Return
to John Halliday Chapter Page
His Religion
John Holliday's religious
beliefs were profoundly influenced by the Rev. Richard Cameron,
a Scottish minister of the Seventeenth Century. This is not surprising,
since all Annandale had been influenced by him. Oddly enough,
Hutton Parish was probably less affected by the reformist preacher
than some other parts of Annandale and there is no indication
that its schoolmaster was a member of his dissenting church in
Scotland. Yet when settled in Canada John Holliday was a vigorous
supporter of all Cameronian doctrines.
Richard Cameron had been
a devoted Covenanter. He had been an eloquent field preacher,
winning thousands of Scots from Episcopalianism to Presbyterianism.
His success was particularly noticeable in Annandale, where he
was credited with changing the lawless reivers of the border
into God-fearing Covenanters. His doctrine was that of a stern
Calvinism. It was not until 1743, however, some sixty years after
Cameron's death, that his followers formed a secessionist church,
known by them as the Reformed Presbyterian, but known popularly
as the Cameronian Church.
As indicated above, Cameronians
were not numerous in Hutton Parish. About the time of John Holliday's
birth a number of people in Hutton had "entered into secession",
but they were "not ill-disposed toward the Established Church"
and "often hear its Hutton minister". (1) The Rev.
Jacob Wright, minister in John Holliday's later years there,
held his congregation in the Church of Scotland surprisingly
well, when secessionist branches were making marked gains in
most parishes Early in the nineteenth century only one family
in Hutton Parish gave allegiance to the Reformed Presbyterian
Church. (1) John Holliday, as parish schoolmaster and "officer"
of the parish would doubtless be in communion with the parish
church. This would not, however, prevent him from holding religious
views closer to those of the Cameronians than of the Establishment.
Under circumstances which developed on the Scotch Line in Canada,
these could become fixed. They did. John Holliday became an ardent
- some would say a bigoted - follower of Cameronian Presbyterianism.
The Scots settlers had
arrived without the minister promised to them, though this was
not the fault of the British Government. The settlers belonged
to at least three and possibly four branches of the Church, -
the Established, the Associate, and the Reformed. Each wanted
the minister to be of his own branch. Unable to agree, they had
come without any. Once in Upper Canada, however, they found the
absence of religious ordinances in the settlement a serious lack.
Even those given by a dissenting minister would be preferable
to none at all. For some months after the settlement was made,
monthly visits to it were paid by the Rev. Mr. Smart of Brockville
He belonged to the Associate Church. Perhaps his influence and
his willingness to act for the settlers brought about some modification
of views. In any event, in November, 1816, the Presbytery of
Edinburgh of the Associate Synod "received a petition from
the Scotch settlers at Perth, in Upper Canada, for a minister
to be ordained and sent out without delay". (2) The Presbytery
selected one of its candidates for ordination who had volunteered,
- William Bell. He was ordained and on June 24, 1817, he reached
Perth.
Mr. Bell was given a warm
welcome by the settlers. A few days after his arrival he reported
"(they) sent us a supply of milk, butter and maple sugar,
of their own making. Indeed, the inhabitants generally have shown
us every kindness in their power." (2) One of his early
decisions, however, ran counter to the expectations and the wishes
of the settlers. They knew that the salary being paid to him
by the government was a part of the contract between it and them.
They expected their minister to have his church on the Line and
to live among them, whereas Mr. Bell decided to build the church
and live in Perth. He said he did not consider himself minister
to the settlers only, but to all in the area. This position was
scarcely consonant with the fact that it was the settlers who
had "called" him (a vital point in Presbyterian polity)
and that the salary was for a minister to the settlers.
Mr. Bell's decision may
have been a logical one in 1817, but it created the first sign
of antagonism to him among the settlers. His domineering personality
tended to increase rather than decrease this as various church
matters called for decisions through the succeeding years. The
more independent of the Scotch Line settlers increasingly took
up positions contrary to his. From time to time he named them
in his Journal, - Francis Allan, William Elliot, W. Rutherford,
John Allan, and, of course, John Holliday. Apparently all these
families were disposed to the Cameronian doctrines and this,
along with the clash of personalities, made them what Mr. Bell
called "of a very factious and troublesome disposition."
