For an account of the Caithness and Sutherland “Men’s” Meetings see Trans. of the Gaelic Society of Inverness (Vol. xxix. 159-182).
References to the Separatists will be found in Sage’s Memorabilia Domestica, p. 270 (1st Edit.); Annals of the Disruption pp. 676-682 (1884 Edit.); Rev. D. MacLean’s Duthil—Past and Present pp. 28-42; Dr. Kennedy’s Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire pp. 79-81 (4th Edit.); Rev. Alexander Auld’s Ministers and Men of the Far North, 2nd Edit. In passing verdict on the Separatists, it should be borne in mind that all the above are from the ministerial standpoint. Norman MacLeod (afterwards Rev. Norman MacLeod, Cape Breton, Canada), a leader of the Assynt Separatists, gave expression to his views in The Present Church of Scotland and a/Tint of Normanism. The Letters of John Grant, Joseph Mackay and Alexander Gair were privately printed by Cameron MacKay, a number of years ago, and Peter Stewart’s and Joseph MacKay’s Gaelic poems will be found in Dain Spioradail le ughdairibh Euginn-samhail (Forres: 1852). The fullest account of the Separatists will be found in Principal Macleod’s The North Country Separatists (Inverness: 1930).
For Prof. John Stuart Blackie’s estimate of Sandy Gair’s gifts see his Altavona.
From their outstanding piety, “The Men” were looked up to by the community and exercised a commanding influence in religious matters. Wherever there was a truly godly minister, they gave him every countenance and encouragement, but mere hirelings were regarded by them with abhorrence. It is an injustice to their memory to charge them with disrespect to the ministry. The Ministers of Christ never had truer friends or more sympathetic and intelligent hearers than they. Though their sympathies were entirely with the Evangelical party in the Church of Scotland, they were not moved by the Secession movement under the Erskines; and even in later times, the Associate Synod had but the very slightest hold in the Highlands. At the time of the Disruption, “The Men”—with a few notable exceptions—cast in their lot with the Free Church, and were in this way not very highly appreciated by those ministers they left behind and whom they unsparingly denounced. In more recent times they showed their aversion to the progressive movements in the pre-Union Free Church. Deeply attached to Calvinism, they resolutely opposed the Free Church Declaratory Act of 1892, as in their opinion it showed certain Arminian tendencies; and when the Free Presbyterian Church was formed in the following year, a great number of them joined it. Being strong supporters of the doctrine of the National Recognition of Religion, they opposed Voluntaryism in every form, and hence those who remained in the Free Church after 1893, offered a determined opposition to the Union of 1900—the great bulk of them refusing to join the United Free Church. Their conservatism is further seen in their insistence on the principle, that in the public praise of God the psalms alone should be used, and that instrumental music should be excluded from the worship of His house. As simple believers in God’s Word, they jealously guard the doctrine of its integrity and infallibility, and anything that hints at its imperfection is rejected.
We have spoken of their piety; we might speak of their beautiful Christian character, and their marked ability. Dr. Mackintosh Mackay, in referring to one of them, the saintly William Calder, said: “If it please God to accept me in the great day as one of His own, redeemed by sovereign grace, I trust to carry the remembrance of what I now tell you into the Kingdom above. This memorable patriarch-like person, leaning upon his spade while he laboured in his harvest field—and (full of chastened dignity was that person in stature and expression wherever he appeared), in solemn accents and with loving looks of fatherly kindness, said: ‘My son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve Him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind; for the Lord searcheth all hearts and all the imaginations of the thoughts; if thou seek Him, He will be found of thee, but if thou forsake Him, He will cast thee off for ever.’ A word spoken in season, how good it is.” Then there is the famous Alexander Gair, a genius in his way, with a caustic wit that made his victims wince. “Don’t you know,” said a Romanist to him one day, “that the Pope is sitting in St. Peter’s Chair?” Quick as lightning came the unexpected reply, “Yes! Peter had been in that chair once, that is when he denied his Master, and the Pope has been sitting in it ever since.” Then there is the goodly cloud of witnesses in the counties of Caithness, Sutherland, Ross, Inverness and Argyll, who in their day and generation were living epistles known and read of all men.
The best qualification is to feel yourself ill-qualified.—Elisha Coles.
Zeal without knowledge is like wild fire in a fool’s hand.—John Trapp.
Of all our troubles the troubles of a proud heart are the greatest.—Sibbes.