THE SCOTS PRESS, 1824. THE Scots Magazine may be justly regarded as the oldest and most complete periodical record of our national history and literature since Scotland ceased to be a separate kingdom. Amidst the varieties of fame and fortune which have attended its progress, during a period of nearly one hundred years, it still keeps its characteristic ground among the periodical works of the age; and its pages, we trust, will be found to contain a portion of information and amusement as ample and pure, perhaps, as any of its contemporaries of the same class can boast of. If it has less of the piquancy which personal satire or unprincipled servility are sometimes found to bestow on ephemeral tirades, it is not made the vehicle of slander, to wound the feelings of virtuous and exalted men, or to carry the poison of malignity into the bosom of domestic life. If it be not marked by indications of high pretension and never-ending egotism, it aspires, at least, to convey to soberminded readers a rational and not inelegant repast for the mind,-in which, during many intervals of the varied avocations of life, persons of all ages and descriptions may indulge without pain or pollution, and with actual benefit, both as regards their moral feelings and their intellectual improvement. In order at once to preserve the national qualities of our Miscellany, as the genuine Scots Magazine, and to extend, as far as we can, its claims to the approbation of our readers, we purpose, in future, to devote a portion of our pages to a regular review of such works as may issue from the Scots Press. The more interesting publications only have, for some time past, been the chief objects of our notice, and these, whether published in Scotland or in thesister kingdoms, will, in future, continue to possess the most prominent station in our critical remarks; but while England puts forth its analytical criticisms and Literary Gazettes in abundance, we consider it somewhat unfair to the minor authors, as well as to the publishers of Scotland, to leave their books altogether unnoticed, save in a newspaper advertisement, or a list of new publications. There are many works which, though neither the productions of great names, nor the depositories of splendid discoveries, are yet distinguished for useful information, which it is desirable that the reading public should be apprised of; and there are other productions, of a different cast, some of them small and trivial, perhaps, but which it may be proper to subject to the critical lash, and to public scorn and displeasure. In prosecution of the plan which we have thus stated our intention to adopt, we now proceed to take a retrospect of the Scots Press during the part of the year 1824 which has already elapsed. KEITH'S SCOTTISH BISHOPS". THE students of Scottish History are much indebted to the Editor and Publishers of this work. The name of its author is familiar to every one who has read any portion of our history, and his works on the affairs of Church and State in Scotland, from the beginning of the Reformation to the retreat of Queen Mary into England, is, by the universal suffrage of all parties, allowed to be a most valuable depository of authentic information. In fact, it is a work of the very highest authority and value, embracing a great body of original documents, which, after all, constitute the most satisfactory, if not the most elegant species of historical composition. It is the storehouse from whence our Robertsons and Cooks have drawn a great • An Historical Catalogue of the Scottish Bishops, down to the year 1688, by the Right Rev. Robert Keith; also an Account of all the Religious Houses that were in Scotland at the time of the Reformation; by John Spottiswoode, Esq. A new edition, corrected, and continued to the present time, by the Rev. M. Russell, LL.D. Edinburgh. Bell & Bradfute. portion of the materials for their more popular works; but if they have digested and arranged the information collected and embodied by Keith, with a greater degree of neatness and grace, we acknowledge that our taste is so barbarous, that we sometimes prefer to their compositions the perusal of the Bishop's quaint narrative, incumbered as it is, in every page, with Acts of Parliament and of Privy Council, and clogged with black-letter quotations, and numberless side and foot-notes. We have a great affection for original documents in all matters of history, and prefer them infinitely to dissertations, however elaborate. Bishop Keith, as well as Wodrow, and some of the elder chroniclers, are, in our humble judgment, more truly interesting and instructive than any other works with which we are acquainted, touching the periods to which they relate. The Bishop, no doubt, had his leanings in point of feeling and opinion; but there are so many proofs of the candour, sincerity, and single-heartedness even of his partyspirit, and so much evidence of his integrity, that we confide in his fidelity as a collector of documents, while we sometimes differ from the opinions expressed in his commentaries. A mere catalogue of