John Holliday became the leader and spokesman for the dissidents.
Ultimately it led to a charge against Mr. Bell of wrongful church
practice and to a division in his church.
This unfortunate relationship
between John Holliday and his minister did not exist from the
beginning. On July 9, 1817, at a meeting to organize the congregation,
John Holliday was chosen Clerk of the Committee of Managers.
On January 5, 1818, steps were taken to elect a Session of five
members for the congregation. On February 1st, three were ordained,
two having been ordained to the eldership in Scotland before
emigration. It is not known that John Holliday was one of these
five, though in Mr. Bell's Journal of December 9, 1820, he speaks
of "Messrs. Holliday and Rutherford, two of our elders".
Since his reference had to do with action at a Session meeting,
where elders only would be present, it is presumed that John
Holliday was one of these original elders of the Perth church.
Some doubt on this point has been expressed because of an entry
in the Journal which reads, "On 3rd September, 1826, John
Holliday having been elected to the office of elder was ordained
and set apart as a member of the Session". This entry does
not agree with an earlier one of May in the same year in which
Mr. Bell says he "was accompanied by one of my elders, Mr.
Holliday, on a preaching trip in the country". It is known
that Mr. Bell revised his Journal later in life (1840) and on
that occasion made unintentional errors in dates as well as post
factum explanations of events. The date of John Holliday's ordination
as an elder may be open to question. What is clear is that from
1817 to 1828 he was an active participant in the services and
government of Mr. Bell's church, though almost from the beginning
he was, apparently, a difficult colleague for the minister to
have.
The most dramatic event
in John Holliday's religious life began on Sunday, December 22,
1827. It arose from the Cameronian position which rejected all
elements in public worship for which, as they said, "there
is no Divine warrant". Since psalms were, as Cameronians
held, the only songs so warranted, no church should use "man-made"
hymns. On the Sunday in question Mr. Bell "when worship
was over" gave notice to the congregation that he was about
to open a bible class and that hymn books would be used. "At
this", says Mr. Bell, "Mr. Holliday, one of our elders,
started up and said, "I see no warrant in Scripture for
using these hymns". It was the beginning of a conflict only
to be resolved four years later when the Holliday family were
among the fifty members of his church whom Mr. Bell reported
had left his church to attend St. Andrew's Church of Scotland.
The story is told in great detail by Mr. Bell in his Journal,
copious extracts of it being found in his biography. (3)
On the next Sunday Mr.
Bell announced the annual meeting of the congregation to be held
on New Year's Day. After the service John Holliday gave notice
that he would ask the congregational meeting to consider the
use of the hymns, claimed by him to "contain Arminian doctrines".
The annual meeting was largely attended. At the conclusion of
the regular business, John Holliday presented his objections
and asked for support, which Mr. Bell states was very slight.
One supporter criticized an elder, which so annoyed Mr. Bell
that he "took (his) hat and left the pulpit, which broke
up the meeting"; scarcely a usual method for a minister
to conclude an annual meeting of his congregation.
The hymns were used the
following Sunday, January 6, but "Mr. Holliday and his friends
... neither stood up with the rest, nor joined with them in singing
the hymns". On the next Sunday William Elliot joined his
fellow elder in trying, as Mr. Bell said, "to raise a squabble
in the Session about the hymns", but were unsuccessful in
getting majority support. Thereupon they "resolved on an
application to the Presbytery", preparing a petition to
that body which "a few" members of Session and congregation
signed.
Presbytery met on January
23 in Brockville. The complaint was thrown out on the ground
that the complainants had not complied with church law in their
approach to the Court and therefore the petition was irregular.
The Presbytery, however, must have felt uneasy over this technical
disposition of the complaint for it decided to have its members
examine the hymns "unofficially" and express their
opinions. This was done, the hymns being found quite proper and
the objections "pronounced groundless and frivolous".
Mr. Bell concluded his report of the Presbytery meeting by quoting
John Holliday's rather apt comment on the decision, saying, that
"he saw it was in vain to expect that corbies would pick
out yin anither's een". (That crows would pick out one another's
eyes.)
