by Rev. John Colquhoun
The origin of the Question Meetings, so well-known in connection with Communion seasons in evangelical circles in the Highlands of Scotland is to a large extent shrouded in mystery, and must very much be left to conjecture. Such meetings in various forms, it is very obvious from various sources, were not confined to the Highlands in particular. Dr Kennedy, writing on the rise of the fellowship meeting, says, “It is an interesting fact that on one of the slopes of the Pyrenees, where the Lord has reserved a small remnant of living Christians to Himself, conventicles exactly corresponding to the fellowship meetings of the Highlands of Scotland are held, the only difference being that there they ‘speak to the question’ in French and not in Gaelic, and that they have no minister to patronise and direct them. So naturally indeed, do such meetings arise out of a healthful state of religious feeling that the communities in which they are awanting are those from whom an apology is required” (Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire, 5th ed., p. 123). Here we have an example of a fellowship meeting which was conducted in order to keep religion alive where other means were not available, and identical with the conditions which prevailed in the Highlands of Scotland when many parishes were under the blight of Moderatism.
The same conditions prevailed in the South of Scotland after the Revolution Settlement when many withdrew from the National Church because there was no reference made in that Settlement to the attainments of the Second Reformation. These were divided into Societies and met at stated periods to conduct the various matters affecting them in their separation from the State Church. Discipline was rigidly kept and other matters of a more mundane character were attended to. As they continued for many years without even one ordained minister among them, we find that they held meetings for spiritual conference. At these meetings it was customary to discuss a portion of truth bearing on doctrine or experience. These portions were fixed on at the previous meeting, and thus, those who were to speak had ample time to consider the portion agreed on at the previous meeting. Their position was exceptional for, because of various reasons they could not have a clear mind to sit under ministers who, to their way of looking at matters, were subservient to the State. They felt that their souls could not be fed by such, and therefore they determined that it was more profitable for them to hear the expositions of men who had no such Erastian connections.
Dr Matthew Hutchison says, “All through its past history, this Church (the Reformed Presbyterian Church) had largely depended for its continuance and vigour on the private fellowship meetings of the members. By these the lack of ordinances had been partially supplied in times of destitution, brotherly communion had been fostered, and unity and zeal in the public cause maintained” (The Reformed Presbyterian Church, p. 246). These meetings may have been introduced from France by the Huguenots for it is well known that numbers of them, among whom were the Howies of Lochgoin, cast in their lot with the Society people. Again, Baillie, in his letters, refers to private fellowship meetings which were reported to the Aberdeen Assembly of 1640, and which seem to have had their origin in Ireland and were introduced into Scotland by refugees from that country. These meetings were opposed by Alexander Henderson, but supported by such men as Robert Blair, David Dickson, and John Livingstone, but the information about them is so meagre that it is very difficult to say whether or not they were of the same nature as the fellowship meetings which are known to us in our day.
Whether or not our Highland forefathers knew of these meetings cannot now be ascertained, but in many parishes in the North of Scotland the same necessity was laid upon the Lord’s people to have conferences of the same nature though in certain respects differing from their brethren in the South. In the Highlands there were many Moderate ministers who knew not the Gospel, and the Lord’s people were starved under their preaching so that the only means of nourishing their souls, and their refuge from the blight of the pulpit, was in fellowship with each other. Like those who feared the Lord in the days of Malachi, “they spake often one to another”. These conferences they found so profitable and so enjoyable to their souls that they made frequent use of them. At first these meetings were confined to members in full communion, but in process of time they were opened to all who cared to come and, as a result of which, not only those who were in a state of grace were edified, but many who were in a state of nature were awakened, through seeing that they had not the marks of God’s people. Thus the fellowship meetings became a nursery for the Church, and so it seems very clear that the conditions which prevailed in the Highlands of Scotland brought into being the fellowship meetings, especially where the Lord’s people were in circumstances where they had no access to pastors who could feed them with knowledge and understanding.
The question may be asked, at what time did these meetings begin? For this no definite answer can be given. Their beginning cannot be confined to any one locality for the need was great in many parishes where the Gospel was not preached, and where there were a few who truly feared the Lord. A Chalmers Lecturer, in dealing with the subject, says in a footnote, “Monthly question meetings were an established institution in Sutherland in 1727 (Church in the Highlands, p. 218). This would indicate that the fellowship meetings had their beginnings well back in the previous century. Thomas Hogg, whose labours had been abundantly blessed by the Lord, was ordained at Kiltearn in 1654 and ousted in 1661. Of the fruit of his labours there were many who were eminent Christians who could not be satisfied with his successor who was a creature of the bishops, and we may well believe that such would meet and have fellowship with each other, in discussing portions of Scripture, and this would probably be the beginning of fellowship meetings in that parish, and the godly in other parishes would, no doubt, follow their example. The men who held these meetings were not Separatists in the generally accepted sense of the term. As a rule they never went to hear the Moderate ministers because in their dry essays they could get nothing for their souls, but they countenanced those ministers who truly preached the Gospel, and were a great support to them.