Scottish Bishops may, to some persons, appear a very useless and uninteresting compilation. But it is, in fact, like many other adjuncts of history, a material help to the inquirer, and furnishes him with much of that minute and detailed information which enables him to see his path more distinctly, and to take more clear and certain views of the regions around him. The ecclesiastics of Scotland, while a separate kingdom, were among the most conspicuous characters in the management of her affairs; and it is impossible to obtain very accurate information, with regard either to the general history of the kingdom, or to its provinces, without devoting some attention to the biography of the prelates, whether of the Popish or Reformed churches. It is on this ground that we consider the present republication an acquisition. The catalogue was originally published in 1755, and had become very scarce and expensive. It is now presented VOL. XIV. to the public in the convenient, and, if we may be allowed the expression, the sensible shape of a neat octavo volume. We wish some spirited bookseller would publish new editions of our national chronicles in the same style; for, besides the bulk and weight of the old-fashioned editions, which, when handled, are like to break the backs of pigmy moderns, they are most extravagantly expensive, and really beyond the reach of ordinary collectors or readers. The works to which we refer, such as Keith's History, Anderson's Collections, Wodrow, and others, might all be now republished in a correct and accessible form. The parliamentary records are nearly all published, in the most accurate and ample manner, under the direction of Mr Thomson, Deputy Clerk-Register, to whom, as an enlightened and liberal antiquary, Scotland owes much; and the Privy Council record is now almost all recovered and restored, from June 1545 to the period of the Union. The only blanks in the series are from 1553 to 1558; in 1569 and 1570, and from 1603 to 1606. This record (independently of other collections that are every day coming to the light,) which is an invaluable repository of historical information, and of which even our most laborious antiquaries and historians had only partial glimpses until very lately, would supply the means of correcting, by collation, all the documents formerly published, and furnish much new and curious matter for illustrating some of the most interesting portions of our history. But to return to the volume before us. It contains, besides the articles mentioned in the title-page, a Life of Bishop Keith, and a Preliminary Dissertation on the Planting of Christianity in Scotland, and on the history of the Culdees. The Bishop was allied to the Marischal family, being the son of the Laird of Uras in Kincardineshire, where he was born 7th Feb. 1681. Brief and uninteresting as are the particulars of his life, we have not space to notice its details, farther than that he was consecrated a Bishop of the Episcopal Church of Scotland in 1727, and died at Bonnyhaugh, near Leith, on the 20th of January 1757. He lived, of course, 4 E during a period of vehement intolerance towards those of the communion to which he belonged, and in that seclusion and quiet, to which, perhaps, we are indebted for his valuable historical researches. Of the Dissertation on the Culdees, partly written by the well-known Mr Goodall, and partly by the editor, Dr Russel, we are unwilling to express any very decided opinion, farther than that it seems to be drawn up with considerable learning and spirit. If it has not demolished Sir James Dalrymple's and Dr Jamieson's theories, with regard to the early separation of the Culdees from the errors of the Church of Rome, and, with regard to the Presbyterian character, of that set of monks, this short disquisition has at least shaken those theories to the very foundation, and shown that some of the arguments in support of them are quite inconclusive. PLURALITY OF OFFICES IN THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND EXAMINED". A GREAT deal has been said and written on the case which has given birth to this volume, and, save a few remarks in our own Magazine for January last, all that we have seen published is on one side of the question-against Dr M'Farlane, who has hitherto been on the losing side. We had, first, a Report of the Speeches in the Presbytery, published in July last year-then a Synod Speech by Thomas Chalmers, D.D., Minister of St. John's Church, Glasgow, with a Preface by Stevenson MacGill, D.D., &c.