Mr. Bell consolidated his
victory. On the following Sunday he reported to his congregation
the action of the Presbytery. "It was received", he
wrote, "with pleasure by all, except a few poor ignorant
creatures"; and "for more than a week afterwards, almost
every person I met congratulated me on the victory I had obtained
over a despicable faction". Not content with this, he asked
his Session on February 17 to censure "Mr. Holliday and
his friend William Elliot". This was done, the censure being
recorded on the minutes. "From this time," he says,
"they absented themselves from the Session". Mr. Bell's
victory was complete.
Naturally enough, as told
in Mr. Bell's Journal the story shows John Holliday in an untenable
position. This holds true not only as regards his theological
views, but also with respect to his procedures in the matter
and the manner in which he made his objections known. Mr. Bell
uses such descriptive phrases as "this bigot", "an
enemy to all improvement", "an outrage upon decorum",
"a violent and outrageous manner", "truly disgusting",
"turbulent bigots", "a despicable faction".
It is quite likely John Holliday's manner was not a model of
politeness. His forthright approach to any subject under debate,
whether that of unfit living conditions at Cornwall or unlawful
withholding of salary on the Scotch Line, did not conduce to
mild expostulations. He may well have been in this religious
issue quite "turbulent" in setting forth his position.
But since Mr. Bell's Journal is the only known evidence, it may
be unfair to John Holliday and William Elliot and other Scotch
Line settlers to accept their minister's evaluation of the case
and its proponents as a completely accurate one. Certainly, it
was not an objective one.
To begin with, consideration
must be given to the known intolerance of Mr. Bell toward any
criticism of himself or his policies. He was, as his biographer
said of him, "a man muffled up in positive sureness".
(4) For one of his laymen to criticize his theological position
was, in his own words, "not to be endured". (5) It
seems odd also that nowhere in his story of the dispute did Mr.
Bell examine the arguments of his critics with respect to the
theology involved in the hymns. This would not have been difficult
for him; he was educated in matters of theology, both Calvinist
and Arminian. Yet he contented himself with making strictures
upon the character and manners of his critics. Further, though
the Presbytery decided the methods employed had been "irregular",
nowhere as he unfolded the story did Mr. Bell draw attention
to any of these alleged irregularities of procedure. Indeed,
careful reading of his account shows that while Mr. Bell was
incensed over John Holliday's "outrageous manners"
and the "outrage upon decorum", he failed to draw attention
to the care John Holliday took to raise the controversial issue
only at appropriate times. On no occasion did he interrupt a
service of worship. On Mr. Bell's own showing it was "when
worship was over" (Dec. 22, 1827); or "as soon as the
benediction was pronounced" (Dec. 29, 1827); or "when
the business (of the annual meeting) was all settled" (Jan.
1, 1828) that John Holliday made his protests. Clearly, he was
trying to register them on suitable and correct occasions. He
was well within his rights in raising the matter at a meeting
of Session (Jan. 13, 1828), and if he and his fellow elders were
guilty of an error of procedure in preparing their petition to
Presbytery, one might have expected the Moderator of Session,
their minister, who would know correct procedure, to instruct
his elders on how to approach a higher court. Could the Presbytery's
"unofficial" trial, following upon its dismissal of
the charge on a technicality, been prompted by a stirring of
conscience, or, more probably, of consciences ?
When the only available
evidence is examined closely, John Holliday may not come out
of it as a victorious hero, but assuredly he is somewhat less
than the villain it tries to make him.
Doubtless the hymn incident
would change the close relationship which had existed between
John Holliday and First Presbyterian Church, Perth. No complete
break occurred, however, until a few years later. Though Mr.
Bell reported that from February 17, 1828, John Holliday and
William Elliot had absented themselves from the Session, this
is not borne out by later entries in his Journal. Thus, in December
of the same year Mr. Bell called a meeting of the Session and
trustees "with a view to the formation of an Auxiliary Home
Missionary Society for the benefit of the back townships. This
Mr. Holliday decidedly opposed, saying that those who wished
to have the gospel ought to provide it at their own expense".