The fact that the Moderate ministers were forsaken, and those who were evangelical supported the fellowship meetings awoke the enmity of the former against these meetings. In the Synod of Sutherland and Caithness a determined attempt was made by the Moderates in the 18th century to put an end to the fellowship meetings. A strong opponent of them was found in the person of the Rev. Murdo MacDonald, Durness, who, in spite of two eulogies composed to his memory by Rob Donn, the Sutherland bard, was a decided Moderate, who, along with others, gave to the world a virulent caricature of these meetings. As this controversy does not come within the scope of this paper it is only mentioned here to show that the very people whose dead preaching was the indirect cause of these meetings were their most bitter enemies, while those who preached a pure gospel welcomed them, and turned them to an excellent use in connection with the services of the sanctuary.
We now come to consider the purpose and value of the fellowship meeting. We have already noticed that the origin of the fellowship meetings was to supply the defect of the pulpit during the dead days of Moderatism so Evangelical ministers were quick to see that it would be of advantage to the Cause of Christ to make use of it as a means of examination before a Communion Sabbath. Thus it became a regular feature of a Communion season as the Thursday was a day of confession of sin and prayer. Those who were asked to take part were men of experience in the ways of godliness. In the best days of the Church in Sutherland there were three kinds of questions that were very common, or rather, the various questions that were given out fell into one or other of three different categories. One class of questions dealt with the experiences of the sinner in being effectually called, a second class dealt with the experiences of the justified believer from the day of justification till his departure from this world, while a third class dealt with the believer’s walk and conversation in the world. In each class of questions marks were asked on those who had what was stated or implied in the portion given out, as distinct from those who had a name to live but showed by their walk and conversation that they were spiritually dead. As a general rule no one who wandered from the particular question given was allowed to escape without notice being taken of it. The minister who closed the question had, as his duty, to sum up what had been said, to confirm the views which were in accordance with the Word of God, and correct what was faulty. If any speaker went out in ways of his own, having little or no bearing on the question given out, there were plenty of men of discernment among the brethren who would soon show him his fault, in such an honest and manly way that, if grace was in exercise in his soul, he would not be ready to repeat the fault on a future occasion.
One of the purposes of the fellowship meeting, whether on the Friday of a Communion season or more frequently in the monthly fellowship meetings of congregations, was to strengthen each other. A child of God might come to these meetings, pressed down with burdens, perplexed with questions as to the reality of the change that came over him, meeting with hard things in providence and seeing the prosperity of the ungodly, as Asaph did, having a rebellious heart, and fretting against the chastisements of his Heavenly Father, all forcing him to the conclusion that he is not a child of God. One after another of the brethren, in speaking to the question, show that these matters are to be found in the experiences of God’s children. Not only so, but they are enabled to speak of the peculiar exercises of the Lord’s people under such sad and sore conditions which, he cannot deny, are his own experiences, and thus he is enabled to thank God and take courage, and go on his way rejoicing.
A further purpose was to make the fellowship meeting a means for awakening the careless. This, in all probability, was the reason why these meetings began to be opened to all and sundry. Many would be drawn to them out of curiosity or for some other reason, and, finding that they were destitute of the marks given of the work of grace in the soul, the Holy Ghost would find an avenue to their consciences, and thus begin the good work which He will bring forward to the day of Jesus Christ. It is only the Great Day that will reveal the number who got their first serious impressions at a fellowship meeting, and that is one reason why Satan so much opposed these meetings. In this way the Lord’s true people were edified and strengthened and many of the ungodly arrested and brought to realise their need of something which they had not got as they were by nature, thus coming to know the beginning of a work of grace in their souls. From the above we can see that the question meeting became a valuable institution in the Church. It was both a means of strengthening weak believers and awakening those who were at ease in Zion.
In looking back on the history of fellowship meetings, in their best days, we can get a good view of the unity between the ministers and the laity. In the Church of England, for instance, the church is clerical or sacerdotal, and the ordinary layman is interested in it only as a mere member. From its government he is very much excluded in spite of recent changes, and, generally speaking, though with notable exceptions, he does not enter heart and soul into the advancement of the kingdom of Christ, neither does personal religion enter so largely into his outlook as it does with his brethren in the Highlands, and especially under the Presbyterian system. On the other hand, while those who took part in the fellowship meetings gave the respect, due to his office, to an evangelical minister yet there was not such a gulf fixed between the minister and the layman but that they could meet together and experience sweet fellowship in connection with matters which were of mutual interest in the varying conditions of their Christian course. They were drawn together in the bonds of a love which came out clearly in the public fellowship meetings, forging ties between minister and layman which Satan and the world found difficult to break. Thus neither could think evil of the other, and this love permeated the whole body of those who delighted in the fellowship meeting and increased its value to them as they were getting more conscious of their own failings and weaknesses.