-and now we are presented with a volume of 300 closely-printed pages, by Mr Burns. All this shews great zeal and activity, at least; and if the anonymous publications in Newspapers, Magazines, &c., be taken into view, and the correspondence and movements of Corresponding Members from Edinburgh to the Synod of Glasgow be farther taken into account, we are fairly warranted to infer, that those who oppose Dr M'Farlane have made this as much a party question as any one which was ever agitated in our Church Courts. We do not object to this. But it is needless for the party to deny the imputation; for with so many visible symptoms of party on the face of their proceedings, nobody will take declamations on the subject as any thing but common-place flourish. We earnestly recommend to them, therefore, in the concoction of their speeches for the ensuing General Assembly, to abstain from all disavowals on this subject-from all proclamations of their sense of duty merely, urging them on against their inclinationsand, above all, from allusions to their loyalty, &c. It is absolutely laughable to see Dr MacGill in the Presbytery, and Dr Chalmers in the Synod, and Mr Burns in his Preface, labouring in serious earnest to repel some supposed insinuations that Dr M'Farlane's opponents are disaffected to Government, or, according to the slang of the day-radicals. A more unfounded and incredible supposition never was made. We have no doubt, that, apart from all abstract principle on the subject, the party, as a party, are dissatisfied with the present instance of Ministerial patronage, because it is not extended to any of their own party, (many of whom deserve every honour); but no man of sense will construe this into disloyalty or radicalism; and it is quite needless to be majestic, or to make more speeches on the subject. We would advise them, (as we intend forthwith to do) to address themselves directly to the merits of the case, avoiding all extraneous and irrelevant topics, which can only distract the attention, and obscure the judgment of those whose duty it is to decide the case in the General Assembly of the Church. The merits of the case lie within very narrow limits. Dr M'Farlane is Principal of Glasgow College, and he has got a presentation to the Church and Parish of St. Mungo, which is situated in the same city. Plurality of Offices in the Church of Scotland Examined; with a particular reference to the Case of the Very Reverend Dr M'Farlane, Principal of the University of Glasgow. By the Rev. Robert Burns, Paisley. Glasgow-Chalmers & Collins. The presentation is admitted to be an UNQUALIFIED PRESENTEE The disqualification here referred to does not consist of moral, intellectual, literary, or theological unfitness, for on all these points the most ample testimonies are borne in favour of Dr M'Farlane ; but is inferred solely from the fact of his being Principal of the College, the duties of which, his opponents say, are of such a nature as to render it impossible for him to discharge his duties as Parochial Minister of St. Mungo. Now, on the very first view of this objection, it is obvious that Dr M'Farlane's imputed unfitness is a constructive, anticipated, and purely hypothetical unfitness; and so far is it from being supported by probability even, that, in point of fact, his predecessor, Principal Taylor, discharged, for many years, the duties of both offices, with the most exemplary fidelity, and with the entire approbation of his brethren, his colleagues, and the public. What, then, has occurred since his death, to render the enjoyment of these charges incompatible, or to justify a doubt that Dr M'Farlane will discharge the duties of the same situations with equal fidelity and equal applause? Nothing-absolutely nothing. The reverse, indeed, is the case; for Dr M'Farlane is a much younger and more active man than Principal Taylor had been for many years; and if our anticipations are to be go verned by probabilities, he is much more likely to be an efficient Pastor, as well as Principal, for some time, at least, than he who had grown old and frail in the labours of honour and usefulness. When the presentation was laid on the Presbytery table, the objection now alluded to, and afterwards dilated, and dwelt on in every possible shape, was thus stated by Dr MacGill: "However well qualified Dr M'Farlane was for the discharge of his duties, for those of the Parish to which he applied to be inducted, he was quite incapable, both from its great extent, and from his attention being necessarily drawn to the duties of Principal of the College, which he was sure was no sinecure. The Prin cipal had many secular duties to perform, which were very likely to withdraw his mind from his parochial duties; and, besides, he was not sure but that it was illegal to appoint the Minister of the High Church to the office of Principal, as, by the College Charter, the Minister of the High Church is appointed to examine and doquet the College accounts; and he would ask, how it is consistent, that a man thus made a party could doquet his own accounts?" It does, we confess, appear to us a little irregular, (not to employ the offensive epithet of officious) in Dr MacGill thus ultroneously and unnecessarily to stir any question of the kind. There is no objection stated on the part of the Parishioners of St Mungo,-there is no objection stated from the Senatus Academicus of the University,-and, in point of fact and of form, there was no evidence on the table of the Presbytery that Dr M'Farlane was Principal of Glasgow College. We are not inclined to quibble about forms; but they are important as a check upon over zealous