Mr. Bell considered this argument "absurd", but not
so other elders of his Session, for, he wrote, "it so far
influenced others, who probably wished to save their pockets
(an imputation of motive surely not to Mr. Bell's credit that
I saw it would be better to defer my plans for the present".
So John Holliday was not only still attending the Session meetings,
but was able to carry a point of non-action, against Mr. Bell's
wishes. On January 7, 1829, Mr. Elliot was the representative
elder who accompanied Mr. Bell to the Presbytery meeting in Brockville.
He, also, must still have been active in Session affairs.
During 1829 steps were
being taken by some of Mr. Bell's congregation to secure a minister
from the "Auld Kirk" in Scotland to form another church
in Perth. During the winter of 1829 - 30 a Cameronian minister
from the United States had preached in Perth "where he had
large congregations". (6) Doubtless the Holliday family
would be in attendance. Yet in October, 1830, John Holliday was
still annoying Mr. Bell by actions in the Session. On October
10th he objected to Mr. Bell having organized a congregation
on his own initiative at the home of Mr. Balderson and was reproved
by Mr. Bell. The latter made no mention of the fact, which would
be well known to him, that in Presbyterian polity only a Presbytery
could erect a new congregation and apparently John Holliday was
only being a strict Presbyterian at this point. The next week
he called for a list of the members of the church, probably ready
to pursue the illegal nature of their membership. But apparently
the point was not followed up. The reason would be the final
break from Mr. Bell's church by the "turbulent" elder.
For in December, 1830,
the Church of Scotland began services in Perth at the new St.
Andrew's Church. Mr. Bell said he "felt rather anxious....
fearing that many might be drawn away (from First Church) by
a new preacher". Not too many left, about fifty members
in all. Among them, however, were John Holliday and his family.
Mr. Bell's relief was almost audible, credit being given by him
to "Divine providence" as John Holliday was "at
last exposed in his true colours". (7)
At first glance it would
seem difficult for John Holliday, a convinced Cameronian, to
move from First Church to St. Andrew's. Normally, a Cameronian
had more in common theologically with a dissenting Associate
Presbyterian Church than with the Established Church of Scotland,
to which St. Andrew's belonged. But it has been shown that back
in Scotland he maintained membership in the Established Parish
Church of Hutton. (8) Apparently he could still hold to the Cameronian.
interpretation of Calvinism while using the "Auld Kirk"
as his vehicle of worship. It would be just as possible in Canada
as in Scotland. In addition, the move would constitute a final
break with Mr. Bell and doubtless John Holliday was just as pleased
to be away from Mr. Bell's ministry as Mr. Bell was to have him
away from his congregation and Session.
Over a distance of one-hundred-and-thirty
years it is not easy to accept the dispute between the minister
and his elder with equanimity. Time has changed the way in which
such incidents are evaluated. Neither the domineering role which
Mr. Bell assumed for himself nor the theological intolerance
which John Holliday exhibited is today acceptable in Protestant
ecclesiasticism. In the judgment of a Twentieth Century jury
both would be condemned. But the mistake should never be made
of judging citizens of one century by the standards of another
one. In their time each of these two men was displaying aspects
of religious belief, not only tolerated, but even considered
vital to the faith. For Mr. Bell any open criticism of himself,
representing the Church, was "not to be endured" (a
favourite expression of his); while for John Holliday any deviation
from the Calvinism he knew was to fly in the face of "Divine
warrant". Given two such beliefs, held by two strong and
similar personalities, and a clash was inevitable. The twentieth-century
observer will record the facts and try to withhold judgment on
the protagonists.