The fellowship meetings were also valuable in that they were largely the means of keeping the gospel unadulterated among the people of the Highlands, especially in places where a pure gospel was not preached from the pulpit. The men who spoke to the question were men who had a thorough grasp of the doctrines of the Bible, and when called to speak one would be sure that nothing unsound would escape from their lips, and thus they leavened the minds of many with the doctrines of God’s Word, which caused that even men who could not be looked upon as gracious would not be satisfied with the heterodoxy which proceeded from many a Moderate pulpit, and it is only eternity that will reveal how much these men of God were the means of bringing souls into the way that leads to Zion. Where Bible truth is stored in the mind the Holy Spirit may in His own good time turn it to the salvation of the sinner and to the sweet wine of communion with God through the Lord Jesus Christ.
The idea among some was, and may still be, that those who spoke to the question at fellowship meetings were ousting the minister out of his proper place. There could not be a greater mistake than this for the men never aspired to such a place in the Church, neither had godly ministers any reason to suspect it. There was a bond of unity between evangelical ministers and the men which was helpful to both. The minister shared largely in their prayers, and they thankfully accepted his counsel and guidance. This kindled a warmth between them which no power could cool. Dr Kennedy says, “The peculiar service of ‘the men’ was not thrust upon those ministers who were what ministers should be. By such it was freely and deliberately adopted, and none of them had ever cause to regret that it was. ‘The men’ were never found to be the enemies to due ecclesiastical order, though they failed in learning to submit to undue ecclesiastical tyranny. They were influenced by no feeling of disrespect to the office of the ministry, nor were they disposed to take a place in the house of the Lord not given them by the Lord of the house. It was not in their heart, it is true, to esteem the individuals who found it their interest to hold, while it was their practice to degrade, the office of the ministry; but it is only in their respect for the office itself that the true reason of this can be found. Valuable was the help and cheering the encouragement which a godly minister always received from their prayers, their counsels, and their labours.” (Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire, 5th ed., p. 85-86).
As is well-known, the most eminent of the evangelical ministers of the Highlands would often be away from their own congregations, assisting at Communions, and often it was difficult to get suitable supply to take their places in their own congregations. On such occasions a godly layman would expound a chapter of the Bible to the assembled congregation in a most edifying manner. In such cases the fellowship meeting proved a valuable training school, making the speaker “apt to teach.” Grace in exercise in their souls kept them humble and dependent on the Lord, never allowing them to yield to the temptation to outshine their fellows or lord it over God’s heritage. This humility and dependence upon the Lord was clearly manifested in their speaking to the question, and it caused them to set a valuable example to their fellows in that they esteemed others better than themselves. In this way the Lord’s people had their doubts resolved, their fears alleviated if not banished, and a godly example set before them; the careless were impressed and awakened, and led to the Saviour, and the Church of God strengthened, while Satan’s kingdom was being spoiled, and himself deprived of his power to bring them back into his captivity.
To sum up the value of the fellowship meeting and the ability and usefulness to the Cause of Christ of the men we may again quote Dr Kennedy, than whom there was none more qualified to write on religious matters in the Highlands in his day. “Those who required ‘the excellency of speech and of wisdom’ in order to be pleased, would certainly not be gratified at the fellowship meeting, but those who ‘desired the sincere milk of the word that’ they ‘might grow thereby,’ would as certainly be profited. Of such learning as makes one proud, ‘the men’ had none; but they knew their Bibles as few besides have known them. Their clear views of the Gospel system might bring a blush on the face of some Professors of divinity if they heard and understood them; and some doctors, however learned, might sit at their feet as they spake of the sorrows and the joys of the Christian’s life. Some of them were men of distinguished talent, and all their mental vigour, untrammelled by learning, they brought to bear upon the things of God. Never, surely, is there a more attractive exercise of intellect than when, divested of all literary acquirement, it enters directly into ‘the mysteries of the kingdom,’ and comes forth into a panoply of Scripture truth. Light from Heaven then irradiates all the gifts of the speaker. Traces of learning, mingled with the halo of this light, would be spots of darkness. Some of ‘the men’ were able speakers. Orators they were, without attempting to be so, and utterly unconscious of their gift, who could powerfully affect the feelings of their hearers. Some of them gave utterance to sayings that could not be forgotten, and a few of which would earn a fame for genius in a more public sphere” (Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire, 5th ed., p. 87-88).