superintendents and judges; and the nobile officium and inqui sitorial powers of a Presbyter, we sincerely think, were overstretched by any Member of Presbytery thrusting forward his own private and personal knowledge as a ground for obstructing Dr M'Farlane's progress into the Church, when there was no appearance, at its bar, by any party, entitled to appear and object. The Doctor himself, we are convinced, is too liberal-minded to take umbrage at any of his brethren for doing what they have done; but we, who are equally unconnected with all the parties concerned, cannot help thinking the objection ought to have been stated by some party having an interest, when Dr MacGill, as a Judge, could have formed his judgment on the case, without voluntarily assuming the awkward position, at the same time, of a party. Dr MacGill, most unphilosophi • Report, p. 12. cally, as we apprehend, TAKES IT FOR GRANTED, (for that is now the orthodox style of reasoning,) without putting any evidence on record to bear out his assumption, that Dr M'Farlane" was quite incapable" to discharge his parochial duties, " both from its great extent, and from his attention being necessarily drawn to the duties of Principal of the College." With respect to the extent of the Parish there seems to be some uncertainty. One Member of Presbytery states it at about 7000, while others of them (the opponents of Dr M'Farlane) talk loosely of 8000, 9000, and 10,000 inhabitants. Be it granted that that is the gross population; it is extremely probable, we think, that a third, or perhaps a half of these, are Seceders from the Church, so that there will be 5000 in the charge, and under the ministrations of Dr M'Farlane. It is, no doubt, a mighty charge; but what is it to that of the Parish of St. Cuthbert's, under our eye? The population of the latter is ten times as large; yet is there a man in the Church of Scotland who would venture to state an objection to the excellent and venerable Sir Harry Moncrieff continuing to take charge of the Widows' Fund, because, forsooth, he is quite incapable" to discharge his pastoral duties, from the great extent of his parish, "and from his attention being necessarily drawn to the duties" of Collector for the Widows' Fund? Were such a proposition made, we know enough of both sides of the Church to be convinced that it would be scouted from every corner of the kingdom: yet the case is exactly parallel with that of Principal M'Farlane. The secular duties of Collector to the Widows' Fund are numerous, and no sinecure; but, numerous and important as they are, it will not be said they ever withdrew the mind of our revered countryman from his parochial duties to a flock among which he ministers with an influence almost patriarchal. Justice is even-handed. If Sir H. Moncrieff can manage the Widows' Fund of the Church of Scotland, along with his parochial charge, why may not Dr M'Farlane hold the honorary office of Principal of Glasgow College? It may be said, that Sir Harry has a colleague, 'and Chapels of Ease; but to say nothing of the extra-parochial labours of that colleague, in attending Missionary, Bible, and Auxiliary Societies, whereever he can find them, and subdividing the population of St Cuthbert's equally among all the Clergy who officiate within it, Sir Harry's portion will remain equal to, or greater, than the largest number which it is said are in St. Mungo's Parish; and the secular business of the Widows' Fund may be greater, but cannot be less than that of Principal in Glasgow College. The one is as much a plurality as the other, and its duties equally incompatible with those of a Parish Minister. But let us see what those duties are in the College of Glasgow. It is said, that the Minister of the High Church is appointed, by the College Charter, to doquet the College accounts; and that it would be inconsistent, “that a man thus made a party should doquet his own accounts!" Although this were granted, what has the Presbytery to do with the matter? If there be an obligation imposed by the College Charter on the Minister of the High Church, it is evidently an obligation, the enforcement of which is not competent to the Presbytery, but is cognizable only by a Civil Court, as a civil affair, and at the instance of the College Faculty. The College Charter, however, cannot impose such a duty as an obligation, much less as an ecclesiastical obligation. It is a trust, res mere facultatis, which the Minister may either do or not as he chuses, and which, at his ordination, he does not undertake by any engagement, expressed or implied. To talk of such an impediment, therefore, is mere foolery and childishness. Independently, however, of this consideration, the College accounts are not the Principal's accounts; and therefore there seems to be no inconsistency whatever in Dr M'Farlane, as Minister of the High Church, auditing the accounts of the College Treasurer, and doqueting those accounts. The learned Professor of Theology makes a great fuss and parade about the vastness and variety of the duties of Principal; but, after sweep |