Apparently John Holliday
did not hold office of any kind in St. Andrew's Church, although
he and his family did attend its services. This absence of official
responsibility in the congregation did not prevent him from expressing
his opposition to any practice which he considered to be against
the interests of true religion. The first recorded instance took
place at a congregational meeting on January 28, 1835. The minister
of St. Andrew's was the Rev. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson read his
manuscript sermons. This was disliked intensely by many of his
congregation. It must have reminded John Holliday of the days
of his youth in Hutton Parish when the Rev. Mr. Nisbet had the
same habit and when, in part as a result of it, the church there
had suffered sorely. (9) The incident is related by Mr. Bell,
though since it could not concern his own congregation his reason
for incorporating it in his Journal must be suspect. It tells
that at the meeting, amid much dissatisfaction and criticism
by the congregation, "while the uproar was at its worst,
Mr. Holliday said, very gravely, he wished to put a question
to the minister. This produced silence for a moment, when he
said, "I wish to ask him if he considered reading a paper
from the pulpit to be preaching". (10)
Whatever the outcome of
the congregational meeting in January, the dissatisfaction in
St. Andrew's continued. It is very likely that John Holliday's
fanatical opposition to read sermons did much to keep the dissension
acute. By October the Presbytery felt called upon to intervene
and convened a meeting of the congregation to discover the facts.
Among the accusations made were a list of grievances presented
by "two boys, sons of Mr. Holliday, and their brother-in-law
(who may have been William Elliot's son, Adam S. Elliot, who
had married Janet Holliday in 1829), supposed to be composed
by their father, abusing Mr. Wilson on many points, but especially
for reading in the pulpit, which they denounced as 'The Popish
practice of reading sermons'." (11)
With such dissatisfaction
existing in St. Andrew's, especially on the part of members with
Cameronian beliefs, it is not surprising that these members took
an early opportunity to obtain church services in Perth from
a minister of their own branch of Presbyterianism. This they
did in the fall of 1835. They petitioned the congregation of
the Reformed Presbyterian Church at Ramsay (later, Almonte) for
a part of their minister's time. This was agreed to and the Rev.
Mr. McLachlane preached every fifth Sabbath at Perth. Doubtless
John Holliday was one of the petitioners and his family would
be in attendance on the fifth Sabbaths.
In April, 1836, the congregation
in Perth was officially organized. Its ruling elders were John
Brown and John Holliday, its deacons Francis Holliday and John
Walker. The original families included John Holliday and his
sons George, James, Francis, and David; Thomas Dobie (possibly
Jane Holliday's husband), and Adam Elliot (possibly Janet Holliday's
husband); in all, about 30 members. The Hollidays would contribute
almost a majority of the membership. In the summer of 1837 the
Perth congregation became a self-supporting charge, associated
with the Ramsay and Carleton Place congregations, but with a
separate Session.
For fifteen years this
Cameronian church existed in Perth. It must have been a period
of relative peace and ecclesiastical satisfaction for John Holliday.
Then, in 1851, trouble developed between the Rev. Mr. McLachlane
and some of his people. A synodical commission repaired to Perth,
heard the case, and recommended that the pastoral relation be
dissolved. This divided the congregation, part of it strenuously
adhering to Mr. McLachlane.
In June, 1852, a second
congregation was formed. Those members who adhered to Mr. McLachlane
were known as the First Cameronian, those who opposed his ministry
as the Second. One suspects that the Hollidays were among the
instigators of the disruption, for John Holliday and his son
Francis were ordained elders in the new Second Church.
In 1854 Second Church called
the Rev. John Middleton to be its minister. It was, apparently,
the stronger numerically of the two Cameronian bodies. For it
erected a large church. But its debt was too heavy to be carried
and a few years later the property was sold. In 1856 Mr. Middleton
resigned the pastorate. What appears to have been the last meeting
of its Session was held on August 16, 1856, both John and Francis
Holliday being present. "These (Perth) congregations never
again enjoyed a settled pastor". (12)
With this last meeting
of the Session of Perth's Second Cameronian Church, John Holliday's
official connection with the church ended. That connection had
covered a period of sixty years. It began in 1796, when he had
become schoolmaster for his native parish of Hutton in Scotland;
it continued from 1817 to 1835 when for eighteen years he served
the pioneer church at Perth in the way he thought was right;
it seems to have concluded more happily for him in the twenty-one
years between 1835 and 1856 in the Cameronian faith he approved.
Whatever the shortcomings of that faith as practised by him,
it was without question a sincere faith. More than any other
element in John Holliday's life, his religion made very clear
that it could be said of him,
"He was a forthright
man, who knew what he (believed) and never hesitated to say it."
Return
to John Halliday Chapter Page
 |
